THE INFLUENCE OF PROJECT MANAGERS’ LEADERSHIP STYLES ON
PROJECT TEAM PERFORMANCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
by
Oluwole Omotayo Oshinubi
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership
University of Phoenix
December 2007
UMI Number: 3302623
33026232008
UMI MicroformCopyright
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
ii
© 2007 by
Oluwole Omotayo Oshinubi
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
THE INFLUENCE OF PROJECT MANAGERS' LEADERSHIP STYLES ON
PROJECT TEAM PERFORMANCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
by
Oluwole Omotayo Oshinubi
December 2007
Approved:
Bruce McEwan, Ph.D., Mentor
Leona Lobell, Ph.D., Committee Member
Randal Allison, Ph.D., Committee Member n 1
Accepted and Signed: 12) 111200% (Mon Da ,Year)
- Accepted and Si
. - .
Accepted and Signed: I ~ / I I ! ~ O O F (Month, Date, Year)
Dawn Iwamoto, Ed.D. ( ~ o n t h Date, Year) Dean, School of Advanced Studies University of Phoenix
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the quantitative, correlational study is to evaluate the relationship
between the leadership styles of 17 project managers in 17 project teams consisting of 6-9
members and the team members’ perception of the project managers’ leadership styles as
the leadership styles relate to project team performance in the construction industry in the
southeastern United States. A project manager’s leadership style is signified through the
emergence of nine leadership characteristics: (a) charisma, (b) sharing responsibility, (c)
continuous personal and team development, (d) a common vision, (e) mutually
influencing relationships, (f) putting the interests of the group ahead of the interests of the
individual, (g) risk-taking, (h) team collaboration, and (i) empowering others. The study
hypothesized that teams in which the project manager exhibited high level of leadership
characteristics would show higher levels of team performance. Seventeen project teams
from the construction industry in the southeastern United States participated. The study
consisted of three parts: a project leadership survey, a project manager survey, and the
collection of team performance data. The results of the study from the 17 teams indicated
that four of the leadership characteristics, continuous development, mutual influence
relationships, risk taking, and collaboration, were consistently found in the project
managers of top-performing teams. Project managers and team members recognize the
responsibility for the performance of the team is the responsibility of the entire team
rather than of a single individual. Through leadership training focusing on the nine
characteristics of project manager leadership styles examined in the study, team
performance may be positively affected.
iv
DEDICATION
I give all the honor and glory to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, without whom; I
would not have been able to embark on this journey. I dedicate this work to my best
friend and wife, Bose Adetutu, for her unfailing love, encouragement, prayers, and
relentless support of my educational pursuit. I also dedicate this work to my parents,
Alfred Ayodele and Comfort Abayomi; both have since passed away, for instilling in me
the character, discipline, patience, dedication, perseverance, and the relentless pursuit of
excellence in everything I embark upon.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I gratefully acknowledge the guidance, assistance, support, and encouragement of
several people throughout the course of developing and finalizing this project. The
doctorate journey has not been an individual endeavor, but has been a combined effort
from family, friends, professional colleagues, my doctorate cohort, and especially my
dissertation committee. Dr. Bruce McEwan served as my mentor and friend, and his
continual support, guidance, and patience helped to keep me on track throughout the
process. I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Leona Lobell and Dr. Randal
Allison, for their unrelenting support, helpful suggestions, and contributions in making a
product of which I can feel proud. I would like to thank Dr. Carolyn Salerno for her
initial guidance in focusing the study.
I would like to acknowledge my children, ‘Sade Stephanie, Adeola Ivana, and
Folabi Emmanuel for their sacrifices, support, absolute faith in my abilities, and prayers.
Thank you for your understanding and commitment to seeing me succeed. I will forever
be grateful for your love and sacrifices throughout the years and for believing in me.
Special thanks go to my family, friends, colleagues, small group and district coaches
team at Victory World Church, Norcross, Georgia, and doctorate cohort of 05-04 who
were supportive of me. Without the support, encouragement, and prayers I would not
have been able to complete this project. Special thanks to all participating organizations
and individuals in the study, without the support, the project would not have been
completed.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................xv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................1
Background to the Problem .................................................................................................3
Problem Statement ...............................................................................................................5
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................6
Significance of the Study to the Construction Industry .......................................................7
Significance of the Study to Leadership ..............................................................................7
Nature of the Study ..............................................................................................................8
Research Questions..............................................................................................................9
Hypotheses...........................................................................................................................9
Conceptual or Theoretical Framework ..............................................................................10
Definitions..........................................................................................................................12
Scope..................................................................................................................................14
Assumptions.......................................................................................................................14
Limitations .........................................................................................................................15
Delimitations......................................................................................................................16
Summary ............................................................................................................................16
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................18
Leadership Theories and Models .......................................................................................19
Historical Overview.....................................................................................................19
Trait Theory .................................................................................................................19
vii
Situational-Contingency Theory..................................................................................20
Path-Goal Theory.........................................................................................................21
Behavioral Theory .......................................................................................................22
Relational Theory.........................................................................................................23
Transactional Theory ...................................................................................................24
Transformational Theory .............................................................................................25
Leadership Characteristics .................................................................................................30
Charisma ......................................................................................................................31
Shared Responsibility ..................................................................................................32
Continuous Development.............................................................................................33
Common Vision ...........................................................................................................34
Mutual Influence Relationships ...................................................................................35
Group Interests.............................................................................................................36
Risk Taking..................................................................................................................38
Collaboration................................................................................................................39
Empowerment—Enabling Others to Act. ....................................................................40
Project Manager and Project Management ........................................................................42
Project Management ....................................................................................................42
Management and Leadership .......................................................................................42
Project Managers’ Leadership Styles...........................................................................44
Technical Versus Management Skills of Project Managers ........................................45
Selection Criteria for Project Managers in the Construction Industry.........................46
The Uniqueness of Project Managers in the Construction Industry ............................47
viii
Teams and Team Performance...........................................................................................47
Team Structure.............................................................................................................48
Team Performance .......................................................................................................49
Perceptions of Team Members and Project Management ...........................................50
High-Performance Teams and Projects .......................................................................51
Team Effectiveness......................................................................................................52
Future Trends of Project Management and Leadership in the Construction Industry.......52
Disparity in the Existing Literature....................................................................................54
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................55
Summary ............................................................................................................................56
CHAPTER 3: METHOD ...................................................................................................58
Research Method ...............................................................................................................58
Appropriateness of Design.................................................................................................63
Research Questions............................................................................................................63
Research Hypotheses .........................................................................................................64
Population Sample .............................................................................................................64
Informed Consent...............................................................................................................66
Sampling ............................................................................................................................67
Confidentiality ...................................................................................................................67
Geographic Location..........................................................................................................67
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................68
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................68
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................70
ix
Validity and Reliability......................................................................................................71
Validity ........................................................................................................................71
Reliability.....................................................................................................................72
Data Organization ..............................................................................................................72
Summary ............................................................................................................................73
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS...................................................................................................74
Research Procedure............................................................................................................75
Survey Instrument Development .................................................................................76
Data Gathering Process................................................................................................77
Survey ..........................................................................................................................79
Coding Data .................................................................................................................79
Collecting Data ............................................................................................................80
Performance Report .....................................................................................................81
Project Manager Study.................................................................................................83
Team Study ..................................................................................................................84
Report of Data....................................................................................................................85
Pilot Study....................................................................................................................85
Individual Project Team Studies......................................................................................100
Team B.......................................................................................................................101
Team C.......................................................................................................................106
Team D.......................................................................................................................111
Team E .......................................................................................................................116
Team F .......................................................................................................................123
x
Team G.......................................................................................................................128
Team H.......................................................................................................................135
Team I ........................................................................................................................141
Team J........................................................................................................................147
Team K.......................................................................................................................152
Team L .......................................................................................................................158
Team M......................................................................................................................163
Team N.......................................................................................................................168
Team O.......................................................................................................................173
Team P .......................................................................................................................179
Team Q.......................................................................................................................184
Team R.......................................................................................................................189
Team Performance ...........................................................................................................194
Summary of Team Performance ......................................................................................195
Research Questions..........................................................................................................198
Independent Variable Correlations ..................................................................................202
Hypotheses.......................................................................................................................203
Multiple Regression Analysis ....................................................................................205
Multiple Regression Equation....................................................................................207
Multiple Analyses of Variance ..................................................................................209
Summary ..........................................................................................................................213
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................215
Problem Statement ...........................................................................................................215
xi
Purpose Statement............................................................................................................216
Hypotheses.......................................................................................................................217
Limitations .......................................................................................................................218
Results and Conclusions of the Study..............................................................................219
Conclusions of Research Questions.................................................................................229
Conclusions of Research Hypotheses ..............................................................................230
Implications......................................................................................................................232
Recommendations............................................................................................................234
Significance to Industry ...................................................................................................236
Significance to Leadership...............................................................................................237
Summary ..........................................................................................................................238
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................240
Appendix A: Project Managers’ Survey ..........................................................................270
Appendix B: Team Members’ Survey .............................................................................272
Appendix C: Title Search.................................................................................................274
Appendix D: Leadership Characteristics .........................................................................275
Appendix E: Organizational Consent and Confidentiality Agreement............................277
Appendix F: Introduction Letter to Operations Manager ................................................279
Appendix G: Team Performance Measure Matrix...........................................................281
Appendix H: Consent to Act as a Research Subject ........................................................282
Appendix I: Introduction Letter to Project Managers......................................................283
Appendix J: Introduction Letter to Project Team Members ............................................284
Appendix K: Survey Introduction Letter .........................................................................285
xii
Appendix L: Demographics.............................................................................................286
Appendix M: Demographic Statistics..............................................................................288
Appendix N: Pilot Team Demographic Statistics............................................................291
Appendix O: Pilot Team Survey Results .........................................................................293
Appendix P: Pilot Team Leadership Characteristics Descriptive Statistics ....................295
Appendix Q: Pilot Team Survey Correlations of Leadership Characteristics .................296
Appendix R: Pilot Team Scatter Plot Matrix of Correlation Coefficient ........................298
Appendix S: Descriptive Statistics Report.......................................................................301
Appendix T: Descriptive Statistics Report ......................................................................306
Appendix U: Correlation Coefficient Matrix – Project Manager Survey........................335
Appendix V: Correlation Coefficient Matrix – Project Team Survey.............................336
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Independent Variables of Leadership ...................................................................61
Table 2 Team B Leadership Descriptive (n = 7) .............................................................103
Table 3 Team C Leadership Descriptive .........................................................................108
Table 4 Team D Leadership Descriptive .........................................................................113
Table 5 Team E Leadership Descriptive..........................................................................119
Table 6 Team F Leadership Descriptive..........................................................................125
Table 7 Team G Leadership Descriptive .........................................................................131
Table 8 Team H Leadership Descriptive .........................................................................137
Table 9 Team I Leadership Descriptive...........................................................................143
Table 10 Team J Leadership Descriptive ........................................................................149
Table 11 Team K Leadership Descriptive .......................................................................154
Table 12 Team L Leadership Descriptive ........................................................................159
Table 13 Team M Leadership Descriptive.......................................................................164
Table 14 Team N Leadership Descriptive .......................................................................170
Table 15 Team O Leadership Descriptive .......................................................................176
Table 16 Team P Leadership Descriptive........................................................................181
Table 17 Team Q Leadership Descriptive .......................................................................186
Table 18 Team R Leadership Descriptive........................................................................191
Table 19 Multiple Regression Summary – Project Team Survey ....................................206
Table 20 Multiple Regression Summary – Project Manager Survey...............................207
Table 21 Multiple Regression Equation – Project Team Survey .....................................208
Table 22 Multiple Regression Equation – Project Manager Survey ...............................209
xiv
Table 23 Multiple Regression Analyses of Variance Detail Report – Project Team Survey211
Table 24 Multiple Regression Analyses of Variance Detail Report – Project Manager
Survey.........................................................................................................................212
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Research design plan. .........................................................................................59
Figure 2. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team
members for the charisma survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). .....................87
Figure 3. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team
members for the shared responsibility survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). ..89
Figure 4. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team
members for continuous development survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). ..90
Figure 5. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team
members for common vision development survey questions for Pilot Team A (n =
11). ...............................................................................................................................92
Figure 6. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team
members for mutual influence relationships survey questions for Pilot Team A (n =
11). ...............................................................................................................................93
Figure 7. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team
members for the group interests survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).............95
Figure 8. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team
members for the risk taking survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). ..................96
Figure 9. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team
members for the collaboration survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). ..............98
Figure 10. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team
members for the empowerment survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11)..............99
xvi
Figure 11. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team B (n = 7)...........................................................................................................104
Figure 12. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
B (n = 7). ....................................................................................................................105
Figure 13. Comparison of project manager and team member performance survey
responses for Team B (n = 7).....................................................................................106
Figure 14. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team C (n = 8)...........................................................................................................109
Figure 15. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
C (n = 8). ....................................................................................................................110
Figure 16. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team C (n
= 8) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams.. .............................111
Figure 17. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team D (n = 6)...........................................................................................................114
Figure 18. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
D (n = 6).....................................................................................................................115
Figure 19. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team D (n
= 6) and the combined mean scores for bottom-performing teams. ..........................116
Figure 20. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team E (n = 6). ..........................................................................................................120
Figure 21. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
E (n = 6). ....................................................................................................................121
xvii
Figure 22. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team E (n
= 6) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. ..........................122
Figure 23. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team F (n = 7). ..........................................................................................................126
Figure 24. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team
F (n = 7). ....................................................................................................................127
Figure 25. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team F (n
= 7) and the combined mean scores for bottom-performing teams. ..........................128
Figure 26. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team G (n = 8)...........................................................................................................132
Figure 27. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
G (n = 7).....................................................................................................................133
Figure 28. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team G (n
= 8) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. ..............................134
Figure 29. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team H (n = 9)...........................................................................................................138
Figure 30. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team
H (n = 9).....................................................................................................................139
Figure 31. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team H (n
= 9) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. ..............................140
Figure 32. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team I (n = 6). ...........................................................................................................144
xviii
Figure 33. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
I (n = 6). .....................................................................................................................145
Figure 34. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team I (n
= 6) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. ..........................146
Figure 35. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team J (n = 9). ...........................................................................................................150
Figure 36. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team
J (n = 9). .....................................................................................................................151
Figure 37. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team J (n
= 9) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. ..........................152
Figure 38. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team K (n = 8)...........................................................................................................155
Figure 39. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team
K (n = 8).....................................................................................................................156
Figure 40. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team K (n
= 8) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. ..............................157
Figure 41. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team L (n = 9). ..........................................................................................................160
Figure 42. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team
L (n = 9). ....................................................................................................................161
Figure 43. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team L (n
= 9) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. ..............................162
xix
Figure 44. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team M (n = 7). .........................................................................................................165
Figure 45. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
M (n = 7). ...................................................................................................................166
Figure 46. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team M (n
= 7) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. ..........................167
Figure 47. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team N (n = 6)...........................................................................................................171
Figure 48. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
N (n = 6).....................................................................................................................172
Figure 49. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team N (n
= 6) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. ..........................173
Figure 50. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team O (n = 6)...........................................................................................................177
Figure 51. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
O (n = 6).....................................................................................................................178
Figure 52. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team O (n
= 6) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. ..............................179
Figure 53. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team P (n = 9). ..........................................................................................................182
Figure 54. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
P (n = 9). ....................................................................................................................183
xx
Figure 55. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team P (n
= 9) and the combined mean scores for bottom-performing teams. ..........................184
Figure 56. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team Q (n = 8)...........................................................................................................187
Figure 57. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
Q (n = 8).....................................................................................................................188
Figure 58. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team Q (n
= 8) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. ..........................189
Figure 59. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team R (n = 7)...........................................................................................................192
Figure 60. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
R (n = 7). ....................................................................................................................193
Figure 61. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team R (n
= 7) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. ..............................194
Figure 62. Dependent variable of team performance comparison for all 17 teams. ........195
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The construction industry represents a significant aspect of the U.S. economy, and
the number of construction projects since the mid-1990s has increased by 12% (U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2006, p. 24). Annually, the construction industry
represents approximately 12% of the gross domestic product and approximately 8 million
jobs (“New Record,” 2004, p. 27). The number and complexity of construction projects
are increasing the demand for management-level personnel in the construction industry
(BLS). According to a report published by the BLS in August 2006, employment of
construction project managers is likely to increase approximately as fast as the
employment average for all occupations through 2014. The projected increase in
construction projects represents 9% to 17% growth in the construction industry (BLS, p.
24). More project managers may be needed in the construction industry as the level of
construction activity continues to grow, as the need for greater cost control and financial
management of projects continues to increase, and as the need to manage the project team
in the construction industry continues to increase. According to Kendra and Taplin
(2004), organizations in the construction industry are increasing emphasis on quality
control, timely schedules, and execution of projects within the project-specified budget.
The construction industry consists of architects, engineers, construction-related
trade consultants, project owners, and general contractors (Bender & Septelka, 2002).
Construction professionals are often asked by the organizations to take on leadership
roles in the industry without formal training. In the construction industry, the project
manager is responsible for the successful completion of projects on time and within a
specified budget. Project managers need strong leadership skills to complete projects on
2
schedule while maintaining a high-quality product within the specified budget
(Augustine, Payne, Sencindiver, & Woodcock, 2005; Bender & Septelka; Dreyfus, 2004;
Kendra & Taplin, 2004).
The construction industry relies on teams of various professionals to execute
construction projects (Bender & Septelka, 2002). There is a need for project managers to
manage the projects and teams. Managing and performance of construction projects and
teams often depends on the effectiveness of the project manager. Research on the
potential influence of the leadership styles of project managers on team performance is
needed. However, there is limited published research dedicated to the analysis of the
potential influence of leadership styles of project managers on team performance in the
construction industry. Most research on project management focuses on behavioral and
organizational issues rather than technical difficulties of projects (Thamhain, 2004).
Other researchers (Hartman & Ashrafi, 2002; LaRue & Ivany, 2004) concur that research
on technical difficulties in project management may be inadequate. Research dedicated to
the analysis of the potential influence of leadership styles of project managers on project
team performance in the construction industry is needed.
The emphasis on the relational aspect of project management has increased
(Kouzes & Posner, 2003; Posner & Kouzes, 2002; Scott & Vessey, 2002; Sumner, Bock,
& Giamartino, 2006). The increased focus on the relational aspect of project management
has contributed to improved performance and effective teamwork in organizations that
rely on teams to execute projects (Love & Edwards, 2004). The need for improved
performance requires project managers to become mutually dependent on the teams. The
intent of the study is to determine if a relationship exists between the leadership styles of
3
project managers and team members’ perception of the project manager’s leadership
styles on team performance in the construction industry in the southeastern United States.
Background to the Problem
The need for effective leadership in the construction industry is increasing. The
American Society of Civil Engineers in 2002 began a new quarterly publication titled
Leadership and Management in Engineering to address the need for effective leadership
in the industry. According to Powell (2002), a formal approach to leadership
development is needed to complement the technical skills of project managers in the
construction industry. Rubin, Powers, Tulacz, Winston, and Krizan (2002) noted there is
an interest within the construction industry in preparing professionals in the industry for
leadership positions. Individuals with good technical skills are promoted to management
positions that require teamwork and people-oriented skills without adequate preparation
(Cowie, 2003).
Rubin et al. (2002) conducted a survey that indicated only 18% of the
construction industry leaders surveyed had any formal project management or leadership
training (p. 35). Leadership training is essential to helping project managers improve
team performance. Project managers of teams are faced with new challenges, and the
project managers may have to manage a wide range of economic, political, social, and
regulatory challenges (Dugan, 2006; Thamhain, 2004). Williams (2002) noted
organizations are embracing the concept of teamwork to remain competitive in the
marketplace. According to Thamhain, teamwork in organizations is not a new idea.
Thamhain contended,
4
[The] concept of teamwork could be traced back to the basic concepts of
organizing and managing teams back in biblical times. However, in today’s more
complex, multinational and technologically sophisticated environment, the work
group has reemerged as a business concept and its unified team performance is
now regarded as crucial to project success. (p. 34)
A lack of leadership competency affects the effectiveness of project managers by
influencing team performance and project delivery (Love, 2002). For project managers to
manage projects effectively, they ought to employ a combination of leadership styles that
suit the team they lead. In most instances, the performance of project teams is directly
linked to the ability of the project manager to include all members of the team in decision
making, especially in the decisions that affect the employees’ tasks. According to
Thompsen (2000), project leaders ought to take the initiative to involve all members in
creating and understanding the purpose and vision of the team and project.
The lack of good project management skills among project managers in the
construction industry may result in an increase in errors and omissions in projects. Errors
may lead to rework in building construction projects, and errors and omissions are
contributing factors to project delivery and cost (Love, 2002; Love, Irani, & Edwards,
2003). In research on the determinants of rework in building construction projects in the
Australian building construction industry, project characteristics, organizational
management, and project management practices were found to influence rework (Love &
Edwards, 2004). Love and Edwards reported rework typically adds 10% to total project
costs (p. 260). The authors also state that the Australian construction industry's turnover
5
was approximately $A57 billion in 2002 and an additional 10% in rework would increase
the turnover by $A5.7 billion.
Problem Statement
The general problem examined in the study, the influence of leadership styles of
project managers on team performance in the construction industry in southeastern
United States, was presented in a study by Ammeter and Dukerich (2002) on eight high-
performance project teams in the construction, manufacturing, and military service
industries in Canada and United States. Ammeter and Dukerich reported 67% of
respondents indicated team leader behaviors are highly influential to team performance
(p. 5). According to Ammeter and Dukerich, a project manager’s role is to set and
communicate the desired goals and values to the team. The result of well-communicated
goals and objectives by project managers is improved team performance (Israel &
Kasper, 2004; Kuo, 2004; Sumner et al., 2006).
The specific problem addressed in the study is the lack of effective leadership and
management practices in the construction industry, which may result in time-wasting,
unnecessary costs, and increased errors in projects (Love, Irani, & Edwards, 2004).
Badger and Kashiwagi (2004) reported on a research effort into U.S. construction
projects that found 49% of owners did not want to work with the construction team again,
only 56% of construction projects were completed on time, and only 41% of projects
were completed within budget (p. 23). Badger and Kashiwagi suggested the construction
industry could benefit from improved leadership and project management. Understanding
the leadership characteristics that allow project managers to be effective leaders may
offer an organization the opportunity for continued improvement. The intent of the study
6
was to evaluate if a relationship exists between the leadership styles of 17 project
managers, the independent variable, and team members’ perception of the project
manager’s leadership styles on team performance, the dependent variable, in the
construction industry in the southeastern United States.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the quantitative, correlational study was to evaluate the
relationship between the leadership styles of 17 project managers, the criterion variable,
in 17 project teams consisting of 6-9 members and the team members’ perception of the
project managers’ leadership styles as the leadership styles relate to project team
performance, the predictable variables, in the construction industry in the southeastern
United States. The methodology used established standards for leadership analysis to
evaluate the relative level of leadership styles of project managers in the construction
industry.
Two self-assessment survey instruments were used. Project managers completed a
survey (see Appendix A). The project managers’ team members completed a similar
survey (see Appendix B). Both self-assessment survey instruments were subjected to the
Cronbach coefficient alpha test for internal validation. The survey instruments attempted
to identify causal influences that might result in differences in project managers’
leadership styles and team members’ perception of the project managers’ leadership
styles. The data collected from the leadership surveys were aggregated for each project
team, and the aggregated scores for the nine leadership variables of the project team were
compared to the aggregated scores for the nine leadership variables of the project
managers. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to measure the strength and
7
direction of the linear relationships (Lussier & Sonfield, 2004) between all nine
leadership characteristics and the dependent variable of team performance in the project
team and the project manager surveys. A statistical analysis system was used to conduct
the analysis of the data as well as to find correlations.
Significance of the Study to the Construction Industry
This study may benefit the construction industry because the industry is highly
oriented toward project management and team collaboration; hence, the result may help
project managers to improve team performance. The results of this research may help to
improve the project management field’s awareness of team performance as influenced by
the project manager’s leadership style, adaptability, and effectiveness. Construction
companies will tend to benefit the most from an improvement in leadership styles of
project managers. By improving team performance, project managers may be more adept
at communicating an organization’s vision, setting directions, and responding to the
needs of employees. When employees feel valued by the project manager, the employees
may decide to stay on the job longer, which may lead to a reduction in personnel
turnover. The study may also benefit any business environment that relies on project
management skills for its operation because the study provides information on how
leadership characteristics exhibited by project managers affect the performance of the
team the leader leads.
Significance of the Study to Leadership
The significance of this study to leadership is the study may show the influence of
project managers’ leadership styles on the performance of project teams. The study
provides a path forward for improvements in organizational learning when applied to
8
project leadership by suggesting improvements in the leadership styles of project
managers as the leadership styles influence the outcomes of project cost, schedule, and
performance. The study may benefit the field of organizational systems, of which
leadership is a component, by signifying the nature of leadership styles needed by project
managers of project teams to enable high team performance in an organizational
environment. The study builds on current leadership studies by providing an
understanding of the greater role that effective leadership plays in organizations that rely
on project teams.
Nature of the Study
This quantitative, descriptive research study explored the possible causal
relationships between project managers’ leadership styles and performance among
project teams. The study was primarily concerned with determining the influence of
project managers’ leadership styles on team performance. The study examined the effect,
or influence, of leadership on team performance. The descriptive study approach was
used because the study examined the influence of the characteristics of project managers’
leadership styles on project team performance.
The quantitative design method was appropriate for the research because the
design relied on postpositivist knowledge claims. The quantitative design method uses
inquiry strategies such as surveys and experiments and “collects data on predetermined
instruments that yield statistical data” (Creswell, 2002, p. 18). The reasons for selecting
the quantitative research method over other research methods include that it (a) shows
relationships between variables, (b) enables rapid turnaround in data collection, and (c)
enables the identification of attributes of a population from a small group of individuals
9
(Creswell, 2002; Oppenheim, 1966). The descriptive study approach was used for the
research design because the study examined the influence of the project managers’
leadership styles on project team performance from the data gathered. Multiple regression
analysis and a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were used in the
determination to accept the directional hypothesis. The quantitative design method is
appropriate for testing theory and hypotheses using representative samples of the
population.
Research Questions
The following guiding questions focused the research study:
1. Is there a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project
manager and the project manager’s performance as perceived by the project manager’s
project team members?
2. Is there a relationship between a project manager’s leadership styles and the
project manager’s effectiveness?
Hypotheses
The following guiding hypotheses focused the research study:
H01: There is no relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project
manager and the project manager’s performance as perceived by the project manager’s
team members.
Ha1: There is a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project
manager and the project manager’s performance as perceived by project manager’s team
members.
10
H02: There is no relationship between a project manager’s leadership styles and
project manager’s effectiveness.
Ha2: There is a relationship between a project manager’s leadership styles and
project manager’s effectiveness.
Conceptual or Theoretical Framework
The importance of a leader’s leadership skills in influencing team performance
has been documented in most research studies on leadership (Bass, 1990; Bennis &
Nanus, 2003; Brockhoff, 2006; Burns, 1978; D. K. Fisher, Kent, Nottingham, & Field,
2005; Helland & Winston, 2005; Israel & Kasper, 2004; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003;
Kotter, 1990; Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Myers, 2004; Nanus, 1989; Parry, 2004; Rejai &
Phillips, 2004). The research on leadership skills emphasizes (a) leaders’ clear vision,
goal, and objective; (b) an individual’s ability to shape the future of the organization; (c)
leaders’ ability to generate trust among followers; (d) leaders’ skills to develop self and
motivate and develop followers; and (e) leaders’ ability to learn from failure and move
forward (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Einstein & Humphreys, 2003).
A project manager’s leadership style is evidenced in seven different leadership
theories. The seven theories are (a) trait theory, (b) situational-contingency theory, (c)
path-goal theory, (d) behavioral theory, (e) relational theory, (f) transaction theory, and
(g) transformational theory (Bass, 1990; Bolton, 2005; Bryant, 2003; Butler & Reese,
1991; Burns, 1978; Cowie, 2003; Ellinger & Bostrom, 2002; D. K. Fisher et al., 2005;
Grojean, Resick, Dickson, & Smith, 2004; Helland & Winston, 2005; Rejai & Phillips,
2004; Torpman, 2004). The trait theory of leadership advocates that people are endowed
with some traits from birth that make them effective leaders. According to Stodgill
11
(1974), traits such as adaptability to situations, attentive to environment, supportive
attitude, decision making ability, desire to influence others, and willingness to assume
responsibility are essential to effective leadership. A project manager who possesses
effective leadership traits may influence the team in a positive way. A common
characteristic of situational-contingency theory models is they all prescribe leadership
behaviors given different situations that a leader might face (Butler & Reese). The
situational-contingency theory is relevant to the study in that project managers face
unique situations while executing projects. The ability of project managers to adapt to
different situations may affect the success of the project and team performance.
The path-goal theory of leadership proposes the most effective leaders are those
who motivate followers to achieve team and organizational goals, reward performance,
raise followers’ attitude about the effective leaders’ abilities to achieve the objectives,
and are considerate of followers’ limitations (Helland & Winston, 2005). The behavioral
theory of leadership suggests the effectiveness of a leader depends on how the leader’s
leadership style relates with the situation (Blanchard & Hersey, 1996). A project manager
ought to demonstrate task behaviors that are supportive of followers and the followers’
work. The behavioral theory centers on the flexibility of the leader’s leadership style
suitable to the ability level of the follower in a particular situation (Blanchard & Hersey).
The relational theory of leadership involves an inclusive process whereby people
and diverse opinions are valued and encouraged (Grojean et al., 2004; Kark et al., 2003).
In the relational theory of leadership, project team members are empowered by the
leader, who is purposeful, ethical, and committed to the goals of the team (Grojean et al.).
Transactional theory suggests a leader directs the efforts of followers through tasks,
12
rewards, and work structures (Bass, 1990; Tickle, Brownlee, & Nailon, 2005). The
clarification of roles and tasks of team members by the leader is typical of most
organizations in the construction industry. Transformational theory posits that the leader
work to add value to the follower (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). A project manager who is
looking to improve team performance will strive to engage all members of the team in the
decision-making process. The leadership theories indicate an organization’s success does
not result from a single individual’s or manager‘s efforts; instead, it comes about as the
result of an effective team’s efforts (Helland & Winston, 2005; Torpman, 2004).
Definitions
This research study will expand on leadership theories to continue the
development of the study of the project manager as a leader in the construction industry.
The research study’s title, “The Influence of Project Managers’ Leadership Styles on
Project Team Performance in the Construction Industry,” includes various key terms used
in locating literature. The following terms were chosen to guide the study: leadership,
leadership effectiveness, leadership style, transformational leadership, management,
project, project management, project manager, teams, and team performance.
Leadership: Leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and
agree about what needs to be done and how leadership can be done effectively, and the
process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the stated objectives
(Yukl, 2002).
Leadership effectiveness: Leadership effectiveness is demonstrated by the efforts
of the leader to have the organizational group perform in a collaborative manner for
success and the attainment of its goals (Deal & Peterson, 2003).
13
Leadership style: A leadership style is the underlying need-structure of an
individual that modifies his or her behavior in various leadership situations (Fiedler,
1967). For the purpose of the study, the nine leadership characteristics make up the
leadership styles of project managers and the terms leadership characteristics and
leadership styles are used synonymously in the study.
Management: Management is the process of planning and budgeting, organizing
and staffing, and controlling and problem solving necessary to produce a degree of
consistency and order in an organization (Kotter, 1990).
Project: A project is a combination of organizational resources pulled together to
create something that did not previously exist and that will provide performance
capability in the design and execution of organizational strategies (Cleveland & Ireland,
2002). Projects have a distinct life cycle, starting with an idea and progressing through
design, engineering, construction, and use by a project owner.
Project management: Project management is a series of activities embodied in a
process of getting things done on a project by working with project team members and
other stakeholders to attain project schedule, cost, and technical performance objectives
(Cleveland & Ireland, 2002).
Project manager: A project manager is the individual charged with the
responsibility for planning, organizing, motivating, directing, and controlling the
personnel and resources necessary to accomplish a project (Cleveland & Ireland, 2002).
Team: A team is “a small number of people with complimentary [sic] skills who
are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they
hold themselves mutually accountable” (Katzenbach & Smith, 2003, p. 45).
14
Team performance: Team performance is the achievement of the metrics that
allow the team to manage its progress and fulfill its purpose (K. Fisher & Fisher, 1998).
Transformational leaders: Transformational leaders are leaders who “exert
additional influence by broadening and elevating followers’ goals and providing them
with confidence to perform beyond expectations specified in the implicit or explicit
exchange agreement” (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002, p. 735).
Scope
The study focused on evaluating the relationship between the leadership styles of
17 project managers, the criterion variable, in 17 project teams consisting of 6-9 members
and the team members’ perception of the project managers’ leadership styles as the
leadership styles relate to project team performance, the predictable variables, in the
construction industry in the southeastern United States. The research study explored
possible causal relationships between nine specific leadership characteristics, the
independent variables, of project managers and team performance, the dependent
variable. A leadership survey was used as a collection tool to analyze the results of the
study. The data collected from the leadership survey, the data aggregated for each project
team, and the aggregate scores for the nine leadership variables were compared to the
project managers’ aggregate scores. The study used a self-assessment survey instrument
to collect data on leadership characteristics from the participants.
Assumptions
Some assumptions may have affected the validity of the study. An assumption is
that the individuals surveyed would understand the concepts of leadership and project
management as defined in the study. Another assumption was the language people used
15
would convey the understanding of the survey instrument. It was also assumed the
researcher was able to understand as well as accurately convey the meaning of the study
to the respondents through the letter of introduction of the survey provided to
respondents. Birnbaum (2004) noted the wording of instructions should be carefully
thought of before launching an Internet study. It was further assumed the team members
selected for the survey would have access to a computer and the Internet. Finally, an
assumption was made that an online survey would yield a higher percentage of responses
than other methods of data collection because most of the respondents work with
computers.
Limitations
Limitations may have affected the study. The first limitation was that the
researcher may not have been able to interpret accurately the data collected from
respondents. The possibility that some of the respondents may have lacked reflection or
knowledge concerning issues of leadership and the role of project management was also
considered. Another limitation was the findings may not be a direct representation of the
larger population of project teams in the construction industry. According to Lukawetz
(2002), individuals who use the Internet less frequently are less likely to respond to a
survey and often respond late when they do eventually respond. Because some of the
team members work in remote locations, they may not have had access to the Internet.
Another limitation is the interpretation of the data may contain embedded
researcher bias because the researcher works in the industry. Finally, there may be
problems maintaining security and confidentiality in a Web survey such as this study.
16
The researcher relied on the online survey provider to provide needed security and
confidentiality for the study.
Delimitations
The delimitations for the study included the project managers and project teams
who participated and who were selected as a convenience sample of the construction
industry. The selection method was expected to ensure a high response rate. The study
included individuals from different construction-related organizations rather than a single
profession to allow for generalizability of results to the overall industry. The collected
data in the survey instrument used only Likert-type scale responses and did not include
open-ended response items.
Summary
Because teams continue to be an important part of an organization’s design,
understanding how to improve team success should be a primary objective of all project
managers (Trent, 2004). A project manager has a unique role to ensure projects are
completed on schedule, with high quality, and within a specified budget. This result
cannot be achieved without the project manager having strong leadership skills and the
ability to motivate the team to perform well (Augustine et al., 2005; Kendra & Taplin,
2004).
The purpose of the quantitative study was to determine if a relationship exists
between the leadership styles of 17 project managers and team members’ perception of
the project managers’ leadership styles on team performance in the construction industry
in the southeastern United States. The quantitative study attempted to bridge the gap
between project managers’ leadership styles and team performance through the
17
understanding of the effect that leadership styles of project managers may have on project
team performance in the construction industry.
This chapter has established the basic definitions of leadership, project
management, management, and team performance. The definitions have initiated a brief
discussion on leadership and management that is further elaborated in the literature
review chapter. The research methodology briefly introduced in the purpose of the study
section of this chapter is presented in detail in chapter 3, and data analysis and
conclusions and recommendations are presented in chapters 4 and 5, respectively.
18
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this chapter is to focus on literature relevant to the influence of
leadership styles of project managers on team performance. The quantitative,
correlational study method was used to evaluate the relationship between the leadership
styles of 17 project managers, the criterion variable, in 17 project teams consisting of 6 -
9 members and the team members’ perception of the project managers’ leadership styles
as the leadership styles relate to project team performance, the predictable variables, in
the construction industry in the southeastern United States. Appendix C shows the
sources of articles used in the literature review. The articles were found through an
intensive review of empirical research documents, journal articles, and peer-reviewed
articles.
The literature review serves several functions. First, the review of literature
examines past research in leadership theories related to project management and the
significance of the research to the construction industry. Second, the literature review
examines whether a relationship exists between project managers’ leadership styles and
team performance. Third, the review examines the foundations and theoretical findings of
trait, situational-contingency, path-goal, behavioral, and relational theories as well as
transactional and transformational leadership. The literature review is organized in the
following manner: leadership theories and models, project manager and project
management, discussion of teams and team performance, team structure, team
performance, perceptions of team members and project management, high-performance
teams and projects, team effectiveness, future trends of project management and
leadership in the construction industry, conclusion, and summary.
19
Leadership Theories and Models
Historical Overview
As early as the 1920s, various leadership theories started to emerge. Prominent
among the emerging leadership theories was the trait approach to leadership (Rost, 1991).
According to Harrison (1999), by the 1940s, a new approach to understanding leadership
called situational theory gained ground. The 1950s saw a continuance of the group theory
approach, where many scholars defined leadership as a relationship that develops shared
goals. The 1960s brought new ways of viewing leadership. Increasing support was given
to a view of leadership as a behavior that influences people toward shared goals. In the
1970s, the focus started to shift away from the group approach to the organizational
behavior approach. The 1980s brought about an explosion of books on theories of
leadership. During this same period, many definitions emerged and there was no single
coherent definition of leadership. According to Rost, scholars in the area of leadership
were no surer of what leadership is in 1990 than they were in 1930.
Trait Theory
The trait theory of leadership emerged from the perception that leaders are
different from other people. This notion became the basis for most leadership research
beginning in the 1920s. According to Bernard (1926), leadership is viewed by the internal
qualities that a person is endowed with at birth. Nanus (1989) presented seven abilities
that make an individual an effective leader. The seven abilities were referred to as
megaskills. Three of the abilities were said to originate from the trait theory: (a)
farsightedness or the ability to operate in the future tense; (b) initiative or the ability to
make things happen; and (c) integrity, deemed vital in a leader (Nanus).
20
According to D. K. Fisher et al. (2005), it is apparent in organizations that
knowledge and wisdom are not exclusive to certain groups of people; hence,
organizational decision-making processes are becoming more inclusive. Inclusiveness in
decision making has placed an additional demand on leaders to change leadership styles
(Dolan & Garcia, 2002) to adapt to changes in the marketplace. The role of the leader is
increasingly seen as that of a coach and facilitator of coordinated efforts while
orchestrating worker skills, talents, and motivation toward the facilitation of team
performance (D. K. Fisher et al., 2005). A project manager as a coach and facilitator of
activities on teams in the construction industry aligns with effective leadership styles
characterized by continuous development, collaboration, group focus, and enabling others
to act.
Situational-Contingency Theory
The situational leadership theory became the most popular leadership theory by
1948. The theory presumed a leader is the product of the business environment and its
influences and is not a leader by innate right. The situational leadership theory model
falls in a class of prescriptive models that describe various contingency approaches to
leadership (Butler & Reese, 1991). Butler and Reese noted the four leadership styles as
described in the situational leadership theory are called S1 (high task, low relationship),
S2 (high task, high relationship), S3 (low task, high relationship), and S4 (low task, low
relationship).
The decision by a project manager to use a particular leadership style is guided by
the followers’ level of readiness. The project manager may have to adapt the leadership
style relevant to the given situation (Augustine et al., 2005; Fiedler, 1967; Turner,
21
Kristoffer, & Thurloway, 2002), while affecting the overall performance of the team at
the same time. A project manager as a leader that is charged with adapting the team to
changes occurring during the construction process aligns with effective leadership styles
characterized by sharing responsibility, group interests, and empowerment.
Path-Goal Theory
Helland and Winston (2005) noted House’s path-goal theory emphasizes the
effects leader behavior has on the followers’ satisfaction and the rewards available to the
followers. A project leader who has the interemaining group at heart will work to provide
an environment that fosters creativity while providing a reward for effective performance
by the team.
Leader behavior would enhance followers’ motivation to the extent that such a
behavior (a) makes satisfaction of subordinates’ needs and preferences contingent
on effective performance, (b) makes subordinates’ tasks intrinsically satisfying,
(c) makes goal attainment intrinsically satisfying, (d) makes rewards contingent
on goal accomplishment, and (e) complements the environment of subordinates
by providing psychological structure, support, and rewards necessary for effective
performance. (Helland & Winston, p. 47)
House’s Axiom 3 is related to Vroom’s expectancy theory and Locke’s goal-
setting theory because it makes the leader realize that helping followers see the
importance of focusing on “completing the organization’s goals will result in achieving
the goals” (Helland & Winston, 2005, p. 48). The path-goal theory relate to the
construction industry project manager’s leadership characteristics of emphasizing the
group interests through providing team members with choices on what reward is
22
available to the team for successfully completing the project. Thus, the project manager
in the construction industry, through the collaborative efforts of team members, may
complete the project on schedule and within specified budget.
Behavioral Theory
The situational leadership theory generally evolved into the behavioral leadership
theory by the 1960s. The behavioral leadership theory is interested in determining what
successful leaders have done rather than what they are about to do (Torpman, 2004).
Behavioral leadership research studies have attempted to determine the relationship
between leadership behaviors and leader effectiveness (Bass, 1990).
The behavioral leadership theory posits there are various ways to lead, and leaders
who express high concern for both people and production or consideration and structure
will be effective in leading. This theory evolved from two major schools of management
theory: the scientific management movement founded by Frederick W. Taylor and the
human relations theory of Elton Mayo. The primary concept of scientific management
was task allocation. According to Sandrone (2005), “Task allocation is the concept that
breaking a task into smaller and smaller tasks allows the determination of the optimum
solution to the task” (para. 5). Hoopes (2003) indicated Frederick W. Taylor’s scientific
management theory is an example of how not to manage and that Taylor’s understanding
of the scientific management movement may have deterred managers from learning the
important lessons the manager has to teach, especially the importance of top-down power
(Ellinger & Bostrom, 2002; Hoopes).
The Hawthorne experiment led Mayo and Roethlisberger to an understanding of
the internal dynamics of informal groups in organizations (Katz, 2004). Mayo and
23
Roethlisberger discovered the relationships between supervisors and subordinates had a
more profound effect on productivity than did either economic benefits or the
organization's physical environment. Mayo and Roethlisberger’s assertion may be true in
some organizations in the construction industry. According to Katz, many organizations,
the construction industry included, are designed in ways that increase the chances that
competition and politics will take precedence over cooperation and mutual support. Katz
cautioned this may lead to a lack of cooperation from team members who possess the
necessary knowledge.
It is important for project managers in the construction industry to focus attention
on effectively understanding organizational goals and objectives and to use interpersonal
relations when dealing with the team. The team may respond with increased commitment,
which may lead to high performance. The project manager’s leadership characteristics of
mutual relationships, empowerment, and collaboration are evident in the behavioral
leadership theory.
Relational Theory
Many authors have written on the importance of relationships to the leadership
process (Bolton, 2005; Cowie, 2003; Kan, 2002; Parry, 2004). Kark et al. (2003) viewed
leadership as a relational process of people coming together to accomplish change or to
make a difference to benefit the common good. Schrage defined collaboration as “the
process of shared creation: two or more individuals with complimentary [sic] skills
interacting to create a shared understanding that none had previously possessed or could
have come to on their own” (as cited in McNamara & Watson, 2005, p. 185). The
construction industry requires collaboration (Bresnen, Goussevskaia, & Swan, 2005;
24
Hansen, 2002; Orlikowski, 2002) among teams and disciplines involved in a project.
Through a collaborative effort, construction projects may be completed on schedule while
maintaining a high-quality product within the specified budget.
Collaboration with others within an organization allows for team members and
leaders to make a difference from any position within the organization (Grojean et al.,
2004; Kark et al., 2003). Diversity of opinions is expected on a team of varied
professionals as in the construction industry. Nevertheless, the project manager’s ability
to embrace diverse opinions on the team is important.
Transactional Theory
Transactional leadership indicates an emphasis on maintaining the status quo of
the organization and maintaining the organizational practices and resources (Tickle et al.,
2005). Transactional leadership theory builds on Bass’s (1990) view that leaders and
followers use each other to fulfill goals and objectives through the exchange of goods and
services. Transactional theory is characterized by the leader clarifying the roles of
followers and initiating work structure (Tickle et al.). Tickle et al.’s observation is typical
of most organizations in the construction industry and accounts for the greatest number of
leader-follower relationships.
Bryant (2003) noted transactional leaders have three primary goals: (a) working
with team members to develop clear, specific goals and ensuring workers obtain the
reward they are promised for meeting those goals; (b) exchanging rewards and promises
of rewards for workers’ effort; and (c) responding to the immediate self-interests of
workers while achieving the task. One major drawback of the transactional approach,
according to Bryant, is lack of motivation on the employees’ part to give anything
25
beyond what is specified. This feature is troubling to an industry such as construction that
has difficulty in specifying complete job descriptions well in advance because of the
nature of the projects.
Project managers in the construction industry may have to adapt to the changes
around them to improve team morale. According to Sanders, Hopkins, and Geroy (2005),
the essence of leadership should be in both the internal and the external components of
leadership. The influence of project managers’ leadership styles on teams’ performance is
evident in the transactions of communicating effectively, teaching, mentoring younger
employees, and caring about people.
Transformational Theory
Burns (1978) described transformational leadership as occurring “when one or
more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one
another to higher levels of motivation and morality” (p. 20). An effective project manager
works to enable and engage other members of the team while working toward the benefit
of the group in much the same way that a transformational leader engages the followers.
Kouzes and Posner (2002) described five practices as being fundamental to the art and
practice of transformational leadership: (a) challenging the current process, (b) inspiring a
shared vision, (c) enabling others to act, (d) modeling the way, and (e) encouraging the
heart.
Bass (1990) explained that transformational leaders ask followers “to transcend
their own self-interests for the good of the group, organization, or society; to consider the
long-term needs to develop themselves, rather than their needs of the moment; and to
become more aware of what is really important” (p. 53). Project managers who are
26
effective in managing the knowledge base of the teams will have a considerable
advantage over those who are not. According to Helland and Winston (2005), traditional
scholars viewed leadership from two perspectives; one focuses on leadership within an
organization and the other focuses on leadership as a social influence process that occurs
in a social system.
According to Rejai and Phillips (2004), Bennis and Nanus presented the most
comprehensive study of leadership strategies. Bennis and Nanus identified four
components of leadership strategies:
1. Leaders have visions, goals, programs, agendas.
2. Leaders have the skill to communicate the visions, goals, programs,
and agendas of the organization and create shared meaning.
3. Leaders have the ability to generate trust among followers. Important
in leader-follower interaction are reciprocal reliability, predictability, and
constancy.
4. Leaders have the ability to develop the self through two elements:
a. having positive self-regard; recognizing one’s strengths and
weaknesses; nurturing skills and discipline; seeing the fit
between one’s skills and the tasks to be performed.
b. not fearing failure; learning from failure and moving forward;
concentrating on winning, not losing. (Rejai & Phillips, p. 189)
Conger and Kanungo (1988) presented the following conditions necessary for a
leader to be perceived as transformational: (a) the leader ought to be able to see
opportunities and develop a vision to address the opportunities; (b) the vision has to be
27
communicated to the followers and those followers be obliged to concur; (c) the leader’s
personal success, sacrifice, and risk taking should convince the followers to trust the
leader’s abilities and vision; and (d) the leader has to convince the followers that the
vision is both realistic and attainable. A leader capable of looking beyond the present and
who understands the needs of the followers may succeed in influencing the followers
(Einstein & Humphreys, 2003). Connaughton, Lawrence, and Ruben (2003) added that
leadership competencies are best developed over time through a conscious effort of
personalized integration of theory and practice.
Another important feature of transformational leadership is the ability to relate
positively with followers and make followers feel valued, thereby creating new cadres of
leaders (Cooper, 2005; Krishnan, 2002, 2005). The relational quality of transformational
leadership means leaders and employees tend to engage in more risk taking and higher
levels of entrepreneurial activities (Duckett & Macfarlane, 2003). The ability of a project
leader to produce other leaders is essential in the construction industry and marketplace.
This is important because a project team member may have to assume the role of a
project manager at any time during a project. In addition, a transformational leader
motivates and inspires followers by appealing to the common good rather than to
individual needs and self-interest (Parry, 2004).
Five key themes of leadership were extracted from Kouzes and Posner’s (2002)
studies: honesty, forward-looking, inspiring, competent, and credible. Weymes (2003)
and Murray (2004) identified a number of key propositions that arise out of the five key
themes. First preposition suggested credibility is the foundation of all leadership. It is
important for leaders to create an atmosphere conducive to followers’ trust and
28
confidence in the leader. This is true for a leader who is viewed as a member of the team
rather than the person who is better than everyone. Second, leadership is everyone’s
business. Leaders inspire, challenge, motivate, and encourage the team. Everyone on the
team, to some degree, should be assigned tasks and given all the information required to
accomplish the tasks. Third, challenge is the opportunity for greatness. Effective coaches
quickly learn that effectiveness is measured by the productivity of the team. Empowering
team members to become leaders increases the overall effectiveness of both the team and
the coach. The result is improved performance, leadership development among team
members, and enhancement of the coach’s position as a respected expert and leader
(Weymes, 2003).
Fourth, leaders focus on the future. Ambition and drive are linked to leadership
and having a clear vision is very important for transformation to take place. Fifth, leaders
are team players, and the team spirit is built around trust. The legacy a leader leaves
behind is the life he or she leads; this is the foundation for authenticity. Sixth, caring is
the heart of leadership. When people work with leaders who care, the people feel better
about themselves and recognition of worthy accomplishments is always appropriate
(Weymes, 2003).
Finally, individuals have to believe they can make a difference. Every goal and
objective should have a purpose that is well communicated to the remaining team
(Murray, 2004). Making an impact in the organization or community builds a good
reputation for the leader. A project manager ought to be an impact-laden leader to make
the tasks performed by the team more meaningful, which energizes the team and
improves performance.
29
According to Manning (2003), transformational leaders typically nurture personal
and group improvement, share inspiring organizational visions, and foster commitment
and motivation toward important goals. A transformational leader helps people
understand the value in the leader’s contribution to the organization by increasing the
motivational level of the team (Hautala, 2005). Transformational leadership is believed to
bring about positive individual and organizational consequences (Bass, 1990).
Two key notions of transformational leadership should be stressed. First, the
impact of transformational leadership is not unidirectional; transformational leadership
challenges followers to be both creative and innovative (Bossnik, 2004; Halbesleben,
Novicevic, Harvey, & Buckley, 2003: Schepers, Wetzels, & Ruyter, 2005; Yin, 2003).
Transformational leaders bring the best out of followers while raising the followers’
effectiveness. This characteristic helps the leader to be effective by viewing followers as
individuals capable of making positive and meaningful contributions to the team. Second,
Kouzes and Posner (2002) stressed that leadership is an observable and learnable set of
practices. Developing team members and showing team members how to conduct tasks in
an efficient manner is one of the roles of team leaders in the construction industry. Kuo
(2004) and Bolton (2005) reiterated that organizations try to improve team effectiveness
by strengthening team performance. To improve team performance, organizations in the
construction industry may need to focus on improving team member relationships.
Transformational theory supports project managers’ leadership characteristics through
linking group interests and interests of the individual.
The brief outlines of key leadership theories have shown the evolution of
leadership theory. The outlines have also revealed the effect of leadership styles on
30
developing effective teams. There has been an understanding of the role that leaders play
in organizations that are constantly seeking to improve performance and remain
competitive in the marketplace. Through the trait, situational-contingency, path-goal,
behavioral, relational, transactional, and transformational theories, leadership theories
have been continually evolving. The emergence of project management has contributed
to the evolutionary process because of the importance of project managers exhibiting
leadership skills.
Leadership Characteristics
To limit the scope of the study, nine leadership characteristics were selected for
inclusion in the study. Inclusion criteria were twofold. First, the leadership characteristics
ought to affect the team members’ performance. Second, the leadership characteristics
should be reflected in the leadership styles of project managers and the teams’ perception
of the project managers’ leadership styles. Leadership behaviors are a necessary
ingredient to moving a team forward in any organization (Carte, Chidambaram, &
Becker, 2006; Tyran, Tyran, & Shepherd, 2003; Zigurs, 2003).
Many leadership and management researchers have found the nine leadership
characteristics selected to most likely result in high performance and commitment to
organizational goals (Cicmil & Marshall, 2005; Christensen & Walker, 2004; Groves,
2005; Kerfoot, 2002; Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Salacuse, 2006). The characteristics are
charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision, mutual
influence relationships, group interests, risk-taking, collaboration, and empowerment.
Appendix D shows the relationship between the nine leadership characteristics used in
the study and the seven leadership theories reviewed.
31
Charisma
A charismatic leader is distinguished from other types of leaders regarding how
the follower perceives the charismatic leader, and the leader’s behavior is directly related
to how the leader can influence the emotional response of the followers concerning the
task effort (Kest, 2006). Influencing the emotional response of the follower’s viewpoint is
reiterated by Robbins and Coulter (2005). Robbins and Coulter explained people in
general are able and willing to perform when asked to do so by a leader they trust and
admire. Lee and Chang (2006) purported, “Leadership is making oneself an example in
order to affect others, and the effects of charisma may be far stronger than those that
result directly from power” (p. 266). Mastrangelo, Eddy, and Lorrenzer (2004) attributed
the success of an organization to the quality and effectiveness provided by the leadership.
Northouse (2004) described a charismatic leader as one who has profound effects
on followers’ emotions. The transformational style of leadership can be characterized by
charisma, consideration for others, fostering intellectual stimulation, and inspiring others
to do more than they ordinarily would (Schepers et al., 2005). A charismatic leader’s
personal needs for attention and affirmation may promote group thinking, which may
discourage honest communication and necessary constructive confrontation with
disconfirming data (Banutu-Gomez, 2004). A project manager in the construction
industry who models charismatic leadership behavior may be able to focus the teams’
values and actions. Focusing the project teams’ values may influence the performance of
the team because mundane tasks may be eliminated.
A project manager may obtain the best results from the team by responding to the
needs of the team members (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). To add positive meaning to the
32
identities of project members, a charismatic leader behaves in admirable ways that cause
every member of the team to work together in improving organizational goals (Judge &
Piccolo, 2004). Charismatic leadership demonstrates good examples for followers, and
charisma can be achieved through continuous cultivation (Tsai & Weu, 2004).
Shared Responsibility
Salacuse (2006) observed, “Leadership is not a matter of position but of
relationships, and one-on-one, personal encounters are vital in building those
relationships” (p. 4). The need for relationships is evident in organizations with highly
talented individuals whose education, skills, and influence are above the average when
compared to the remaining workforce Leadership is everyone’s business. Such is the case
in the construction industry.
Abraham and Moses exhibited many of the characteristics of leadership discussed
in this study. The characteristic of leadership that best fits Abraham and Moses is sharing
responsibilities. Each of the two leaders taught his followers how to lead others. Each of
the leaders also showed that effective leadership is a joint effort that requires each
member of the clan to take on responsibilities. A classic example of sharing responsibility
was demonstrated when Moses served as judge over the people after taking advice from
his father-in-law, Jethro, to appoint leaders capable of performing the tasks (Exodus 18:
21-22 [New International Version]). Moses appointed men and placed the men in
positions of authority over the people. Some were officiating over thousands, some over
hundreds, some over fifties, and others over tens of people, according to the men’s
capabilities (Exodus 18: 25 [New International Version]).
33
Murray (2004) noted leaders build followers by sharing power and assigning
critical tasks to the followers. When power is shared, leaders will be successful in
increasing the competency of followers. In the construction industry, a project manager
looking to complete a project on schedule may have to share responsibilities with team
members.
Continuous Development
Zenger, Ulrich, and Smallwood (2000) estimated 40% of new managers fail in the
first 18 months of functioning in the role (p. 25). The finding reinforces Hurt and
Homan’s (2005) position that the continuous development of employees has to be the
priority of organizations. Hurt and Holman believed most leadership development occurs
on the job. Hence, the most important responsibility of a leader is to personally develop
other leaders, a sentiment that has been echoed by other researchers (Hanbury, Sapat, &
Washington, 2004; Hartley, 2004; Jensen, 2004; Salopek, 2004; Wellins & Patterson,
2003). Thomas and Cheese (2005) posited the quality of leaders in an organization could
make the difference between the organization being good and the organization being
successful. For an organization to grow, there ought to be a leadership channel that can
foster the continuous development of leaders (Thomas & Cheese).
The rapidly changing business environment is another factor that calls for the
continuous development of leaders. The expansion of global markets and radically
changing distribution systems is making business and developing future leaders difficult
(Arena, 2002; Kur & Bunning, 2002). For example, most organizations in the
construction industry have offices in different localities and work in conjunction with
other professionals to execute projects. Some organizations in the construction industry
34
may be engaging in business outside an organization’s home offices, and some may be
conducting business globally; hence, organizations should be ready to respond to changes
taking place in the environment (LaRue & Ivany, 2004; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). The
ability to respond can be improved through the continuous development of project
managers and project teams.
Common Vision
One of the aspects of leadership is the ability of a leader to cast a vision for the
organization (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Kest (2006) described a visionary leader as a
leader with charisma who is able to articulate a future that may improve upon the present
condition. The visionary image of leadership parallels that which a project manager ought
to project to the team. Lucas (1998) presented three qualities that allow a visionary leader
to be effective: (a) an ability to explain the vision to others, (b) an ability to express the
vision not just verbally but through behavior, and (c) an ability to apply the vision to
different leadership contexts. The project manager is responsible for painting a clear
image of the vision to the team, and the common vision should tie into the goals of the
project and organization. The ability of the leader to fulfill the needs of the follower in
exchange for the follower meeting basic performance expectations is imperative to a
high-performance team (Gardner & Stough, 2002).
It is also important for an organization to have well-defined roles for project
managers and teams. Project managers in the construction industry usually disseminate
information to the team. When employees are given well-defined roles and vision, there
tends to be harmony, and performance on projects increases (Christensen & Walker,
2004; Childs, Goldsmith, LaRue, & Larson, 2004).
35
Mutual Influence Relationships
Childs et al. (2004) determined the organizational culture and structure that
leaders ought to create to best promote distributed intelligence and action learning. The
characteristics of an action-learning team leader are as follows: the leader (a) builds on
the wisdom and insight of the team, (b) models the change he or she seeks in the
organization, (c) develops a high level of trust and respect by and for the team, (d)
leverages ambiguity to drive innovation, (e) focuses the group through clarity of intent,
(f) adapts leadership style to the situation, and (g) promotes a culture of freedom and
accountability.
Mutually influencing relationships can be enhanced if a project manager creates
an environment that allows team members to provide meaningful feedback to the project
manager and the team without negative consequences, which can be achieved in most
cases through the performance improvement methods suggested by S. D. Jones and
Schilling (2000). S. D. Jones and Schilling made three key points regarding feedback.
First, feedback is desirable. Teams need to be reminded that the team participation in
identifying measures and setting goals is to help achieve the mission and vision of the
organization and to make the organization more competitive in the marketplace. Second,
all information is useful. Team leader should make certain the team understands the
usefulness of the performance measures and that the process is designed to create an
atmosphere for problem solving and process improvement. Third, disciplined learning
may lead to improved results. For example, looking for cause-and-effect relationships
helps develop a learning orientation.
36
A strict adherence to the three key points may ensure teams create an atmosphere
in which feedback is a welcome addition to measures and goals. Research on the
effectiveness of leaders displaying different types of leadership among Taiwanese
military officers (Lo, Chen, & Chen, 2004) revealed that most followers who displayed
independent thinking did not like authoritarian leaders. According to Perry-Smith and
Shalley (2003), exemplary followers take initiative without being asked, assume
ownership of problems, and contribute in decision making.
Individuals who make valuable contributions to the team make everyone on the
team and in the organization better (Ferrazzi, 2005; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003), and
diversity of opinions and people is essential to team cooperation and team building
(Backstrom, 2004; Bender & Septelka, 2002; Mohammed & Angell, 2004). According to
Miller, Butler, and Cosentino (2004), relations-oriented followers perform at higher
levels in moderately favorable situations than do task-oriented followers who tend to
perform at higher levels in unfavorable situations. Project managers in the construction
industry would influence others on their team as well as themselves.
Group Interests
An effective team’s success depends on effective communications, cohesion,
shared vision, and knowledge sharing among members (Brill, Bishop, & Walker, 2006;
Buskens & Raub, 2002; Charoenngam, Ogunlana, Nin-Fu, & Dey, 2004; Johnson &
Johnson, 2003; Katz, 2004; McGuire & Kennerly, 2006; Yukl, 2002). A feature of
project manager leadership stems from the concept of servant leadership. The real
meaning of servant leadership is to serve others (Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004). A
project manager in the construction industry working with individuals on a team may
37
focus on the welfare of the project and on the team members. Team members need to
respect and believe in a leader who knows how to exercise authority in terms of both the
leader’s competence and ethical character (Sotiriou & Wittmer, 2001; Storr, 2004).
Leaders should be capable of inspiring other people to do things without getting in the
way (Bennis & Nanus, 2003; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002).
Salacuse (2006) presented four lessons a manager can use to effectively lead a
team: (a) the ability to lead should come from the project manager’s will and skills and
not from position, resources, or charisma; (b) the basis for leadership is the relationship
with the team; (c) communicating effectively with the team is fundamental to building
relationships; and (d) leadership development strategies should take into account the
intermixing group. Within organizations, an individual’s accomplishment is no longer
defined in terms of individual performance, but rather as a team effort. To perform well
as team members, individuals have to be able to communicate openly and honestly,
confront differences and resolve conflicts, and forsake personal goals for the sake of the
team (Harland, Harrison, Jones, & Reiter-Palmon, 2005; Pauchant, 2005; Robbins, 2003;
Tjosvold, Poon, & Yu, 2005).
Project managers ought to be capable of handling the task and the people side of
project management (Cicmil, 2006; Graetz, 2002; Sotiriou & Wittmer, 2001). The people
side involves having the skills necessary to provide the motivating environment that may
induce project team members to work as a team to accomplish the objectives (Stacey,
2003). There are circumstances when a team member may step into the role of leader
because of the team member’s expertise in the construction process. The move to a
38
leadership role calls for the project manager to put aside ego for the overall group. A
healthy team translates into high performance.
Risk Taking
There are many ways a leader can inspire a team to achieve great outcomes. Often
teams that are not exceptional produce exceptional results because of the quality of the
leaders. According to Schillewaert, Ahearne, Frambach, and Moenaert (2005), effective
leadership has been shown to influence followers’ use of innovations in achieving
desired results. Innovative leaders always challenge the team to find creative ways to
solve a problem or improve a process.
The act of taking risks to achieve desired results is one of the benefits a project
manager in the construction industry brings to the team. Salacuse (2006) contended,
“Any proposed action by a leader entails risk” (p. 4). According to Banutu-Gomez
(2003), “A leader willingly accepts the risk of failure in order to achieve a chance for
success” (p. 148). The willingness of the leader to make sacrifices out of love for the
team should be met with the leader’s trust and knowledge that employees are committed
and capable of performing to the best of the leader’s ability (Banutu-Gomez, 2003).
Project teams in the construction industry may consider that following a course of action
proposed by a project manager whom the project teams trust is less risky and therefore
more acceptable than following the same recommended course of action by a project
manager whom the teams do not trust. In the construction industry, the project leader may
take calculated risks without fear of jeopardizing team performance.
39
Collaboration
According to Macri, Tagliaventi, and Bertolotti (2002), organizations are
distinguished by the day-to-day competence of the project manager. The identifier for
some organizations is the set of rules, practices, and routines the organizations deploy to
achieve organizational goals and to solve problems, while “claiming legitimacy from
their environment” (p. 295). Managing teams of professionals with diverse backgrounds
requires collaboration among team leader and team members. Positive relationships are
important because positive relationships stimulate trust, and trust in a leader is vital in
securing the desired results from the team (Salacuse, 2006). A project manager in the
construction industry is responsible for giving guidance to the team when a change takes
place in the construction environment. When teams do not follow best practices, it
becomes difficult to accomplish the task in an effective manner.
When organizational goals are not communicated correctly to everyone in the
organization, it may be difficult to embrace change within the confines of the
organizational goals. Some managers and employees are better able to lead and cope with
change than others (Harland et al., 2005; Woodward & Hendry, 2004). Coping with
change in organizations and teams requires good managerial leadership that may alleviate
the additional pressure brought about because of the change. Sensitivity to the coping
problems of both managers and staff is an important aspect of change management in any
organization (Woodward & Hendry). Doorewaard, Hootegem, and Huys’s (2002) study
involved 172 manufacturing firms and examined the organizational design features the
manufacturing firms relied on when pursuing business and supply-chain objectives.
Doorewaard et al. revealed 20% of the design features evaluated involved teams (p. 364),
40
and almost half of the most widely used features were team related, which supports the
notion that the use of teams remains an important aspect of a growing organization.
Enhancing the success of project teams should be of paramount importance to the
team leader because teams will continue to be an important part of an organization's
design (Doorewaard et al., 2002) and culture (Trent, 2003). Insana (2005) presented
seven suggestions about effective leadership as described by Coach Larry Brown, former
coach of the Detroit Pistons, a professional basketball team. The principles are
maintaining a high ratio of positive to negative comments, showing you care, hiring star
players of good character, measuring improvement to gauge success, fearing lack of
effort, making decisions and standing by them, and taking responsibility for losses while
crediting the team for the wins.
Trent (2004) noted one important aspect project managers cannot ignore is the
relationship between the effectiveness of a team leader and the team performance. A team
leader tends to exert effects that are positive or negative on group effort, collaboration,
cohesion, goal selection, performance norms, and goal attainment (Cicmil & Marshall,
2005; Likert, 1961; C. Fisher, 2005). The project manager, through focusing on the
group, taking risks, and mutually influencing relationships, creates an atmosphere that
may require collaboration among team members.
Empowerment—Enabling Others to Act.
In day-to-day practices, various hybrid structures of team responsibility exist
(Doorewaard et al., 2002). A project manager should be able to charge the team with the
responsibility for work preparation, support, and control (Kendra & Taplin, 2004) rather
than restrict the functions to a few team members. In an industry based on high
41
technology such as the construction industry, nonmanagerial employees are being asked
to take on more leadership roles. As part of a structural or cultural reorientation in the
construction organization, team members are expected to share responsibilities and
participate in enacting and implementing changes. Employees are being asked to become
team players and to take on extra responsibilities (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004).
Team members are expected to be innovative and improve current ways of executing
projects and processes in the name of ensuring project quality and customer service
(Bryde, 2003; E. C. Jones & Chung, 2006).
Leaders who empower and reward employees may benefit from innovative and
improved ways of executing projects. A leader who trusts in people, who gives leeway to
make decisions, and who creates an environment for gaining recognition may produce
employees who are productive (Kark et al., 2003; Laschinger & Finegan, 2005; Mazarr,
2002; Pearce et al., 2003; Shiparski, 2005). Organizations that allow employee input on a
regular basis are likely to have “team members who are familiar with departmental
processes and are likely to have members who are familiar with departmental processes
and more likely to effectively implement processes in teams” (Tata & Prasad, 2004, p.
250).
The goal of project managers in the construction industry ought to be to empower
the different professionals on the team to take the responsibility for managing project
changes. Empowering different professionals may involve teams performing a variety of
change roles, on a full- or a part-time basis, for extended or relatively short periods
(Bryde, 2003; Doyle, 2002; Eccles, 1996). The strength of project managers in the
42
construction industry lies in the relationships the project managers develop and the
relationships ought to be noticeable in the project teams the managers lead.
Project Manager and Project Management
Project Management
According to Martini (1999), the term project management was first coined in the
construction industry. Project management’s popularity grew from the efforts of Colonel
Schriever of the U.S. Air Force. Colonel Schriever helped develop a team to manage the
development of the missile program in 1954. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Navy developed
the program evaluation and review technique and the term project management emerged.
There is much literature that discusses the importance of project manager
leadership, leadership roles and functions, various skill sets of project managers, the
selection and assignment of project managers to projects, and the uniqueness of project
managers to the construction industry. The literature sources are reviewed in this section
as the literature sources relates to the influence of leadership styles on overall team
performance. According to Cowie (2003), project management essentially “allows the
right people, with the right skills to come together at the right time to solve issues” (p.
258). A project manager in the construction industry is tasked with the responsibility of
putting a project team together. The ability of the project manager to assemble the right
people on a project team often determines the success of the project.
Management and Leadership
Leadership and management are different (A. Gordon & Yukl, 2004; Kotter,
1990; Kotterman, 2006; Nebecker & Tatum, 2002; Presswood & Roof, 2004; Yukl,
Gordon, & Tabor, 2005; Zaccaro & Horn, 2003). A number of leadership experts have
43
expressed the concepts of leadership and management. Maxwell (1998) posited
leadership is about influencing people, whereas management focuses on maintaining the
status quo. Ramsey (2005) suggested leaders have followers and some managers with
subordinates are therefore managers but not leaders.
Kotterman (2006) posited leaders establish directions to influence the behavior of
an individual or group, and managers work to maintain order and organize resources with
and through individuals and groups to accomplish organizational goals. Spigener (2004)
acknowledged that effective leaders are very good at connecting employees and
managers to organization goals and objectives. Effective leaders are very good at aligning
the practices, behaviors, and activities across the organization (Spigener). Fairholm
(2004) noted that while leadership is relational, management is positional. According to
leadership definitions, leadership and management are two very different concepts and
are not easily interchangeable (Kotter, 1990; Kotterman; Presswood & Roof, 2004).
Dawes (2003) stressed that understanding the values of each team member,
addressing stress and fear, and encouraging creativity should be the paramount concern
of project managers. A common theme within the research literature on project
management posited project managers have the difficult role of balancing the various
demands of the job (Barczak, McDonough, & Athanassiou, 2006; Cohen & Gibson,
2003; Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004; Lewis, Welsh, Dehler, & Green, 2002;
Zigurs, 2003). On a construction project, the project manager is responsible for
performing various roles. Some of the tasks performed by a project manager are
scheduling the project, assigning tasks to team members, providing directions to the
team, clarifying goals and objectives of the project to team members, communicating
44
with clients and team members, and motivating team members. To accomplish all the
tasks of a project manager, project managers should have the ability to influence team
members.
Project Managers’ Leadership Styles
Projects often fall short of achieving the desired results, due not to lack of project
management but to a lack of project leadership (Smith, 1999). Smith believed the success
of a project is a direct reflection of the project manager’s ability to manage the details and
resources of the project by going beyond the call of duty. Project managers are
responsible for the successful delivery of complete projects in most organizations
(Bourne & Walker, 2005). In 2004, Bourne and Walker positedthe successful delivery of
projects is made possible by the project manager’s possessing and using various
leadership styles. The demand for getting the job done on schedule and within a specified
budget by building teams, sharing responsibilities and empowering team members to
make decisions requires project managers who are adaptable and trusting (Cleveland &
Ireland, 2002; Kouzes & Posner, 2002).
Strang’s (2005) research on whether effective team performance management
requires strong transformational leadership revealed laissez-faire project leadership styles
result in lower project efficiency and team satisfaction. Strang concluded project
leadership does not always require strong transformational leader behaviors to produce
effective organizational outcomes, although applying individualized consideration,
intellectual stimulation, and inspirational motivation as well as idealized influence toward
team members tends to improve follower satisfaction and the leader-follower
relationships. The project manager adds value to the team by providing needed leadership
45
(Cleveland & Ireland, 2002). The project manager in the construction industry may add
value to the team by providing needed leadership.
Technical Versus Management Skills of Project Managers
Bennis and Nanus (2003) posited leaders often assume management positions
because they have a technical background and not interpersonal abilities. The
appointment of leaders without prior managerial experience or training may seem
beneficial in certain instances because of the knowledge of the profession the leaders
bring to the leadership roles, but technical knowledge may not be enough to enable
project managers to perform effectively (Ellis, Wood, & Thorpe, 2004). Burrell (2006)
reiterated the importance of some level of advanced leadership training for technical
senior leaders because of increasing technology, competition, and workforce diversity.
Turner and Muller (2005) contended the Crawford (2003) study on correlating a
project manager’s competence to success as a project manager was the most significant
study conducted on the subject. Crawford found that once a project manager has achieved
an entry level of knowledge, more knowledge does not make him or her more competent.
This finding corresponds to the widespread belief that project managers lack the
competence, knowledge, skills, and interpersonal attributes to be effective leaders in the
construction industry (Crawford; Turner & Muller).
In the debate on whether technical skills or management skills are more important
for managing projects, Cowie (2003) and Phillips (2004) proposed the success of projects
is not limited to the technical skills of project managers. Rather, the success of a project
often depends on “people-related and management issues” (Cowie, p. 256). Cowie
contended project managers trained in interpersonal skills could achieve success in
46
managing project teams. Meredith and Mantel (2002) categorized project management
skills into six skills areas: communication, organizational, team building, leadership,
coping, and technological. The six skills reflect the broad range of abilities project
managers in the construction industry need to possess. Kendra and Taplin (2004) found
of all the project management skills, technical skills have the least influence on project
managers’ performance. Therefore, it is important for project managers to have business,
interpersonal relationship, and political skills (Leban & Zulauf, 2004) to manage
effectively.
Selection Criteria for Project Managers in the Construction Industry
The importance of selecting project managers with strong leadership skills and
competence is prevalent throughout the literature reviewed. Einsiedel (1987) identified
five qualities needed for effective project leadership: credibility, creative problem
solving, a tolerance for ambiguity, a flexible management style, and effective
communication skills. Kerzner (2003) discussed the importance of project managers’
leadership style in selecting the appropriate project manager for a specific project and
identified six critical success factors for excellent project management: corporate
understanding of project management, executive commitment to project management,
organizational adaptability, the selection criteria for project managers, project managers’
leadership style, and commitment to planning and control. The six critical success factors
may be instrumental in high project team performance and high profitability of projects
in the construction industry.
47
The Uniqueness of Project Managers in the Construction Industry
In the construction industry, project managers seem to play more significant and
vital roles than the project manager counterparts in other industries. According to Dainty,
Cheng, and Moore (2005), project managers have to balance decisions to reconcile the
needs of all parties affected. Dainty et al. contended that, in certain instances, project
managers may bring together a group of different individuals, who may have never
worked together on a project, to create a pleasant team environment. Such a challenging
managerial environment undoubtedly requires dynamic leadership qualities if successful
project outcomes are expected (Dainty et al.).
Project managers in the construction industry ensure projects are delivered to the
client on schedule and within the specified budget. To achieve this goal, project managers
ought to use all available resources. According to Douglas (2004), effective project
planning begins and ends with the efforts of the project manager and the project team. A
project manager should negotiate commitments from management for all project team
members as well as resources and assets to support the effort and the project very early in
the planning stage of the project (Douglas).
Teams and Team Performance
According to Holt, Love, and Nesan (2000), the business environments of
construction organizations are continuously evolving and the way such businesses have
to be managed has been changing since the 1950s. The sources of the changes that have
taken place in the business environment are changes in the global and macroeconomic
climate and sector-specific changes. In many cases, the changes in the business
environment may have caused the fortunes of some construction organizations to decline,
48
whereas those organizations that are quick to react and adapt to the changes in the
business environment may have excelled during the same period. Holt et al. noted,
“Successful construction businesses demand optimal design (and realignment as
necessary) of both the people and processes” (p. 47).
According to J. Gordon (2002), teams are becoming standard in the workplace
and are seen as a way of leveraging organizational strengths to offset new challenges in
the marketplace. Researchers have discussed the importance of team and organization
structure, team performance, perceptions of team members and project managers, high-
performance teams and projects, and team effectiveness in the construction industry.
Some of this literature is reviewed in the following section as it relates to the influence of
project managers’ leadership styles to overall team performance.
Team Structure
Kerzner (2003) contended effectiveness in project management might be reflected
in the organization’s ability to respond quickly and effectively to changes in the
marketplace. This is true in the case of the construction industry, where different products
and technologies are constantly introduced. A project team structure that is simple in
form and lean in staff provides the most effective means of achieving project goals
(Kerzner).
Cowie (2003) noted, “Project teams could often move more rapidly than a
traditional hierarchy structure” (p. 256) by allowing organizations to react more rapidly
to changes taking place in the marketplace. When pulling together a project, team
management has to be clear about the objective and expectation of the team. In addition,
staffing a project with a variety of team members with different areas of expertise enables
49
organizations to take advantage of diversity within the business while solving client
problems faster, more efficiently, and more effectively (Cowie).
Team structure varies in the construction industry. According to Barczak et al.
(2006), some industries such as manufacturing, service, and sales often operate on
different continents with staff from multiple countries. In some instances, a project team
may consist of individuals with diverse cultures, ethnicities, values, beliefs, and
professional backgrounds. Successful leadership of diverse project teams demands
leaders who are able to “develop and leverage networks and build and maintain social
capital” (Barczak et al., p. 31); the same point was made by Martins, Gilson, and
Maynard (2004). It is important that the project leader articulates the goals and objectives
of the team and that team members discuss the goals of the project and decide on project
priorities collectively (Bacon & Blyton, 2003; Cicmil, 2006; Cohen & Gibson, 2003). By
involving team members in setting goals and making decisions on areas that affect the
team members’ work, the leader begins to build the commitment to the project (Barczak
et al.), a virtue necessary for project success in the construction industry.
Team Performance
Bender and Septelka (2002) noted the construction team is often composed of the
architect, engineer, and other consultants (design team); owner (owner's representative);
and contractor (builder). The design team is responsible for producing the construction
documents for the owner. The owner can be a public or private entity that provides the
project requirements and funding for design and construction (Pheng & Fang, 2005).
In examining team performance, there are two primary components: individual
task behaviors and coordinated task-related processes. Individual task behaviors are those
50
behaviors requiring no coordination among team members, whereas coordinated task-
related processes, functions, and behaviors include all behaviors that promote
coordination among individuals, members, and subtasks (Martin, 2006). The leadership
styles of common vision, shared responsibilities, group-focused interests, collaboration,
and empowerment correspond with individual and coordinated task-related behaviors
associated with team performance and effectiveness in the construction industry.
Perceptions of Team Members and Project Management
Miles and Mangold’s (2002) study of upper-level business students from a mid-
sized university in the Midwestern region of the United States focused on team members’
perceptions of the leaders’ performance. The variables that underlie those perceptions and
the impact of those perceptions on team members' satisfaction were the focus of the
study. Miles and Mangold concluded if the team members view the relationship with the
team leaders as unsatisfactory, the team members are likely to experience internal
tensions, with few alternatives for resolving the situation. To enhance productivity and
team development in any organization, an understanding of the team members’
perception of the project manager is critical.
Campion, Papper, and Medsker’s (1996) study on 357 employees, 93 managers,
and archival records for 60 teams in a financial services organization revealed a positive
correlation between employee satisfaction and the level of communication and
cooperation within the work groups. Campion et al. did not address the individuals’
preference for group work and did not find a significant correlation between employee
satisfaction and the relative size of the group (D. K. Fisher et al., 2005). Team
collaboration and employee satisfaction are important to the success of projects
51
(Flyvbjerg, Holm, & Buhl, 2002; Neal & Aysal, 2004; Project Management Institute,
2004; Saad, Cicmil, & Greenwood, 2002) in the construction industry because of the
complexity of projects and group dynamics.
High-Performance Teams and Projects
Bolman and Deal (2003) referred to six characteristics that distinguish a team as
high performing: (a) shaping its purpose, (b) translating its purpose into specific tasks, (c)
being a manageable size, (d) having the right mixture of members, (e) having a common
commitment to its working relationships, and (f) members holding themselves mutually
responsible. Teamwork is seen to involve increased amounts of training together with a
broader set of work responsibilities (Bacon & Blyton, 2003). Bacon and Blyton posited,
People working within such structures are observed to experience a more varied
job, have more responsibility and autonomy, and feel they are more skilled
because of the broader experience and the training undergone to fulfill the wider
range of duties. (p. 14)
Staff reductions often slow down the implementation of full training programs, making it
difficult to allow individuals to attend training and thereby creating a sense of letdown
that expectations over training and skill development had not been met (Bacon &
Blyton).
According to Taylor and Morris (2005), successfully completed projects need to
undergo a lesson-to-be-learned session to improve the performance of subsequent
projects. Determining those lessons during and after project completion is important to
how project teams work together on future projects. In high-performing work teams, the
need for the project manager to have effective leadership skills is evident because without
52
effective leadership skills the team may not achieve high levels of performance and
accomplishment (Levin, 2004).
Team Effectiveness
According to J. Gordon (2002), effective teams have individuals with
complementary skills to meet the needs of both internal and external customers. Further,
effective teams have goals that are specific to the team tasks that allow mutual
accountability (J. Gordon; Murray, 2004). The Pfeiffer Book of Successful Team-Building
Tools (Biech, 2001) presented 10 characteristics of successful teams: (a) clear goals, (b)
defined roles, (c) open and clear communication, (d) effective decision making, (e)
balanced participation, (f) valued diversity, (g) managed conflict, (h) atmosphere, (i)
cooperative relationships, and (j) participative leadership. Ways to measure some of the
10 characteristics of successful teams are discussed in chapter 3.
Team members cannot fulfill the roles and responsibilities if the information
required is not available to the team members (Barczak et al., 2006). The project leader,
who in most instances is the project manager, must ensure all relevant project information
is shared with all team members who may or may not be directly affected. This culture of
knowledge and information sharing will keep teams informed of project progress and any
problems that may arise and is critical for maintaining commitment and motivation
(Barczak et al.; Furst, Reeves, Rosen, & Blackburn, 2004).
Future Trends of Project Management and Leadership in the Construction Industry
Given the project leader’s multifaceted role in the construction industry, the issue
of leadership education is of paramount importance (Clegg & Ross-Smith, 2003). Often,
the training available to employees in the construction industry is what they learn on the
53
job in conjunction with periodic leadership seminars offered by the employers (Allio,
2005). The leadership seminars are usually available to only a few selected individuals
within the company.
There is a need to incorporate leadership education in the undergraduate curricula
of schools specializing in construction training to introduce the concept of
leadership (Swartz, 2005) to students in the early stages of education. Allio (2005)
suggested the most effective leadership programs or training should focus on building
self-knowledge and skills in leadership style and critical thinking. Leadership programs
ought to focus on the preparation of visionary, moral, and transformational leaders, all of
which are important focuses of a project manager in the construction industry. As the
business structure changes, so does the need to prepare new leadership to embrace new
ideas.
Allio (2005) shared Morrison, Rha, and Helfman’s (2003) point of view regarding
the importance of leadership training. Individuals who encounter real-life situations
related to leadership responsibilities before they are introduced to basic leadership
principles are better prepared to develop as leaders (Gibber, Carter, & Goldsmith, 2002;
Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; Morrison et al.). In addition, by taking turns in being a follower
and a leader during the learning process, students encounter a meaningful learning
experience (Morrison et al.).
Rubin et al. (2002) posited hardworking individuals in organizations are promoted
to senior positions. The senior positions require people-oriented leadership and
management skills, which are often lacking in the same hardworking individuals (Rubin
et al.). The promotion of individuals not necessarily trained in management practices to a
54
senior leadership position is prevalent in the construction industry. Project managers in
the construction industry play a vital role in coordinating the work of other professionals,
scheduling projects, selecting team members, mapping priorities for the team, and
defining the scope of the project. As the owner’s representative on the project, the project
manager conducts meetings with all parties interested in the project, selects general
contractors, reviews submittals for materials, and is responsible for the successful
completion of the project (Hughes, Tippett, & Thomas, 2004; Humphreys, Matthews, &
Kumaraswamy, 2003; Yu, Shen, Kelly, & Hunter, 2005).
Some individuals in the construction industry become project managers based on
tenure at the company or the connections the individuals have with upper management.
The tasks and the level of expertise involved in managing a project make leadership
training essential (Rosenfeld, 2006) for all professionals in the construction industry. A
sound background in leadership education will provide the necessary basis for project
leadership development (Clegg & Ross-Smith, 2003). Project leadership development
will enable project manager to keep abreast of innovations taking place in the
construction industry.
Disparity in the Existing Literature
The study of leadership in the construction industry has generated little theoretical
attention (LaRue & Ivany, 2004). The literature reviewed for this study was dominated
by research in the area of leadership, project management, and team performance as the
area of leadership features apply to organizations in general. The lack of adequate
research study in the construction industry shows the understanding of the relationship
55
between a project manager’s leadership skills and team performance needs further
investigation.
Lacking in the leadership research studies conducted in the construction industry
to date are empirical studies based on how team members view the effectiveness of
current project managers or organization leaders. Hence, the literature review on the
influence of the leadership skills of project managers on project team performance in the
construction industry indicates research gaps exist within the area of construction
leadership. Additional research is needed to establish the relationship between team
members’ performance and the project manager’s leadership skills in the leadership
process. This research contributes to filling the gap.
Conclusion
The review of the literature in this chapter explored the historical aspect of
leadership research and current leadership theories with the intent of arriving at a greater
understanding of and appreciation for the nature of leadership and team performance. The
difference between leadership and management was explored as well as the influence of a
project manager’s leadership styles on the team he or she leads.
While some leadership theorists debated about which leadership style should be
used in a specific situation, most leadership theorists acknowledge to some extent that
different leadership styles may be needed for different situations. Matching leadership
style to different situations may be difficult for project managers in the construction
industry because the project managers often manage teams of professionals with diverse
backgrounds and changing circumstances (K. Fisher & Fisher, 1998). The complexity of
56
projects and changes during construction projects may require collaboration among team
members.
The process of leadership required by organizations in the construction industry to
succeed in a dynamic business environment will be processes that can take risks, share
responsibility, be visionary, be based on mutually influencing relationships, encourage
participation, promote group interest, and empower others to act. Hence, the project
manager is expected to provide the necessary direction for the team. This research study
was grounded in the Kouzes-Posner approach to leadership as outlined in the Purpose
Statement section. The following chapter presents the research methodology used in
examining the influence of project managers’ leadership styles in the construction
industry and the effect of the leadership styles on team performance.
Summary
The literature review focused on understanding how the leadership styles of
project managers affect the performance of project teams in the construction industry.
Mealiea and Baltazar (2005) observed that team building is the most critical characteristic
for effective project success. Other characteristics mentioned were communicating
effectively, demonstrating trust, and focusing on results. In a knowledge-based economy
and during a globalization of industries, a project manager should possess, in addition to
technical and managerial skills, good leadership to do the “right thing right” (Nguyen,
Ogunlana, & Lan, 2004, p. 418).
The characteristics of a project leader, as discussed in this study, include having
or promoting charisma, sharing responsibility, continuous personal and group
development, having a common vision, relationships built on mutual trust and influence,
57
creating group interests, risk taking, collaboration, and empowering others. A team leader
committed to high performance will realize effective team performance involves gaining
an increased understanding of the role of the project manager and of individuals in a team
environment. An effective project manager is not simply adapting to change but rather
embracing transformation and collaboration within teams he or she leads. Effective
project managers are those managers who have charisma, share responsibilities with
others on the team, communicate vision well, help others to succeed, put the interests of
others before the leader’s own, foster an environment for authenticity, and demonstrate
courage in all activities (Cleveland & Ireland, 2002; Kouzes & Posner, 2002). It is
through the interrelationships of the leadership characteristics that a project manager
ensures teams are effective and perform at a high standard (Kerfoot, 2002; Kouzes &
Posner, 2002; Salacuse, 2006).
Chapter 3 presents a discussion on the research method chosen for the study.
Chapter 3 introduced the purpose of the study in detail. The research methods used to
evaluate the degree to which project managers’ leadership styles affect team performance
in project teams in the construction industry are discussed in detail in chapter 3. The main
research methods used in the quantitative, descriptive study are quantitative self-
assessment surveys. The data collected from the self-assessment surveys are analyzed
against the dependent variable of team performance in chapter 4.
58
CHAPTER 3: METHOD
Chapter 3 presents the research method used to evaluate the relationship between
the leadership styles of 17 project managers in 17 project teams consisting of 6 - 9
members and the team perception of the project managers’ leadership styles as the
leadership styles relate to project team performance in the construction industry in the
southeastern United States. The research method that was used in this quantitative,
descriptive study is a self-assessment survey instrument. This chapter presents the
research design, methodology, instrument development, population, data collection
procedures, and approach to data analysis that was used in the study.
The study was designed to gain insight into the influence of project managers’
leadership styles on team performance. The study evaluated the leadership characteristics
of project managers within project teams in construction organizations in the southeastern
United States to examine whether and how the leadership characteristics of project
managers affected team performance.
Research Method
The quantitative, descriptive research study explored the possible causal
relationships between leadership and performance among project work teams. The study
examined the nine leadership characteristics identified in chapter 2 in relation to the
effect of the leadership characteristics on team performance (see Figure 1).
59
Figure 1. Research design plan.
The study used a self-assessment survey instrument to collect data on leadership
characteristics from the participants. Creswell (2002) described the purpose of survey
research as “generalizing results from a sample to the population . . . so that inferences
can be made drawn from the sample to the population” (pp. 400-401). The survey
instruments were designed to evaluate whether project managers leading project teams
possess the nine characteristics of leadership.
Creating the surveys required examining several survey tools, including the Post
Heroic Leadership Assessment (Eicher, Jones, & Bearley, 1999), the Learning
60
Organization Assessment (Kline & Saunders, 1993), the Leadership Training and
Development Outline Assessment (Clark, 1998), the Prospector Survey (McCall,
Spreitzer, & Mahoney, 1998), the Leadership Assessment and Personal Satisfaction
Survey (Learning Center, 2005), and the Skillscope Survey (Kaplan, 1997). The six
surveys were reviewed to evaluate which, if any, characteristics of leadership related to
project management each survey contained. From the review, two survey questionnaires
were created and used for the study.
The questions used in the survey were taken directly from the six surveys that
were reviewed and the questions that relate to team leadership were broken down into the
nine specific characteristics of leadership already identified. Table 1 shows which
questions correlate with which leadership characteristic for the survey directed at project
managers and the survey directed at team members. The data collected from the
leadership surveys were aggregated for each project team, and the aggregated scores for
the nine leadership variables of the project team were compared to the aggregated scores
for the nine leadership variables of the project managers. The Pearson correlation
coefficient was used to measure the strength and direction of the linear relationships
between the independent variable of project manager leadership characteristics and the
dependent variable of team performance in the project team and the project manager
surveys.
The self-assessment tools created (Appendices A and B) were used with a pilot
group prior to use with the actual project teams comprised the population of the study.
The pilot group consisted of a team in one of the organizations used in the study with
similar characteristics as the study group. The letters of introduction (Appendices I and J)
61
were also used in the pilot study. A request was made for both verbal and written
feedback from the pilot team with regard to the wording of the survey instructions, the
time necessary to take the survey, the wording and clarity of the survey questions, and the
clarity of the initial introduction and of the purpose (Oppenheim, 1966). The information
was used to refine the survey and the data-gathering process.
Table 1
Independent Variables of Leadership
Variable name
Item on leadership survey
(Appendix A)
Item on performance survey
(Appendix B)
Charisma Questions 1, 2, 3 Questions 1, 10, 19
Shared responsibility Questions 4, 5, 6 Questions 2, 11, 20
Continuous development Questions 7, 8, 9 Questions 3, 12, 21
Common vision Questions 10, 11, 12 Questions 4, 13, 22
Mutual influence
relationships
Questions 13, 14, 15 Questions 5, 14, 23
Group interests Questions 16, 17, 18 Questions 6, 15, 24
Risk taking Questions 19, 20, 21 Questions 7, 16, 25
Collaboration Questions 22, 23, 24 Questions 8, 17, 26
Empowerment Questions 25, 26, 27 Questions 9, 18, 27
The procedure involved the following steps:
1. A short introduction of the tool and its purpose, shown in Appendix F, was
e-mailed to operations managers of the targeted organizations.
62
2. The operations manager was asked to furnish the names and e-mail addresses
of project managers and the project managers’ respective teams.
3. Letters of introduction were e-mailed or mailed to the project managers,
soliciting the project managers’ participation in the study.
4. Upon receiving confirmation of the project managers’ willingness to
participate in the study, each individual received an e-mail containing the address of the
Web site to visit to complete the survey. Each e-mail and letter contained a unique login
code to enable the receiver to access the survey Web site.
5. Upon accessing the survey site, each individual completed an informed
consent form, demographic information, and the survey.
The dependent variable, team performance, was based on quarterly project
performance reports obtained from the operations managers of the organizations
participating in the study. Appendix G shows the three performance metrics used to
assess the performance of the teams: (a) project completed on schedule, (b) project
completed within the specified budget, and (c) project completed within the specified
profit margin. Each of the variables was assigned either a +1 if teams were meeting the
team metric or a –1 if they were not meeting the team metric. The scores were added
together to attain a single score for each team (see Appendix G). No individually
identifiable information will be disclosed or published, and all results will be presented as
aggregate, summary data.
The self-assessment survey and the team performance measure were used with the
pilot team to assess the initial viability of the survey instrument tools and to make any
adjustments needed. The process used for the pilot group was also used with the study
63
groups to gain feedback on the methodology and the process used to collect the data. The
data from the self-assessment tools were collected over a 2-month period, making the
data cross-sectional.
Appropriateness of Design
A quantitative, descriptive research survey was the preferred type of data
collection tool for the study. The reasons for selecting this research method over other
research methods include that (a) the design shows relationships between variables, (b)
there is a rapid turnaround in data collection, and (c) the attributes of a population can be
identified from a small group of individuals (Creswell, 2002; Oppenheim, 1966). The
descriptive study approach was used for the research design because the study examined
the influence of the project managers’ leadership styles on project team performance
from the results of the data. The quantitative design method is appropriate for testing
theory and hypotheses using representative samples of the population (Lussier &
Sonfield, 2004).
Research Questions
The quantitative, descriptive study sought answers to the following questions:
1. Is there a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project
manager and the project manager’s performance as perceived by the project manager’s
project team members?
2. Is there a relationship between a project manager’s leadership styles and the
project manager’s effectiveness?
64
Research Hypotheses
The quantitative, descriptive study explored the possible causal relationships
between leadership characteristics and team performance among project teams. The
hypotheses are as follows:
H01: There is no relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project
manager and the project manager’s performance as perceived by the project team
members.
Ha1: There is a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project
manager and the project manager’s performance as perceived by the project team
members.
H02: There is no relationship between a project manager’s leadership styles and
the project manager’s effectiveness.
Ha2: There is a relationship between a project manager’s leadership styles and the
project manager’s effectiveness.
Population Sample
The participants were chosen using a combination of random and convenience
sampling methods. “In simple random sampling the researcher selects participants . . . for
the sample so that any individual has an equal probability of being selected from the
population” (Creswell, 2005, p. 147). The intention behind using simple random
sampling method was to choose individuals who were representative of the population. A
requirement of sound empirical research involves obtaining results from the study sample
that are generalizable to the background population (Reynolds, Tarter, & Kirisci, 2004).
65
The sample examined consisted of project teams of professional knowledge
workers in the construction industry with combined population of over 3000 employees
in the southeastern United States. The project teams consisted of professionals from
different construction organizations with a changing composition and variation in the
project team’s work (K. Fisher & Fisher, 1998). The population came from different
fields of specialty, including architecture, interior design, engineering, planning,
construction management, program management, general contracting, financial services,
administrative support staffs, and other consultants in the construction industry.
The following formula was used to determine sample size:
X = Z(c/100)2r(100-r): n = N x/((N-1)E2
+ x): E = Sqrt[(N - n)x/n(N-1)
where N is the population size, r is the fraction of responses, and Z(c/100) is the critical
value for the confidence level c. The minimum sample size for the quantitative,
descriptive study was determined to be 21 teams consisting of a minimum of 1 project
manager and 5 project team members, generating a minimum of 125 individual responses
(Raosoft, 2006). The name of every team member received from project managers who
responded and completed the consent to act as a research subject form had an equal
opportunity to be chosen for the study. In teams with more than the minimum number of
participants, every second participant was chosen to be included in the study. In teams
with only 6 participant respondents, all fully completed surveys were included in the
study. However, some teams had more than 5 individuals that participated in the study,
which resulted in 17 teams with 6 - 9 team members. The research design was based on a
sample population of 220 individuals consisting of project managers and project team
members using a confidence level of 95% with a 5% margin of error, generating a sample
66
size of 139 (Raosoft). Of the 220 survey invitations e-mailed, 173 responded that they
were interested in participating in the study. Of the 173 responses, 139 submitted a
completed survey online. Five participants chose not to submit the Consent to Act as a
Research Subject form prior to taking the survey (see Appendix H); hence the five
surveys were removed from the data before analysis. Another eight surveys were
removed from the data analysis process because the team was unable to meet the
minimum number of team member respondents. Thus, 126 individual responses were
included in the final analysis. The 126 usable completed surveys provided a return rate of
68.85%.
Informed Consent
Letters were sent to targeted organizations in the construction industry via e-mail
in the southeastern United States, requesting permission to use the organization’s
employees in the study. When the request was granted, letters were sent to the operations
manager (see Appendix F) at the targeted organizations requesting assistance in
collecting information about the project managers and the project managers’ team
performance. The three performance metrics used to assess the performance of the teams
were (a) project completed on schedule, (b) project completed within the specified
budget, and (c) project completed within the specified profit margin. After the project
managers were identified, a letter requesting the project manager’s participation in the
study (Appendix I) was e-mailed to each project manager. Each project manager was also
required to submit team members’ contact information.
After receiving the contact information for team members, a letter (Appendix J)
was sent via e-mail to each team member requesting the team member’s participation in
67
the study. After responses were received from participants, a letter was sent via e-mail
detailing how to access the survey online. Each participant was required to read the
survey introduction letter (Appendix K) and sign electronically a consent to act as a
research subject form (Appendix H) prior to taking the survey online.
Sampling
There were several requirements for participating in the data collection process.
All participants were required to work in the construction industry. The project managers
were also required to manage teams of five or more individuals. The participating teams
in the construction industry must provide performance report.
Confidentiality
Each project manager and team member was provided with an online link that
corresponded to the team’s number and organization. The code was used to access and
complete the survey. There were no identifiers or codes aside from those described in the
study, either on the survey or in the possession of the researcher. To maintain anonymity,
the results from the survey had a different code apart from the initial code provided to the
participants. Additionally, the instruction sheet directed participants to complete the
surveys separately and privately to facilitate confidentiality while minimizing the risk of
participants being influenced by others.
Geographic Location
The organizations chosen for the study were in the construction-related industry
in the southeastern United States. The construction-related organizations had between 50
and 1,000 employees. The organizations were required to have work in the southeastern
United States to participate in the study.
68
Instrumentation
The creation of the surveys required examining several survey tools, including the
Post Heroic Leadership Assessment (Eicher et al., 1999), the Learning Organization
Assessment (Kline & Saunders, 1993), the Leadership Training and Development Outline
Assessment (Clark, 1998), the Prospector Survey (McCall et al., 1998), the Leadership
Assessment and Personal Satisfaction Survey (Learning Center, 2005), and the Skillscope
Survey (Kaplan, 1997). The surveys were reviewed to evaluate which, if any,
characteristics of leadership they contained related to project management. The
questionnaire used for the study was created from the review. The questions used in the
surveys were taken directly from the six original surveys reviewed, and the questions that
related to team leadership were broken down into the nine specific characteristics of
leadership identified earlier in this chapter.
Data Collection
The quantitative, descriptive study was conducted in an online environment. The
leadership survey instrument was provided online, and participants were requested to
complete a 27-question survey that was expected to take approximately 10 minutes to
complete. The survey began with an informed consent form to ensure participants
understood the study was voluntary, confidential, and anonymous. Participants completed
the informed consent form prior to taking the survey.
The surveys presented the data collection instrument and procedures to all
participants, along with an explanation that included survey instructions and describing
the voluntary nature of the study. A coding methodology for each project team was
provided to ensure confidentiality and integrity of the study. “The process of coding data
69
occurs during data collection so that you can determine what data to collect next”
(Creswell, 2005, p. 413). A coding technique was used to create categories for responses
(Styron, Ronald, Maulding, & Hull, 2006).
Each survey was numerically and alphabetically coded to ensure responses from
project managers and the teams were recorded appropriately. The alphabetical code A
and numerical code 0 (A0) was assigned to one project manager in a specific
organization, and the alphabetical code A and numerical code 1 (A1) was assigned to the
first corresponding team member. Each project manager and team member was provided
with an online link that corresponded to the team’s number and organization. The code
was used to access and complete the survey. For example, a link provided to a project
manager in Organization A was coded as A0, and the team members for Project Manager
A0 received a link coded A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, and so forth; there were as many links as
there were team members.
Additionally, the instruction sheet directed participants to complete the surveys
separately and privately to facilitate confidentiality while minimizing the risk of
participants being influenced by others. Once completed, the surveys were compiled
electronically and made available for analysis with a different and random code to
maintain the anonymity of the teams. Bader, Bloom, and Chang (1994) noted team
performance measurement and progress toward business goals should be done in
association with each other. Data on team performance were gathered at the time survey
data were gathered.
70
Data Analysis
Oppenheim (1966) described reliability and validity in the following way:
“Reliability refers to consistency, to obtaining the same results again. Validity tells us
whether the question or item really measures what it is supposed to measure” (pp. 69-70).
The reliability of the instrument used in the study was established through the repetitive
use of the instrument on 17 different project teams. The validity of the survey instrument
tools was established through the triangulation with the team performance report
provided by the project managers through a MANOVA. The multiple regression analysis
and a MANOVA were used in the determination to accept the directional hypotheses.
According to McGivern and Tvorik (1998), in MANOVA, the question is asked whether
“group membership produces significant differences on a combination of variables” (p.
254). MANOVA is used to measure relationships between one dependent measure and
two or more independent measures (McGivern & Tvorik). Creswell (2005) described t
tests or univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA),
and MANOVA as being commonly used in determining the statistical significance of
mean score differences among groups. Noruésis (1995) described the benefit of using
multiple comparison procedures and wrote, “Multiple comparison procedures protect you
from calling differences significant when they really aren’t” (p. 291). For the quantitative
analysis, each variable, in order to be correlated, was coded with a specific designator for
analysis using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). SPSS is a computer
program used for statistical analysis, data management, and data documentation.
The main objective of the study analysis was to provide the reader with images
and summaries to help understand the nature of the study, the variables under study, and
71
the descriptive relationships. Measures of association of relationships between variables
were used for analyzing data (Creswell, 2005). The Pearson correlation coefficient was
used to measure the strength and direction of the linear relationships (Lussier & Sonfield,
2004) between all nine leadership characteristics and the dependent variable of team
performance and project manager’s effectiveness in the project team and the project
manager surveys. The survey responses received individual coding for the purposes of
correlation, as discussed in the Data Collection section of this chapter.
Validity and Reliability
Validity
The selected research design achieved its intended purpose by evaluating the
degree of relationship between the leadership styles of 25 project managers (independent
variable) and employee perceptions of the project managers’ leadership styles and team
performance in two ways. First, the data gathered through the self-assessment survey
tools were triangulated with the performance measurement scores based on the common
measure of team performance gathered from the organization itself (Appendix G). The
performance measures provided the internal validity of the tool.
Second, the study was externally validated through the selection of questions
directly from the self-assessment surveys reviewed. The self-assessment surveys
reviewed were the Post Heroic Leadership Assessment (Eicher et al., 1999), the Learning
Organization Assessment (Kline & Saunders, 1993), the Leadership Training and
Development Outline Assessment (Clark, 1998), the Prospector Survey (McCall et al.,
1998), the Leadership Assessment and Personal Satisfaction Survey (Learning Center,
2005), and the Skillscope Survey (Kaplan, 1997).
72
Reliability
The reliability of the study was obtained through the participation of 17 different
teams with an average of 6-9 members each, totaling 126 participants. Consistent scores
from each of the teams provided the reliability of the tool. The project performance
scores were provided by operations managers and department heads from the
organizations participating in the study, further providing reliability for the study.
Data Organization
The data were managed by collecting and maintaining the coded survey online for
each team. Each participant received a code and a link that allowed access to the online
survey. This measure ensured there was not any cross-pollinating of surveys from one
team to another. The survey data were electronically transferred into a database tool,
allowing for easier and more accurate analysis of the data. The data, once entered, were
reevaluated to ensure no errors occurred during the process.
The effect of nonresponses on survey estimates, or response bias (Creswell,
2002), was reduced by conducting the study online and collecting the survey instruments
as they were completed. This procedure reduced response bias in the study. The measure
of team performance used as the dependent variable is a single score based on a standard
performance report supplied by the project managers in the online survey.
The dependent variable of team performance was based on a quarterly
performance report of the project team by operations managers of participating
organizations. Three performance metrics were used to assess the performance of the
teams: (a) project schedule, (b) project in budget, and (c) project profitability. Each of the
variables was assigned either a +1 if data met the metric or a –1 if data did not meet the
73
metric. The scores for each of the three measures were added together to attain a single
score for each team. The range of scores for each team ranged from +3 if they were
meeting every one of their objectives to –1 if they were not meeting at least two of their
objectives. The score acted as the dependent variable in the multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA).
Summary
Chapter 3 has presented the methods used to evaluate the degree to which project
managers’ leadership styles affect team performance in project teams in the construction
industry. The main research method used in the quantitative, descriptive study was a
quantitative self-assessment survey. The self-assessment survey data were analyzed
against the dependent variable of team performance that was calculated through an
analysis of common project success determinants. The population under study consisted
of project teams of professional knowledge workers in the construction industry in the
southeastern United States. This chapter has presented the research design, methodology,
instrument development, population, data collection procedures, and approach to data
analysis. The chapter also identified the basic research framework and ground rules that
were carried through to chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 4 analyzes the data gathered through
the study. Chapters 4 and 5 demonstrate the execution of the methodology and design
presented in chapter 3. Chapter 4 includes a complete description and analysis of the
results of the data collection and provides a detailed analysis of the survey data.
74
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Chapter 4 presents the analyses of the data collected to evaluate the relationship
between the leadership styles of 17 project managers in 17 project teams consisting of 6-9
team members, and the team perception of the project managers’ leadership styles as the
leadership styles relate to project team performance in construction industry in the
southeastern United States. Yukl (2002) expressed leadership as the process of
influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how it can be
done effectively. Leadership is the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts
to accomplish the stated objectives (Yukl, 2002). Leadership effectiveness is
demonstrated by the efforts of the leader in having the organizational group perform in a
collaborative manner for success and the attainment of the group’s goals (Deal &
Peterson, 2003). Leadership style is the underlying need-structure of the individual who
motivates behavior in various leadership situations (Fiedler, 1967). Team performance is
the achievement of the metrics that allow the team to manage its progress and fulfill its
purpose (K. Fisher & Fisher, 1998).
The organization of chapter 4 is as follows: (a) research procedures, (b)
demographics, (c) report of data, (d) pilot study report, (e) individual team studies, (f)
research questions, (g) independent variable correlations, (h) hypotheses, and (i)
summary of results. The following research questions and hypotheses that guided this
research study are analyzed.
1. Is there a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project
manager and the project manager’s performance as perceived by the project manager’s
project team members?
75
2. Is there a relationship between a project manager’s leadership styles and the
project manager’s effectiveness?
The hypotheses are as follows:
H01: There is no relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project
manager and the project manager’s performance as perceived by the project manager’s
team members.
Ha1: There is a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project
manager and the project manager’s performance as perceived by project manager’s team
members.
H02: There is no relationship between a project manager’s leadership styles and
project manager’s effectiveness.
Ha2: There is a relationship between a project manager’s leadership styles and
project manager’s effectiveness.
The study examined the relationship between the leadership styles of project managers
within organizations in the construction industry and the performance of the project
managers’ teams.
Research Procedure
The possible connecting relationships between the nine independent variables that
define project managers’ leadership characteristics and the dependent variable, team
performance, were examined. Two research questions were answered to determine the
influence of the leadership styles of project managers and team members’ perception of
the project manager’s leadership styles on team performance in the construction industry
in the southeastern United States. The data gathered through the self-assessment survey
76
tools (Appendices A and B) were triangulated with the performance measurement scores
based on the common measure of team performance gathered for all participating teams
(see Appendix G). The data collected from the leadership surveys were analyzed and the
mean responses for each of the independent variables were calculated. The mean
response for each of the independent variables from each set of leadership surveys was
compared to a quantitative score for each team based on the teams’ performance report
(see Appendix G).
Survey Instrument Development
The survey instruments were developed to determine if the leadership styles of
project managers influence the project team performance in the construction industry in
southeastern United States. The survey instruments were created based on a review of
several survey tools. The creation of the surveys required examining several survey tools,
including the Post Heroic Leadership Assessment (Eicher et al., 1999), the Learning
Organization Assessment (Kline & Saunders, 1993), the Leadership Training and
Development Outline Assessment (Clark, 1998), the Prospector Survey (McCall et al.,
1998), the Leadership Assessment and Personal Satisfaction Survey (Learning Center,
2005), and the Skillscope Survey (Kaplan, 1997). The six surveys were reviewed to
evaluate which, if any, characteristics of leadership related to project management they
contain. From this review, the questionnaire used for this study was created. The
questions used in the survey were taken directly from the original six surveys reviewed,
and the questions that relate to team leadership were broken down into the nine specific
characteristics of leadership. The survey consisted of 27 questions and the survey was
used with a pilot team that was a representative of the project team. This initial survey
77
instrument tools were evaluated to refine the questions down to the 3 questions that most
closely related to one of the nine leadership characteristics being evaluated (Appendices
A and B).
Data Gathering Process
The data gathering process included eight activities: (a) contacting the operation
managers for each targeted organizations, (b) contacting the program managers for each
of the potential teams, (c) communicating via e-mail and personal meetings with project
managers and the team members, as necessary, to discuss the research goals and
execution of the research plan, (d) setting up the online survey, (e) coding the project
teams, (f) conducting the online survey, (g) collecting the performance measure reports,
and (h) coding, compiling, and documenting the data. Initial contact was made with 35
operations managers who were responsible for the organizations that were the initial
candidates for the study via an e-mail message that was sent between June 2, 2007, and
June 12, 2007 (Appendix D). The e-mail message served the following functions: (a)
introduced the researcher to the operation managers, (b) described the basic details of the
research, (c) requested the project managers be allowed to participate in the study, (d)
requested a list of the project managers who may be interested in participating in the
study, and (e) requested a copy of the team’s most recent performance measure report.
Subsequent contact was made with 30 project managers who were responsible for
the teams that were the initial candidates for the study via an e-mail message sent
between June 8, 2007, and June 16, 2007 (Appendix E). The e-mail message served the
following functions: (a) introduced the researcher to the potential participants, (b)
described the basic details of the research, (c) requested a list of the project team
78
members that would be participating in the study, (d) conducted a brief survey, and (e)
requested a copy of the team’s most recent performance report. The introductory letters
(Appendices E and F), indicated to the participants that the research had been approved
by the administration of the organization.
After the list of team members was received from project managers, an e-mail
was sent to each team member. The e-mail message served the following functions: (a)
introduced the researcher to the potential participants, (b) described the basic details of
the research, and (c) requested each participant to read and sign electronically the consent
to act as a research subject. Upon receiving the signed consent form, each participant was
sent a unique code to access the survey and a link to the survey directly from the survey
Web site. Each survey participant was required to read and agree to the survey
introduction letter shown in Appendix I prior to taking the survey online.
From the initial e-mail contact, 14 teams volunteered to participate in the study.
The initial correspondence was followed up with telephone calls and e-mails to each of
the project managers as a reminder. The follow-up telephone calls and e-mails to each of
the project managers resulted in three more teams volunteering to participate in the study.
Eight of the project managers contacted initially stated the project teams were not
available and the current size did not meet the 5-10 team members required by the study.
Therefore, the 8 teams were excluded from the study. The remaining nine project
managers were contacted three additional times by telephone and e-mail without
response.
79
Survey
The next step in the data collection process was the implementation of the two
survey assessment tools (Appendices A and B). Many online survey Web sites were
visited for conducting the study. Upon selecting and procuring an online survey provider,
the introduction letter and consent to participate in the study were transposed onto the
online database. The questionnaires for project managers and team members were also
transposed onto the online database. The information included in the online questionnaire
followed steps for conducting a study: (a) included an introduction letter to project
managers and project teams (Appendices I and J) and (b) electronically signed Consent to
Act as a Research Subject form (Appendix H), (c) a demographic information
questionnaire (Appendix L), and (d) two survey assessment tools (Appendices A and B).
The next step in the process involved retrieving data from the online survey Web
site. The data were retrieved from the online survey Web site in a spreadsheet format,
including any surveys that were not fully completed. Upon reaching the number of
expected respondents, the data were recorded. The team data were recorded and
maintained together at all times. From the total surveys that were completed, five
participants chose not to accept the Consent to Act as a Research Subject form statement
(Appendix H); hence, the five surveys were removed from the data before analysis.
Another eight surveys were removed from the data analysis process because the team was
unable to meet the minimum 5-10 team member respondents. All teams used in the
analysis produced performance measure reports.
Coding Data
Each survey was numerically and alphabetically coded to ensure responses from
80
project managers and the teams were recorded appropriately. For example, the letter A
was assigned to a project manager in a specific organization, and the number 1 was
assigned to the first corresponding team member. Each project manager and team
member was provided with an online link that corresponded to the team’s number and
organization. The code was used by the survey participants in accessing and completing
the survey.
The next step was for the each of the surveys, consent forms, and demographic
information to be logged into a survey journal. The consent forms and demographic
information were recorded with the same code used in accessing the online survey
questionnaires. After the survey questionnaires were retrieved, the questionnaires were
separated by teams. The team data were then assigned a team code different from the
initial team code used by respondents when taking the online survey. The different team
code was necessary to maintain the anonymity of respondents. The data were then
entered into a computer-based statistical system for the analysis of the data, called SPSS
Student Version 15. The data for each team were maintained separately and were coded
with the team-specific code. The data were logged into an Excel file that contained all
information for each team for the final analysis.
Collecting Data
The data gathered through the self-assessment survey tools were triangulated with
the performance measurement scores based on the common measure of team
performance gathered for all participating teams. The operation managers of the
participating project managers and organizations forwarded the team performance reports
through e-mail. Several of the operation managers were contacted via telephone and
81
e-mail to ensure the performance measure reports were received on all participating
teams.
Performance Report
The operation manager in the organizations that participated in the study provided
the performance report used for the project teams (Appendix G). The three performance
metrics, (a) project completed on schedule, (b) project completed within the specified
budget, and (c) project completed within the specified profit margin, on the performance
reports were not weighted during the analysis. Each team was given a score of +1 if the
team was meeting or exceeding the project team objectives or a –1 if the team was not
meeting the team objectives. The scores were totaled to obtain the team performance
measure shown in Appendix G.
The range of scores for each team ranged from +3 if the team was meeting every
one of the team objectives to –1 if the team was not meeting at least two of the team
objectives. The study used a ratio scale derived from the three measures for evaluating
team performance. According to Jobson (1999), a ratio scale is the most “adaptable scale
of measurement in a multivariate data analysis” (p.97). Ratio scale, said Jobson, “allow
for any two values along the scale to be expressed meaningfully as a ratio, ensure
distance between items on the scale is meaningful, and the elements along the scale can
be ordered from low to high” (p. 97). The elements in the study are performance metrics
which were ordered from a value of -1 (low value) if the team was not meeting the
objectives, and a value of +1 (high value) if the team is meeting the team objective, thus
fulfilling the expectation of the study. The performance metrics used to assess the
82
performance of teams may need to be expanded to include other performance metrics
thus improving the limitation of the three performance metrics used in the study.
Demographics
The demographics of the participants were examined through six aspects: (a) age,
(b) gender, (c) race, (d) years in service, (e) company size, and (f) profession. Appendix
M displays demographic statistics for the study. The sample consisted of 17 project
managers (n = 17) and 109 project team members (n = 109) from construction-related
organizations in the southeast United States. The sample included 19 architects or interior
designers (18.10%), 29 engineers (27.62%), 6 construction managers (5.71%), 8 program
managers (7.62%), 9 general contractors (8.57%), 11 administrative support staff
(10.48%), 1 information technology/computer-aided design (CAD) support (1.00%), 2
financial services personnel (1.90%), and 20 other consultants (19.05%) in the
construction industry with each team based in the southeastern United States. 20
respondents did not disclose profession (Appendix M).
The study did not collect raw data from participants for the variable age and years
of service. Therefore, for the purpose of the study analysis, the mean respondent age and
years of service were estimated by using the midpoint of the frequency distribution
between the ranges to estimate the mean and standard deviation for each team that
participated in the study (Johnson, 2004). The midpoint used in estimating the mean and
standard deviation for age range 20-29 years is 24.5 years, 30-39 years is 34.5, 40-49
years is 44.5 years, 50-59 years is 54.5 years, 60-69 years is 64.5 years and for age 70
and above, the lower age of 70 is used in the data analysis. The midpoint used in
estimating the mean and standard deviation for years of service range 0-9 years is 4.5, 10-
83
19 years is 14.5, 20-29 years is 24.5, 30-39 years is 34.5, and for 40 and above, the lower
years of service of 40 is used in the data analysis. The mean and standard deviation were
calculated using statistical data analysis.
Project Manager Study
The mean reported age range of the project manager participants was 40-49 years
(x̄ = 47.00), with a standard deviation of 7.75 (s = 7.745; Appendix M). The largest
portion of the sample population of project managers fell into the 50-59 years age range
(41.18%). There were 16 valid responses (n = 16) to the demographic age question, with
one individual not reporting age. The age of the respondents ranged from a low of 30-39
years to a maximum reported age of 50-59 years (Appendix M).
The majority of the respondents were male (64.71%), followed by female
(29.41%) and 1 nonrespondent (5.88%) to the gender question. The race of the
participants was primarily Caucasian (64.71%), followed by African American (29.41%)
and 1 project manager (5.88%) not reporting race. The majority of the respondents were
from organizations with more than 1,000 people (47.06%), followed by organizations
with 500-1,000 people (17.65%), 200-299 people (11.76%), 1-99 people (5.88%), 100-
199 people (5.88%), and 300-399 people (5.88%). One project manager (5.88%) did not
report company size (Appendix M).
The mean range of years of service of the project manager participants was 20-29
years (x̄ = 19.50) with a standard deviation of 10.95 (s = 10.954; Appendix M). The
largest portion of the sample population was in the 20-29 years of service range
(37.50%), followed by 0-9 years of service (25.00%), 10-19 years of service (18.75%),
and 30-39 years of service (18.75%). There were 16 valid responses (n = 16) to the
84
demographic age question. The minimum range of years of service of the respondents
was 0-9 years, with a maximum reported range amount of years of service of 30-39 years
(Appendix M).
Team Study
The mean reported age range of the team study participants was 40-49 years (x̄ =
44.28) with a standard deviation of 12.20 (s = 12.20; Appendix M). The largest portion of
the sample population of project team members fell into the 40-49 age range (32.11%).
There were 95 valid responses (n = 95) to the demographic age question, with 14
respondents (12.48%) not responding. The ages of the respondents ranged from a low of
20-29 years to a maximum reported age of 70 years and above.
The majority of the respondents were males (55.46%), followed by female
(33.94%) and 17 nonrespondents (15.60%). The race of the participants was primarily
Caucasian (62.39%), followed by African American (15.60%), others (5.50%), Hispanic
(2.75%), Asian (1.83%), and 13 nonrespondents (11.93%). The majority of the
respondents were from organizations with more than 1,000 people (34.44%), followed by
organizations with 500–1,000 people (24.44%) and 0-99 people (17.78%). Individuals
from organizations with 300-399 people represented 8.89% of respondents, followed by
organizations with 100-199 people (7.78%), 400-499 people (5.56%), and 200-299
people (1.11%; Appendix M).
The mean range of years of service of the team participants that reported was 10-
19 years (x̄ = 17.34) with a standard deviation of 12.60 (s = 12.604; Appendix M). The
largest portion of the sample population was in the 0-9 years of service range (29.36%),
followed closely by 10-19 years of service (27.52%), which was followed by 20-29 years
85
of service (12.84%), 30-39 years of service (11.01%), 40 years and above (6.42%), and
14 nonrespondents (12.84%). There were 95 valid responses (n = 95) to the demographic
years of service question. The minimum range amount of years in service of the
respondents was 0-9 years with a maximum reported range amount of 40 years and
above.
Report of Data
This section presents the data obtained during the course of the study. The section
is broken into eight parts: (a) the pilot study, (b) the individual project team studies, (c)
research questions, (d) independent variables correlations, (e) hypotheses, (f) multiple
regression analysis, (g) multiple regression equation, and (h) MANOVAs. Descriptive
statistical analysis was completed using Student Version 15 of SPSS.
Pilot Study
The self-assessment tools created, shown in Appendices A and B, were used with
a pilot group that was representative of the population of the study prior to being used
with the actual project teams. The pilot study with a representative project team was
necessary to validate the survey instruments and the data collection process. The pilot
group, Team A, consisted of a team in one of the organizations used in the study with
similar characteristics as the study group. Team A was used as a means of validating the
readability and ease of use of the survey instruments. There were 11 participants in the
Team A pilot study group (n = 11). The pilot team consisted of a project manager and 10
team members. The team had a mean number of years of service of 11 years (x̄ = 10.5)
with a standard deviation of 7 years (s = 6.99). The years of service ranged from 0 years
to 29 years. The mean age of the team members was 47 years (x̄ = 46.5) with a standard
86
deviation of 11 years (s = 11.35). The age of the team ranged from 30 to 69 years old,
with 1 member not disclosing age. The pilot team demographic statistics that shows the
respondent profile from the surveys of Pilot Team A are presented in Appendix N.
The standard error of the mean for the team responses to the survey questions
ranged from 0.16 to 0.46. The standard deviation of the mean responses ranged from 0.52
to 1.45 (s = 0.52 minimum, s = 1.45 maximum). The responses to the survey questions
had a variance ranging from 0.27 to 2.10 (s² = 0.25 minimum, s² = 2.10 maximum). The
pilot team survey results and pilot team leadership characteristics descriptive statistics
from the surveys of Pilot Team A are presented in Appendices O and P respectively.
Charisma. Survey Questions 1, 2, and 3 were designed to collect data on the
independent variable of charisma (Figure 2). The team members’ mean responses to
Survey Questions 1, 2, and 3 range from a high of 4.50 to 4.20 to a low of 4.20 for
Questions 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The project manager’s responses to Survey Questions
1, 2, and 3 range from a high of 5.00 to 4.00 to a low of 4.00 for Questions 1, 3, and 2,
respectively(Appendix O). The standard deviations of the means for the pilot team ranged
from a high of 1.32 to 1.15 to a low of 1.03 for Questions 3, 1, and 2, respectively. The
probability that the standard deviations would fall below the high standard deviation (s =
1.32) was 76.5% based on the probabilities for the standard normal distribution. Based on
the pilot team survey data, the mean responses to the three questions that formed the
independent variable of charisma differed by a score of less than 1. The difference in
score of less than 1 for Questions 1, 2, and 3 lends support to the validation of Questions
1, 2, and 3 as a means of collecting data on charisma.
87
Charisma
4.50 5.
00
1.14
5
4.20
4.00
1.03
3
4.20
5.00
1.31
7
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Mean - Team Score - PM SD-Team
Q01Q02Q03
Figure 2. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team
members for the charisma survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).
Pilot team survey correlations of leadership characteristics are shown in Appendix
Q. Appendix Q displays the Pearson correlation coefficient matrix between leadership
characteristic questions for the pilot team survey. The statistical significant level was set
at p< .05. The Pearson correlation measured the linear relationship between leadership
characteristic questions for the pilot survey. Questions 1 and 2 showed a strong positive
correlation coefficient r = 0.86, Questions 1 and 3 showed a strong positive correlation
coefficient r = 0.87, and Questions 2 and 3 showed a strong positive correlation
coefficient r = 0.84 (Appendix Q). Pilot team scatter plot matrix of correlation coefficient
is shown in Appendix R. The scatter plot shows the line of best fit and the 95%
confidence level intervals. Based on the examination of the means, standard deviations,
and correlations for Questions 1, 2, and 3 and the analysis of the similarities between
88
responses and correlations, the use of Questions 1, 2, and 3 in the collection of data on
the independent variable of charisma appeared to be supported.
Shared responsibility. Survey Questions 4, 5, and 6 were designed to collect data
on the independent variable of shared responsibility (Figure 3). The team members’ mean
responses to Survey Questions 4, 5, and 6 range from a high of 4.30 to 4.20 to a low of
3.60 for Questions 4, 5, and 6, respectively. The project manager’s responses to Survey
Questions 4, 5, and 6 is 4.00 for Questions 4, 5, and 6. The standard deviations of the
means for the pilot team ranged from a high of 1.63 to 1.17 to a low of 0.92 for Questions
4, 6, and 5, respectively. The probability that the standard deviations would fall below the
high standard deviation (s = 1.63) was 94.5% based on the probabilities for the standard
normal distribution. Based on the pilot team survey data, the mean responses to the three
questions that formed the independent variable of shared responsibility differed by a
score of less than 1. The difference in score of less than 1 for Questions 4, 5, and 6 lends
support to the validation of Questions 4, 5, and 6 as a means of collecting data on shared
responsibility.
89
Shared Responsibility
4.30
4.00
1.63
0
4.20
4.00
0.91
9
3.60 4.
00
1.17
4
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Mean - Team Score - PM SD-Team
Q04Q05Q06
Figure 3. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team
members for the shared responsibility survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).
Questions 4 and 5 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.91,
Questions 4 and 6 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.68, and Questions 5 and
6 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.59 (Appendix Q). A scatter plot matrix
of the correlation coefficients is shown in Appendix R. The scatter plot shows the line of
best fit and the 95% confidence level intervals. Based on the examination of the means,
standard deviations, and correlations for Questions 4, 5, and 6 and the analysis of the
similarities between responses and correlations, the use of Questions 4, 5, and 6 in the
collection of data on the independent variable of shared responsibility appeared to be
supported.
Continuous development. Survey Questions 7, 8, and 9 were designed to collect
data on the independent variable of continuous development (Figure 4). The team
90
members’ mean responses to Survey Questions 7, 8, and 9 range from a high of 4.50 to
4.00 to a low of 3.90 for Questions 8, 7, and 9, respectively. The project manager’s
responses to Survey Questions 7, 8, and 9 range from a high of 5.00 to 4.00 to a low of
4.00 for Questions 8, 7, and 9, respectively. The standard deviations of the means for the
pilot team ranged from a high of 1.20 to 0.82 to a low of 0.71 for Questions 9, 7, and 8,
respectively. The probability that the standard deviations would fall below the high
standard deviation (s = 1.20) was 69.6% based on the probabilities for the standard
normal distribution. Based on the pilot team survey data, the mean responses to the three
questions that formed the independent variable of continuous development differed by a
score of less than 1. The difference in score of less than 1 for the three questions lends
support to the validation of Questions 7, 8, and 9 as a means of collecting data on
continuous development.
Continuous Development
4.00
4.00
1.13
8
4.50 5.
00
0.70
7
3.90 4.00
1.19
7
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Mean - Team Score - PM SD-Team
Q07Q08Q09
Figure 4. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team
members for continuous development survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).
91
Questions 7 and 8 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.56, Questions 7
and 9 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.57, and Questions 8 and 9 showed a
strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.84 (Appendix Q). A scatter plot matrix of the
correlation coefficients is shown in Appendix R. The scatter plot shows the line of best fit
and the 95% confidence level intervals. Based on the examination of the means, standard
deviations, and correlations for Questions 7, 8, and 9 and the analysis of the similarities
between responses and correlations, Questions 7, 8, and 9 appeared to support the
questions’ use in the collection of data on the independent variable of continuous
development.
Common vision. Survey Questions 10, 11, and 12 were designed to collect data on
the independent variable of common vision (Figure 5). The team members’ mean
responses to Survey Questions 10, 11, and 12 range from a high of 4.60 to 4.20 to a low
of 4.10 for Questions 11, 12, and 10 respectively. The project manager’s responses to
Survey Questions 10, 11, and 12 range from a high of 5.00 to 4.00 to a low of 4.00 for
Questions 12, 11, and 10, respectively. The standard deviations of the means for the pilot
team ranged from a high of 1.71 to 0.92 to a low of 0.70 for Questions 10, 12, and 11,
respectively. The probability that the standard deviations would fall below the high
standard deviation (s = 1.71) was 98.6% based on the probabilities for the standard
normal distribution. Based on the pilot team survey data, the mean responses to
Questions 10, 11, and 12 that formed the independent variable of common vision differed
by a score of less than 1. The difference in score of less than 1 for the three questions
lends support to the validation of Questions 10, 11, and 12 as a means of collecting data
on common vision.
92
Common Vision
4.10
4.00
1.71
4
4.60
4.00
0.69
9
4.20
5.00
0.91
9
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Mean - Team Score - PM SD-Team
Q10Q11Q12
Figure 5. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team
members for common vision development survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).
Questions 10 and 11 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.79,
Questions 10 and 12 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.30, and Questions 11
and 12 showed a neutral positive correlation coefficient r = 0.81 (Appendix Q). A scatter
plot matrix of the correlation coefficients is shown in Appendix R. The scatter plot shows
the line of best fit and the 95% confidence level intervals. Based on the examination of
the means, standard deviations and the correlations for Questions 10, 11, and 12, and the
analysis of the similarities between responses and correlations, the use of Questions 10,
11, and 12 appeared to be supported in the collection of data on the independent variable
of common vision.
Mutual influence relationships. Survey Questions 13, 14, and 15 were designed to
collect data on the independent variable of mutual influence relationships (Figure 6). The
93
team members’ mean responses to Survey Questions 13, 14, and 15 range from a high of
4.10 to 4.00 to a low of 4.00 for Questions 14, 15, and 13, respectively. The project
manager’s responses to Survey Questions 13, 14, and 15 range from a high of 4.00 to
3.00 to a low of 3.00 for Questions 14, 13, and 15, respectively. The standard deviations
of the means for the pilot team ranged from a high of 1.47 to 1.41 to a low of 1.10 for
Questions 14, 13, and 15, respectively. The probability that the standard deviations would
fall below the high standard deviation (s = 1.47) was 85.2% based on the probabilities for
the standard normal distribution. Based on the pilot team survey data, the mean responses
to Questions 13, 14, and 15 that formed the independent variable of mutual influence
relationships differed by a score of less than 1. The difference in score of less than 1 for
Questions 13, 14, and 15 lends support to the validation of Questions 13, 14, and 15 as a
means of collecting data on mutual influence relationships.
Mutual Influence Relationships
4.00
3.00
1.47
2
4.10
4.00
1.44
9
4.10
3.00
1.10
1
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Mean - Team Score - PM SD-Team
Q13Q14Q15
Figure 6. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team
members for mutual influence relationships survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).
94
Questions 13 and 14 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.90,
Questions 13 and 15 showed a slightly strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.73,
and Questions 14 and 15 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.60 (Appendix Q).
A scatter plot matrix of the correlation coefficients is shown in Appendix R. The scatter
plot shows the line of best fit and the 95% confidence level intervals. Based on the
examination of the means, standard deviations, and correlations for Questions 13, 14, and
15 and the analysis of the similarities between responses and correlations, the use of
Questions 13, 14, and 15 in the collection of data on the independent variable of mutual
influence relationships appeared to be supported.
Group interests. Survey Questions 16, 17, and 18 were designed to collect data on
the independent variable of group interests (Figure 7). The team members’ mean
responses to Survey Questions 16, 17, and 18 range from a high of 4.20 to 4.00 to a low
of 4.00 for Questions 18, 16, and 17, respectively. The standard deviations of the means
for the pilot team ranged from a high of 1.25 to 1.06 to a low of 0.79 for Questions 17,
16, and 18, respectively. The probability that the standard deviations would fall below the
high standard deviation (s = 1.25) was 72.5% based on the probabilities for the standard
normal distribution. Based on the pilot team survey data, the mean responses to
Questions 16, 17, and 18 that formed the independent variable of group interests differed
by a score of less than 1. The difference in score of less than 1 for the three questions
lends support to the validation of Questions 16, 17, and 18 as a means of collecting data
on group interests.
95
Group Interests
4.00
4.00
1.05
8
4.00
4.00
1.24
7
4.20
4.00
0.78
9
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Mean - Team Score - PM SD-Team
Q16Q17Q18
Figure 7. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team
members for the group interests survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).
Questions 16 and 17 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.28, Questions
16 and 18 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.60, and Questions 17 and 18
showed a slightly strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.68 (Appendix Q). A scatter
plot matrix of the correlation coefficients is shown in Appendix R. The scatter plot shows
the line of best fit and the 95% confidence level intervals. Based on the examination of
the means, standard deviations, and correlations for Questions 16, 17, and 18, and the
analysis of the similarities between responses and correlations, the use of Questions 16,
17, and 18 in the collection of data on the independent variable of group interests
appeared to be supported.
Risk taking. Survey Questions 19, 20, and 21 were designed to collect data on the
independent variable of risk taking (Figure 8). The team members’ mean responses to
96
Survey Questions 19, 20, and 21 range from a high of 4.60 to 4.30 to a low of 4.10 for
Questions 19, 20, and 21, respectively. The standard deviations of the means for the pilot
team ranged from a high of 1.70 to 0.95 to a low of 0.52 for Questions 19, 21, and 20,
respectively. The probability that the standard deviations would fall below the high
standard deviation (s = 1.70) was 98% based on the probabilities for the standard normal
distribution. Based on the pilot team survey data, the mean responses to the three
questions that formed the independent variable of risk taking differed by a score of less
than 1. The difference in scores of less than 1 for Questions 19, 20, and 21 lends support
to the validation of Questions 19, 20, and 21 as a means of collecting data on risk taking.
Risk Taking
4.10
4.00
1.70
1
4.60
4.00
0.51
6
4.30
4.00
0.94
9
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Mean - Team Score - PM SD-Team
Q19Q20Q21
Figure 8. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team
members for the risk taking survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).
Questions 19 and 20 showed a negative neutral correlation coefficient r = -0.08,
Questions 19 and 21 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.30, and Questions 20
97
and 21 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.71 (Appendix Q). A scatter
plot matrix of the correlation coefficients is shown in Appendix R. The scatter plot shows
the line of best fit and the 95% confidence level intervals. Based on the examination of
the means, standard deviations, and correlations for Questions 19, 20, and 21, and the
analysis of the similarities between responses and correlations, the use of Questions 19,
20, and 21 in the collection of data on the independent variable of risk taking appeared to
be supported.
Collaboration. Survey Questions 22, 23, and 24 were designed to collect data on
the independent variable of collaboration (Figure 9). The team members’ mean responses
to Survey Questions 22, 23, and 24 range from a high of 4.70 to 4.40 to a low of 3.90 for
Questions 23, 22, and 24, respectively. The project manager’s responses to Survey
Questions 22, 23, and 24 range from a high of 5.00 to 4.00 to a low of 4.00 for Questions
24, 22, and 23, respectively. The standard deviations of the means for the pilot team
ranged from a high of 1.45 to 1.37 to a low of 0.68 for Questions 24, 22, and 23,
respectively. The probability that the standard deviations would fall below the high
standard deviation (s = 1.45) was 84.1% based on the probabilities for the standard
normal distribution. Based on the pilot team survey data, the mean responses to
Questions 22, 23, and 24 that formed the independent variable of collaboration differed
by a score of less than 1. The difference in score of less than 1 for Questions 22, 23, and
24 lend support to the validation of Questions 22, 23, and 24 as a means of collecting
data on collaboration.
98
Collaboration
4.40
4.00
1.37
0
4.70
4.00
0.67
5
3.90
5.00
1.44
9
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Mean - Team Score - PM SD-Team
Q22Q23Q24
Figure 9. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team
members for the collaboration survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).
Questions 22 and 23 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.88,
Questions 23 and 24 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.76, and
Questions 23 and 24 also showed a slightly strong positive correlation coefficient r =
0.73 (Appendix Q). A scatter plot matrix of the correlation coefficients is shown in
Appendix R. The scatter plot shows the line of best fit and the 95% confidence level
intervals. Based on the examination of the means, standard deviations, and correlations
for Questions 22, 23, and 24, as well as the analysis of the similarities between responses
and correlations, the use of Questions 22, 23, and 24 in the collection of data on the
independent variable of collaboration appeared to be supported.
Empowerment. Survey Questions 25, 26, and 27 were designed to collect data on
the independent variable of empowerment (Figure 10). The team members’ mean
99
responses to Survey Questions 25, 26, and 27 range from a high of 4.40 to 4.20 to a low
of 3.90 for Questions 27, 25, and 26, respectively. The standard deviations of the means
for the pilot team ranged from a high of 1.17 to 0.99 to a low of 0.70 for Questions 25,
26, and 27, respectively. The probability that the standard deviations would fall below the
high standard deviation (s = 1.17) was 67.8% based on the probabilities for the standard
normal distribution. Based on the pilot team survey data, the mean responses to the three
questions that formed the independent variable of empowerment differed by a score of
less than 1. The difference in score of less than 1 for Questions 25, 26, and 27 lends
support to the validation of Questions 25, 26, and 27 as a means of collecting data on
empowerment.
Empowerment
4.20
4.00
1.17
1
3.90 4.00
0.99
4
4.40
4.00
0.69
9
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Mean - Team Score - PM SD-Team
Q25Q26Q27
Figure 10. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team
members for the empowerment survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).
100
Questions 25 and 26 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.87,
Questions 25 and 27 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.39, and Questions 26
and 27 showed a slightly higher positive correlation coefficient r = 0.53 (Appendix Q). A
scatter plot matrix of the correlation coefficients is shown in Appendix R. The scatter plot
shows the line of best fit and the 95% confidence level intervals. Based on the
examination of the means, standard deviations, and correlations for Questions 25, 26, and
27, and the analysis of the similarities between responses and correlations, the use of
Questions 25, 26, and 27 in the collection of data on the independent variable of
empowerment appeared to be supported.
The triangulation of the responses using three separate questions for each variable
lessened the effect of any variation in the correlations between the variables. The scatter
plots for all characteristics show the line of best fit and the 95% confidence level
intervals (Appendix R). The correlations between all questions that make up the various
leadership characteristics in the study indicated that a change in one question might affect
a change in the other question.
Individual Project Team Studies
The teams that participated in the study consisted of employees and project
managers from organizations in the construction industry in the southeastern United
States whose functions include architecture and interior design, engineering, construction
management, program management, facility management, general contracting,
administrative support, information technology/CAD support, financial services, and
other consultants in the construction industry. This section summarizes three components
of the data collected from each individual team: (a) basic demographic information of the
101
team, (b) a summary of the project manager and team member survey, and (c) a summary
of the survey responses describing means and standard deviations for each of the nine
leadership characteristics. For the purposes of the study analysis, a difference in mean
score in the project manager and team surveys of 0.00 to 0.19 is characterized as no
difference, a difference in mean score of 0.20 to 0.49 is characterized as slightly lower or
higher difference, a difference in mean score of 0.50 to 0.99 is characterized as lower or
higher difference, and a difference in mean score of 1.00 or greater is characterized as
significantly lower or higher difference.
Team B
Team B consisted of 7 participants (n = 7), with 1 member not disclosing
demographic information. The team had a range of number of years in service of 10-19
years (x̄ = 12.83), with a standard deviation of 7.53 (s = 7.527). The years of service
ranged from 0 years to 29 years, with 1 member not disclosing years of service. The
mean range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x̄ = 46.17) with a standard
deviation of 9.83 (s = 9.832). The team participants were comprised of 6 females (86%)
and 1 respondent (14%) not disclosing gender. The team participants were comprised of 3
Caucasians (43%) and 3 African Americans (43%), with 1 respondent (14%) not
disclosing race. The participants reported their professions as administrative support staff
(86%), with 1 respondent (14%) not disclosing profession. Four participants (57.14%)
reported company size range from 500 to 1,000 people, 1 participant (14.29%) reported
company size range from 400 to 499 people, 1 participant (14.29%) reported company
size range 1,000 and above, with 1 respondent not disclosing company size.
102
Table 2 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team B survey question responses.
Mean, standard error of the mean, standard deviation, variance, kurtosis, and skewness
are shown in the descriptive table. Note that the closer the values of kurtosis and
skewness are, the closer the responses are to a normal distribution (Creswell, 2005).
Positive kurtosis values indicate a pointy distribution, and negative values indicate a flat
distribution. Positive skewness values indicate the mode is on the right side of the
distribution, and negative skewness values indicate the mode is on the left side of the
distribution. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team
members, mutual influence relationships, and group interests appear to be the most
normally distributed leadership characteristics while risk taking and empowerment
appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics for the project
manager (see Table 2).
103
Table 2
Team B Leadership Descriptive (n = 7)
Independent variables
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
SE
Team
SE
PM
SD
Team
SD
PM
Variance
Team
Variance
PM
Kurtosis
Team
Skew
Team
Skew
PMa
Charisma 4.22 4.00 0.30 0.00 1.27 0.00 1.69 0.00 1.68 -1.65 *
Shared responsibility 3.89 3.67 0.33 0.33 1.41 0.58 1.99 0.33 -0.05 -1.06 -1.73
Continuous development 3.56 4.00 0.31 0.00 1.29 0.00 1.67 0.00 -1.01 -0.32 *
Common vision 4.06 4.00 0.32 0.00 1.35 0.00 1.82 0.00 1.09 -1.41 *
Mutual influence relationships 3.61 3.33 0.33 0.33 1.38 0.58 1.90 0.33 -0.61 -0.72 1.73
Group interests 3.61 4.33 0.34 0.67 1.46 1.16 2.13 1.33 -0.50 -0.88 -1.73
Risk taking 4.00 3.33 0.30 0.67 1.28 1.16 1.65 1.33 1.70 -1.50 -1.73
Collaboration 4.00 4.00 0.30 0.58 1.28 1.00 1.65 1.00 1.70 -1.50 0.00
Empowerment 3.83 3.33 0.34 0.67 1.43 1.16 2.03 1.33 0.60 -1.32 -1.73
Note. PM = project manager.
a The * is printed if a value cannot be computed.
104
The results reported in Table 2 for team members correspond with the overall
results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean score for all characteristics
were the same as the combined mean score for all characteristics in the team survey. The
mean scores for common vision, risk taking, and empowerment for Team B’s project
manager were lower than the combined project manager mean scores by 0.63, 0.71, and
0.69 respectively. The remaining mean scores for Team B’s project manager were similar
to the combined project manager mean scores, with the exception of group interests,
which is slightly higher for the same characteristic (Figure 11).
Team B - Leadership Survey
4.22
3.89
3.56
4.06
3.61
3.61
4.00
4.00
3.83
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Figure 11. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team B (n = 7).
In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team B, the
mean score for group interests for Team B’s project manager was slightly higher than the
mean score for the project team for Team B for the same characteristic by 0.28. The
remaining mean scores for Team B’s project manager were lower than the mean scores
105
for the project team members for Team B, with the exception of risk taking and
empowerment, which were higher for the project team than project manager for Team B
for the same characteristics by 0.67 and 0.50 respectively (Figure 12). 4.
22
3.89
3.56
4.06
3.61
3.61
4.00
4.00
3.834.
00
3.67
4.00
4.00
3.33
4.33
3.33
4.00
3.33
2.50
3.50
4.50
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Team B - Team Survey Team B - PM Survey
Figure 12. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
B (n = 7).
The team performance score for Team B was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks
among the highest team performance scores. Figure 13 presents a comparison of the
project manager and team member responses to the performance surveys. The two
characteristics that are significantly higher in the project manager survey than in the team
member survey were collaboration and charisma. In other teams with high performance
scores, the leadership characteristics of mutual influence relationships, group interest,
risk-taking, collaboration, and enabling were all greater than the mean score for the same
characteristics in project manager and in the team member results. The results indicated
106
that Team B’s project manager might be more interested in the interteam relationships
than performance.
Team B - Performance Survey4.
22
3.89
3.56
4.06
3.61
3.61
4.00
4.00
3.83
4.16
4.03
3.80
4.15
3.89 3.
96 4.02 4.04
3.99
4.00
3.67
4.00
4.00
3.33
4.33
3.33
4.00
3.33
4.29
4.08
4.08
4.00
4.00 4.
17
4.08
4.46
4.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Vis
ion
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Ris
k Ta
king
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Combined Mean - High-Performing TeamsMean - PM Combined Mean - High-Performing PM
Figure 13. Comparison of project manager and team member performance survey
responses for Team B (n = 7).
Team C
Team C consisted of 8 participants (n = 8), with 1 individual not disclosing
demographic information. The team had a mean range number of years of service of 0-9
years (x̄ = 6.17), with a standard deviation of 4.08 (s = 4.082). The years of service
ranged from 0 years to 29 years, with 1 member not disclosing years of service. The
mean range of age of the team members was 30-39 years (x̄ = 39.5) with a standard
deviation of 5.48 (s = 5.477). The team participants consisted of 4 males (50.00%) and 3
females (37.50%), with 1 member not disclosing gender (12.50%). The team participants
107
were comprised of 7 African Americans (87.50%), with 1 member not disclosing race
(12.50%). The participants reported profession as general contractors (50.00%),
administrative support staff (12.50%), and others (25.00%), with 1 member not
disclosing profession (12.50%). Two participants (25.00%) reported company size range
from 1 to 99 people, 2 individuals (25.00%) reported company size from 100 to 199
people, and 1 individual (12.50%) reported company size range from 200 to 299 people.
One individual (12.50%) reported company size range from 500 to 1,000 people and 1
individual (12.50%) reported company size range 1,000 people and above people, with 1
individual (12.50%) not disclosing company size information.
Table 3 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team C survey question responses.
Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for the team survey, risk
taking and continuous development appear to be the most normally distributed leadership
characteristics while common vision appear to be the most normally distributed
leadership characteristics for the project manager. The results reported in Table 3 for
team members correspond with the combined results of the data collected, with some
exceptions. The mean score for charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development,
common vision, mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk taking, collaboration,
and empowerment for Team C were higher than the combined mean scores. The mean
score for charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision,
mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk taking, collaboration, and
empowerment for Team C were also slightly higher than the combined mean score for the
project managers (Figure 14).
108
Table 3
Team C Leadership Descriptive
Independent variables
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
SE
Team
SE
PM
SD
Team
SD
PM
Variance
Team
Variance
PM
Kurtosis
Team
Skew
Team
Skew
PMa
Charisma 4.43 5.00 0.11 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.26 0.00 -2.12 0.31 *
Shared responsibility 4.43 5.00 0.11 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.26 0.00 -2.12 0.31 *
Continuous development 4.48 5.00 0.13 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.36 0.00 -0.39 -0.66 *
Common vision 4.62 4.67 0.11 0.33 0.50 0.58 0.25 0.33 -1.91 -0.53 -1.73
Mutual influence relationships 4.47 5.00 0.18 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.66 0.00 3.22 -1.76 *
Group interests 4.43 5.00 0.16 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.56 0.00 4.38 -1.73 *
Risk taking 4.33 4.67 0.14 0.33 0.66 0.58 0.43 0.33 -0.55 -0.47 -1.73
Collaboration 4.43 4.67 0.18 0.33 0.81 0.58 0.66 0.33 2.82 -1.61 -1.73
Empowerment 4.38 4.67 0.18 0.33 0.81 0.58 0.65 0.33 2.54 -1.48 -1.73
Note. PM = project manager.
a A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.
109
Team C - Leadership Survey
4.43
4.43 4.48
4.62
4.48
4.43
4.33 4.
43
4.38
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Figure 14. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team C (n = 8).
In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team C, the
mean scores for charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common
vision, and group interests for Team C project manager were higher than the mean scores
for the project team for Team C for the same characteristics by 0.57, 0.57, 0.52, 0.53, and
0.57 respectively. The mean scores for risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment for
Team C project manager were slightly higher than the mean scores for the project team
members for the same characteristics by 0.24 (Figure 15).
110
4.43
4.43 4.
48
4.62
4.48
4.43
4.33 4.
43
4.38
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.67
5.00
5.00
4.67
4.67
4.67
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
5.00
5.20
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Mean - PM
Figure 15. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
C (n = 8).
The team performance score for Team C was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks
among the high-performing team scores. Figure 16 presents a comparison of the project
manager and team members’ mean scores for Team C and the combined mean scores for
high-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager and team
member surveys and the performance report, mean scores for all characteristics were
higher in the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all high-
performing teams with the exception of mutual influence relationship which is
significantly higher by 1.00. The characteristic of collaboration has similar mean score as
the combined mean score for the same characteristics in the project manager surveys.
Continuous development, and mutual influence had higher mean scores in the project
111
team survey than the combined mean scores for the same characteristics in high-
performing teams (Figure 16). The results indicate that Team C members’ perception of
the project manager’s leadership style may be less favorable than the project manager’s
perception of leadership style.
Team C - Performance Survey
4.43
4.43 4.48 4.
62
4.47
4.43
4.33 4.
43
4.38
4.16
4.03
3.80
4.15
3.89 3.
96 4.02 4.04
3.99
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.67
5.00
5.00
4.67
4.67
4.67
4.29
4.08
4.08
4.00
4.00 4.
17
4.08
4.46
4.00
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Vis
ion
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Ris
k Ta
king
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Combined Mean - High-Performing TeamsMean - PM Combined Mean - High-Performing PM
Figure 16. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team C (n
= 8) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams..
Team D
Team D consisted of 6 participants (n = 6), with 2 individuals not disclosing
demographic information. The team had a mean range number of years of service of 10-
19 years (x̄ = 14.50), with a standard deviation of 8.17 (s = 8.165). The years of service
ranged from 0 to 29 years, with 2 individuals not disclosing years of service. The mean
range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x̄ = 44.50) with a standard deviation
112
of 14.14 (s = 14.142). The team participants consisted of 4 males (66.67%), with 2
individuals (33.33%) not disclosing gender. The team participants consisted of 4
Caucasians (66.67%), with 2 individuals (33.33%) not disclosing race. Four participants
(66.67%) reported profession as engineer, with 2 individuals (33.33%) not disclosing
profession. Two individuals (33.33%) reported company size range as 1,000 and above, 1
individual (16.67%) reported company size range from 400 to 499 people, with 3
individuals (50.00%) not disclosing company size.
Table 4 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team D survey question responses.
Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members,
common vision appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics
(Table 4). The results reported in Table 4 for team members correspond with the overall
results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean scores for group interests,
and empowerment were similar to the combined mean score for the same characteristics.
The mean scores for the remaining characteristics for Team D project team were lower
than the combined mean scores for the same characteristics (Figure 17). The mean scores
for charisma and shared responsibility for Team D’s project manager were significantly
lower than the combined mean scores for the same characteristics by 1.55 and 1.88
respectively. The mean scores for, common vision, risk taking, collaboration, and
empowerment for Team D’s project manager were lower than the combined mean scores
for the same characteristics by 0.63, 0.71, 0.85, and 0.69. The mean scores for continuous
development, mutual influence relationships, and group interests for Team Ds project
manager were similar to the combined mean scores for the same characteristics (Figure
17).
113
Table 4
Team D Leadership Descriptive
Independent variables
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
SE
Team
SE
PM
SD
Team
SD
PM
Variance
Team
Variance
PM
Kurtosis
Team
Skew
Team
Skew
PMa
Charisma 3.60 2.67 0.21 0.67 0.83 1.16 0.69 1.33 -0.22 0.07 1.73
Shared responsibility 3.07 2.00 0.18 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.50 0.00 -0.67 -0.09 *
Continuous development 2.73 4.00 0.21 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.64 0.00 -1.13 0.56 *
Common vision 3.47 4.00 0.24 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.84 0.00 -0.61 -0.53 *
Mutual influence relationships 3.20 3.33 0.18 0.67 0.68 1.16 0.46 1.33 -0.51 -0.26 -1.73
Group interests 3.80 4.00 0.22 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.74 0.00 1.80 1.21 *
Risk taking 3.53 3.33 0.19 0.67 0.74 1.16 0.55 1.33 0.18 -0.13 -1.73
Collaboration 3.40 3.33 0.19 0.67 0.74 1.16 0.54 1.33 -0.47 -0.84 -1.73
Empowerment 3.67 3.33 0.16 1.20 0.62 2.08 0.38 4.33 -0.40 0.31 -1.29
Note. PM = project manager.
a A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.
114
Team D - Leadership Survey
4.43
4.43 4.48 4.
62
4.48
4.43
4.33 4.
43
4.38
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
upIn
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Figure 17. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team D (n = 6).
In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team D, the
mean score for continuous development for Team Ds project manager was significantly
higher than the mean score for the project team for Team D for the same characteristic by
1.27. The mean score for mutual influence for Team Ds project manager was higher than
the mean score for the project team for Team D for the same characteristic by 0.53. The
remaining mean scores for Team D’s project manager were similar to the mean scores for
project team members for Team D, with the exception of charisma, and shared
responsibility, which were significantly lower than the mean scores for project team
members for Team D for the same characteristics by 0.93, and 1.07 (Figure 18).
115
4.43
4.43 4.
48
4.62
4.48
4.43
4.33 4.
43
4.38
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.67
5.00
5.00
4.67
4.67
4.67
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
5.00
5.20
Cha
rism
a
Shar
ed R
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Mean - PM
Figure 18. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
D (n = 6).
The team performance score for Team D was -1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks
among the bottom-performing teams. Figure 19 presents a comparison of the project
manager and team members’ mean scores for Team D and the combined mean scores for
bottom-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager, team
member surveys and the performance report, mean scores for mutual influence
relationships, risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment characteristics were lower in
the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all bottom-performing
teams. The characteristics of charisma, and shared responsibility were significantly lower
by 1.22 and 1.33 respectively. The characteristics of continuous development, common
vision, and group interests had similar mean scores as the combined mean scores for the
116
same characteristics in the project manager surveys. Continuous development and mutual
influence had higher mean scores in the project team survey than the combined mean
scores for the same characteristics in high-performing teams. The results indicated Team
D members’ perception of the project manager’s leadership style might be less favorable
than the project manager’s perception of leadership style.
Team D - Performance Survey
3.60
3.07
2.73
3.47
3.20
3.80
3.53
3.40
3.67
4.00
3.66
3.55
3.85
3.65 3.73
3.58 3.
75
3.66
2.67
2.00
4.00
4.00
3.33
4.00
3.33
3.33
3.33
3.89
3.33
3.89
4.22
4.00 4.
22
3.89 4.
11
4.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Vis
ion
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Ris
k Ta
king
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Combined Mean - Bottom-Performing TeamsMean - PM Combined Mean - Bottom-Performing PM
Figure 19. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team D (n
= 6) and the combined mean scores for bottom-performing teams.
Team E
Team E consisted of 6 participants (n = 6), with 1 individual not disclosing
demographics. The team had a mean range number of years of service of 30-39 years (x̄
= 38.50), with a standard deviation of 13.42 (s = 13.416). The years of service ranged
from 0 to 29 years, with 1 individual not disclosing years of service. The mean range of
117
age of the team members was 10-19 years (x̄ = 10.50) with a standard deviation of 8.94
(s = 8.944). The team participants were comprised of 1 male (16.67%) and 4 females
(66.67%), with 1 individual (16.67%) not disclosing gender. The team participants
consisted of 4 Caucasians (66.67%) and 1 African American (16.67%), with 1 individual
16.67% not disclosing race. Three participants reported profession as architect/interior
designer (50.00%), 1 individual reported profession as construction manager (16.67%),
and 1 individual (16.675%) reported professional as other consultant, with one individual
(16.67%) not disclosing profession. One participant (16.67%) reported company size
range from 300 to 399 people, 2 individuals (33.33%) reported company size range from
500 to 1,000 people, 2 individuals (33.33%) reported company size range 1,000 people
and above, with 1 individual (16.67%) not disclosing company size.
Table 5 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team E survey question responses.
Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members, risk
taking, group interests, and empowerment appear to be the most normally distributed
leadership characteristics while shared responsibility, continuous development, and
mutual influence relationships appear to be the most normally distributed leadership
characteristics for the project manager (Table 5). The results reported in Table 5 for team
members correspond with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions.
The mean scores for shared responsibility, continuous development, and risk
taking were slightly higher in the combined results than Team E results for the same
characteristics by 0.34, 0.21, and 0.22 respectively. The mean scores for the remaining
characteristics for Team E were similar to the combined mean scores for the same
characteristics The mean scores for charisma, common vision, risk taking, and
118
empowerment for Team E project manager were higher than the combined mean scores
for the same characteristics by 0.45, 0.71, 0.63 and 0.65 respectively. The remaining
mean scores for Team E project manager were lower than the combined mean scores for
the same characteristics with the exception of shared responsibility, which is similar
(Figure 21).
119
Table 5
Team E Leadership Descriptive
Independent variables
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
SE
Team
SE
PM
SD
Team
SD
PM
Variance
Team
Variance
PM
Kurtosis
Team
Skew
Team
Skew
PM
Charisma 4.07 4.67 0.27 0.33 1.03 0.578 1.07 0.33 0.32 -1.05 -1.73
Shared responsibility 3.53 4.00 0.25 0.58 0.83 1.00 0.70 1.00 -0.04 -0.55 0.00
Continuous development 3.47 3.33 0.27 1.20 1.06 2.08 1.12 4.33 -1.07 0.10 -1.29
Common vision 3.87 3.67 0.24 0.33 0.92 0.58 0.84 0.33 0.89 -1.00 -1.73
Mutual influence relationships 3.67 4.67 0.29 0.33 1.11 0.58 1.24 0.33 -1.16 -0.31 -1.73
Group interests 3.80 3.67 0.26 0.33 1.01 0.58 1.03 0.33 -0.60 -0.49 -1.73
Risk taking 3.67 4.67 0.27 0.33 1.05 0.58 1.10 0.33 -0.74 -0.51 -1.73
Collaboration 3.93 4.33 0.18 0.33 0.70 0.58 0.50 0.33 -0.67 0.09 1.73
Empowerment 3.67 4.67 0.21 0.33 0.82 0.58 0.67 0.33 -0.03 -0.17 -1.73
Note. PM = project manager.
120
Team E - Leadership Survey
4.07
3.53
3.47
3.87
3.67
3.80
3.67
3.93
3.67
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Figure 20. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team E (n = 6).
In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team E, the
mean scores for mutual influence relationships, risk taking, and empowerment for Team
E’s project manager were significantly higher than the mean scores for the project team
for Team E for the same characteristics by 1.00,. The remaining mean scores for Team
E’s project manager were similar to the mean scores for project team members for Team
E, with the exception of charisma, shared responsibility, and collaboration, which were
slightly higher than the mean scores for project team members for Team E for the same
characteristics by 0.60, 0.47 and 0.40 (Figure 21).
121
4.07
3.53
3.47
3.87
3.67
3.80
3.67
3.93
3.67
4.67
4.00
3.33
3.67
4.67
3.67
4.67
4.33
4.67
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
Cha
rism
a
Shar
ed R
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Mean - PM
Figure 21. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
E (n = 6).
The team performance score for Team E was 1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks
among the middle-performing teams. Figure 22 presents a comparison of the project
manager’s and team members’ mean scores for Team E and the combined mean scores
for middle-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager, team
member surveys and the performance report for Team E, the mean scores for mutual
influence relationships, risk taking, and empowerment were higher in the project manager
survey than the combined mean scores for all middle-performing teams for the same
characteristics by 0.84, 0.50 and 0.50 respectively. The characteristics of charisma, and
collaboration were slightly higher by 0.39 and 0.33 respectively. The characteristics of
122
continuous development, and common vision had slightly lower mean scores when
compared to the combined mean scores for the same characteristics in the project
manager surveys. Shared responsibility and group interests had similar mean scores in
both the project manager and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams.
The mean scores for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team E had similar
scores with the combined mean scores for all middle-performing teams with the
exception of shared responsibility, which is slightly lower in Team E’s survey by 0.25
The results indicate that Team E members’ perception of the project manager’s
leadership style may be less favorable than the project manager’s perception of leadership
style.
Team E - Performance Survey
4.07
3.53
3.47
3.87
3.67 3.
80
3.67
3.93
3.67
4.16
3.78
3.59
3.86
3.64
3.86
3.87
3.88
3.78
4.67
4.00
3.33
3.67
4.67
3.67
4.67
4.33
4.67
4.28
4.00
3.78 3.
89
3.83
3.72
4.17
4.00 4.
17
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Vis
ion
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Ris
k Ta
king
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Combined Mean - Middle-Performing TeamsMean - PM Combined Mean - Middle-Performing PM
Figure 22. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team E (n
= 6) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams.
123
Team F
Team F consisted of 7 participants (n = 7). The team had a mean range number of
years of service of 10-19 years (x̄ = 17.36), with a standard deviation of 14.96 (s =
14.960). The years of service ranged from 0 to 40 years and above. The mean range of
age of the team members was 40-49 years (x̄ = 43.07), with a standard deviation of 12.15
(s = 12.149). The age of Team F ranged from 20 years to 69 years. The team participants
consisted of 6 males (85.71%) and 1 female (14.29%). The team participants consisted of
6 Caucasians (85.71%) and 1 African American (14.29%). Five participants (71.43%)
reported profession as engineer, 1 participant (14.29%) reported profession as
architect/interior designer, and 1 participant (14.29%) reported profession as other
consultant. Three participants (42.86%) reported company size range from 500 to 1,000
people, and 4 participants (57.14%) reported company size range as 1,000 people and
above.
Table 6 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team F survey question responses.
Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members,
empowerment, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision, and
group interests appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics.
Shared responsibility, continuous development, mutual influence relationships, and
empowerment appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics for
Team F’s project manager (Table 6).
The results reported in Table 6 for team members correspond with the overall
results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean score for empowerment,
risk taking, and group interests for Team F was lower than the combined mean score for
124
the same characteristics by 0.80, 0.78, and 0.58, respectively. The remaining mean scores
for Team F were slightly lower than the total mean scores, with the exception of
continuous development, which is similar to the combined mean score for the same
characteristic. The mean score for all characteristics for Team F’s project manager was
slightly lower than or equal to the combined project manager mean score with the
exception of continuous development, which is lower than the combined project manager
mean score by 0.96 (Figure 23).
125
Table 6
Team F Leadership Descriptive
Independent variables
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
SE
Team
SE
PM
SD
Team
SD
PM
Variance
Team
Variance
PM
Kurtosis
Team
Skew
Team
Skew
PMa
Charisma 3.89 4.33 0.18 0.33 0.76 0.58 0.58 0.33 -1.12 0.20 1.73
Shared responsibility 3.39 3.67 0.27 0.33 1.15 0.58 1.31 0.33 -0.45 -0.36 -1.73
Continuous development 3.72 3.00 0.21 1.00 0.90 1.73 0.80 3.00 -0.12 -0.49 -1.73
Common vision 3.61 4.00 0.24 0.00 1.04 0.00 1.08 0.00 -0.81 -0.51 *
Mutual influence relationships 3.56 3.67 0.25 0.33 1.04 0.58 1.09 0.33 -1.07 0.01 -1.73
Group interests 3.28 4.00 0.28 0.00 1.18 0.00 1.39 0.00 -0.19 -0.61 *
Risk taking 3.11 3.67 0.21 0.33 0.90 0.58 0.81 0.33 0.06 -0.78 -1.73
Collaboration 3.56 4.33 0.32 0.33 1.34 0.58 1.79 0.33 0.20 -1.05 1.73
Empowerment 3.06 3.67 0.26 0.33 1.11 0.58 1.23 0.33 -0.38 -0.41 -1.73
Note. PM = project manager.
a A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.
126
3.89
3.39
3.72
3.61
3.56
3.28
3.11
3.56
3.06
4.33
3.67
3.00
4.00
3.67
4.00
3.67
4.33
3.67
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
Cha
rism
a
Shar
ed R
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Mean - PM
Figure 23. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team F (n = 7).
In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team F, the
mean scores for all characteristics for Team F’s project manager were higher than the
mean scores for the project team for Team F for the same characteristics, with the
exception of continuous development, which is lower than the mean score for project
team members for Team F by 0.72 for the same characteristics (Figure 24).
127
3.89
3.39
3.72
3.61
3.56
3.28
3.11
3.56
3.06
4.33
3.67
3.00
4.00
3.67
4.00
3.67
4.33
3.67
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
Cha
rism
a
Shar
ed R
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Mean - PM
Figure 24. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team
F (n = 7).
The team performance score for Team F was -1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks
among the bottom-performing teams. Figure 25 presents a comparison of the project
manager and team member mean scores for Team F and the combined mean scores for
bottom-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager, team
member surveys and the performance report for Team F, the mean scores for common
vision, mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk taking, and empowerment
were slightly lower in the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all
bottom-performing teams for the same characteristics. The characteristics of charisma,
shared responsibility, and collaboration were slightly higher by 0.44, 0.34, and 0.22
128
respectively. The characteristic of continuous development had a lower mean score when
compared to the combined mean scores for the same characteristic in the project manager
surveys. The mean scores for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team F
were lower when compared to the combined mean scores for all bottom-performing
teams. The results indicated Team F members’ perception of the project manager’s
leadership style and team performance slightly corresponds to the project manager’s
leadership style perception.
Team F - Performance Survey
3.89
3.39
3.72
3.61
3.56
3.28
3.11
3.56
3.06
4.00
3.66
3.55
3.85
3.65 3.
73
3.58 3.
75
3.66
4.33
3.67
3.00
4.00
3.67
4.00
3.67
4.33
3.67
3.89
3.33
3.89
4.22
4.00
4.22
3.89
4.11
4.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Vis
ion
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Ris
k Ta
king
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Combined Mean - Bottom-Performing TeamsMean - PM Combined Mean - Bottom-Performing PM
Figure 25. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team F (n
= 7) and the combined mean scores for bottom-performing teams.
Team G
Team G consisted of 8 participants (n = 8), with 2 individuals not disclosing
demographic information. The team had a mean range number of years of service of 20-
129
29 years (x̄ = 19.50), with a standard deviation of 10.49 (s = 10.488). The years of
service ranged from 0 years to 39 years, with 2 individuals (25.00%) not disclosing years
of service. The mean range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x̄ = 46.17),
with a standard deviation of 7.53 (s = 7.527). The age ranged from 30 to 59 years, with 2
individuals (25.00%) not disclosing age. The team participants consisted of 6 males
(75.00%), with two individuals not disclosing gender. The team participants consisted of
5 Caucasians (62.50%) and 1 Asian (12.50%), with 2 individuals (25.00%) not disclosing
age. Four participants (50.00%) reported profession as architect/interior designer and 2
participants (25.00%) reported profession as engineer, with 2 participants (25.00%) not
disclosing profession. One participant (12.50%) reported company size range from 200 to
299 people, 2 participants (25.00%) reported company size range from 300 to 399 people,
2 participants (25.00%) reported company size range from 500 to 1000 people, and 1
participant (12.50%) reported company size range from 1,000 people and above, with 2
participants (25.00%) not disclosing company size.
Table 7 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team G’s survey question
responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team
members, risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment appear to be the most normally
distributed leadership characteristics while charisma, common vision, mutual influence
relationships, and empowerment appear to be the most normally distributed leadership
characteristics for the project manager (Table 7). The results reported in Table 7 for team
members correspond with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions.
The mean scores for all characteristics for Team G project team survey were lower than
the combined mean scores for the same characteristics with the exception of continuous
130
development, mutual influence relationships, and common vision, which were similar to
the combined mean scores for project team for the same characteristics. The mean score
for all characteristics for Team G’s project manager was higher than the combined mean
score for the same characteristics with the exception of mutual influence relationships
which is similar to the mean score for combined project manager for the same
characteristic (Figure 26).
131
Table 7
Team G Leadership Descriptive
Independent variables
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
SE
Team
SE
PM
SD
Team
SD
PM
Variance
Team
Variance
PM
Kurtosis
Team
Skew
Team
Skew
PMa
Charisma 4.05 4.67 0.20 0.33 0.92 0.58 0.85 0.33 0.56 -0.95 -1.73
Shared responsibility 3.29 4.33 0.22 0.33 1.01 0.58 1.01 0.33 -0.82 0.33 1.73
Continuous development 3.76 4.33 0.21 0.33 0.94 0.58 0.89 0.33 2.42 -1.05 1.73
Common vision 3.91 4.00 0.14 0.33 0.63 0.58 0.39 0.33 -0.11 0.06 -1.73
Mutual influence relationships 3.91 4.67 0.17 0.33 0.77 0.58 0.59 0.33 -1.21 0.17 -1.73
Group interests 3.67 4.33 0.19 0.33 0.86 0.58 0.73 0.33 -0.72 0.22 1.73
Risk taking 3.76 4.33 0.19 0.33 0.89 0.58 0.79 0.33 -0.22 -0.43 1.73
Collaboration 3.57 5.00 0.19 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.78 0.00 -0.27 -0.49 *
Empowerment 3.57 4.67 0.19 0.33 0.87 0.58 0.78 0.33 -0.27 -0.50 -1.73
Note. PM = project manager.
a A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.
132
Team G - Leadership Survey
4.05
3.29
3.76
3.90
3.90
3.67 3.
76
3.57
3.57
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Figure 26. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team G (n = 8).
In a comparison of the project manager and team member responses for Team G,
the mean scores for all characteristics were higher for Team G’s project manager than the
mean scores for the project team for the same characteristics. The characteristics of
shared responsibility, and empowerment were significantly higher by 1.04, and 1.01,
respectively (Figure 27).
133
4.05
3.29
3.76
3.90
3.90
3.67 3.
76
3.57
3.57
4.67
4.33
4.33
4.00
4.67
4.33
4.33
5.00
4.67
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
5.00
5.20
Cha
rism
a
Shar
ed R
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Mean - PM
Figure 27. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
G (n = 7).
The team performance score for Team G was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks
among the high-performing teams. Figure 28 presents a comparison of the project
manager and team member mean scores for Team G and the combined mean scores for
high-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager, team
member surveys and the performance report for Team G, the mean scores for mutual
influence relationships, collaboration, and empowerment were higher in the project
manager survey than the combined mean scores for all high-performing teams for the
same characteristics by 0.67, 0.54, and 0.67 respectively. The characteristics of charisma,
shared responsibility, continuous development, and risk taking were slightly higher by
134
0.38, 0.25, 0.25, and 0.25 respectively. The characteristics of common vision, and group
interests had similar mean scores as the combined mean scores for the same
characteristics in the project manager surveys. The mean scores for all characteristics in
the project team survey for Team G were lower when compared to the combined mean
scores for all high-performing teams with the exception of mutual influence relationships,
which had similar mean scores. The results indicate the project manager for Team G
might not be interested in promoting interteam relationships, which may be affecting
team performance. The results indicated that Team G members’ perception of the project
manager’s leadership style and team performance might be less favorable than the project
manager’s perception of the project manager’s leadership style and team performance.
Team G - Performance Survey
4.05
3.29
3.76 3.
91
3.91
3.67 3.
76
3.57
3.57
4.16
4.03
3.80
4.15
3.89 3.96 4.02 4.04
3.99
4.67
4.33
4.33
4.00
4.67
4.33
4.33
5.00
4.67
4.29
4.08
4.08
4.00
4.00 4.
17
4.08
4.46
4.00
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Vis
ion
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Ris
k Ta
king
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Combined Mean - High-Performing TeamsMean - PM Combined Mean - High-Performing PM
Figure 28. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team G (n
= 8) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams.
135
Team H
Team H consisted of 9 participants (n = 9). The team had a mean range number of
years of service of 20-29 years (x̄ = 24.50), with a standard deviation of 11.18 (s =
11.180). The years of service ranged from 0 to 39 years. The mean range of age of the
team members was 40-49 years (x̄ = 46.72), with a standard deviation of 10.93 (s =
10.929). The age ranged from 20 to 69 years. The team participants consisted of 7 males
(77.78%) and 2 females (22.22%). The team participants were consisted of 8 Caucasians
(88.89%) and 1 Asian (11.11%). Two participants (22.22%) reported profession as
architect/interior designer, 4 participants (44.44%) reported profession as engineer, and 1
participant (11.11%) reported other consultant, with 2 participants (22.22%) not
disclosing profession. One participant (11.11%) reported company size range from 200 to
299 people, 4 participants (44.44%) reported company size range from 500 to 1,000
people, and 4 participants (44.44%) reported company size range from 1,000 people and
above.
Table 8 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team H’s survey question
responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team
members, charisma, continuous development, common vision, mutual influence
relationships, and collaboration appear to be the most normally distributed leadership
characteristics while continuous development and common vision appear to be the most
normally distributed leadership characteristics for the project manager (Table 8). The
results reported in Table 8 for team members correspond with the overall results of the
data collected, with some exceptions. The mean score for all characteristics for Team H
were higher than the combined mean score, with the exception of empowerment, which is
136
similar to the combined mean score for the same characteristic. The mean score for
continuous development for Team H’s project manager was slightly lower than the
combined mean score for same characteristic. The remaining mean scores for Team H’s
project manager were higher than the combined mean scores for the same characteristics
(Figure 29).
137
Table 8
Team H Leadership Descriptive
Independent variables
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
SE
Team
SE
PM
SD
Team
SD
PM
Variance
Team
Variance
PM
Kurtosis
Team
Skew
Team
Skew
PMa
Charisma 4.21 4.33 0.18 0.33 0.88 0.58 0.78 0.33 -0.04 -0.86 1.73
Shared responsibility 4.46 5.00 0.15 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.52 0.00 4.52 -1.74 *
Continuous development 3.79 3.67 0.21 0.88 1.02 1.53 1.04 2.33 -0.56 -0.62 -0.94
Common vision 4.29 4.67 0.14 0.33 0.69 0.58 0.48 0.33 -0.71 -0.46 -1.73
Mutual influence relationships 4.04 4.33 0.14 0.33 0.69 0.58 0.48 0.33 -0.71 -0.05 1.73
Group interests 4.04 4.33 0.20 0.67 1.00 1.16 1.00 1.33 0.08 -0.95 -1.73
Risk taking 4.21 5.00 0.16 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.61 0.00 1.41 -1.00 *
Collaboration 4.25 5.00 0.12 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.37 0.00 -0.35 -0.16 *
Empowerment 3.88 4.67 0.14 0.33 0.68 0.58 0.46 0.33 1.73 -0.75 -1.73
Note. PM = project manager.
a A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.
138
Team H - Leadership Survey
4.21
4.46
3.79
4.29
4.04
4.04
4.21 4.25
3.88
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
5.00
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Figure 29. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team H (n = 9).
In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team H, the
mean scores for charisma, and continuous development for Team H’s project manager
were similar to the mean scores for the project team for Team H for the same
characteristics. The remaining mean scores for Team H project manager were higher than
the mean scores for project team members for Team H (Figure 30).
139
4.21
4.46
3.79
4.29
4.04
4.04
4.21 4.
25
3.88
4.33
5.00
3.67
4.67
4.33
4.33
5.00
5.00
4.67
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
5.00
5.20
Cha
rism
a
Shar
ed R
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Mean - PM
Figure 30. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team
H (n = 9).
The team performance score for Team H was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks
among the high-performing teams. Figure 31 presents a comparison of the project
manager and team member mean scores for Team H and the combined mean scores for
high-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey,
team member survey, and performance report for Team H, the mean scores for shared
responsibility, common vision, mutual influence relationships, risk taking, collaboration,
and empowerment were higher in the project manager survey than the combined mean
scores for all high-performing teams by 0.92, 0.67, 0.33, 0.92, 0.54, and 0.67
respectively. The characteristic of continuous development was lower by 0.41. The
140
characteristics of charisma, and group interests had similar mean scores as the combined
mean scores for the same characteristics in the project manager surveys. The mean scores
for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team H were similar to the combined
mean scores for all high-performing teams with the exception of shared responsibility,
which had a slightly higher mean. The results indicated the project manager for Team H
might not be interested in promoting interteam relationships, which may affect team
performance. The results indicated Team H members’ perception of the project
manager’s leadership style and team performance might be less favorable than the project
manager’s perception of the project manager’s leadership style and team performance.
Team H - Performance Survey
4.21
4.46
3.79
4.29
4.04
4.04 4.
21 4.25
3.88
4.16
4.03
3.80
4.15
3.89 3.
96 4.02 4.04
3.99
4.33
5.00
3.67
4.67
4.33
4.33
5.00
5.00
4.67
4.29
4.08
4.08
4.00
4.00 4.
17
4.08
4.46
4.00
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Vis
ion
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Ris
k Ta
king
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Combined Mean - High-Performing TeamsMean - PM Combined Mean - High-Performing PM
Figure 31. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team H (n
= 9) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams.
141
Team I
Team I consisted of 6 participants (n = 6). The team had a mean range number of
years in service of 20-29 years (x̄ = 19.50), with a standard deviation of 10.49 (s =
10.49). The years of service ranged from 0 to 39 years. The mean range of age of the
team members was 40 to 49 years (x̄ = 47.83) with a standard deviation of 8.16 (s =
8.164). The team participants consisted of 4 males (66.67%) and 2 females (33.33%). The
team participants consisted of 6 Caucasians (100%). The participants reported profession
as administrative support staff (100%). Four participants (66.67%) reported company size
range from 500 to 1000 people, 1 individual (16.67%) reported company size range from
400 to 499 people, and 1 individual (16.67%) reported company size range from 1,000
people and above.
Table 9 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team I’s survey question
responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team
members, mutual influence relationships and group interests appear to be the most
normally distributed leadership characteristics, while risk taking and empowerment
appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics for the project
manager (Table 9). The results reported in Table 9 for team members correspond with the
overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean score for common
vision, group interests, risk taking, and collaboration for Team I was slightly higher than
the combined mean score. The remaining mean scores for Team I were lower than or
equal to the total mean scores, but not significantly. The mean score for group interests
for Team I’s project manager was slightly higher than the combined mean score. The
remaining mean scores for Team I’s project manager were lower than or equal to the total
142
mean scores, with the exception of mutual influence relationships and empowerment,
which were significantly higher than the combined means for the same characteristics
(Figure 32).
143
Table 9
Team I Leadership Descriptive
Independent variables
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
SE
Team
SE
PM
SD
Team
SD
PM
Variance
Team
Variance
PM
Kurtosis
Team
Skew
Team
Skew
PMa
Charisma 4.27 4.00 0.18 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.50 0.00 -0.67 -0.43 *
Shared responsibility 3.93 4.00 0.23 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.78 0.00 -1.78 0.14 *
Continuous development 3.53 3.33 0.36 0.67 1.41 1.16 1.98 1.33 -0.62 -0.79 -1.73
Common vision 4.07 4.00 0.21 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.64 0.00 2.32 -1.10 *
Mutual influence relationships 4.00 3.33 0.20 0.33 0.76 0.58 0.57 0.33 -1.08 0.00 1.73
Group interests 4.00 3.67 0.31 0.33 1.18 0.58 1.40 0.33 0.06 -0.57 -1.73
Risk taking 4.00 4.00 0.14 0.58 0.54 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.62 0.00 0.00
Collaboration 3.60 4.00 0.16 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.40 0.00 -0.39 0.55 *
Empowerment 4.13 4.00 0.17 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.41 0.00 -0.13 -0.10 *
Note. PM = project manager.
a A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.
144
Team I - Leadership Survey
4.27
3.93
3.53
4.07
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.60
4.13
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
upIn
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Figure 32. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team I (n = 6).
In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team I, the
mean scores for charisma, continuous development, mutual influence relationships, group
interests, and empowerment for Team I’s project manager were slightly lower than the
mean scores for the project team for Team I for the same characteristics. The remaining
mean scores for Team I’s project manager were slightly higher or equal to the mean
scores for project team members for Team I with the exception of mutual influence
relationships, and group interests which are higher in the project team by 0.67, and 0.33
respectively (Figure 33).
145
4.27
3.93
3.53
4.07
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.60
4.13
4.00
4.00
3.33
4.00
3.33
3.67
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Mean - PM
Figure 33. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
I (n = 6).
The team performance score for Team I was 1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks
among the middle-performing teams. Figure 34 presents a comparison of the project
manager and team member mean scores for Team I and the combined mean scores for
middle-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey,
team member survey, and performance report for Team I, the mean scores for charisma,
continuous development, and mutual influence relationships were slightly lower in the
project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all middle-performing teams
for the same characteristics by 0.28, 0.45, and 0.50 respectively. The remaining
characteristics had similar mean scores as the combined mean scores for the same
characteristics in the project manager surveys. The mean scores for all characteristics in
the project team survey for Team I were similar to the combined mean scores for all
146
middle-performing teams with the exception of mutual influence relationships, which had
slightly higher mean score in the project team survey for Team I.
The results correspond with the score and team performance report in two ways.
First, the results indicated Team I’s project manager might be interested in promoting
interteam relationships and high performance. Second, the results indicated Team I
members’ perception of the project manager’s leadership style corresponds to the
perception of the project manager’s leadership style even though the team may not be
performing at a higher level than other teams.
Team I - Performance Survey
4.27
3.93
3.53
4.07
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.60
4.134.16
3.78
3.59
3.86
3.64
3.86
3.87
3.88
3.78
4.00
4.00
3.33
4.00
3.33
3.67
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.28
4.00
3.78 3.
89
3.83
3.72
4.17
4.00 4.
172.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Vis
ion
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Ris
k Ta
king
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Combined Mean - Middle-Performing TeamsMean - PM Combined Mean - Middle-Performing PM
Figure 34. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team I (n
= 6) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams.
147
Team J
Team J consisted of 9 participants (n = 9). The team had a mean range number of
years in service of 20-29 years (x̄ = 20.06), with a standard deviation of 14.24 (s =
14.240). The years of service ranged from 0 to 39 years. The mean range of age of the
team members was 40 to 49 years (x̄ = 48.94), with a standard deviation of 11.30 (s =
11.303). The team participants consisted of 8 females (88.89%) and 1 male (11.11%).
The team participants consisted of 9 Caucasians (100%). Three participants reported
profession as architect/interior designer (33.33%), 5 participants (55.56%) reported
profession as engineer, and 1 participant (11.11%) reported profession as general
contractor. Four participants (44.44%) reported company size range from 500 to 1,000
people, 3 individuals (33.33%) reported company size range from 1,000 people and
above, 1 individual (11.11%) reported company size range from 300 to 399 people and 1
individual (11.11%) reported company size range from 1 to 99 people.
Table 10 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team J’s survey question
responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team
members, mutual influence relationships and group interests appear to be the most
normally distributed leadership characteristics, while risk taking and empowerment
appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics for the project
manager (Table 10). The results reported in Table 10 for team members correspond with
the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The project manager mean
score for shared responsibility, common vision, and empowerment for Team J were
slightly higher than the combined mean score for the same characteristics by 0.45, 0.37,
and 0.31 respectively. The remaining project manager mean scores for Team J were
148
lower than or equal to the combined mean scores for project manager surveys. The mean
scores for all characteristics for Team J’s team survey were lower than the combined
mean scores project team surveys (Figure 35).
149
Table 10
Team J Leadership Descriptive
Independent variables
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
SE
Team
SE
PM
SD
Team
SD
PM
Variance
Team
Variance
PM
Kurtosis
Team
Skew
Team
Skew
PM
Charisma 3.33 4.33 0.16 0.33 0.76 0.58 0.58 0.33 -0.90 -0.67 1.73
Shared responsibility 3.08 4.33 0.20 0.33 0.97 0.58 0.95 0.33 -0.29 -0.79 1.73
Continuous development 3.08 4.00 0.16 0.58 0.78 1.00 0.60 1.00 -1.26 -0.15 0.00
Common vision 3.17 4.00 0.17 0.58 0.82 1.00 0.67 1.00 -1.41 -0.33 0.00
Mutual influence relationships 2.67 4.33 0.13 0.33 0.64 0.58 0.41 0.33 -0.54 0.41 1.73
Group interests 3.13 3.67 0.16 0.33 0.80 0.58 0.64 0.33 -1.36 -0.24 -1.73
Risk taking 3.17 3.67 0.18 0.33 0.87 0.58 0.75 0.33 -0.82 0.09 -1.73
Collaboration 3.25 4.33 0.16 0.33 0.79 0.58 0.63 0.33 -0.35 0.07 1.73
Empowerment 3.29 4.33 0.14 0.33 0.69 0.58 0.48 0.33 -0.71 -0.46 1.73
Note. PM = project manager.
150
Team J - Leadership Survey
3.89
3.39
3.72
3.61
3.56
3.28
3.11
3.56
3.06
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Figure 35. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team J (n = 9).
In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team J, the
mean scores for charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common
vision, collaboration, and empowerment for Team J’s project manager were significantly
higher than the mean scores for the project team for Team J for the same characteristics
by 1.00, 1.25, 1.08, 1.66, 1.08, and 1.04 respectively. The mean score for the
characteristics of mutual influence relationships, common vision, and risk taking were
higher than the mean scores for project team members for Team J for the same
characteristics by 0.83, 0.54, and 0.50 respectively (Figure 36).
151
3.89
3.39
3.72
3.61
3.56
3.28
3.11
3.56
3.06
4.33
3.67
3.00
4.00
3.67
4.00
3.67
4.33
3.67
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
Cha
rism
a
Shar
ed R
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Mean - PM
Figure 36. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team
J (n = 9).
The team performance score for Team J was 1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks
among the middle-performing teams. Figure 37 presents a comparison of the project
manager and team member mean scores for Team J and the combined mean scores for
middle-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey,
team member survey, and performance report for Team J, the mean scores for shared
responsibility, mutual influence relationships, and collaboration were slightly higher in
the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all middle-performing
teams for the same characteristics by 0.33, 0.50, and 0.50 respectively. The remaining
characteristics had similar mean scores as the combined mean scores for the same
characteristics in the project manager surveys with the exception of risk taking which had
152
a slightly lower mean score. The mean scores for all characteristics in the project team
survey for Team J were lower than the combined mean scores for all middle-performing
teams. The results indicate Team J members’ perception of the project manager’s
leadership style may be less favorable than the project manager’s perception of the
project manager’s leadership style.
Team J - Performance Survey
3.33
3.08
3.08 3.
17
2.67
3.13 3.17 3.25 3.29
4.16
3.78
3.59
3.86
3.64 3.
86
3.87
3.88
3.78
4.33
4.33
4.00
4.00
4.33
3.67
3.67
4.33
4.33
4.28
4.00
3.78 3.
89
3.83
3.72
4.17
4.00 4.
17
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Vis
ion
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Ris
k Ta
king
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Combined Mean - Middle-Performing TeamsMean - PM Combined Mean - Middle-Performing PM
Figure 37. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team J (n
= 9) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams.
Team K
Team K consisted of 7 participants (n = 7), with 1 member not disclosing
demographic information. The team had a mean range number of years in service of 10-
19 years (x̄ = 11.17), with a standard deviation of 10.33 (s = 10.327). The years of
service ranged from 0 to 29 years, with 2 participants not disclosing years of service. The
153
mean range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x̄ = 39.50), with a standard
deviation of 5.48 (s = 5.477). The team participants consisted of 4 males (40%) and 3
females (37.50%), with 1 participant (12.50%) not disclosing gender. The team
participants consisted of 6 Caucasians (75%), 1 Asian (12.50%), and 1 participant
(12.50%) not disclosing race. One participant (12.50%) reported profession as
administrative support staff, 5 participants (62.50%) reported program manager, and 2
participants (25.00%) did not disclose profession. One participant (12.50%) reported
company size range from 500 to 1,000 people, 6 participants (75.00%) reported company
size range from 1,000 people and above, and 1 participant (12.50%) did not disclose
company size.
Table 11 presents the descriptive statistics from Team K survey question
responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team
members, charisma, continuous development, common vision, mutual influence
relationships, and collaboration appear to be the most normally distributed leadership
characteristics and mutual influence relationship and common vision appear to be the
most normally distributed leadership characteristics for the project manager (Table 11).
The results reported in Table 11 for team members correspond with the overall results of
the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean score for all characteristics for
project Team K were slightly higher than the combined mean score for the same
characteristics. The mean score for continuous development for Team K’s project
manager was slightly higher than the combined mean score by 0.37. The remaining mean
scores for Team K’s project manager were lower than or equal to the combined mean
scores (Figure 38).
154
Table 11
Team K Leadership Descriptive
Independent variables
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
SE
Team
SE
PM
SD
Team
SD
PM
Variance
Team
Variance
PM
Kurtosis
Team
Skew
Team
Skew
PMa
Charisma 4.33 4.33 0.13 0.33 0.58 0.58 0.33 0.33 -0.54 -0.13 1.73
Shared responsibility 4.14 4.00 0.17 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.63 0.00 1.33 -0.94 *
Continuous development 3.81 4.33 0.23 0.33 1.03 0.58 1.06 0.33 -0.76 -0.49 1.73
Common vision 4.29 3.67 0.14 0.33 0.64 0.58 0.41 0.33 -0.51 -0.33 -1.73
Mutual influence relationships 3.91 3.67 0.18 0.33 0.83 0.58 0.69 0.33 -0.15 -0.39 -1.73
Group interests 4.29 4.00 0.12 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.31 0.00 -0.34 0.04 *
Risk taking 4.14 4.00 0.13 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.32 0.04 *
Collaboration 4.19 4.00 0.13 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.36 0.00 -0.10 -0.07 *
Empowerment 4.33 3.67 0.16 0.33 0.73 0.58 0.53 0.33 3.98 -1.48 -1.73
Note. PM = project manager.
a A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.
155
Team K - Leadership Survey
4.33
4.14
3.81
4.29
3.90
4.29
4.14 4.19
4.33
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
upIn
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Figure 38. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team K (n = 8).
In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team K, the
mean score for the characteristic of continuous development for Team K’s project
manager were higher than the mean score for project team for the same characteristics by
0.54. The remaining mean scores for Team K’s project team had similar mean scores as
the project manager for the same characteristics with the exception of mutual influence
relationships, common vision, group interests, and empowerment, which had a higher
mean score for the same characteristics (Figure 39).
156
4.33
4.14
3.81
4.29
3.90
4.29
4.14 4.
19
4.33
4.33
4.00
4.33
3.67
3.67
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.67
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Mean - PM
Figure 39. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team
K (n = 8).
The team performance score for Team K was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks
among the high-performing teams. Figure 40 presents a comparison of the project
manager and team member mean scores for Team K and the combined mean scores for
high-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey,
team member survey, and performance report for Team K, the mean scores for common
vision, mutual influence relationships, collaboration, and empowerment were slightly
lower in the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all high-
performing teams for the same characteristics by 0.33, 0.33, 0.46, and 0.33 respectively.
The remaining characteristics had similar mean scores as the combined mean scores for
the same characteristics in the project manager surveys with the exception of continuous
157
development, which had a slightly higher mean score. The mean score for all
characteristics in the project team survey for Team K were similar to the combined mean
scores for all high-performing teams with the exception of group interests, and
empowerment, which had slightly higher mean score. The results indicated the project
manager for Team K might be interested in communicating the vision to the team and
empowering the team to perform higher. The results also indicated that Team K
members’ perception of the project manager’s leadership style corresponds to the project
manager’s leadership style in most instances.
Team K - Performance Survey
4.33
4.14
3.81
4.29
3.91
4.29
4.14 4.19 4.
33
4.16
4.03
3.80
4.15
3.89 3.
96 4.02 4.04
3.99
4.33
4.00
4.33
3.67
3.67
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.67
4.29
4.08
4.08
4.00
4.00
4.17
4.08
4.46
4.00
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Vis
ion
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Ris
k Ta
king
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Combined Mean - High-Performing TeamsMean - PM Combined Mean - High-Performing PM
Figure 40. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team K (n
= 8) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams.
158
Team L
Team L consisted of 0 participants (n = 9), with 3 participants not disclosing
demographic information. The team had a range number of years of service of 10-19
years (x̄ = 19.50), with a standard deviation of 8.37 (s = 8.367). The years of service
ranged from 0 to 29 years, with 3 participants not disclosing years of service. The mean
range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x̄ = 47.83), with a standard deviation
of 12.11 (s = 12.111). The team participants consisted of 4 males (44.44%) and 2 females
(22.22%), with 3 participants (33.33%) not disclosing gender. The team participants were
comprised of 5 Caucasians (55.56%) and 1 Hispanic (11.11%), with 3 participants
(33.33%) not disclosing race. Two participants (22.22%) reported profession as
architect/interior designer, 3 participants (33.33%) reported profession as construction
manager, and 1 participant (11.11%) reported profession as administrative support staff,
with 3 participants (33.33%) not disclosing profession. Four participants (66.67%)
reported company size range from 500 to 1,000 people, 1 individual (11.11%) reported
company size range from 400 to 499 people, and 1 individual (16.67%) reported
company size from 1,000 people and above.
Table 12 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team L survey question
responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team
members, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision, risk taking,
and collaboration appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics.
Shared responsibility, common vision, and collaboration appear to be the most normally
distributed leadership characteristics for the project manager (see Table 12).
159
Table 12
Team L Leadership Descriptive
Independent variables
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
SE
Team
SE
PM
SD
Team
SD
PM
Variance
Team
Variance
PM
Kurtosis
Team
Skew
Team
Skew
PMa
Charisma 4.04 4.33 0.17 0.33 0.81 0.58 0.65 0.33 0.30 -0.62 1.73
Shared responsibility 4.38 3.67 0.12 0.33 0.58 0.58 0.33 0.33 -0.68 -0.21 -1.73
Continuous development 3.83 4.00 0.21 0.00 1.01 0.00 1.01 0.00 -1.17 -0.20 *
Common vision 4.08 4.00 0.15 0.58 0.72 1.00 0.51 1.00 -0.91 -0.13 0.00
Mutual influence relationships 4.04 4.00 0.17 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.30 -0.62 *
Group interests 4.08 4.00 0.17 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.69 0.00 1.81 -1.16 *
Risk taking 4.38 4.33 0.13 0.33 0.65 0.58 0.42 0.33 -0.52 -0.54 1.73
Collaboration 4.21 4.67 0.16 0.33 0.78 0.58 0.61 0.33 -1.20 -0.40 -1.73
Empowerment 4.21 3.67 0.15 0.33 0.72 0.58 0.52 0.33 2.64 -1.10 -1.73
Note. PM = project manager.
a A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.
160
The results reported in Table 12 for team members correspond with the overall
results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean scores for shared
responsibility, risk taking, and empowerment for Team L were slightly higher than the
combined mean score by 0.51, 0.45, and 0.35 respectively. The remaining mean scores
for Team L were similar to the total mean scores. The mean score for collaboration for
Team L’s project manager was slightly higher than the combined mean score by 0.49.
The remaining mean scores for Team L’s project manager were lower than or equal to the
combined mean scores (Figure 41).
Team L - Leadership Survey
4.04
4.38
3.83
4.08
4.04 4.08
4.38
4.21
4.21
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
upIn
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Figure 41. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team L (n = 9).
In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team L, the
mean scores for charisma, and collaboration for Team L’s project manager were slightly
higher than the mean scores for the project team for Team L for the same characteristics
by 0.29 and 0.46 respectively. The remaining mean scores for Team L’s project manager
161
were similar to the mean scores for project team members for Team L, with the exception
of shared responsibility, and empowerment, which were lower than the mean scores for
project team members for Team L for the same characteristics by 0.71, and 0.54
respectively (Figure 42). 4.
04
4.38
3.83
4.08
4.04 4.08
4.38
4.21
4.21
4.33
3.67
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.33
4.67
3.67
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Mean - PM
Figure 42. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team
L (n = 9).
The team performance score for Team L was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks
among the high-performing teams. Figure 43 presents a comparison of the project
manager and team member mean scores for Team L and the combined mean scores for
high-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey,
team member survey, and performance report for Team L, the mean scores for shared
responsibility, and empowerment were slightly lower in the project manager survey than
162
the combined mean scores for all high-performing teams for the same characteristics by
0.41 and 0.33 respectively. The remaining characteristics had similar mean scores as the
combined mean scores for the same characteristics in the project manager surveys. The
mean score for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team L were similar to
the combined mean scores for all high-performing teams with the exception of shared
responsibility, risk taking, and empowerment, which had slightly higher mean score. The
results indicated the project manager for Team L might be interested in interteam
relationships and high performance. The results also indicate that Team L members’
perception of the project manager’s leadership style corresponds to the project manager’s
leadership style in most instances, even though the mean scores were similar.
Team L - Performance Survey
4.04
4.38
3.83
4.08
4.04 4.08
4.38
4.21
4.21
4.16
4.03
3.80
4.15
3.89 3.
96 4.02 4.04
3.99
4.33
3.67
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.33
4.67
3.67
4.29
4.08
4.08
4.00
4.00
4.17
4.08
4.46
4.00
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Vis
ion
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Ris
k Ta
king
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Combined Mean - High-Performing TeamsMean - PM Combined Mean - High-Performing PM
Figure 43. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team L (n
= 9) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams.
163
Team M
Team M consisted of 7 participants (n = 7), with 3 participants not disclosing
demographic information. The team had a range number of years in service of 0-9 years
(x̄ = 7.00), with a standard deviation of 5.00 (s = 5.00). The years of service ranged from
0 to 19 years. The mean range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x̄ = 42.00),
with a standard deviation of 9.57 (s = 9.574). The team participants consisted of 3 males
(42.86%) and 1 female (14.29%), with 3 participants (42.86%) not disclosing age. The
team participants consisted of 4 Caucasians (57.14%), with 3 participants (42.86%) not
disclosing race. Two participants (28.58%) reported profession as architect, 3 participants
(42.86%) reported profession as construction manager, and 1 participant (14.29%)
reported profession as administrative support, with 3 participants (42.86%) not disclosing
profession. One participant (14.29%) reported company size range from 400 to 499
people, 1 participant (14.29%) reported company size range from 500 to 1,000 people,
and 4 participants (57.14%) reported company size range from 1,000 people and above,
with 3 participants (42.86%) not disclosing company size.
Table 13 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team M survey question
responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team
members, all leadership characteristics except risk taking appear to be the most normally
distributed leadership characteristics, while charisma appears to be the most normally
distributed leadership characteristic for the project manager (Table 13).
164
Table 13
Team M Leadership Descriptive
Independent variables
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
SE
Team
SE
PM
SD
Team
SD
PM
Variance
Team
Variance
PM
Kurtosis
Team
Skew
Team
Skew
PMa
Charisma 4.67 4.67 0.11 0.33 0.49 0.58 0.24 0.33 -1.59 -0.77 -1.73
Shared responsibility 4.50 4.00 0.15 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.38 0.00 -0.10 -0.84 *
Continuous development 4.28 4.33 0.18 0.33 0.75 0.58 0.57 0.33 -0.93 -0.53 1.73
Common vision 4.56 4.00 0.12 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.26 0.00 -2.20 -0.24 *
Mutual influence relationships 4.44 4.33 0.17 0.33 0.71 0.58 0.50 0.33 -0.25 -0.92 1.73
Group interests 4.72 4.00 0.11 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.21 0.00 -0.94 -1.09 *
Risk taking 4.39 4.00 0.12 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.00 -1.99 0.50 *
Collaboration 4.61 4.00 0.12 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.00 -1.99 -0.50 *
Empowerment 4.22 4.00 0.19 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.65 0.00 -1.28 -0.45 *
Note. PM = project manager.
a A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.
165
The results reported in Table 13 for team members correspond with the overall
results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean scores for all leadership
characteristics for Team M were higher than the combined mean scores for the same
leadership characteristics. The mean scores for charisma, continuous development, and
common vision for Team M’s project manager were slightly higher than the combined
project manager’s mean scores for the same leadership characteristics by 0.45, 0.37, and
0.37 respectively. The remaining leadership characteristics’ mean scores for Team M’s
project manager were lower or equal to the combined mean scores (Figure 44).
Team M - Leadership Survey
4.67
4.50
4.28
4.56
4.44
4.72
4.39
4.61
4.22
3.003.20
3.403.60
3.804.004.20
4.404.60
4.805.00
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
upIn
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Figure 44. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team M (n = 7).
In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team M, the
mean scores for all leadership characteristics for Team M’s project team were higher than
the mean scores for the same leadership characteristics for Team M’s project manager
with the exception of charisma, continuous development, common vision, and
166
empowerment, which were similar to the mean scores for project team members for
Team M for the same characteristics (Figure 45).
4.67
4.50
4.28
4.56
4.44
4.72
4.39
4.61
4.22
4.67
4.00
4.33
4.00
4.33
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
5.00C
haris
ma
Shar
ed R
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Mean - PM
Figure 45. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
M (n = 7).
The team performance score for Team M was 1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks
among the middle-performing teams. Figure 46 presents a comparison of the project
manager and team member mean scores for Team M and the combined mean scores for
middle-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey,
team member survey, and performance report for Team M, the mean scores for charisma,
continuous development, and mutual influence relationships were slightly higher in the
project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all middle-performing teams
for the same characteristics by 0.39, 0.55, and 0.50 respectively. The remaining
167
characteristics had similar mean scores as the combined mean scores for the same
characteristics in the project manager surveys with the exception of risk taking, and
empowerment, which had slightly lower mean scores. The mean scores for all
characteristics in the project team survey for Team M were lower than the combined
mean scores for all middle-performing teams. The results indicated Team M members’
perception of the project manager’s leadership style might be more favorable than the
project manager’s perception of the project manager’s leadership style even though the
performance of the team might be marginal.
Team M - Performance Survey
4.67
4.50
4.28
4.56
4.44
4.72
4.39
4.61
4.22
4.16
3.78
3.59
3.86
3.64
3.86
3.87
3.88
3.78
4.67
4.00
4.33
4.00
4.33
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.28
4.00
3.78 3.
89
3.83
3.72
4.17
4.00
4.17
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Vis
ion
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Ris
k Ta
king
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Combined Mean - Middle-Performing TeamsMean - PM Combined Mean - Middle-Performing PM
Figure 46. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team M (n
= 7) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams.
168
Team N
Team N consisted of 6 participants (n = 6), with 1 participant not disclosing
demographic information. The team had a mean range number of years of service of 30-
39 years (x̄ = 34.50), with a standard deviation of 0 (s = 0). The years of service ranged
from 30 to 39 years, with 1 member not disclosing years of service. The mean range of
age of the team members was 30-39 years (x̄ = 32.50), with a standard deviation of 8.37
(s = 8.366). The team participants were two males (33.33%), 3 females (50.00%), with 1
participant (16.67%) not disclosing gender. The team participants consisted of 4
Caucasians (66.67%) and 2 participants (33.33%) not disclosing race. One participant
(16.67%) reported profession as general contractor, 1 participant (16.67%) reported
profession as administrative support, and 3 participants (50.00%) reported profession as
other consultant, with 1 participant not disclosing profession. Three participants (50.00%)
reported company size range from 1 to 99 people, 1 participant (16.67%) reported
company size range from 100 to 199 people, 1 participant (16.67%) reported company
size range from 200 to 299 people, with 1 participant (16.67%) not disclosing company
size.
Table 14 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team N survey question
responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team
members, leadership characteristics appear to be normally distributed with the exception
of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision, and
collaboration (Table 14). The results reported in Table 14 for team members correspond
with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean score for
all leadership characteristics for Team N were lower than or equal to the combined mean
169
scores. The mean scores for risk taking and empowerment for Team N’s project manager
were slightly higher than the combined mean score for the same characteristics by 0.29
and 0.31 respectively. The remaining mean scores for Team Ns project manager were
lower than or equal to the combined mean scores (Figure 47).
170
Table 14
Team N Leadership Descriptive
Independent variables
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
SE
Team
SE
PM
SD
Team
SD
PM
Variance
Team
Variance
PM
Kurtosis
Team
Skew
Team
Skew
PMa
Charisma 4.13 4.00 0.22 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.70 0.00 1.96 -1.13 *
Shared responsibility 3.67 3.67 0.32 0.33 1.23 0.58 1.52 0.33 -0.03 -0.84 -1.73
Continuous development 3.53 3.67 0.27 0.88 1.06 1.53 1.12 2.33 -1.07 -0.10 -0.94
Common vision 3.27 3.67 0.37 0.33 1.44 0.58 2.07 0.33 -1.26 -0.21 -1.73
Mutual influence relationships 3.07 3.33 0.41 0.33 1.58 0.58 2.50 0.33 -1.63 -0.25 1.73
Group interests 3.60 4.00 0.31 0.00 1.18 0.00 1.40 0.00 -1.42 -0.28 *
Risk taking 3.73 4.33 0.23 0.33 0.88 0.58 0.78 0.33 -0.49 -0.12 1.73
Collaboration 3.67 3.67 0.30 0.33 1.18 0.58 1.38 0.33 -1.25 -0.46 -1.73
Empowerment 3.40 4.33 0.32 0.33 1.24 0.58 1.54 0.33 -1.65 0.13 1.73
Note. PM = project manager.
a A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.
171
Team N - Leadership Survey
4.13
3.67
3.53
3.27
3.07
3.60 3.
73
3.67
3.40
2.602.803.00
3.203.403.603.80
4.004.204.40
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
upIn
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Figure 47. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team N (n = 6).
In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team N, the
mean scores for mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk taking, and
empowerment for Team N’s project manager were higher than the mean scores for the
project team for Team N for the same characteristics by 0.40, 0.40, 0.60, and 0.90,
respectively. The remaining mean scores for Team N’s project manager were similar to
the mean scores for project team members for Team N (Figure 48).
172
4.13
3.67
3.53
3.27
3.07
3.60
3.73
3.67
3.40
4.00
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.33
4.00
4.33
3.67
4.33
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
Cha
rism
a
Shar
ed R
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Mean - PM
Figure 48. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
N (n = 6).
The team performance score for Team N was 1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks
among the middle-performing teams. Figure 49 presents a comparison of the project
manager and team member mean scores for Team N and the combined mean scores for
middle-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey,
team member survey, and performance report for Team N, the mean scores for charisma,
shared responsibility, mutual influence relationships, and collaboration were lower in the
project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all middle-performing teams
for the same characteristics by 0.28, 0.33, 0.50, and 0.33 respectively. The remaining
characteristics had similar mean scores as the combined mean scores for the same
characteristics in the project manager surveys with the exception of group interests,
173
which had slightly higher mean score. The mean scores for all characteristics in the
project team survey for Team N were lower than the combined mean scores for all
middle-performing teams. The results corresponded to the combined mean scores for
moderate performing teams. The results suggested that Team N members’ perception of
the project manager’s leadership style might be more in line with the project manager’s
perception of the project manager’s leadership style even though the performance of the
team might be marginal.
Team N - Performance Survey
4.13
3.67
3.53
3.27
3.07
3.60 3.
73
3.67
3.40
4.16
3.78
3.59
3.86
3.64
3.86
3.87
3.88
3.78
4.00
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.33
4.00
4.33
3.67
4.33
4.28
4.00
3.78 3.
89
3.83
3.72
4.17
4.00 4.
17
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Vis
ion
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Ris
k Ta
king
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Combined Mean - Middle-Performing TeamsMean - PM Combined Mean - Middle-Performing PM
Figure 49. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team N (n
= 6) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams.
Team O
Team O consisted of 6 participants (n = 6), with 1 participant not disclosing
demographic information. The team had a mean range number of years of service of 20-
174
29 years (x̄ = 22.50), with a standard deviation of 8.37 (s = 8.366). The years of service
ranged from 10 to 39 years, with 1 member not disclosing years of service. The mean
range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x̄ = 48.50), with a standard deviation
of 8.94 (s = 8.944). The team participants consisted of 3 males (50.00%) and 2 females
(33.33%), with 1 participant (16.67%) not disclosing gender. The team participants
consisted of 4 Caucasians (66.67%), 1 African American (16.67%), with 1 participant
(16.67%) not disclosing race. One participant (16.67%) reported profession as
construction manager, 3 participants (50.00%) reported profession as program manager,
and 1 participant (16.67%) reported profession as general contractor, with 1 participant
(16.67%) not disclosing profession. One participant (16.67%) reported company size
range from 100 to 199 people, 2 participants (33.33%) reported company size range from
300 to 399 people, 2 participants (33.33%) reported company size range from 1,000
people and above, with 1 participant (16.67%) not disclosing company size.
Table 15 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team O survey question
responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team
members, continuous development, common vision, mutual influence relationships, and
risk taking appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics, while
mutual influence relationships appears to be the most normally distributed leadership
characteristic for the project manager (Table 15).
The results reported in Table 15 for team members correspond with the overall
results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean score for all characteristics
for Team O were similar to the combined mean score. The mean scores for charisma,
continuous development, collaboration, and empowerment for Team O’s project manager
175
were slightly higher than the combined mean scores by 0.45, 0.37, 0.49, and 0.31
respectively. The remaining mean scores for Team O’s project manager were similar to
the combined mean scores, with the exception of common vision, which was lower than
the combined mean score for the same characteristics by 0.29 (Figure 50).
176
Table 15
Team O Leadership Descriptive
Independent variables
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
SE
Team
SE
PM
SD
Team
SD
PM
Variance
Team
Variance
PM
Kurtosis
Team
Skew
Team
Skew
PMa
Charisma 4.20 4.67 0.15 0.33 0.56 0.58 0.31 0.33 0.38 0.11 -1.73
Shared responsibility 4.00 4.00 0.20 0.58 0.76 1.00 0.57 1.00 -1.08 0.00 0.00
Continuous development 3.87 4.33 0.24 0.33 0.92 0.58 0.84 0.33 -0.48 -0.35 1.73
Common vision 4.20 4.00 0.18 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.46 0.00 -0.51 -0.26 *
Mutual influence relationships 3.67 3.67 0.27 0.33 1.05 0.58 1.10 0.33 -1.10 -0.08 -1.73
Group interests 3.93 4.00 0.23 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.78 0.00 -1.78 0.14 *
Risk taking 4.00 4.00 0.24 0.58 0.93 1.00 0.86 1.00 -0.18 -0.62 0.00
Collaboration 4.00 4.67 0.17 0.33 0.66 0.58 0.43 0.33 -0.18 0.00 -1.73
Empowerment 4.07 4.33 0.23 0.33 0.88 0.58 0.78 0.33 0.67 -0.86 1.73
Note. PM = project manager.
a A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.
177
Team O - Leadership Survey
4.20
4.00
3.87
4.20
3.67
3.93 4.
00
4.00 4.
07
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
upIn
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Figure 50. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team O (n = 6).
In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team O, the
mean scores for charisma, continuous development, and collaboration for Team O’s
project manager were higher than the mean scores for the project team for Team O for the
same characteristics by 0.47, 0.46, and 0.67. The remaining mean scores for Team O’s
project manager were similar to the mean scores for project team members (Figure 51).
178
4.20
4.00
3.87
4.20
3.67
3.93 4.
00
4.00 4.
07
4.67
4.00
4.33
4.00
3.67
4.00
4.00
4.67
4.33
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
5.00
Cha
rism
a
Shar
ed R
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Mean - PM
Figure 51. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
O (n = 6).
The team performance score for Team O was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks
among the high-performing teams. Figure 52 presents a comparison of the project
manager and team member mean scores for Team O and the combined mean scores for
high-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey,
team member survey, and performance report for Team O, the mean scores for all
characteristics were higher in the project manager survey than the combined mean scores
for all high-performing teams for the same characteristics. The mean scores for all
characteristics in the project team survey for Team O were similar to the combined mean
scores for all high-performing teams. The results indicate the project manager for Team
O might be interested in communicating the vision to the team and empowering the team
179
to perform better. The results also indicate that Team O members’ perception of the
project manager’s leadership style is less favorable.
Team O - Performance Survey4.
20
4.00
3.87
4.20
3.67
3.93 4.00
4.00 4.074.
16
4.03
3.80
4.15
3.89 3.96 4.02 4.04
3.99
4.67
4.33
4.67
4.67
5.00
4.67
4.67
4.67
5.00
4.29
4.08
4.08
4.00
4.00 4.
17
4.08
4.46
4.00
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Vis
ion
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Ris
k Ta
king
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Combined Mean - High-Performing TeamsMean - PM Combined Mean - High-Performing PM
Figure 52. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team O (n
= 6) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams.
Team P
Team P consisted of 9 participants (n = 9), with 1 participant not disclosing
demographic information. The team had a mean range number of years of service of 10-
19 years (x̄ = 17.00), with a standard deviation of 10.35 (s = 10.351). The years of
service ranged from 0 to 39 years, with 1 member not disclosing years of service. The
mean range of age of the team members was 30-39 years (x̄ = 34.50), with a standard
deviation of 5.35 (s = 5.345). The team participants were 2 males (22.22%) and 6 females
(66.67%), with 1 participant (11.11%) not disclosing gender. The team participants
180
consisted of 8 Caucasians (88.89%), with 1 participant (11.11%) not disclosing race. One
participant (11.11%) reported profession as administrative support staff and 7 participants
(77.78%) reported profession as other consultant, with 1 participant (11.11%) not
disclosing profession. Two participants (22.22%) reported company size range from 1 to
99 people, 3 participants (33.33%) reported company size range from 100 to 199 people,
and 3 participants (33.33%) reported company size range from 1,000 people and above,
with 1 participant (11.11%) not disclosing company size.
Table 16 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team P survey question
responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team
members and project manager, charisma appears to be the most normally distributed
leadership characteristics (see Table 16). The results reported in Table 16 for team
members correspond with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions.
The mean scores for all leadership characteristics for Team P’s project team were slightly
higher than the combined mean score for the same leadership characteristics. The mean
scores for all leadership characteristics for Team P’s project manager were also slightly
higher than the combined mean score for the same leadership characteristics (Figure 53).
181
Table 16
Team P Leadership Descriptive
Independent variables
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
SE
Team
SE
PM
SD
Team
SD
PM
Variance
Team
Variance
PM
Kurtosis
Team
Skew
Team
Skew
PMa
Charisma 4.52 4.67 0.13 0.33 0.60 0.58 0.36 0.33 -0.10 -0.86 -1.73
Shared responsibility 4.52 4.33 0.16 0.33 0.75 0.58 0.56 0.33 5.43 -2.06 1.73
Continuous development 4.19 4.67 0.16 0.33 0.75 0.58 0.56 0.33 2.49 -1.12 -1.73
Common vision 4.48 4.67 0.16 0.33 0.75 0.58 0.56 0.33 4.82 -1.88 -1.73
Mutual influence relationships 4.19 5.00 0.11 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.60 0.36 *
Group interests 4.10 4.67 0.18 0.33 0.83 0.58 0.69 0.33 2.52 -1.35 -1.73
Risk taking 4.10 4.67 0.15 0.33 0.70 0.58 0.49 0.33 3.25 -1.10 -1.73
Collaboration 4.29 4.67 0.20 0.33 0.90 0.58 0.81 0.33 8.61 -2.44 -1.73
Empowerment 4.24 5.00 0.17 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.59 0.00 2.34 -1.18 *
Note. PM = project manager.
a A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.
182
Team P - Leadership Survey
4.54
4.50
4.21
4.46
4.21
4.08 4.13
4.29
4.21
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
upIn
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Figure 53. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team P (n = 9).
In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team P, the
mean scores for all leadership characteristics for Team P’s project manager were higher
than the mean scores for the project team for Team P for the same characteristics, with
the exception of shared responsibility, which is lower for the project manager by 0.29
(Figure 54).
183
4.54
4.50
4.21
4.46
4.21
4.08 4.13
4.29
4.21
4.67
4.33
4.67
4.67
5.00
4.67
4.67
4.67
5.00
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
5.00
Cha
rism
a
Shar
ed R
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Mean - PM
Figure 54. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
P (n = 9).
The team performance score for Team P was -1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks
among the bottom-performing teams. Figure 55 presents a comparison of the project
manager and team member mean scores for Team P and the combined mean scores for
bottom-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey,
team member survey, and performance report for Team P, the mean scores for all
leadership characteristics were higher in the project manager survey than the combined
mean scores for all bottom-performing teams for the same characteristics. The mean
scores for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team P were higher than the
combined mean scores for all bottom-performing teams. The results indicate Team P
184
members’ perception of the project manager’s leadership style might be moderately more
favorable than the project manager’s perception of the project manager’s leadership style.
Team P - Performance Survey4.
52
4.52
4.19
4.48
4.19
4.10
4.10
4.29
4.24
4.00
3.66
3.55
3.85
3.65 3.
73
3.58 3.
75
3.66
4.67
4.33
4.67
4.67
5.00
4.67
4.67
4.67
5.00
3.89
3.33
3.89
4.22
4.00
4.22
3.89
4.11
4.00
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Vis
ion
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Ris
k Ta
king
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Combined Mean - Bottom-Performing TeamsMean - PM Combined Mean - Bottom-Performing PM
Figure 55. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team P (n
= 9) and the combined mean scores for bottom-performing teams.
Team Q
Team Q consisted of 8 participants (n = 8). The team had a mean range number of
years of service of 10-19 years (x̄ = 17.00), with a standard deviation of 10.35 (s =
10.351). The years of service ranged from 0 to 39 years. The mean range of age of the
team members was 40-49 years (x̄ = 44.50), with a standard deviation of 11.95 (s =
11.952). The team participants were 4 males (50.00%) and 4 females (50.00%). The team
participants were comprised of 8 Caucasians (100.00%). One participant (12.50%)
reported profession as architect/interior designer, 5 participants (62.50%) reported
185
profession as engineer, 1 participant (12.50%) reported profession as information
technology/CAD support staff, and 1 participant (12.50%) reported profession as other
consultant. Four participants (50.00%) reported company size range from 1 to 99 people,
and 4 participants (50.00%) reported company size range from 1,000 people and above.
Table 17 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team Q survey question
responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team
members, common vision, charisma, mutual influence relationships, group interests, and
collaboration appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics, while
mutual influence, group interests, and collaboration appear to be the most normally
distributed leadership characteristics for the project manager (Table 17). The results
reported in Table 17 for team members correspond with the overall results of the data
collected with some exceptions. The mean score for all leadership characteristics for the
project team Q were slightly higher than the combined mean score with the exception of
shared responsibility, continuous development, mutual influence relationships, risk
taking, and empowerment, which were similar to the combined mean score for the same
characteristics. The mean scores of group interests, risk taking, collaboration, and
empowerment for Team Q’s project manager were lower than the combined mean score
for the same leadership characteristics by 0.96, 0.66, 0.51, and 0.35 respectively. The
remaining mean scores for Team Q’s project manager were similar to the combined mean
scores for the leadership characteristics (Figure 56).
186
Table 17
Team Q Leadership Descriptive
Independent variables
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
SE
Team
SE
PM
SD
Team
SD
PM
Variance
Team
Variance
PM
Kurtosis
Team
Skew
Team
Skew
PMa
Charisma 4.48 4.00 0.11 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.26 0.00 -2.21 0.10 *
Shared responsibility 3.95 4.00 0.13 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 -0.00 *
Continuous development 3.62 4.00 0.24 0.00 1.12 0.00 1.25 0.00 0.09 -0.81 *
Common vision 4.19 4.00 0.15 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.46 0.00 -0.65 -0.25 *
Mutual influence relationships 4.00 3.00 0.14 0.58 0.63 1.00 0.40 1.00 -0.13 0.00 0.00
Group interests 3.91 3.33 0.14 0.67 0.63 1.16 0.39 1.33 -0.11 0.06 -1.73
Risk taking 4.24 4.33 0.12 0.33 0.54 0.58 0.29 0.33 0.03 0.20 1.73
Collaboration 4.19 3.67 0.15 0.33 0.68 0.58 0.46 0.33 -0.65 -0.25 -1.73
Empowerment 3.95 3.67 0.11 0.33 0.50 0.58 0.25 0.33 1.86 -0.13 -1.73
Note. PM = project manager.
a A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.
187
Team Q - Leadership Survey
4.48
3.95
3.62
4.19
4.00
3.90
4.24
4.19
3.95
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
upIn
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Figure 56. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team Q (n = 8).
In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team Q, the
mean scores for charisma, common vision, group interests, collaboration, and
empowerment for Team Q’s project manager were lower than the mean scores for the
project team for Team Q for the same characteristics by 0.48, 1.00, 0.58, 0.52, and 0.28
respectively. The remaining mean scores for Team Q’s project manager were slightly
higher than the mean scores for project team members for Team Q for the same
leadership characteristics, with the exception of continuous development which was
lower in the project manager survey by 0.38 (Figure 57).
188
4.48
3.95
3.62
4.19
4.00
3.90
4.24
4.19
3.954.
00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.33
4.33
3.67
3.67
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
Cha
rism
a
Shar
ed R
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Mean - PM
Figure 57. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
Q (n = 8).
The team performance score for Team Q was 1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks
among the middle-performing teams. Figure 58 presents a comparison of the project
manager and team member mean scores for Team Q and the combined mean scores for
middle-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey,
team member survey, and performance report for Team Q, the mean scores for all
leadership characteristics for the project manager survey were similar to the combined
mean scores for all middle-performing teams, with some exceptions. The mean score for
the characteristics of charisma, mutual influence relationships, group interests,
collaboration, and empowerment, were lower to the combined mean scores for all
middle-performing teams by 0.28, 0.83, 0.39, 0.33, and 0.50 respectively. The mean
189
scores for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team Q were higher than or
equal to the combined mean scores for all middle-performing teams. The results
correspond to the combined mean scores for moderate performing teams. The results
suggested that Team Q members’ perception of the project manager’s leadership style
might be more in line with the project manager’s perception of the project manager’s
leadership style even though the performance of the team might be marginal.
Team Q - Performance Survey
4.48
3.95
3.62
4.19
4.00
3.91
4.24
4.19
3.95
4.16
3.78
3.59
3.86
3.64
3.86
3.87
3.88
3.78
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.33
4.33
3.67
3.67
4.28
4.00
3.78 3.
89
3.83
3.72
4.17
4.00 4.
17
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Vis
ion
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Ris
k Ta
king
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Combined Mean - Middle-Performing TeamsMean - PM Combined Mean - Middle-Performing PM
Figure 58. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team Q (n
= 8) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams.
Team R
Team R consisted of 7 participants (n = 7). The team had a mean range number of
years in service of 10-19 years (x̄ = 17.83), with a standard deviation of 10.33 (s =
10.327). The years of service ranged from 0 to 39 years, with 1 member not disclosing
190
years of service. The mean range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x̄ =
46.50), with a standard deviation of 8.37 (s = 8.367). The team participants consisted of 4
males (57.14%) and 2 females (28.57%), with 1 participant (14.29%) not disclosing
gender. The team participants consisted of 4 Caucasians (57.14%), 1 Hispanic (14.29%),
and 1 African American (14.29%), with 1 participant (14.29%) not disclosing race. One
participant (14.29%) reported profession as architect/interior designer, 2 participants
(28.58%) reported profession as engineer, 2 participants (28.58%) reported profession as
general contractor, and 1 participant (14.29%) reported profession as other consultant,
with 1 participant (14.29%) not disclosing profession. One participant (14.29%) reported
company size range from 300 to 399 people, 2 participants (28.58%) reported company
size from 400 to 499 people, 1 participant (14.29%) reported company size range from
500 to 1,000 people, and 1 individual (14.29%) reported company size range from 1,000
people and above, with 2 participants (28.58%) not disclosing company size.
Table 18 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team R survey question
responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team
members, charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision,
group interests, collaboration, and empowerment appear to be the most normally
distributed leadership characteristics. The leadership characteristics of charisma, shared
responsibility, continuous development, common vision, group interests, collaboration
and empowerment appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics
for the project manager (Table 18).
191
Table 18
Team R Leadership Descriptive
Independent variables
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
SE
Team
SE
PM
SD
Team
SD
PM
Variance
Team
Variance
PM
Kurtosis
Team
Skew
Team
Skew
PMa
Charisma 3.78 3.00 0.25 0.58 1.06 1.00 1.12 1.00 -0.81 -0.50 0.00
Shared responsibility 3.61 3.00 0.12 0.58 0.50 1.00 0.25 1.00 -1.99 -0.498 0.00
Continuous development 3.33 3.00 0.24 0.58 1.03 1.00 1.06 1.000 -1.17 -0.04 0.00
Common vision 3.72 3.00 0.24 0.58 1.02 1.00 1.04 1.00 -0.65 -0.50 0.00
Mutual influence relationships 3.44 3.33 0.23 0.67 0.98 1.16 0.97 1.33 1.11 -0.66 -1.73
Group interests 3.61 3.33 0.26 0.67 1.10 1.16 1.20 1.33 -1.11 -0.32 -1.73
Risk taking 3.33 3.00 0.24 0.00 1.03 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.03 -0.77 *
Collaboration 3.67 3.67 0.21 0.33 0.91 0.58 0.82 0.33 -0.40 -0.30 -1.73
Empowerment 3.67 3.00 0.24 0.58 1.03 1.00 1.06 1.00 -0.57 -0.69 0.00
Note. PM = project manager.
a A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.
192
The results reported in Table 18 for team members correspond with the overall
results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean score for all leadership
characteristics for the project team R were lower than the combined mean scores for the
same leadership characteristics. The mean scores for all leadership characteristics for
Team R’s project manager were significantly lower than the combined leadership
characteristics mean scores (Figure 59).
Team R - Leadership Survey
3.78
3.61
3.33
3.72
3.44
3.61
3.33
3.67
3.67
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
upIn
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Figure 59. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for
Team R (n = 7).
In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team R, the
mean score for all leadership characteristics for Team R’s project manager were lower
than the mean scores for the project team for Team R for the same characteristics. The
leadership characteristic of collaboration is the exception, which has the same mean score
for the project team and project manager surveys (Figure 60).
193
3.78
3.61
3.33
3.72
3.44
3.61
3.33
3.67
3.67
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.33
3.33
3.00
3.67
3.00
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
Cha
rism
a
Shar
ed R
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Visi
on
Mut
ual I
nflu
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Risk
Tak
ing
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Mean - PM
Figure 60. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team
R (n = 7).
The team performance score for Team R was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks
among the high-performing teams. Figure 61 presents a comparison of the project
manager and team member mean scores for Team R and the combined mean scores for
high-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey,
team member survey, and performance report for Team R, the mean scores for all
leadership characteristics were significantly lower in the project manager survey than the
combined mean scores for all high-performing teams for the same characteristics. The
mean scores for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team R were lower than
the combined mean scores for all high-performing teams. The results indicated Team R
194
members’ perception of the project manager’s leadership style is more favorable than the
project manager’s leadership style in most instances.
Team R - Performance Survey3.
78
3.61
3.33
3.72
3.44 3.
61
3.33
3.67
3.67
4.16
4.03
3.80
4.15
3.89 3.96 4.02 4.04
3.99
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.33
3.33
3.00
3.67
3.00
4.29
4.08
4.08
4.00
4.00 4.
17
4.08
4.46
4.00
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
Cha
rism
a
Shar
edR
espo
nsib
ility
Con
tinuo
usD
evel
opm
ent
Com
mon
Vis
ion
Mut
ual
Influ
ence
Rel
atio
nshi
ps
Gro
up In
tere
sts
Ris
k Ta
king
Col
labo
ratio
n
Empo
wer
men
t
Mean - Team Combined Mean - High-Performing TeamsMean - PM Combined Mean - High-Performing PM
Figure 61. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team R (n
= 7) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams.
Team Performance
The results of the team performance variable calculation are shown in Appendix
G. The performance scores were calculated based on the results of an analysis of one of
three different team performance-scoring reports for participating organizations. The
three variables were common industry standards for evaluating project performance;
therefore, the use of the three variables in the study is justified. The team performance
scores were calculated based on individual scores for project completion (a) on time, (b)
within specified budget, and (c) within specified profit margin. The three variables were
195
examined based on whether a team was meeting its goal and given either a positive 1 (+1)
or a negative 1 (-1) for each aspect of the variable. The scores were totaled to obtain the
team performance variable shown in Appendix G. Fourteen of the 17 teams had positive
scores, with 6 teams scoring in the middle range.
For the purposes of the study analysis, teams that scored 3.00 were considered
high-performing teams. Teams that had a score of +1.00 were considered middle-
performing teams. Teams that scored a -1.00 were considered bottom-performing teams
(see Figure 62).
Dependent Variable - Team Performance
3 3
-1
1
-1
3 3
1 1
3 3
1 1
3
-1
1
3
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Team BTeam CTeam DTeam ETeam FTeam GTeam HTeam ITeam JTeam KTeam LTeam MTeam NTeam OTeam PTeam QTeamR
Figure 62. Dependent variable of team performance comparison for all 17 teams.
Summary of Team Performance
Based on the project team performance report (Appendix G), the 17 teams were
separated into three categories: (a) high-performing teams, (b) middle-performing teams,
and (c) bottom-performing teams. Eight teams were categorized as high-performing
teams, six teams were categorized as middle-performing teams, and three teams were
196
categorized as bottom-performing teams based on the aggregate score from the team
performance report. Appendix S shows the comparison of project manager and team
survey results of the three bottom-performing teams, six middle-performing teams, and
eight high-performing teams. The comparison was based on the dependent variable of
team performance. For the purposes of the study analysis, a difference in mean score in
the project manager and team surveys of 0.00 to 0.19 is characterized as no difference, a
difference in mean score of 0.20 to 0.49 is characterized as slightly lower or higher
difference, a difference in mean score of 0.50 to 0.99 is characterized as lower or higher
difference, and a difference in mean score of 1.00 or greater is characterized as
significantly lower or higher difference.
Among the 8 teams in the high-performing category, when combined, the
leadership characteristics of collaboration and charisma had a higher mean score in the
project manager’s survey results than in the project team’s survey results. Additionally,
the characteristics of charisma, continuous development, common vision, and
collaboration had slightly higher mean scores in 4 of the 8 project manager’s survey
results for high-performing teams than in the team survey results. Interestingly, the
characteristics of continuous development had a slightly higher mean score consistently
on the project manager’s survey results than in the team survey results for the 8 teams
(Appendix S).
Among the six teams in the middle-performing category, all characteristics when
combined had a slightly higher mean score in the project manager’s survey results than in
the project team’s survey results, with the exception of group interests, which had the
same mean score in both surveys. Additionally, the characteristics of shared
197
responsibility, continuous development, risk taking and empowerment had slightly
higher mean scores in five of the six project managers’ survey results than in the team
survey results for the middle-performing teams. Interestingly, the characteristic of
charisma had a slightly higher mean score in four of the six project manager’s survey
results than in the team survey results for the six teams (Appendix S).
Based on the project manager’s survey results and team performance data, the
performance of the middle-performing teams may be due to the project manager
promoting interteam relationships, group interests, and empowering the team to get the
job done. The lower mean scores for the team in all characteristics indicated the middle-
performing teams might be less likely to take risks than the high-performing teams.
Additionally, the focus of the project managers appeared to be toward individual efforts
or on the interests of the group as a whole (Appendix S).
Among the three teams in the bottom-performing category based on the
performance report, all characteristics had a slightly higher mean score in the project
manager’s survey results than in the project team’s survey results, with the exception of
charisma, which had a slightly lower mean score in the project manager’s survey.
Additionally, the characteristics of common vision and group interests had slightly higher
mean scores in the project manager’s survey results for all three middle-performing teams
than in the team survey results. Interestingly, Team P’s mean scores for all characteristics
were higher than the other two teams (Appendix S). The results indicate the project
managers for Team D and Team F may not be effective in promoting interteam
relationships, which may be affecting the performance of the team. However, Team P’s
survey results for both project manager and project team indicate the team is satisfied
198
with the performance of the project manager. The survey results did not indicate why
Team P might be performing poorly (Appendix S).
Based on the comparisons of the project team survey results and project manager
survey results when compiled into the three categories of high-, middle-, and bottom-
performing teams, it appeared that in all cases the leadership characteristic of charisma
consistently scored relatively the same. Additionally, in the high-performing teams, the
characteristics of mutual influence relationships, risk taking, and collaboration were
consistent among the three teams. The leadership characteristics of continuous
development, group interests, and collaboration in the project manager’s survey also
scored consistently below the team survey results (Appendix S).
Research Questions
The following guiding questions focused the research study:
1. Is there a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project
manager and the project manager’s performance as perceived by the project manager’s
project team members?
2. Is there a relationship between a project manager’s leadership styles and the
project manager’s effectiveness?
Each of the two research questions was examined to understand the relationship
between each of the independent variables of leadership characteristics and the dependent
variable of team performance. The research questions were examined to determine
whether the independent variables of leadership characteristics individually correlated
with team performance through an examination of the correlation coefficients for the
project manager and project team surveys (Appendices U and V).
199
Appendices U and V displays the correlation coefficient matrixes between team
performance and leadership characteristics for combined project manager (Appendix U)
and project team (Appendix V) surveys. The statistical significant level was set at p< .05.
The correlation measured the linear relationship between leadership characteristics and
team performance for combined project manager and project team surveys.
The normality of the survey responses was studied by measuring the skewness,
the frequency distribution, and the kurtosis of a curve (Creswell, 2005). A normal curve
is one that is symmetrical or has no skewness. A positively skewed curve is one in which
the mean is greater than the median or mode. A negatively skewed curve is one in which
the mean is the smallest of the mean, median and mode (Creswell, 2005). The closer the
values of kurtosis and skewness are, the closer the responses are to a normal distribution
(Creswell, 2005). Positive kurtosis values indicate a pointy distribution, while negative
kurtosis values indicate a flat distribution. The descriptive statistics for the dependent
variable and each of the independent variables are shown in Appendix T. The descriptive
statistics include a summary of the means, standard deviations, standard error, kurtosis,
skewness, minimum and maximum scores.
To address the first research question, it is important to examine the effect of each
of the nine leadership characteristics of project managers on team performance from the
combined project team survey. The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated no
significant correlation between the independent variable of charisma and team
performance, r = 0.16 and a probability p = 0.00 (Appendix V). The dispersion for
charisma was negatively skewed with a value of -0.91 and a kurtosis test showed a value
of 0.81 (Appendix T).
200
The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated a low degree of positive correlation
between the independent variable of shared responsibility and team performance, r = 0.30
and a probability p = 0.01 (Appendix V). The dispersion for shared responsibility was
negatively skewed with a value of -0.60 and a kurtosis test showed a value of 0.08
(Appendix T). The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated a low degree of positive
correlation between the independent variable of continuous development and team
performance, r = 0.26 and a probability p = 0.02 (Appendix V). The dispersion for
continuous development was negatively skewed with a value of -0.42 and a kurtosis test
showed a negative value of -0.27 (Appendix T). The bivariate correlation coefficient
indicated a low degree of positive correlation between the independent variable of mutual
influence relationships and team performance, r = 0.23 and a probability p = 0.01
(Appendix V). The dispersion for mutual influence relationships was negatively skewed
with a value of -0.78 and a kurtosis test showed a positive value of 0.63 (Appendix T).
The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated a low degree of positive correlation
between the independent variable of common vision and team performance, r = 0.31 and
a probability p = 0.01 (Appendix V). The dispersion for common vision was negatively
skewed with a value of -0.71 and a kurtosis test showed a positive value of 0.64
(Appendix T).
The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated there appeared to be a low degree
of positive correlation between the independent variable of group interests and team
performance, r = 0.24 and a probability p = 0.01 (Appendix V). The dispersion for group
interests was negatively skewed with a value of -0.70 and a kurtosis test showed a
positive value of 0.78 (Appendix T). The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated a low
201
degree of positive correlation between the independent variable of risk taking and team
performance, r = 0.24 and a probability p = 0.01 (Appendix V). The dispersion for risk
taking was negatively skewed with a value of -0.75 and a kurtosis test showed a positive
value of 0.46 (Appendix T).
The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated a low degree of positive correlation
between the independent variable of collaboration and team performance, r = 0.30 and a
probability p = 0.01 (Appendix V). The dispersion for collaboration was negatively
skewed with a value of -0.79 and a kurtosis test showed a positive value of 1.56
(Appendix T). The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated a low degree of positive
correlation between the independent variable of empowerment and team performance, r =
0.35 and a probability p = 0.01 (Appendix V). The dispersion for empowerment was
negatively skewed with a value of -1.01 and a kurtosis test showed a positive value of
1.82 (Appendix T). Based on the information on skewness from the data in Appendix T,
none of the leadership characteristics was normally distributed.
To address the second research question, it is important to look at the effect of the
nine leadership characteristics of project managers and project managers’ effectiveness
from the combined project manager survey. The bivariate correlation coefficient
indicated there appeared to be a low degree of positive correlation among the
independent variables of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development,
collaboration, and team performance, r = 0.21, 0.33, 0.22, and 0.26, respectively, and a
probability p = 0.00, 0.01, 0.01, and 0.00, respectively (Appendix U). The dispersion for
charisma was negatively skewed with a value of -1.51, shared responsibility was
negatively skewed with a value of -1.11, continuous development was negatively skewed
202
with a value of -0.24, collaboration was negatively skewed with a value of -0.07, and the
kurtosis test showed a value of 2.33, 3.14, -0.42, and -0.95, respectively (Appendix T).
Independent Variable Correlations
Three of the nine independent variables examined in the project manager survey
showed a low degree of positive correlation with the dependent variable of team
performance. The correlation coefficient for the three independent variables varied from a
low degree of correlation of r = 0.33 between team performance and shared responsibility
to a slightly lower degree of correlation of r = 0.21 between team performance and
charisma (Appendix U). Eight of the nine independent variables examined in the team
survey showed some correlation with the dependent variable of team performance; the
exception was charisma. The correlation coefficient for the eight independent variables in
the team survey varied from a low degree of correlation of r = 0.39 between team
performance and risk taking to a lower degree of correlation of r = 0.23 between team
performance and mutual influence relationships (Appendix V).
Additionally, the independent variables appeared to be correlated with each other
in both the project manager and the team surveys. The correlation coefficient in the
project manager survey varied from a very high degree of positive correlation of r = 0.86
between shared responsibility and charisma to a low degree of positive correlation of r =
0.40 between group interests and charisma (Appendix U). The correlation coefficient in
the team survey varied from a very high degree of positive correlation of r = 0.94
between mutual influence relationships and common vision to a high degree of positive
correlation of r = 0.61 between empowerment and continuous development (Appendix
V).
203
The proportion of variance explained by shared responsibility and charisma
showed an r2 value of 0.51 and a significance of p = 0.00, indicating that 50.83% of the
variance in shared responsibility can be accounted for by a change in charisma in the
project manager. The proportion of variance explained by group interests and charisma
showed an r2 value of 0.42, indicating that 41.61% of the variance in group interests
could be accounted for by a change in charisma, and a significance of p = 0.001. A
significance of p = 0.001 indicates a correlation of the magnitude would be expected to
be found less than one time in a thousand (Appendix U).
Hypotheses
The main problem the study evaluated is the relationship between the leadership
styles of 17 project managers in 17 project teams consisting of 6-9 members and the team
perception of the project managers’ leadership styles as the leadership styles of the
project managers relate to project team performance. The answer to the question is
determined through the examination of each of the two research questions, as well as
through a multiple regression analysis and a MANOVA. The multiple regression analysis
and the MANOVA were used in the determination to accept the directional hypothesis
(Beck, 2003).
The first null hypothesis, H01: R = 0, p [ .01, was that the combined project
manager leadership characteristics of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous
development, common vision, mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk taking,
collaboration, and empowerment did not influence team performance as perceived by the
project team members. The alternative hypothesis, Ha1: R <> 0, p [ .01, was that the
combined project manager leadership characteristics of charisma, shared responsibility,
204
continuous development, common vision, mutual influence relationships, group interests,
risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment influence, either positively or negatively,
team performance as perceived by the project team members. The second null hypothesis,
H02: R = 0, p [ .01, for the study was that the combined project manager leadership
characteristics of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common
vision, mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk taking, collaboration, and
empowerment did not influence project manager effectiveness. The alternative
hypothesis, Ha2: R <> 0, p [ .01, was that the combined project manager leadership
characteristics of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common
vision, mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk taking, collaboration, and
empowerment influence, either positively or negatively, project manager effectiveness.
The correlation coefficients for the r-squared and adjusted r-squared for the
multiple regressions served as the test statistic for the hypotheses. The contribution of
each independent variable was based on a stepwise multiple regression analysis in which
only significant independent variables appeared. Examining the correlation coefficients
through the regression analysis assessed the importance of significant independent
variables to the study. Stepwise multiple regression analysis was used because it allows
each variable to be entered in sequence and the value of each variable assessed for
significance to the study (Dallal, 2001). If a variable contributes to the model, it is
retained and variables that are no longer contributing to the success of the model are
removed (Dallal, 2001).
There may be limitations in using multiple regression analysis for the project
manager study because of small number of samples. Minor variations in the data may
205
occur due to sampling which may affect the order in which variables are entered into the
model, thus affecting the variable retention. However, the stepwise multiple regression
analysis ensures the smallest possible sets of variables are included in the model (Dallal,
2001; Garson, 2007).
Multiple Regression Analysis
The multivariate regression analysis indicated there appeared to be a small
correlation between the combined independent variable of leadership characteristics and
the dependent variable of team performance, r = 0.19. From the coefficient of
determination, r, approximately 3.42% of the variance can be attributed to the
independent variables of leadership styles, r2 = 0.03 (Beck, 2003; Creswell, 2005). The
adjusted r2 value (r2 = 0.03) indicated the variance in the dependent variables did not
appear to be greatly affected by a change in the independent variables in the population
(Table 19).
206
Table 19
Multiple Regression Summary – Project Team Survey
Parameter Value Parameter Value
Dependent variable Performance Rows processed 109
Number independent variables 9 Rows filtered out 0
Weight variable None Rows with Xs missing 0
R2 0.04 Rows with weight missing 0
Adjusted R2 0.03 Rows with Ys missing 0
Coefficient of variation 0.13 Rows used in estimation 109
Mean square error 1.49 Sum of weights 109.00
Square root of mean square error 1.22 Completion status Normal
completion
The multivariate regression analysis indicated there appeared to be a small
correlation between the combined independent variable of leadership characteristics and
the dependent variable of project manager effectiveness, r = 0.17. From the coefficient of
determination, r, approximately 2.99% of the variance can be contributed to the
independent variables of project manager effectiveness, r2 = 0.03 (Beck, 2003; Creswell,
2005). The adjusted r2 value indicated the variance in the dependent variables, leadership
characteristics, did not appear to be affected by a change in the independent variables in
the population, adjusted r2 = -0.04 (Table 20). The adjusted r-squared value estimated the
value of r2 in the population rather than in the sample for the study.
207
Table 20
Multiple Regression Summary – Project Manager Survey
Parameter Value Parameter Value
Dependent variable Performance Rows processed 17
Number independent variables 9 Rows filtered out 0
Weight variable None Rows with Xs missing 0
R2 0.03 Rows with weight missing 0
Adjusted R2 -0.04 Rows with Ys missing 0
Coefficient of variation 0.19 Rows used in estimation 17
Mean square error 1.57 Sum of weights 17.00
Square root of mean square error 1.25 Completion status Normal
completion
Multiple Regression Equation
The contribution of each dependent variable was based on a stepwise multiple
regression in which only significant independent variables appeared. The multiple
regression analysis was based on the following model:
DV = β1*IV1 + β2*IV2 + β3*IV3+ β4*IV4 + β5*IV5 + β6*IV6+ + β7*IV7 + β8*IV8+ β9*IV9.
DV was the outcome variable, β1 was the coefficient of the first predictor (IV1).
Significant independent variables were determined by examining the contribution of the
coefficients (β1, β2, β3, etc.). Using the model, the data shown in Table 21 were used to
approximate the model for predicting the dependent variables, team performance, based
on the independent variables used in this study:
208
DV = 0.49 + 0.96*CHAR + 0 .15*SHAR + 0.97*CON + 0 .08*INFL + 0.62*VIS +
0.45*GRP - 0.06*RISK - 0.40*COLL + 0.34*EMP
Table 21
Multiple Regression Equation – Project Team Survey
Independent variable
Regression
coefficient
β(i)
Standard
error
Sb(i)
T-value to
test
H01:B(i)=0
Probability
level
Reject
H01 at
5%
Power
of test
at 5%
Intercept 0.49 0.90 1.95 0.93 No 0.05
Charisma 0.96 0.87 1.10 0.28 No 0.43
Shared responsibility 0.15 0.72 0.21 0.84 No 0.04
Continuous
development
0.97 0.74 1.30 0.19 No 0.36
Mutual influence
relationships
0.08 0.79 0.10 0.92 No 0.05
Common vision 0.62 0.67 0.93 0.36 No 0.12
Group interests 0.45 0.74 0.60 0.55 No 0.10
Risk taking -0.06 0.78 -0.07 0.94 No 0.03
Collaboration 0.40 0.79 0.51 0.61 No 0.12
Empowerment 0.34 0.75 0.46 0.65 No 0.08
Using the model, the data shown in Table 22 were used to approximate the model
for predicting the dependent variables, project manager effectiveness, based on the
independent variables used in this study:
209
DV = -0.76 + 0.55*CHAR + 0 .80*SHAR + 0.68*CON - 0 .13*INFL + 0.09*VIS -
0.08*GRP + 0.25*RISK + 1.09*COLL - 0.11*EMP
Table 22
Multiple Regression Equation – Project Manager Survey
Independent variable
Regression
coefficient
β(i)
Standard
error
Sb(i)
T-value to
test
H02:B(i)=0
Probability
level
Reject
H02 at
5%
Power
of test
at 5%
Intercept -0.76 0.95 -0.22 0.83 No 0.28
Charisma 0.55 0.65 0.85 0.41 No 0.41
Shared responsibility 0.80 0.54 1.48 0.16 No 0.16
Continuous
development
0.68 0.68 -0.41 0.69 No 0.69
Mutual influence
relationships
-0.13 0.91 0.57 0.58 No 0.58
Common vision 0.09 0.62 0.51 0.62 No 0.62
Group interests -0.08 0.88 0.55 0.59 No 0.59
Risk taking 0.25 0.73 0.18 0.86 No 0.86
Collaboration 1.09 0.75 -0.95 0.36 No 0.36
Empowerment -0.11 0.67 0.72 0.48 No 0.48
Multiple Analyses of Variance
Analyses of variance of the multiple regression models are shown in Tables 25
and 26. The analysis indicated that the probability of getting a value of r2 = 0.03 as high
as it is if the actual value in the population was zero is 92.76% for the independent
210
variable of team performance. The probability of getting a value of r2 = 0.03 as high as it
is if the actual value in the population was zero is 82.98% for the independent variable of
project manager effectiveness. The multiple regression analyses of variance (Tables 23
and 24) reported the degrees of freedom for each model, the coefficient of determination,
and the sum of squares (Beck, 2003; Creswell, 2005). The mean square was calculated
for each model by dividing the sum of squares by the degrees of freedom. The F-ratio
was calculated by dividing the mean square of the model by the average difference
between the model and the mean square of the error (Beck, 2003; Creswell, 2005).
Finally, if the improvement due to fitting the regression model were much greater
than the inaccuracy within the model, the value of F would be greater than 1.00. The F-
ratio value for the independent variables of shared responsibility (4.49), mutual influence
relationships (4.06), common vision (2.40), group interests (2.69), risk taking (4.89),
collaboration (2.52), and empowerment (3.14) were above 1.00. The probability that the
variables were better at predicting the outcome than using the mean for the dependent
variable of team performance ranged from 35.54% to 92.00%. The remaining
independent variables of charisma and continuous development were below 1.00;
therefore, it did not appear that the independent variables of charisma and continuous
development might improve the ability to predict the dependent variable over the model
(Table 23). Based on the data from the multiple regression analysis shown in Tables 23
and 24, the null hypotheses were not rejected for any of the independent variables used in
this study.
211
Table 23
Multiple Regression Analyses of Variance Detail Report – Project Team Survey
Model term df R2
Sum of
squares
Mean
square F-ratio
Probability
level
Power -
5%
Intercept 1 238.59 238.59
Model 9 0.03 5.68 2.26 3.79 0.93 0.05
Charisma 1 0.06 0.41 0.41 0.63 0.28 0.43
Shared
responsibility
1 0.04 0.16 0.16 4.49 0.84 0.04
Continuous
development
1 0.01 0.69 0.69 0.85 0.20 0.36
Mutual influence
relationships
1 0.04 0.58 0.58 4.06 0.92 0.05
Common vision 1 0.02 0.62 0.62 2.40 0.36 0.12
Group interests 1 0.03 0.59 0.59 2.69 0.55 0.10
Risk taking 1 0.04 0.86 0.86 4.89 0.94 0.03
Collaboration 1 0.02 0.36 0.36 2.52 0.61 0.12
Empowerment 1 0.03 0.4812 0.48 3.14 0.65 0.08
Error 90 0.73 245.08 2.23
Total (Adjusted) 109 1.00 247.05 2.23
The F-ratio value for the independent variables of shared responsibility (2.20),
continuous development (1.00), and collaboration (2.12) were above 1.00, the probability
the variables were better at predicting the outcome than using the mean was 15.68%,
212
68.98%, and 35.74% respectively for the dependent variable of project manager
effectiveness. The remaining independent variables had an F-ratio below 1.00; therefore,
it did not appear that the remaining independent variable might improve the ability to
predict the dependent variable over the model (Table 24).
Table 24
Multiple Regression Analyses of Variance Detail Report – Project Manager Survey
Model term df R2
Sum of
squares
Mean
square F-ratio
Probability
level
Power
- 5%
Intercept 1 35.73 36.98
Model 9 0.03 2.47 2.47 0.46 0.83 0.28
Charisma 1 0.05 0.41 0.41 0.72 0.41 0.41
Shared responsibility 1 0.13 0.16 0.16 2.20 0.16 0.16
Continuous development 1 0.06 0.69 0.69 1.00 0.69 0.69
Mutual influence
relationships
1 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.02 0.58 0.58
Common vision 1 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.02 0.62 0.62
Group interests 1 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.01 0.59 0.59
Risk taking 1 0.01 0.86 0.86 0.12 0.86 0.86
Collaboration 1 0.12 0.36 0.36 2.12 0.36 0.36
Empowerment 1 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.03 0.48 0.48
Error -2 0.60 33.30 2.47
Total (Adjusted) 17 1.00 38.12 2.47
213
Summary
The quantitative, descriptive study evaluated the relationship between the
leadership styles of 17 project managers in 17 project teams consisting of 6-9 members
and the team members’ perception of the project managers’ leadership styles as the
leadership styles relate to project team performance in the construction industry in the
southeastern United States. Additionally, the effects of the individual independent
variables on the dependent variable of team performance and project manager
effectiveness were examined.
The quantitative, descriptive study examined two research questions. Based on the
survey data gathered through the study, the correlation between the project managers’
leadership styles and team performance among the teams participating was small.
Additionally, there only appeared to be a correlation between the independent variables
of charisma, shared responsibility, and collaboration and the dependent variable of team
performance, and the research question that asked if there is a relationship between a
project manager’s leadership styles and project manager’s effectiveness did not appear to
have a strong correlation through the survey data alone.
The results of the multiple regressions and multiple analyses of variance support
the conclusion that there is not a strong correlation between project managers’ leadership
styles and team performance among the teams in the study. However, there appeared to
be a small correlation between the project managers’ leadership styles and project
manager effectiveness. Based on the project manager survey, the characteristics of
collaboration and shared responsibility received higher scores more than any of the
remaining seven leadership characteristics across all teams and appeared, individually, as
214
the second and first variables, respectively, in the multiple regression analyses. Finally,
there appeared to be a high degree of positive correlation between the independent
variables collaboration and shared responsibility, r = 0.79.
Chapter 4 presented a complete description and analyses of the results of the data
collection and provided detail analyses of the survey data. Chapter 5 follows with a
conclusion of the study and clarifies the data analyses of chapter 4. Chapter 5 also
includes inferred results and provides necessary recommendations based on the findings.
215
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The intent of chapter 5 is to identify and interpret the important results of the data
and summarize and make recommendations for future research. The data analyzed in
chapter 4 will be discussed, highlighting the importance, significance, and potential
meaning of the research results. Chapter 5 is organized into 12 discussion sections: (a)
problem statement, (b) purpose statement, (c) hypotheses, (d) limitations, (e) results and
conclusions of the study, (f) conclusions of research questions, (g) conclusions of
research hypotheses, (h) implications, (i) recommendations, (j) significance to industry,
(k) significance to leadership, and (l) summary.
Problem Statement
The general problem examined, the influence that leadership styles of project
managers have on team performance in the construction industry in southeastern United
States, was presented in a study by Ammeter and Dukerich (2002) on eight high-
performance project teams in the construction, manufacturing, and military service
industries in Canada and United States. Ammeter and Dukerich found 67% of
respondents indicated that team leader behaviors are highly influential to team
performance (p. 5). According to Ammeter and Dukerich, a project manager’s role is to
set and communicate the desired goals and values to the team. The result of well-
communicated goals and objectives by project managers is improved team performance
(Israel & Kasper, 2004; Kuo, 2004; Sumner et al., 2006).
The specific problem addressed was the lack of effective leadership and
management practices in the construction industry, which may result in time-wasting,
unnecessary costs, and increased errors in projects (Love et al., 2004). Badger and
216
Kashiwagi (2004) reported on a research effort into U.S. construction projects that found
49% of owners did not want to work with the construction team again, only 56% of
construction projects were completed on time, and only 41% of projects were completed
within budget (p. 23). Badger and Kashiwagi suggested the construction industry could
benefit from improved leadership and project management. Understanding the leadership
characteristics that allow project managers to be effective leaders may offer an
organization the opportunity for continued improvement. The intent of the study was to
evaluate if a relationship exists between the leadership styles of 17 project managers, the
independent variable, and team members’ perception of the project manager’s leadership
styles on team performance, the dependent variable, in the construction industry in the
southeastern United States.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of the quantitative, correlational study was to evaluate the
relationship between the leadership styles of 17 project managers, the criterion variable,
in 17 project teams consisting of 6-9 members and the team members’ perception of the
project managers’ leadership styles as the leadership styles relate to project team
performance, the predictable variables, in the construction industry in the southeastern
United States. The methodology used established standards for leadership analysis to
evaluate the relative level of leadership styles of project managers in the construction
industry. The research tools used in data collection answered the following questions:
1. Is there a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project
manager and the project manager’s performance as perceived by the project manager’s
project team members?
217
2. Is there a relationship between a project manager’s leadership styles and the
project manager’s effectiveness?
Two self-assessment survey instruments were used. Project managers of teams
completed a survey developed by the researcher. The project managers’ team members
completed a similar survey. The participants completed an online survey, which was
subjected to Cronbach’s coefficient alpha test for internal validation; the survey
attempted to identify causal influences that may result in differences in project managers’
leadership styles and team members’ perception of the project managers’ leadership
styles. A statistical analysis system was used to conduct the analysis of the data and to
find correlations. The survey data were cross-referenced with the team performance
evaluation from quarterly project performance reports obtained from the operation
managers of the organizations that participated in the study and the completion of the
self-assessment survey tools (Appendices A and B). The responses to the self-assessment
surveys were aligned with the teams’ performance scores.
Hypotheses
The hypotheses for the research study were used to evaluate the relationship
between the leadership styles of 17 project managers in 17 project teams consisting of 6-9
members and the team perception of the project managers’ leadership styles as the
leadership styles relate to project team performance. The hypotheses were answered
through the analysis of the statistical survey data in comparison to the performance of the
individual teams. The hypotheses included two null hypotheses and two directional
hypotheses:
218
H01: There is no relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project
manager and the project manager’s performance as perceived by the project manager’s
team members.
Ha1: There is a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project
manager and the project manager’s performance as perceived by project manager’s team
members.
H02: There is no relationship between a project manager’s leadership styles and
project manager’s effectiveness.
Ha2: There is a relationship between a project manager’s leadership styles and
project manager’s effectiveness.
Limitations
There are limitations that may have affected the study. The first limitation is that
the researcher may not have been able to interpret accurately the data collected from
respondents. The possibility that some of the respondents may have lacked reflection or
knowledge concerning issues of leadership and the role of project management is also to
be considered. Another limitation is the study may not be a direct representation of the
larger population of project teams in the construction industry. According to Lukawetz
(2002), individuals who use the Internet less frequently are less likely to respond to a
survey and often respond late when they do eventually respond. Because some of the
team members work in remote locations, they may not have had access to the Internet.
Another limitation is the interpretation of the data may have researcher bias
embedded in it because the researcher works in the construction industry. Finally, there
was a potential for problems to occur in maintaining security and confidentiality in a Web
219
survey such as this study. The researcher relied on the online survey provider to provide
needed security and confidentiality for the study.
Results and Conclusions of the Study
The following discussion of the results of the two research questions draws the
conclusions and implications of the findings. The conclusions for the two questions led to
the acceptance of the directional study hypotheses. In response to the question of whether
there is a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project manager and the
project manager’s performance as perceived by the project manager’s team members, it is
important to look at the effect of each of the nine leadership characteristics of project
managers on team performance from the project team survey. The bivariate correlation
coefficient indicated there appeared to be no significant correlation between the
independent variable of charisma and team performance, r = 0.16 with a significance of p
= 0.00. Among the eight teams ranked as top performing, the characteristic of charisma
had a higher mean score in the project manager’s survey and project team results.
The result of the analysis indicated a project manager’s leadership characteristic
of charisma, individually, is not an important factor in influencing team performance as
perceived by the project team. The result is consistent with research that indicated a
charismatic leader’s personal needs for attention and affirmation might promote group
thinking, which may discourage honest communication and necessary constructive
confrontation with disconfirming data (Banutu-Gomez, 2004). One plausible explanation
for the result may be that the leadership characteristic of charisma, individually, may not
have a strong effect on team performance, but combining leadership characteristic of
charisma with the other eight characteristics may yield a different outcome. Previous
220
research indicated that to add positive meaning to the identities of project members, a
charismatic leader behaves in admirable ways that cause every member of the team to
work together in improving organizational goals (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Future
research may examine how project managers who model charismatic leadership behavior
may affect team focus and actions.
In response to the question of whether there is a relationship between the
leadership characteristics of shared responsibility and a project manager’s performance as
perceived by the project manager’s team members, the bivariate correlation coefficient
indicated there appeared to be a low degree of positive correlation between the
independent variable of shared responsibility and team performance, r = 0.30 with a
significance of p = 0.00. Among the eight teams ranked as top performing, the
characteristic of shared responsibility had the same mean score in the project manager’s
survey and project team results.
The result of the analysis indicated a project manager’s leadership characteristic
of shared responsibility, individually, appeared to be an important factor in influencing
team performance as perceived by the project team. The result is consistent with research
that indicated leaders build followers by sharing power and assigning critical tasks to
followers (Murray, 2004). When power sharing is achieved, leaders may be successful in
increasing the competency of followers. One plausible explanation for the result may be
the leadership characteristic of shared responsibility, individually, may have a slight
effect on team performance and when combined with the other eight characteristics may
have a stronger effect on team performance. Future research may examine how project
221
managers looking at completing projects on schedule and within a specified budget can
share responsibilities with team members.
In response to the question of whether there is a relationship between the
leadership characteristic of continuous development and a project manager’s performance
as perceived by the project manager’s team members, the bivariate correlation coefficient
indicated there appeared to a low degree to be a positive correlation between the
independent variable of continuous development and team performance, r = 0.26 with a
significance of p = 0.02. Among the eight teams ranked as top performing, the
characteristics of continuous development had a higher mean score consistently on the
project manager’s survey results than in comparison to the team survey results for the
eight teams.
The result of the analysis indicated a project manager’s leadership characteristic
of continuous development, individually, appeared to be an important factor in
influencing team performance as perceived by the project team. The result is consistent
with research that posited most leadership development occurs on the job. Hence, the
most important responsibility of a leader is to develop other leaders (Hurt & Holman,
2005). When power sharing is achieved, leaders will be successful in increasing the
competency of followers. One plausible explanation for the result may be the leadership
characteristic of continuous development, individually, may have a slight effect on team
performance and when combined with the other eight characteristics the leadership
characteristic of continuous development may have a stronger effect on team
performance.
222
In response to the question of whether there is a relationship between the
leadership characteristic of common vision and a project manager’s performance as
perceived by the project manager’s team members, the bivariate correlation coefficient
indicated there appeared to be a low degree of a positive correlation between the
independent variable of common vision and team performance, r = 0.31 with a
significance of p = 0.00. Among the eight teams ranked as top performing, the
characteristic of common vision had a higher mean score in five of the eight teams on the
project team’s survey results in comparison to the project manager’s survey results.
The result of the analysis indicated a project manager’s leadership characteristic
of common vision, individually, appeared to be an important factor in influencing team
performance as perceived by the project team. The result is consistent with research that
indicated the project manager is responsible for painting a clear image of the vision to the
team, and the common vision should tie into the goals of the project and organization
(Lucas, 1998). When employees are given well-defined roles and vision, there tends to be
harmony, and performance on projects increases. One plausible explanation for the result
may be that the leadership characteristic of common vision, individually, may have a
slight effect on team performance and when combined with the other eight characteristics
may have a stronger effect on team performance.
In response to the question of whether there is a relationship between the
leadership characteristic of mutual influence relationships and the project manager’s
performance as perceived by the project manager’s team members, the bivariate
correlation coefficient indicated there appeared to be a low degree of positive correlation
between the independent variable of mutual influence relationships and team
223
performance, r = 0.23 with a significance of p = 0.01. Among the eight teams ranked as
top performing, the characteristic of mutual influence relationships had a higher mean
score in six of the eight teams on the project team’s survey results in comparison to the
project manager’s survey results.
The result of the analysis indicated a project manager’s leadership characteristic
of mutual influence relationships, individually, appeared to be an important factor in
influencing team performance as perceived by the project team. The result is consistent
with research that indicated diversity of opinions and people is essential to team
cooperation and team building (Backstrom, 2004). Mutually influencing relationships can
be enhanced if the project manager creates an environment that allows team members to
provide meaningful feedback to the project manager and the team without negative
consequences. One plausible explanation for the result may be that the leadership
characteristic of mutual influence relationships, individually, may have a slight effect on
team performance and when combined with the other eight characteristics may have a
stronger effect on team performance. Future research might examine how team members
might influence each other without exercising authority over each other.
In response to the question of whether there is a relationship between the
leadership characteristic of group interests and a project manager’s performance as
perceived by the project manager’s team members, the bivariate correlation coefficient
indicated there appeared to be a low degree of positive correlation between the
independent variable of group interests and team performance, r = 0. 0.24 with a
significance of p = 0.01. Among the eight teams ranked as top performing, the
224
characteristics of group interests had a higher mean score in five of the eight teams on the
project team’s survey results in comparison to the project manager’s survey results.
The result of the analysis indicated that a project manager’s leadership
characteristic of group interests, individually, appeared to be an important factor in
influencing team performance as perceived by the project team. The result is consistent
with research that indicated project managers ought to be capable of handling the task
and the relational aspect of project management (Cicmil, 2006; Graetz, 2002). The
relational aspect of project management involves having the skills necessary to provide
the motivating environment that may induce project team members to work as a team to
accomplish the objectives (Stacey, 2003). One plausible explanation for the result may be
that the leadership characteristics of group interests, individually, may have a slight effect
on team performance and when combined with the other eight characteristics may have a
stronger effect on team performance.
In response to the question of whether there is a relationship between the
leadership characteristic risk taking and a project manager’s performance as perceived by
the project manager’s team members, the bivariate correlation coefficient indicated there
appeared to a low degree to be a positive correlation between the independent variable of
risk taking and team performance, r = 0. 0.24 with a significance of p = 0.01. Among the
eight teams ranked as top performing, the characteristic of risk taking had a higher mean
score in four of the eight teams on the project team’s survey results in comparison to the
project manager’s survey results.
The result of the analysis indicated that a project manager’s leadership
characteristic of risk taking, individually, appeared to be an important factor in
225
influencing team performance as perceived by the project team. The result is consistent
with research that noted, “Any proposed action by a leader entails risk” (Salacuse, 2006,
p. 4). The act of taking risks to achieve desired results is one of the benefits a project
manager in the construction industry brings to the team. One plausible explanation for the
result may be the leadership characteristic of risk taking, individually, may have a slight
effect on team performance and when combined with the other eight characteristics may
have a stronger effect on team performance. Future research might examine a team’s
willingness and ability to engage in risky decision making in comparison to the
performance of the team after the implementation of the decisions.
In response to the question of whether there is a relationship between the
leadership characteristic of collaboration and a project manager’s performance as
perceived by the project manager’s team members, the bivariate correlation coefficient
indicated there appeared to be a low degree of positive correlation between the
independent variable of collaboration and team performance, r = 0. 0.30 with a
significance of p = 0.01. Among the eight teams that were ranked as top performing, the
characteristics of collaboration had a higher mean score in four of the eight teams on the
project team’s survey results in comparison to the project manager’s survey results.
The result of the analysis indicated a project manager’s leadership characteristic
of collaboration, individually, appeared to be an important factor in influencing team
performance as perceived by the project team. The result is consistent with research that
indicated a team leader tends to exert effects that are positive or negative on group effort,
collaboration, cohesion, goal selection, performance norms, and goal attainment (Cicmil
& Marshall, 2005; C. Fisher, 2005). The project manager, through focusing on the group,
226
creates an atmosphere that may require collaboration among team members. One
plausible explanation for the result may be that the leadership characteristics of
collaboration, individually, may have a slight effect on team performance and when
combined with the other eight characteristics may have a stronger effect on team
performance.
In response to the question of whether there is a relationship between the
leadership characteristic empowerment and a project manager’s performance as
perceived by the project manager’s team members, the bivariate correlation coefficient
indicated there appeared to be a low degree of positive correlation between the
independent variable of empowerment and team performance, r = 0. 0.35 with a
significance of p = 0.01. Among the eight teams ranked as top performing, the
characteristics of collaboration had a higher mean score in four of the eight teams on the
project team’s survey results in comparison to the project manager’s survey results.
The result of the analysis indicated a project manager’s leadership characteristic
of empowerment, individually, appeared to be an important factor in influencing team
performance as perceived by the project team. The result is consistent with research that
suggested a project manager ought to be able to charge the team with the responsibility
for work preparation, support, and control (Kendra & Taplin, 2004) rather than restrict
the functions to a few team members. One plausible explanation for the result may be that
the leadership characteristic of empowerment, individually, may have a slight effect on
team performance and when combined with the other eight characteristics may have a
stronger effect on team performance.
227
In response to the second research question, if there is a relationship between a
project manager’s leadership styles and the project manager’s effectiveness, it is
important to look at the combined effect of the nine leadership characteristics of project
managers and project managers’ effectiveness through the project manager survey. The
bivariate correlation coefficient indicated there appeared to be a low degree of positive
correlation between the independent variables of charisma, shared responsibility,
continuous development, and collaboration and team performance, r = 0.21, 0.33, 0.22,
and 0.26, respectively, and a significance of p = 0.00, 0.01, 0.01, and 0.00, respectively.
The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated that there did not appear to be a significant
correlation between the independent variables of mutual influence relationships, group
interests, risk taking, common vision, and empowerment and team performance, r = 0.06,
0.01, 0.02, -0.13, and -0.11, respectively, and a significance of p = 0.01, 0.01, 0.00, 0.00,
and 0.00 respectively.
Among the eight teams ranked as top performing, the characteristics of charisma,
shared responsibility, continuous development, and collaboration had a higher mean
score in at least five of the eight teams on the project manager’s survey results in
comparison to the project team’s survey results. The leadership characteristics of
collaboration had a lower mean score in three of the teams on the project manager’s
survey results in comparison to the project team’s survey results.
The continuous development of team members and showing team members how
to conduct tasks in an efficient manner is one of the roles of an effective project manager
in the construction industry (Thomas & Cheese, 2005). To improve team performance,
organizations in the construction industry may need to focus on improving team member
228
relationships (Bolton, 2005; Kuo, 2004). The result of the analysis indicated project
managers’ leadership style of charisma and empowering the team appeared to be an
important factor in influencing project manager effectiveness. For project managers to be
effective, it is important for the project manager to empower the different professionals
on the team to take the responsibility of managing project changes. Empowering different
professionals may involve teams performing a variety of change roles, on a full- or a part-
time basis, for extended or relatively short periods (Bryde, 2003). The strength of the
project managers in the construction industry lies in the relationships the project
managers developed, team collaboration, and continuous development of members, all
factors that ought to be noticeable in the project teams the managers lead.
The correlation of the nine leadership characteristics is important to future
research, project managers, leaders, employees, organizations, and project teams, because
the correlation of the nine leadership characteristics indicated a strong relationship
between the various leadership characteristics. The leadership characteristics examined in
the study may be valuable for future research in the area of project management and for
current project managers, leaders, and employees in understanding the project manager’s
leadership characteristics required in project teams in organizations in the construction
industry. The survey data indicate project managers need to focus on continuous
development of the team. It is evident from the findings of the study that a combination
of the leadership characteristics examined in the study would allow project managers of
project teams to be effective in managing the team.
229
Conclusions of Research Questions
The result of the analysis is that charisma, individually, is not an important
leadership characteristic for project managers in performing effectively and influencing
team performance. One possible alternative explanation for the result may be that
charisma may not have a strong effect on team performance but when combined in a
team with the other eight characteristics, the combined effect might influence team
performance. Project manager leadership characteristic of collaboration appeared to have
the highest mean score for each of the teams in both the project team and the project
manager surveys, individually and when the data were combined. Collaboration had the
second highest correlation with team performance in the project manager survey, with
correlation r = 0.23, closely behind shared responsibility which has correlation r = 0.33
(Appendix U). Additionally, empowerment and common vision showed the least
correlation with team performance, r = -0.11 and -0.13, respectively, in the project
manager survey results, yet had the second and third highest correlation in the project
team survey results (Appendix V).
The results indicated although the project team members might perceive the
project managers as not influencing the team performance through the project manager’s
leadership styles, the project managers think otherwise. The survey results support the
conclusion because, in most of the responses to the surveys, the project manager had
higher mean scores than the project team for same leadership characteristics and styles.
The leadership characteristic of collaboration showed the greatest potential for being able
to affect the dependent variable team performance and the leadership style charisma
230
showed the greatest potential for being able to affect project manager effectiveness yet
had a low degree of correlation with team performance in the project manager survey.
There appeared to be a strong correlation between the independent variables in the
project manager and in the team surveys. The combined study results appeared to support
both the relationship between the independent variables and the team perception of the
importance of the leadership characteristics of project managers to the team performance
in the construction industry within the project teams that participated in the study.
Conclusions of Research Hypotheses
The results of the relationship between the two research questions and the nine
characteristics of project manager leadership styles were used to answer the hypotheses
Ha1 and Ha2 and the null hypotheses H01 and H02. A multivariate regression analysis
indicated approximately 3.42% of the change in team performance could be attributed to
the combined independent variables of leadership styles of project managers in the team
survey. Additionally, 2.99% of the change in team performance could be attributed to the
independent variables of project manager effectiveness in the project manager survey.
The survey results indicated that among the teams that participated in the study, the
combined leadership characteristics did not appear to have a strong effect on the teams’
performance metrics. When the results of the teams’ surveys, project managers’ surveys,
and team performance data were analyzed through the assessment of each of the research
questions, it appeared there is some correlation between project manager leadership
characteristics and team performance and project manager effectiveness. From the project
manager’s survey results, charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, and
collaboration showed some correlation with team performance. Shared responsibility,
231
continuous development, common vision, mutual influence relationships, group interests,
risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment also appeared correlated through the cross-
referencing of the project team survey and team performance.
Based on a comparison of the performance survey results, the teams that had the
best team performance scores also have project managers who consistently show higher
levels of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, and collaboration in
comparison to the project team’s survey results. Three high-performing teams also
showed a high score in the areas of common vision and risk taking, with a lower score in
group interests, mutual influence relationships, and empowerment in both the team and
the project manager surveys. The results from the project manager survey of the teams
that had the lowest performance were less consistent. While two teams showed higher
mean scores on all leadership characteristics, one of the teams showed lower mean scores
in the project manager survey of shared responsibility, mutual influence relationships,
group interests, risk taking, and empowerment. Based on the findings that eight of the
leadership characteristics showed some correlation through the team survey data and
team performance scores, the null hypothesis is rejected and project managers’ leadership
characteristics are accepted as influencing team performance. Based on the findings that
four of the leadership characteristics showed some correlation through the project
manager’s survey data and team performance scores, the null hypothesis, there is no
relationship between a project manager’s leadership styles and the project manager’s
effectiveness, is rejected and project managers’ leadership styles are accepted as
influencing project manager effectiveness.
232
Implications
There are four implications to the study: (a) the identification of the
interrelationships between the nine leadership characteristics, (b) the finding that
leadership characteristics of project manager affected team performance, (c) the finding
that leadership characteristics of project manager affected project manager effectiveness,
and (d) the uncovering of the leadership characteristics that appeared to have the greatest
affect on team performance and project manager effectiveness. An important outcome of
the study is the discovery that some of the project managers perceived themselves as
doing a better job when compared to the responses from the respective teams. In the
analysis of all teams, it 9 of 17 project managers had a mean score higher than the project
team. Interestingly, 2 of 9, which represents 22.22% of the project managers with a
higher mean score, also scored lower in the performance report. Among the project
managers with lower mean scores than the project team, the project managers appeared to
be more focused on individual efforts or on the interests of the group than on performing.
Another important outcome of the study is the discovery that even though the
leadership styles of project managers and team performance were not strongly correlated
among the teams surveyed, the data indicated the independent variables were strongly
correlated with each other. The result is accentuated through the coefficients of
correlation presented in Appendices T and U. The result of the correlations indicated a
change in one variable might effect or cause a change in the other. The effect of each
independent variable on the dependent variable is not strongly influenced by the
remaining variables in the project manager’s survey. The findings supported the notion
233
that the combined leadership characteristics of project manager affected team
performance.
The results indicated while the individual team members perceived the
importance and relationship between the independent variables, the research is unable to
associate leadership characteristic variables with the performance report of the teams
through the statistical analysis. The examination of the project manager survey and the
team survey results indicates in the high-performing teams the leadership characteristics
of shared responsibility, risk taking, and empowerment received similar scores in both the
project manager and the team surveys. The next most important leadership characteristics
in the high performing teams appeared to be charisma and common vision, where the
project managers received a favorable score from the project teams.
One of the influences on the study results could result from the common belief
among individuals in the construction industry that technical skills rather than
management skills are more important for managing projects (Cowie, 2003). The success
of projects is not limited to the technical skills of project managers. Rather, the success of
a project often depends on people-related and management issues. Project managers
trained in interpersonal skills could achieve success in managing and leading teams. It is
rather easy to transition to a learning organization where project managers receive
training on teamwork and performance because most organizations in the construction
industry use project teams to execute the organizations’ tasks. Project managers of teams
ought to have authority, accountability, and responsibility for the team, projects, and
services. The lack of effective leadership training for project managers in some of the
234
participating organizations may have negatively affected the project managers’ mean
scores due to how the teams perceived the project managers’ leadership styles.
Recommendations
One recommendation is for future research to examine the leadership
characteristics found in high performing teams in the study. The leadership characteristics
of collaboration, charisma, continuous development and common vision received higher
mean scores in both project manager and project team surveys. Future research might
examine the relationships of collaborative efforts on group performance; relationship
between leadership characteristics of charisma and the attainment of team goals, and how
organizations may respond rapidly to changing business environments by drawing
comparisons of continuous team-based developmental activities and organizations’
developmental activities. Future research might examine how project managers of
functional teams can generate and maintain clear vision for the team. Future research may
examine leaders in the construction industry who personifies the leadership
characteristics of collaboration, continuous personal and team development, and common
vision.
The study indicated project managers’ leadership styles might not have a direct
relationship on the performance of the teams. Several factors might have influenced the
findings of the study: (a) the validation of the tool, (b) the organizational performance
metrics, and (c) the team structure of participating organizations. The first
recommendation addressing the factors that might have influenced the findings is based
on the tools used in the study, which has not been used in prior study. At the time the
studies were conducted, there did not appear to be a tool available that examined the nine
235
leadership characteristics to be surveyed in the study. Six different self-assessment
surveys were reviewed and survey tools for the study were derived from the surveys.
Therefore, the 11-person pilot team served as the validation for the tool developed for the
study. While the pilot team was representative of the remaining teams that participated in
the study, the validation may have been improved through using several teams from
different organizations in the construction industry. Therefore, the first recommendation
would be for the survey tool to be further validated based on the outcome of the study
and through additional use in different team-oriented organizations.
The second recommendation is that the performance metrics used to assess team
performance be examined for the strength of the relationship to the performance of the
teams that participated in the study. The performance reports used for the study included
three variables; all variables may be difficult for the operation managers of participating
teams to relate directly to the performance of the teams. The performance metrics used to
assess the performance of teams may need to be expanded to include other factors such as
scope of project, design, and construction budget, type of project, project management
training, team composition, quality assurance, and years of experience of project
managers. Such factors may provide a broader perspective on other variables that affect
the production level of the team.
The third recommendation is based on the influence of the organizational
structure on team performance. The structure of the organization is important to ensuring
high performance by project managers and project teams. As the business structure
changes in the construction industry, the need to prepare new leadership to embrace new
ideas also changes. For project managers to manage projects effectively, the project
236
managers should employ a combination of leadership styles that suit the team the project
manager leads. In most instances, the performance of project teams is directly linked to
the ability of the project manager to include all members of the team in decision making,
especially in the decisions that affect the employees’ tasks. An organization that
expresses high concern for both people and production; builds on the insights of the team;
focuses the team through clarifying visions and goals; and promotes a culture of freedom,
collaboration, and accountability will be effective in obtaining better results from the
project managers and project teams.
Significance to Industry
The study may benefit the construction industry because the industry is highly
oriented toward project management and team collaboration; hence, the result may help
project managers improve team performance. The results may help improve the project
management field’s awareness of team performance as influenced by the project
manager’s leadership style, adaptability, and effectiveness. Construction companies will
tend to benefit the most from an improvement in leadership styles of project managers.
The construction industry relies on teams of various professionals to execute construction
projects. The need for project managers to manage projects and teams effectively is
increasing. Managing and performance of construction projects and teams often depends
on the effectiveness of project managers.
By improving team performance, project managers may be more adept at
communicating organization vision, setting directions, and responding to the needs of
employees. When the project manager values employees’ efforts, the employees may
decide to stay on the job longer. By staying on the job longer, there may be a reduction in
237
personnel turnover. The study may also benefit any business environment that relies on
project management skills for its operation because the study will provide information on
how leadership characteristics exhibited by project managers affect the performance of
the team the leader leads.
Significance to Leadership
The significance of the study on the influence of project managers on team
performance to leadership is that the study shows the influence of project managers’
leadership styles on the performance of project teams. The study may provide a path
forward for improvements in organizational learning when applied to project leadership
by suggesting improvements in the leadership styles of project managers as the leadership
styles influence the outcomes of project cost, schedule, and performance. Another
significant contribution of the study is the potential to influence the culture of an
organization through training and educating organizational members in leadership
characteristics. Because an organization’s culture is created through a shared belief
system, it may be possible to enhance and improve the culture of the organization
through targeted training programs for project managers and team members.
The study may benefit the field of organizational systems, of which leadership is a
component, by signifying the nature of leadership styles needed by project managers of
project teams to enable high team performance in an organizational environment. The
study revealed the leadership characteristic of collaboration is more prominent in high-
performing teams than other leadership characteristics in the study. The study builds on
current leadership studies by providing an understanding of the greater role that effective
leadership play in organizations that rely on project teams.
238
Summary
The study used a quantitative method, project manager and project team surveys
and performance reports on participating teams, to examine different leadership
characteristics, and the relationships among the leadership characteristics were examined
to determine if any change in one variable would have an effect on the others. Although
the study did not find a strong statistical correlation between project managers’ leadership
styles and the performance of the teams and project manager effectiveness, the study was
able to correlate the variables that appeared to form project managers’ leadership styles.
The study found correlation between eight of the project managers’ leadership
characteristics with team performance and four of the project managers’ leadership styles
with project manager effectiveness.
The independent and dependent variables were addressed through an extensive
review of current literature on leadership theories. As organizational structures continue
to evolve into a more team-oriented focus, it will be necessary for organizations to
recognize the influence of effective leadership on team performance. Five of the
leadership characteristics variables (charisma, shared responsibility, common vision, risk
taking, collaboration, and empowerment) were consistently found to have higher mean
scores in the project manager and project team surveys in the top-performing teams
within the study. The trait theory of leadership believes people are endowed with some
traits from birth that make an individual an effective leader. According to Stodgill (1974),
traits such as adaptability to situations, attentiveness to the environment, supportive
attitude, decision-making ability, desire to influence others, and willingness to assume
responsibility are essential to effective leadership. The relational theory of leadership
239
involves an inclusive process whereby people and diverse opinions are valued and
encouraged.
An examination of all high-performing team scores revealed that in seven of nine
participating teams, the leadership characteristics of mutual influence relationships and
collaboration were consistent in the project manager survey more than the project team
survey results indicated. The result of the analysis of the project manager survey
indicated project managers’ leadership characteristics of charisma, shared responsibility,
continuous development, and collaboration, individually, appeared to be important
factors in influencing project manager effectiveness. The leadership characteristics of
charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, and collaboration consistently
received higher scores in five of the eight teams that received high performance scores.
Therefore, the project managers’ leadership characteristics of charisma, shared
responsibility, continuous development, and collaboration were all positive contributors
to the performance of the participating teams.
The findings of the study could identify different areas of focus for future
research. For organizations that are project-management driven and team oriented, the
findings may provide a better understanding of the relationships between project
managers’ leadership characteristics and styles within the organization and effective
leadership and improved team performance. The results of the study may enable project
managers to recognize the responsibility for the performance of the teams is the
responsibility of the entire team, rather than of a single individual.
240
REFERENCES
Allio, R. (2005). Leadership development: Teaching versus learning. Management
Decision, 43, 1071-1077. Retrieved November 30, 2006, from EBSCOhost
database.
Ammeter, A., & Dukerich, J. M. (2002). Leadership, team building, and team member
characteristics in high performance project teams. Engineering Management
Journal, 14(4), 3-11. Retrieved March 30, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Arena, M. J. (2002). Changing the way we change. Organizational Development Journal,
20(2), 33-48. Retrieved March 17, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Augustine, S., Payne, B., Sencindiver, F., & Woodcock, S. (2005). Agile project
management: Steering from the edges. Communication of the ACM, 49(12), 85-
90. Retrieved December 2, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.
Avolio, B., J., Zhu, A., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and
organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and
moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,
951-968. Retrieved March 7, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Backstrom, T. (2004). Collective learning: A way over the ridge to a new organizational
attractor. The Learning Organization, 11(6), 466-477. Retrieved August 7, 2006,
from ProQuest database.
Bacon, N., & Blyton, P. (2003). The impact of teamwork on skills: Employee perceptions
of who gains and who loses. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(2), 13-
29. Retrieved August 7, 2004, from ProQuest database.
Bader, G. E., Bloom, A. E., & Chang, R. Y. (1994). Measuring team performance: A
241
practical guide to tracking team success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Badger, B., & Kashiwagi, D. (2004). Leadership principles vs management control.
Specialty Conference on Leadership and Management in Construction, Hilton
Head, SC: Construction Research Council, American Society of Civil Engineers.
Retrieved January 26, 2007, from http://www.caledonian.ac.uk/bne/downloads/
ResearchReview.pdf
Banutu-Gomez, M. B. (2003). Leadership in the government of the Gambia: Traditional
African leadership practice, shared vision, accountability and willingness and
openness to change. Journal of American Academy of Business, 2, 349-359.
Retrieved August 17, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Banutu-Gomez, M. B. (2004). Great leaders teach exemplary followership and serve as
servant leaders. Journal of American Academy of Business, 4, 143-151. Retrieved
January 16, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Barczak, G., McDonough, E. F., & Athanassiou, N. (2006). So you want to be a global
project leader? Research Technology Management, 49(3), 28-35. Retrieved July
27, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Beck, R., A., (2003). Regression analysis: A constructive critique. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Bender, W. J., & Septelka, D. M. (2002). Team building in the construction industry.
Transactions from the 46th Annual Meeting of AACE. Association for the
242
Advancement of Cost Engineering (PM131-134). Retrieved August 7, 2005, from
http://www.cwu.edu/~benderw/Teambuildingbenderseptelka0119.doc
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (2003). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York:
Harper & Row.
Bernard, L. L. (1926). Introduction to social psychology. New York: Holt.
Biech, E. (2001). The Pfeiffer book of successful team-building tools: Best of the annuals.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Birnbaum, M., H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the internet, Annual
Review of Psychology, 55, 803-832. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from ProQuest
database.
Blanchard, K. H., & Hersey, P. (1996). Great ideas: Revisiting the life-cycle theory of
leadership. Training & Development, 50, 42-47. Retrieved on February 14, 2006,
from ProQuest database.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bolton, B. (2005). Your career in today’s enterprise. Information Systems Management,
22, 86-86. Retrieved August 23, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.
Bossnik, B. A. G. (2004). Effectiveness of innovation leadership styles: A manager’s
influence on ecological innovation in construction projects. Construction
Innovation, 4(4), 211-228. Retrieved January 18, 2006, from EBSCOhost
database.
Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2004). Advancing project management in learning
organizations. The Learning Organization, 11, 226-243. Retrieved January 16,
243
2006, from EBSCOhost database.
Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2005). The paradox of project control. Team
Performance Management, 11(5/6), 157-178. Retrieved January 11, 2006, from
EBSCOhost database.
Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A., & Swan, J. (2005). Organizational routines, situated
learning and processes of change in project-based organizations. Project
Management Journal, 36(3), 27-41. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from EBSCOhost
database.
Brill, J. M., Bishop, M. J., & Walker, A. A. (2006). The competencies and characteristics
required of an effective project manager: A web-based Delphi study. Educational
Technology, Research and Development, 54, 115-140. Retrieved November 25,
2006, from ProQuest database.
Brockhoff, K. (2006). On the novelty dimension in project management. Project
Management Journal, 37(3), 26-36. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from ProQuest
database.
Bryant, S. E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in
creating, sharing, and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of Leadership
and Organizational Studies, 9(4), 32-44. Retrieved July 22, 2005, from ProQuest
database.
Bryde, D. J. (2003). Project management concepts, methods and application.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23, 775-793.
Retrieved November 30, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
244
Burrell, D. N. (2006). Emerging options in doctoral study in management for
international executives. Journal for Decision Makers, 31(3), 13-17. Retrieved
December 18, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.
Buskens, V., & Raub, W. (2002). Embedded trust: Control and learning. In S. R. Thye &
E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Group cohesion, trust and solidarity (pp. 167-202).
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Retrieved June 19, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Butler, J. K., & Reese, R. M. (1991). Leadership style and sales performance: A test of
the situational leadership model. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 11(3), 37-47. Retrieved September 3, 2005, from EBSCOhost
database.
Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. (1996), Relations between work team
characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel
Psychology, 49, 429-452. Retrieved April 2005, from ProQuest database.
Carte, T. A., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006). Emergent leadership in self-
managed virtual teams: A longitudinal study of concentrated and shared
leadership behaviors. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 323-343. Retrieved
August 26, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Charoenngam, C., Ogunlana, S., O., Nin-Fu, K., & Dey, P. K. (2004). Re-engineering
construction communication in distance management framework. Business
Process Management Journal, 10(6), 645-672. Retrieved December 18, 2007,
from EBSCOhost database.
245
Childs, P., Goldsmith, M., LaRue, B., & Larson, K. (2004). Leading organizations, from
the inside out: Unleashing the collaborative genius of action-learning teams. New
York: Wiley.
Christensen, D., & Walker, D. H. T. (2004). Understanding the role of vision in project
success. Project Management Journal, 35(3), 39-52. Retrieved February 16,
2007, from ProQuest database.
Cicmil, S. (2006). Understanding project management practice through interpretative and
critical research perspectives. Project Management Journal, 37(2), 27-37.
Retrieved December 8, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.
Cicmil, S., & Marshall, D. (2005). Insight into collaboration at project level: Complexity,
social interaction and procurement mechanisms. Building Research and
Information, 33, 523-535. Retrieved December 5, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Clark, D. (1998). The leadership training and development outline assessment. Retrieved
July 20, 2006, from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/bm_model.html
Clegg, S., & Ross-Smith, A. (2003). Revising the boundaries: Management education
and learning in postpositivist world. Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 2, 85-98. Retrieved December 15, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.
Cleveland, D. I., & Ireland, L. R. (2002). Project management strategic design and
implementation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cohen, S. G., & Gibson, C. (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for
virtual team effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
246
Conger, J., A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic
leadership in organizational settings. The Academy of Management Review, 12,
637-647. Retrieved February 13, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in
organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Connaughton, S. L., Lawrence, F. L., & Ruben, B. D. (2003). Leadership development as
a systematic and multidisciplinary enterprise. Journal of Education for Business,
79, 46-51. Retrieved August 8, 2004, from ProQuest database.
Cooper, M. (2005). The transformational leadership of the Apostle Paul: A contextual
and Biblical leadership for contemporary ministry. Christian Education Journal,
2, 48-61. Retrieved April 16, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Cowie, G. (2003). The importance of people skills for project managers. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 35(6/7), 256-258. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from
ProQuest database.
Crawford, I., II. (2003). Assessing and developing the project management competence
of individuals. In J. R. Turner (Ed.), People in project management. Aldershot,
UK: Gower.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dainty, A., Cheng, M., & Moore, D. (2005). A comparison of the behavioral
competencies of client-focused and production-focused project managers in the
247
construction sector. Project Management Journal, 36(2), 39-48. Retrieved
February 15, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Dallal, G., E. (2001). The little handbook of statistical practice. Retrieved June 3, 2007,
from http://statisticalpractice.com.
Dawes, T. (2003). Project management: An integrated approach. British Journal of
Administrative Management, 34, 24-25. Retrieved January 28, 2006, from
ProQuest database.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (2003). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dolan, S., L., & Garcia, S. (2002). Managing by values: Cultural redesign for strategic
organizational change at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Journal of
Management Development, 21(2), 101-117. Retrieved July 12, 2006, from
EBSCOhost database.
Doorewaard, H., Hootegem, G. V., & Huys, R. (2002). Team responsibility structure and
team performance. Personnel Review, 31, 356-371. Retrieved May 12, 2006, from
EBSCOhost database.
Douglas, E. E. (2004). Project planning-then scheduling. AACE International
Transactions, PS(0.7), 71-75. Retrieved March 7, 2006, from EBSCOhost
database.
Doyle, M. (2002). Selecting managers for transformational change. Human Resource
Management Journal, 12, 3-16. Retrieved February 12, 2006, from ProQuest
database.
248
Dreyfus, S. (2004). The five-stage model of adult skill acquisition. Bulletin of Science,
Technology and Society, 24(3), 177-181. Retrieved December 9, 2006, from
ProQuest database.
Duckett, H., & Macfarlane, E. (2003). Emotional intelligence and transformational
leadership in retail. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24, 309-
317. Retrieved February 12, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Dugan, J. P. (2006). Involvement and leadership: A descriptive analysis of socially
responsible leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 335-343.
Retrieved December 12, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational
leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735-744. Retrieved March 4, 2005, from
InfoTrac database.
Eccles, T. (1996). Succeeding with change: Implementing action-driven strategies.
London: McGraw-Hill.
Eicher, J., Jones, J. E., & Bearley, W. L. (1999). Post-heroic leadership: Managing the
virtual organization. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
Einsiedel, A. A. (1987). Profile of effective project managers. Project Management
Journal, 18(5), 52-56. Retrieved February 26, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Einstein, W. O., & Humphreys, J. H. (2003). Nothing new under the sun:
Transformational leadership, from a historical perspective. Management Decision,
41, 85-96. Retrieved August 6, 2004, from ProQuest database.
249
Ellinger, A. D., & Bostrom, R. P. (2002). An examination of managers’ beliefs about
their roles as facilitators of learning. Management Learning, 33, 147-179.
Retrieved December 16, 2005, from EBSCOhost database.
Ellis, C. T., Wood, G. D., & Thorpe, T. (2004). Technology-based learning and the
project manager. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11,
358-365. Retrieved July 19, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Fairholm, M. R. (2004). A new sciences outline for leadership development. The
Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 25, 369-383. Retrieved
February 8, 2004, from ProQuest database.
Ferrazzi, R. R. (2005). Never eat alone: And other secrets of success, one relationship at
a time. New York: Currency/Doubleday.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fisher, C. (2005). Team-building challenge games. RE:view, 37(2), 79-84.
Fisher, D. K., Kent, R., Nottingham, L., & Field, J. B. R. (2005). Characteristics of
effective leaders in economic development: An exploratory study. Southern
Business Review, 31, 13-28. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Fisher, K., & Fisher, M. D. (1998). The distributed mind: Achieving high performance
through the collective intelligence of knowledge work teams. New York:
AMACOM.
Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. S., & Buhl, S. (2002). Underestimating costs in public works
projects: Error or lie? Journal of American Planning Association, 68, 279-295.
Retrieved December 9, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.
250
Furst, S. A., Reeves, M., Rosen, B., & Blackburn, R. S. (2004). Managing the life cycle
of virtual teams. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 6-20. Retrieved
February 12, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Gardner, L., & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and
emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership & Organizational
Development Journal, 23(2), 68-78. Retrieved December 2, 2006, from ProQuest
database.
Garson, G., D. (2007). Multiple regression: Overview. Retrieved August 3, 2007, from
http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/regress.html
Gibber, D., Carter, I., & Goldsmith, M. (2002). Best practices in leadership development
handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). The emotional reality of teams. The
Journal of Organizational Excellence, 21(2), 55-65. Retrieved December 8, 2006,
from ProQuest database.
Gordon, A., & Yukl, G. (2004). The future of leadership research: Challenges and
opportunities. German Journal of Human Resource Research, 18, 359-365.
Retrieved November 26, 2005, from PsychINFO database.
Gordon, J. (2002). A perspective on team building. Journal of American Academy of
Business, 2, 185-188. Retrieved May 26, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Graetz, F. (2002). Strategic thinking versus strategic planning: Towards understanding
the complementarities. Management Decision, 40, 456-462. Retrieved December
13, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.
251
Grojean, M. W., Resick, C. J., Dickson, M. W., & Smith, D. B. (2004). Leaders, values,
and organizational climate: Examining leadership strategies for establishing an
organizational climate regarding ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 55, 223-241.
Retrieved February 10, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.
Groves, K. S. (2005). Gender differences in social and emotional skills and charismatic
leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(3), 30-46.
Retrieved December 15, 2006, from PsychINFO database.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Novicevic, M. M., Harvey, M. G., & Buckley, M. R. (2003).
Awareness of temporal complexity and innovation: A competency-based model.
The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 433-454. Retrieved January 18, 2006, from
ProQuest database.
Hanbury, G. L., Sapat, A., & Washington, C. W. (2004). Know yourself and take charge
of your own destiny: The “fit model” of leadership. Public Administration
Review, 64, 566-576. Retrieved April 13, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective sharing in multiunit
companies. Organization Science, 13, 232-248. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from
ProQuest database.
Harland, L., Harrison, W., Jones, J. R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2005). Leadership
behaviors and subordinate resilience. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 11(2), 2-14. Retrieved November 28, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Harrison, B. (1999). The nature of leadership: Historical perspectives and the future.
Journal of California Law Enforcement, 33, 24-35. Retrieved July 15, 2004, from
ProQuest database.
252
Hartley, D. E. (2004). Technology kicks up leadership development. Training &
Development, 58(3), 23-29. Retrieved May 5, 2005, from EBSCOhost database.
Hartman, F., & Ashrafi, R. (2002). Project management in the information systems and
technologies industries. Project Management Journal, 33(3), 50-63. Retrieved
April 25, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Hautala, T. (2005). The effects of subordinates’ personality on appraisals of
transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
11(4), 84-93. Retrieved February 28, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the time: Staying alive through the
dangers of leading. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Helland, M. R., & Winston, B. E. (2005). Towards a deeper understanding of hope and
leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(2), 42-55.
Retrieved March 5, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Holt, G. D., Love, P. E. D., & Nesan, L. J. (2000). Employee empowerment in
construction: An implementation model for process improvement. Team
Performance Management, 6(3/4), 47-54. Retrieved April 25, 2006, from
ProQuest database.
Hoopes, J. (2003). False prophets: The gurus who created modern management and why
their ideas are bad for business. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Hughes, S. W., Tippett, D. D., & Thomas, W. K. (2004). Measuring project success in
the construction industry. Engineering Management Journal, 16(3), 31-37.
Retrieved September 6, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Humphreys, P., Matthews, J., & Kumaraswamy, M. (2003). Pre-construction projection
253
partnering:, from adversarial to collaborative relationships. Supply Chain
Management, 8(2), 166-178. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from ProQuest
database.
Hurt, A. C., & Homan, S. R. (2005). Growing leaders. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 37, 120-123. Retrieved June 14, 2005, from EBSCOhost database.
Insana, R. (2005). Coach says honey gets better results than vinegar. USA Today, p. 4B.
Israel, M. S., & Kasper, B. B. (2004). Reframing leadership to create change. The
Educational Forum, 69, 16-26. Retrieved December 15, 2006, from ProQuest
database.
Jensen, J., A. (2004). An inquiry into the foundations of organizational learning and
learning organization. The Learning Organization, 11, 478-486. Retrieved
February 21, 2007, from ProQuest database.
Jobson, J., D. (1999). Applied Multivariate Data Analysis: Volume I: Regression and
experimental design (4th ed.). New York: Springer.
Johnson, P. (2004). General research discussion on calculating means from age ranges
in a survey question. Marketing Research Roundtable. Retrieved June 3, 2007,
from http://forum.research info.com/showthread.php?t=9/4.html
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2003). Joining together: Group theory and group
skills. New York: Pearson.
Jones, E. C., & Chung, C. A. (2006). A methodology for measuring engineering
knowledge worker productivity. Engineering Management Journal, 18, 32-38.
Retrieved February 25, 2006, from ProQuest database.
254
Jones, S. D., & Shilling, D. J. (2000). Measuring team performance: A step-by-step,
customizable approach for managers, facilitators, and team leaders. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A
metal-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
755-768. Retrieved December 2, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Kan, M. M. (2002). Reinterpreting the multifactor leadership questionnaire. In K. W.
Parry & J. R. Meindl (Eds), Grounding leadership theory and research: Issues,
perspectives and methods (pp. 159-173). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Kaplan, R. E. (1997). Skillscope survey. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:
Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246-255.
Retrieved November 14, 2005, from EBSCOhost database.
Katz, R. (2004). The human side of managing technological innovation (2nd ed.). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2003). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-
performance organization. New York: Harper Business.
Kendra, K., & Taplin, L. J. (2004). Project success: A cultural framework. Project
Management Journal, 35, 30-45. Retrieved August 14, 2005, from EBSCOhost
database.
Kerfoot, K. (2002). Leading the leaders: The challenge of leading an empowered
organization. Pediatric Nursing, 28, 301-302. Retrieved November 30, 2004,
from ProQuest database.
255
Kerzner, H. (2003). Project management: A system approach to planning, scheduling,
and controlling (8th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Kest, R., T. (2006). Principles of leadership: Leadership management. Futurics, 30, 52-
71. Retrieved August 9, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. (2004). The impact of team
empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face
interaction. Academic of Management Journal, 47, 175-192. Retrieved August 1,
2006, from EBSCOhost database.
Kline, P., & Saunders, B. (1993). Ten steps to a learning organization. Arlington, VA:
Great Ocean.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs, from management. New
York: Free Press.
Kotterman, J. (2006). Leadership versus management: What’s the difference? Journal for
Quality and Participation, 29(2), 13-17. Retrieved November 29, 2006, from
ProQuest database.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge: How to get
extraordinary things done in organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). The Leadership Practices Inventory: Leadership
development planner (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Krishnan, V. R. (2002). Transformational leadership and value system congruence.
International Journal of Value-based Management, 15, 19-33. Retrieved July 15,
2004, from ProQuest database.
256
Krishnan, V. R. (2005). Transformational leaders and outcomes: Role of relationship
duration. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 442-457.
Retrieved March 10, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Kuo, C. (2004). Research on impacts of team leadership on team effectiveness. Journal
of American Academy of Business, 5, 266-277. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from
ProQuest database.
Kur, E., & Bunning, R. (2002). Assuring corporate leadership for the future. Journal of
Management Development, 21, 761-779. Retrieved March 12, 2005, from
ProQuest database.
LaRue, B., & Ivany, R. R. (2004). Transform your culture [Online]. Executive
Excellence, 21(12), 2-3. Retrieved May 12, 2006, from
http://newsletter.adizesgraduateschool.org/bl-transformculture.pdf
Laschinger, H., & Finegan, J. (2005). Using empowerment to build trust and respect in
the workplace: A strategy for addressing the nursing shortage. Nursing
Economic$, 23, 6-13. Retrieved March 12, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Learning Center. (2005). The leadership assessment and personal satisfaction survey.
Retrieved June 27, 2006, from http://www.learningcenter.net/library/pl-
management.htm
Leban, W., & Zulauf, C. (2004). Linking emotional intelligence abilities and
transformational leadership styles. Leadership & Organizational Development
Journal, 25, 554-564. Retrieved June 18, 2006, from ProQuest database.
257
Lee, Y., D., & Chang, Y., F. (2006). A study on the characters of leader and followers of
charismatic leadership--The example of employees at a port authority. The
Business Review, 5, 263-269. Retrieved July 18, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Levin, G. (2004). Leading high-performance projects. Project Management Journal,
35(4), 66. Retrieved February, 13, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Lewis, M., L., Welsh, M., A., Dehler, G., E., & Green, S., G. (2002). Product
development tensions: Exploring contrasting styles of project management.
Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 546-564. Retrieved December 15, 2006,
from ProQuest database.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lo, H., Chen, C., & Chen, H. (2004). The relationship among leader types and leadership
effectiveness: The members of the military as sample. Journal of National
Defense Management, 25(2), 51-60. Retrieved November 24, 2005, from
ProQuest database.
Love, P. E. D. (2002). Influence of project type and procurement method on rework costs
in building construction projects. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 128, 18-29. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Love, P. E. D., & Edwards, D. J. (2004). Determinants of rework in building construction
projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11, 259-274.
Retrieved April 10, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Love, P. E. D., Irani, Z., & Edwards, D. J. (2003). Learning to reduce rework in projects:
Analysis of a firm’s organizational learning and quality practices. Project
Management Journal, 34(3), 13-26. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from ProQuest
258
database.
Love, P. E. D., Irani, Z., & Edwards, D. J. (2004). A seamless supply chain management
model for construction. Supply Chain Management, 9, 43-56. Retrieved April 10,
2006, from ProQuest database.
Lucas, J. R. (1998). Anatomy of a vision statement. Management Review, 87(2), 22-26.
Retrieved April 10, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Lukawetz, G. (2002). Empirically quantifying unit-nonresponse-errors in online surveys
and suggestions for computational correction methods. Online Social Sciences,
50, 403-415. Retrieved on February 24, 2007, from ProQuest database.
Lussier, R. N., & Sonfield, M. C. (2004). Family business management activities and
characteristics: A correctional Study. Mid-American Journal of Business, 19, 47-
53. Retrieved May 24, 2007, from ProQuest database.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron,
J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship:
Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241-258). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Macri, D. M., Tagliaventi, M. R., & Bertolotti, F. (2002). A grounded theory for
resistance to change in a small organization. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 15, 292-311. Retrieved July 22, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Manning, T. T. (2003). Gender, managerial level, transformational leadership and work
satisfaction. Women in Management Review, 17(5/6), 207-216. Retrieved July 22,
2005, from ProQuest database.
Martin, V. (2006). Leading in teams: Part 2. Nursing Management, 13(2), 32-35.
Retrieved April 15, 2005, from ProQuest database.
259
Martini, W. J. (1999). An exploratory study of the relationship between leadership style,
formal education, managerial experience, and project manager effectiveness.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, Washington,
DC.
Martins, L, Gilson, L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and
where do we go, from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805-835. Retrieved
April 15, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Mastrangelo, A., Eddy, E. R., & Lorrenzer, S. J. (2004). The importance of personal and
professional leadership. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 25,
435-451. Retrieved March 24, 2004, from ProQuest database.
Maxwell, J. C. (1998). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership: Follow them and people
will follow you. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
Mazarr, M. J. (2002). Acting like a leader. Survival, 44(4), 107-119. Retrieved June 15,
2006, from ProQuest database.
McCall, M. W., Spreitzer, G. M., & Mahoney, J. (1998). Prospector survey. Greensboro,
NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
McGivern, M. H., & Tvorik, S. J. (1998). Vision driven organizations: Measurement
techniques for group classification. Management Decision, 36(4), 241-262.
Retrieved March 24, 2004, from ProQuest database.
McGuire, E., & Kennerly, S. M. (2006). Nurse managers as transformational and
transactional leaders. Nursing Economic$, 24(4), 179-185. Retrieved December 4,
2006, from EBSCOhost database.
260
McNamara, K., & Watson, J. G. (2005). The development of a team-oriented structure in
a small business enterprise. Journal of American Academy of Business, 6, 184-
191. Retrieved April 15, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Mealiea, L., & Baltazar, R. (2005). A strategic guide for building effective teams. Public
Personnel Management, 34, 141-160. Retrieved February 12, 2006, from
ProQuest database.
Meredith, R., & Mantel, S. J. (2002). Project management: A managerial approach. New
York: Wiley.
Miles, S. J., & Mangold, G. (2002). The impact of team leader performance on team
member satisfaction: The subordinate’s perspective. Team Performance
Management, 8(5/6), 113-121. Retrieved January 17, 2005, from ProQuest
database.
Miller, R. L., Butler, J., & Cosentino, C. J. (2004). Followership effectiveness: An
extension of Fieldler’s contingency model. Leadership & Organizational
Development Journal, 25, 362-368. Retrieved July 22, 2005, from ProQuest
database.
Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups:
Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on
relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1015-1039.
Retrieved February 20, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Morrison, J. L., Rha, J., & Helfman A. (2003). Learning awareness, student engagement,
and change: A transformation in leadership development. Journal of Education
for Business, 79, 11-17. Retrieved June 25, 2004, from EBSCOhost database.
261
Murray, J. P. (2004). Leadership in challenging times. Nursing Education Perspectives,
25(2), 54. Retrieved February 20, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Myers, J. (2004). Developing managers: A view, from the non-profit sector. Journal of
European Industrial Training, 28, 639-656. Retrieved December 19, 2005, from
ProQuest database.
Nanus, B. (1989). The leader’s edge: The seven keys to leadership in a turbulent world.
Chicago: Contemporary Books.
Neal, H., S., & Aysal, S. (2004). Owner’s factor in value-based project management in
construction. Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 97-104. Retrieved December 19,
2006, from ProQuest database.
Nebecker, D. M., & Tatum, B. C. (2002). Understanding organizational processes and
performance. In R. L. Lowman (Ed.), Handbook of organizational consulting
psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
New Record Set For 2003. (2004). Engineering News Record (ENR), 252(7), 27.
Retrieved March 30, 2007 from http://enr.construction.com/
Nguyen, L. D., Ogunlana, S. O., & Lan, D. T. X. (2004). A study on project success
factors in large construction projects in Vietnam. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 11, 404-424. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from
ProQuest database.
Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Noruésis, M. J. (1995). SPSS 6.1 guide to data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Oppenheim, A. N. (1966). Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. New York:
262
Basic Books.
Orlikowski, W. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in
distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13, 249-273. Retrieved October 12,
2005, from ProQuest database.
Parry, K. (2004). Comparative modeling of the social processes of leadership in work
units. Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management,
10(2), 69-80. Retrieved February 20, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Pauchant, T. C. (2005). Integral leadership: A research proposal. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 18, 211-229. Retrieved February 20, 2006,
from ProQuest database.
Pearce, C. L., Sims, H. P., Cox, J. F., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K., & Trevino, L.
(2003). Transactors, transformers and beyond: A multi-method development of a
theoretical typology of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 22(4),
273-307. Retrieved December 3, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and
dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28, 89-
106. Retrieved June 6, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Pheng, L. S., & Fang, T. H. (2005). Modern-day lean construction principles: Some
questions on their origin similarities with Sun Tzu’s Art of War. Management
Decision, 43, 523-541. Retrieved February 14, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Phillips, E. D. (2004). Managing and leading: 52 lessons learned for engineers.
Consulting to Management, 15(4), 59-60.
263
Posner, B., & Kouzes, J. (2002). Development and validation of the leadership practices
inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(22), 483-496.
Retrieved January 17, 2007, from ProQuest database.
Powell, E. A. (2002). Considering the future of the profession. Civil Engineering, 72(11),
220-243. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from EBSCOhost database.
Presswood, K., & Roof, J. (2004). Is it leadership or management? College and
University, 79(4), 3-7. Retrieved September 10, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Project Management Institute. (2004). A guide to the project management body of
knowledge (3rd ed.). Newton Square, PA: Author. Retrieved December 5, 2006,
from http://egweb.mines.edu/eggn491/InformationandResources/pmbok.pdf
Ramsey, R. D. (2005). Lead, follow, or get out of the way: How to be a more effective
leader in today’s schools (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Raosoft. (2006). Sample size calculator. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from
http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
Rejai, M., & Phillips, K. (2004). Leadership theory and human nature. Journal of
Political and Military Sociology, 32, 185-194. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from
ProQuest database.
Reynolds, M., Tarter, R., & Kirisci, L. (2004). Characteristics of men with substance use
disorder consequent to illicit drug use: Comparison of a random sample of
volunteers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 75, 241-251. Retrieved May 15, 2006,
from PsychINFO database.
Robbins, S. P. (2003). Organisational behavior (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
264
Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2005). Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice-Hall.
Rosenfeld, E. (2006). Be a learning leader. Teacher Librarian, 34(2), 6-7. Retrieved
December 12, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.
Rubin, D., Powers, M. B., Tulacz, G., Winston, S., & Krizan, W. G. (2002). Leaders
come in all shapes and sizes, but the great ones focus on people. Engineering
News Record, 249(23), 34-36. Retrieved May 12, 2004, from ProQuest database.
Saad, M., Cicmil, S., & Greenwood, M. (2002). Technology transfer projects in
developing countries – Furthering the project management perspectives.
International Journal of Project Management, 20, 617-625. Retrieved December
8, 2006, from PsychINFO database.
Salacuse, J. W. (2006). Leading leaders: How to manage the top talent in your
organization. Ivey Business Journal (Reprint No. 9B06TC08), 1-5. Retrieved
January 12, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.
Salopek, J. J. (2004). Leading indicators: Leadership development in action. Training &
Development, 58(3), 16-18. Retrieved May 5, 2005, from EBSCOhost database.
Sanders, J. E., Hopkins, W. E., & Geroy, G. D. (2003). From transactional to
transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of Leadership
and Organizational Studies, 9(4), 21-31. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from
ProQuest database.
Sandrone, V. (2005). F. W. Taylor & scientific management. Retrieved February 25,
2006, from http://www.skymark.com/resources/leaders/taylor.asp
265
Schepers, J., Wetzels, M., & Ruyter, K. (2005). Leadership styles in technology
acceptance: Do followers practice what leaders preach? Managing Service
Quality, 15, 496-520. Retrieved November 29, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.
Schillewaert, N., Ahearne, M. J., Frambach, R. T., & Moenaert, R. K. (2005). The
adoption of information technology in the sales force. Industrial Marketing
Management, 34, 323-336. Retrieved December 3, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Scott, J., & Vessey, I. (2002). Managing risks in enterprise systems implementations.
Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 74-81. Retrieved December 19, 2006, from
ProQuest database.
Shiparski, L. A. (2005). Engaging in shared decision making: Leveraging staff and
management expertise. Nurse Leader, 3, 36-41. Retrieved November 29, 2006,
from ProQuest database.
Smith, G. R. (1999). Project leadership: Why project management alone doesn’t work.
Hospital Material Management Quarterly, 21, 88-92. Retrieved February 15,
2006, from ProQuest database.
Sotiriou, D., & Wittmer, D. (2001). Influence methods of project managers: Perceptions
of team members and project managers. Project Management Journal, 32(3), 12-
21. August 22, 2004, from ProQuest database.
Spigener, J. B. (2004). Beyond management: Using leadership to achieve your goals in
quality. Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, 58, 229-231. Retrieved March 15,
2005, from ProQuest database.
Stacey, R. (2003). Strategic management and organizational dynamics: The challenge of
complexity (4th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
266
Stodgill, R., M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature, New York:
Free Press.
Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant
leadership: A difference in leader focus. The Leadership & Organizational
Development Journal, 25, 349-361. Retrieved March 12, 2005, from ProQuest
database.
Storr, L. (2004). Leading with integrity: A qualitative research study. Journal of Health
Organization and Management, 18, 415-434. Retrieved February 23, 2006, from
ProQuest database.
Strang, K. D. (2005). Examining effective and ineffective transformational project
leadership. Team Performance Management, 11(3/4), 68-103. Retrieved May 14,
2006, from ProQuest database.
Styron, J., Ronald A., Maulding, W. S., & Hull, P. (2006). Practitioner vs. professor-
teacher preferences of educational leadership students. College Student Journal,
40, 293-302. Retrieved July 26, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Sumner, M., Bock, D., & Giamartino, G. (2006). Exploring the linkage between the
characteristics of IT project leaders and project success. Information Systems
Management, 23(4), 43-49. Retrieved December 7, 2006, from ProQuest
database.
Swartz, N. (2005). Employees not receiving critical training, study says. Information
Management Journal, 39(2), 7. Retrieved December 15, 2006, from ProQuest
database.
Tata, J., & Prasad, S. (2004). Team self-management, organizational structure, and
267
judgments of team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 248-266.
Retrieved February 22, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Taylor, S., & Morris, P. (2005). Implementing best practices for the 21st century. AACE
International Transactions, PM181-185. Retrieved April 12, 2006, from ProQuest
database.
Thamhain, J. H. (2004). Team leadership effectiveness in technology-based project
environments. Project Management Journal, 34(4), 35-46. Retrieved October 27,
2004, from ProQuest.
Thomas, R. J., & Cheese, P. (2005). Leadership: experience is the best teacher. Strategy
& Leadership, 33(3), 24-29. Retrieved February 2, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Thompsen, J., A. (2000). Effective leadership of virtual project teams. Futurics, 24(3/4),
85-90. Retrieved on February 23, 2006 from ProQuest database.
Tickle, E. L., Brownlee, J., & Nailon, D. (2005). Personal epistemological beliefs and
transformational leadership behaviours. Journal of Management Development, 24,
706-719. Retrieved November 29, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Tjosvold, D., Poon, M., & Yu, Z. (2005). Team effectiveness in China: Cooperative
conflict for relationship building. Human Relations, 58, 341-367.
Torpman, J. (2004). The differentiating function of modern forms of leadership.
Management Decision, 42, 892-902. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from ProQuest
database.
Trent, R. J. (2003). Organizational design research project. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh
University.
Trent, R. J. (2004). Team leadership at the 100-foot level. Team Performance
268
Management, 10(5/6), 94-103. Retrieved September 13, 2005, from ProQuest
database.
Tsai, P., & Weu, W. (2004). Leadership: Theory, practice & research. Kaohsiung City,
Taiwan: Liwen Culture.
Turner J. R., Kristoffer, V., & Thurloway, L. (2002). The project manager as change
agent. London: McGraw-Hill.
Turner, J. R., & Muller, R. (2005). The project manager's leadership style as a success
factor on projects: A literature review. Project Management Journal, 36(2), 49-
62. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Tyran, K. L., Tyran, C. K., & Shepherd, M. (2003). Exploring emerging leadership in
virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work:
Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. San Francisco: Wiley.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2006). Occupational outlook
handbook: Construction managers. Retrieved January 29, 2007, from
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos005.htm
Wellins, R. S., & Patterson, S. W. (2003). From C-level to see-level leadership. Training
& Development, 57(9), 58-65. Retrieved March 10, 2005, from EBSCOhost
database.
Weymes, E. (2003). Relationships not leadership sustain successful organizations.
Journal of Change Management, 3, 319-322. Retrieved August 13, 2004, from
EBSCOhost database.
Williams, J. (2002). Team development for high-tech project managers. Norwood, MA:
Artech House.
269
Woodward, S., & Hendry, C. (2004). Leading and coping with change. Journal of
Change Management. 4, 155-183. Retrieved April 15, 2005, from EBSCOhost
database.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yu, A. T. W., Shen, Q., Kelly, J., & Hunter, K. (2005). Application of value management
in project briefing. Facilities, 23(7/8), 330-342. Retrieved December 9, 2006,
from ProQuest database.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Tabor, T. (2005). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership
behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership
and Organizational Studies, 18, 5-29. Retrieved November 29, 2006, from
ProQuest database.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Horn, Z. N. J. (2003). Leadership theory and practice: Fostering an
effective symbiosis. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 769-806. Retrieved August 16,
2005, from PsychINFO database.
Zenger, J., Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, N. (2000). The new leadership development.
Training & Development, 54(3), 22-28. Retrieved August 15, 2004, from
EBSCOhost database.
Zigurs, I. (2003). Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity. Organizational
Dynamics, 31, 339-351. Retrieved December 12, 2005, from ProQuest database.
270
APPENDIX A: PROJECT MANAGERS’ SURVEY
Project managers:
Using the rating scale below, please indicate if the statements apply to your leadership
style and to what degree the statements apply. Check one number for each question.
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Uncertain
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree
1. I know how to sell ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I take responsibility for my actions and do not blame others. 1 2 3 4 5
3. I mentor my teammates when appropriate 1 2 3 4 5 4. I communicate a clear vision with recognizable goals for the organization and its people. 1 2 3 4 5
5. There are formal and informal structures designed to encourage team members to share what they learn with their peers and the remaining team.
1 2 3 4 5
6. I support and facilitate efficient crossfunctional communication that results in few project or production delays.
1 2 3 4 5
7. I support asking for forgiveness, not asking for permission. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I involve others in planning actions. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I remove roadblocks or obstacles to employees’ solving work problems. 1 2 3 4 5
10. I know how to influence people and get support. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I delegate in a way that encourages others to have full ownership of a task. 1 2 3 4 5
12. My team has challenging goals designed to stretch our capabilities. 1 2 3 4 5
13. I translate organizational goals practically and meaningfully for people, from the lowest level to the highest level. 1 2 3 4 5
14. I invest personal effort in helping other people succeed. 1 2 3 4 5 15. Teams are recognized and rewarded for their innovation and paradigm-breaking solutions to problems. 1 2 3 4 5
16. There is willingness to break old patterns in order to experiment with different ways of organizing and managing daily work.
1 2 3 4 5
17. I share information about work success and failure. 1 2 3 4 5 18. I appropriately provide authority to others to make Decisions 1 2 3 4 5
19. I communicate with charisma and effectiveness to groups. 1 2 3 4 5 20. The people in my team are committed to our work. 1 2 3 4 5
271
21. Functional team members are enabled to become self- developers and learn how to improve their performance. 1 2 3 4 5
22. I am able to pull people together around a common vision. 1 2 3 4 5 23. In my team, people are willing to help each other. 1 2 3 4 5 24. I put the needs of others before my own. 1 2 3 4 5 25. There is a general feeling that it is always possible to find a better way to do something. 1 2 3 4 5
26. I grant equal weight to the ideas of all employees. 1 2 3 4 5 27. I foster independent thought and action on the job. 1 2 3 4 5
272
APPENDIX B: TEAM MEMBERS’ SURVEY
Team member:
Using the rating scale below, please indicate if the statements apply to your perception of
the leadership style of your project manager and to what degree the statement applies.
Check one number for each question.
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Uncertain
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree
My project manager
1. Knows how to sell ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Takes responsibility for his/her actions and does not blame others. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Mentors his/her teammates when appropriate 1 2 3 4 5 4. Communicates a clear vision with recognizable goals for the organization and its people. 1 2 3 4 5
5. There are formal and informal structures designed to encourage team members to share what they learn with their peers and the remaining team.
1 2 3 4 5
6. Supports and facilitates efficient crossfunctional communication that results in few project or production delays
1 2 3 4 5
7. Supports asking for forgiveness, not asking for permission. 1 2 3 4 5 8. Involves others in planning actions. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Removes roadblocks or obstacles to employees’ solving work problems 1 2 3 4 5
10. Knows how to influence people and get support. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Delegates in a way that encourages others to have full ownership. 1 2 3 4 5
12. The team has challenging goals designed to stretch Capabilities 1 2 3 4 5
13. Translates organizational goals practically and meaningfully for people, from the lowest level to the highest level
1 2 3 4 5
14. Invests personal effort in helping other people succeed. 1 2 3 4 5 15. Teams are recognized and rewarded for their innovation and paradigm-breaking solutions to problems 1 2 3 4 5
16. There is willingness to break old patterns in order to experiment with different ways of organizing and managing daily work
1 2 3 4 5
273
17. Shares information about work success and failure 1 2 3 4 5 18. Appropriately provides authority to others to make Decisions 1 2 3 4 5
19. Communicates with charisma and effectiveness to groups. 1 2 3 4 5 20. The people in his/her team are committed to their work. 1 2 3 4 5 21. Functional team members are enabled to become self- developers and learn how to improve their performance. 1 2 3 4 5
22. Is able to pull people together around a common vision. 1 2 3 4 5 23. In his/her team, people are willing to help each other. 1 2 3 4 5 24. Puts the needs of others before his/her own. 1 2 3 4 5 25. There is a general feeling that it is always possible to find a better way to do something. 1 2 3 4 5
26. Grants equal weight to the ideas of all employees 1 2 3 4 5 27. Fosters independent thought and action on the job. 1 2 3 4 5
274
APPENDIX C: TITLE SEARCH
Journals reviewed
Resource center/
databases searched Search phrases
Academy of Management Journal ProQuest Digital
Dissertations
Leadership and construction
industry
Academy of Management Review EBSCOhost Leadership and team
performance
Advance Management Journal ProQuest Team and leadership
Harvard Business Review ERIC Leadership
Hospital Material Management
Quarterly
Apollo Library Project management
Journal of Leadership Studies Apollo Library Effective leadership
Management Review Apollo Library Management
Organizational Dynamics PsychINFO Leadership
Organizational Studies Apollo Library Leadership and performance
Project Management Institute Apollo Library Project management
Project Management Journal ProQuest Project management and
team performance
Team Performance Management ProQuest Teams in construction
industry
275
APPENDIX D: LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS
Leadership
characteristics of
project managers Leadership authors
Leadership
theories
Charisma Judge & Piccolo, 2004
Northouse, 2004
Transformational
Shared responsibility Cleveland & Ireland, 2002
Harrison, 1999
Parry, 2004
Katz, 2004
Sandrone, 2005
Transformational
Behavioral
Continuous
development
Helland & Winston, 2005
Torpman, 2004
Hautala, 2005
Trait
Transformational
Common vision Kouzes & Posner, 2002
Rost, 1991
Weymes, 2003
Relational
Transformational
Mutual influence
relationships
Rost, 1991
Fisher, Kent, Nottingham, & Field, 2005
Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003
Johnson & Johnson, 2003
Trait
Relational
Group interests
Bass, 1990
Relational
276
Bryant, 2003
Bender & Septelka, 2002
Path-goal
Transactional
Transformational
Risk-taking Kouzes & Posner, 2002
Nanus, 1989
Schillewaert, Ahearne, Frambach, &
Moenaert, 2005
Transformational
Collaboration
Bass, 1990
Macri, Tagliaventi, & Bertolotti, 2002
McNamara & Watson, 2005
Relational
Transformational
Relational
Empowerment Kouzes & Posner, 2002
Kendra & Taplin, 2004
Transformational
Relational
277
APPENDIX E: ORGANIZATIONAL CONSENT AND CONFIDENTIALITY
AGREEMENT
278
279
APPENDIX F: INTRODUCTION LETTER TO OPERATIONS MANAGER
I am a project architect in the Atlanta office of Heery International, and I need
your support in collecting data for my doctoral dissertation in organizational leadership. I am currently putting together my dissertation proposal to be sent to the Institution Review Board (IRB) and the Academic Review Board (ARB) within the next few weeks. The regional manager for the southeast, Greg Pierce approved this study on May 7, 2007.
The research study I am conducting is titled “The Influence of Project Managers’
Leadership Styles on Project Team Performance in the Construction Industry.” The purpose of this quantitative, descriptive study is to evaluate the degree of relationships between the leadership styles of project managers in project teams of at least 5-10 team members and the project teams’ perception of the project managers’ leadership styles as the leadership styles relate to project team performance in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. The results of this study will be made available to you and your team upon request.
I am requesting your assistance in collecting some information about your project
managers and their teams’ performance. Each project manager and the teams will be sent a letter of introduction via email requesting their participation in the study. The three performance metrics that was used to assess the performance of the teams are (a) project completed on schedule, (b) project completed within the specified budget, and (c) project completed within the specified profit margin.
Instructions: Please provide the names of project managers and indicate “Yes” if the team met the project targets and “No” if the team did not meet the project targets on a completed project.
Performance Measures Metrics
Project Manager
Project completed on
schedule
Project completed within the specified budget
Project completed within the specified
profit margin 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
If you or any member of your team chooses not to participate or to withdraw,
from the study at any time, you can do so without penalty or loss of benefit to yourself.
280
The results of the research study may be published, but neither your name, your organization’s, nor your team's names will be used, and your results will be maintained in confidence. No performance data you have provided on your teams will be published with the exception of a single performance score that will be created by me based on the survey.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions and thank you for your help.
281
APPENDIX G: TEAM PERFORMANCE MEASURE MATRIX
Dependent Variable: Team Performance Measure
Project completed on schedule
Project completed within specified budget
Project completed within specified profit margin
Total
Team A 1 -1 1 1
Team B 1 1 1 3
Team C 1 1 1 3
Team D 1 -1 -1 -1
Team E 1 -1 1 1
Team F 1 -1 -1 -1
Team G 1 1 1 3
Team H 1 1 1 3
Team I 1 -1 1 1
Team J 1 -1 1 1
Team K 1 1 1 3
Team L 1 1 1 3
Team M 1 -1 1 1
Team N -1 1 1 1
Team O 1 1 1 3
Team P -1 -1 -1 -1
Team Q 1 -1 1 1
Team R 1 1 1 3
282
APPENDIX H: CONSENT TO ACT AS A RESEARCH SUBJECT
Introduction Oluwole O. Oshinubi, a doctoral learner at the University of Phoenix and an independent researcher, has been given permission by _____________________ to conduct a research study on the __________________________________________at ____________________________. Participant I, ____________________, a representative of ____________________ have volunteered to participate in this research study. My participation in the study is voluntary, and my participation or nonparticipation will not be reported to the supervisory staff. I understand that I may refuse to participate and/or withdraw at any time without consequences to my employment. Research records and list of interviewees was confidential. Personal anonymity was guaranteed. Results of research data will be used for presentation and publications. As the data is presented, I can choose to be identified as the source of that information for group discussion purposes. Oluwole O. Oshinubi (researcher) has explained this study to me and answered my questions. If I have other questions or research-related issues, I can be reached through _____________________________________________. There are no other agreements, written or verbal, related to the study beyond that expressed in this consent and confidentiality form. I, the undersigned, understand the above explanation, and I give consent to my voluntary participation in this research. By signing this form, I acknowledge that I understand the nature of the study, the potential risks to me as a participant, and the means by which my identity will be kept confidential. My signature on this form also indicates that I am 18 years old or older and that I give my permission to voluntarily serve as a participant in the study described. Clicking below indicates that I have read and understood the description of the study and I agree to participate. ________________________________________Date:____________________ Signature of the participant _______________________________________Date:_____________________ Signature of the researcher
283
APPENDIX I: INTRODUCTION LETTER TO PROJECT MANAGERS
To: Project managers
I am a project architect in the Atlanta office of Heery International, and I need your support in collecting data for my doctoral dissertation in organizational leadership. The University of Phoenix approved this study on May 15, 2007. You were chosen as a candidate for participation in this study based on your role as project manager.
The research study I am conducting is titled “The Influence of Project Managers’
Leadership Styles on Project Team Performance in the Construction Industry.” The purpose of this quantitative, descriptive study is to discover the degree of relationships between the leadership styles of project managers in project teams of at least 5-10 team members and the project teams’ perception of the project managers’ leadership styles as the leadership styles relate to project team performance in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. The results of this study will be made available to you and your team upon request.
I am requesting your participation in answering a short online survey, which will
take approximately 20 minutes to complete. If you or any member of your team chooses not to participate or to withdraw, from the study at any time, you can do so without penalty or loss of benefit to yourself. The results of the research study may be published but neither your name nor your team's names will be used, and your results will be maintained in confidence. No performance data, from your team will be published with the exception of a single performance score that will be created by me based on the survey.
I will be contacting you via email over the next several days to solicit your
assistance and provide more information. Please feel free to contact me with any questions and thank you for your help.
Sincerely, Oluwole O. Oshinubi
284
APPENDIX J: INTRODUCTION LETTER TO PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS
To: Project team member
I am a project architect in the Atlanta office of Heery International, and I need your support in collecting data for my doctoral dissertation in organizational leadership. The University of Phoenix approved this study on May 15, 2007. You were chosen as a candidate for participation in this study based on your role as project team member.
The research study I am conducting is titled “The Influence of Project Managers’
Leadership Styles on Project Team Performance in the Construction Industry”. The purpose of this quantitative, descriptive study is to discover the degree of relationships between the leadership styles of project managers in project teams of at least 5-10 team members and the project teams’ perception of the project managers’ leadership styles as the leadership styles relate to project team performance in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. The results of this study will be made available to you and your team upon request.
I am requesting your participation in answering a short online survey which will
take approximately 20 minutes to complete. If you or any member of your team chooses not to participate or to withdraw, from the study at any time, you can do so without penalty or loss of benefit to yourself. The results of the research study may be published but neither your name nor your team's names will be used, and your results will be maintained in confidence. No individually identifiable information will be published, and all results will be presented as aggregate summary data.
I will be contacting you via email over the next several days to solicit your
assistance and provide more information. Please feel free to contact me with any questions and thank you for your help.
Sincerely, Oluwole O. Oshinubi
285
APPENDIX K: SURVEY INTRODUCTION LETTER
Dear Participant, The purpose of this research study is to evaluate the degree of relationship between the project managers’ leadership styles on project teams’ performance and the teams’ perceptions of the project managers’ leadership styles in relation to the project teams’ performance in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. If you decide to participate in this research, you will be asked to complete an online survey along with the supplied informed consent form. There are no risks to you, the participant. By completing this online survey, you are giving your consent for the researcher to include your responses in his data analysis. Your participation in this research is strictly voluntary, and you may choose not to participate without fear of penalty or any negative consequences. Individual responses will be treated confidentially, and all raw data will be kept in a secured file by the researcher. No individually identifiable information will be disclosed or published, and all results will be presented as aggregate, summary data. You also have the right to review the results of the research if you wish to do so. If you wish, you may request a copy of the results of this research by writing to the researcher at the following address: Participation will take approximately 15 to 20 minutes of your time. The theoretical and practical benefits to the field of organizational leadership is that the study may help determine if there is a relationship between the leadership styles of project managers and the performance of project teams. Thank you for your participation!
286
APPENDIX L: DEMOGRAPHICS
Demographic information:
Date: ___________________
Name (Optional): ____________________________________
Age:
1. 20 – 29
2. 30 – 39
3. 40 – 49
4. 50 – 59
5. 60 – 69
6. 70 and above
Gender:
1. Male
2. Female
Race:
1. Caucasian,
2. Hispanic,
3. African American,
4. Asian,
5. American Indian,
6. Other
Years of service:
287
1. 0 – 9
2. 10 – 19
3. 20 – 29
4. 30 – 39
Company size:
1. 1 - 99
2. 100 - 200
3. 200 - 399
4. 400 - 499
5. 500 - 1000
6. 1000 - above
Profession:
1. Architect/Interior Designer
2. Engineer
3. Construction Manager
4. Program Manager
5. Facility Manager
6. General Contractor
7. Administrative Support
8. Information Technology/ CAD Support
9. Financial Services
10. Other Consultants
288
APPENDIX M: DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS
Respondent Profile - PMs - n = 17, Team members - n = 109
Team
Freq.
Team
Percentage
PM
Freq.
PM
Percentage
Total
Freq.
Total
PercentageAge
20 – 29 10 10.99% 0 0.00% 10 9.35%
30 – 39 23 25.27% 3 18.75% 26 24.30%
40 - 49 35 38.46% 6 37.50% 41 38.32%
50 - 59 17 18.68% 7 43.75% 24 22.43%
60 - 69 6 6.59% 0 0.00% 6 5.61%
70 - Above 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Total 91**** 100.00% 16* 100.00% 107 100.00%
Gender
Male 55 59.78% 11 68.75% 66 61.11%
Female 37 40.22% 5 31.25% 42 38.89%
Total 92 100.00% 16* 100.00% 108 100.00%
Race
Caucasian 68 73.91% 11 68.75% 79 73.15%
Hispanic 3 3.26% 0 0.00% 3 2.78%
African American 17 18.48% 5 31.25% 22 20.37%
Asian 2 2.17% 0 0.00% 2 1.85%
American Indian 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Other 2 2.17% 0 0.00% 2 1.85%
Total 92***** 100.00% 16* 100.00% 108 100.00%
289
Years of service
0 - 9 32 35.16% 4 25.00% 36 33.64%
10 - 19 30 32.97% 3 18.75% 33 30.84%
20 - 29 14 15.38% 6 37.50% 20 18.69%
30 - 39 12 13.19% 3 18.75% 15 14.02%
40 - Above 3 3.30% 0 0.00% 3 2.80%
Total 91**** 100.00% 16* 100.00% 107 100.00%
Company size
0 - 99 16 17.78% 1 6.25% 17 16.04%
100 - 199 7 7.78% 1 6.25% 8 7.55%
200 - 299 1 1.11% 2 12.50% 3 2.83%
300 - 399 8 8.89% 1 6.25% 9 8.49%
400 - 499 5 5.56% 0 0.00% 5 4.72%
500 - 1000 22 24.44% 3 18.75% 25 23.58%
1000 - Above 31 34.44% 8 50.00% 39 36.79%
Total 90*** 100.00% 16* 100.00% 106 100.00%
Profession
Architect/Interior
Designer 15 16.85% 4 25.00% 19 18.10%
Engineer 24 26.97% 5 31.25% 29 27.62%
Construction
Manager 5 5.62% 1 6.25% 6 5.71%
Program Manager 6 6.74% 2 12.50% 8 7.62%
Facility Manager 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
290
General
Contractor 8 8.99% 1 6.25% 9 8.57%
Administrative
Support 10 11.24% 1 6.25% 11 10.48%
Information
Technology/
CAD Support 1 1.12% 0 0.00% 1 0.95%
Financial
Services 2 2.25% 0.00% 2 1.90%
Other 18 20.22% 2 12.50% 20 19.05%
Total 89** 100.00% 16* 100.00% 105 100.00%
* One project manager did not indicate age, gender, race, years of service, company size
and profession
** 20 respondents did not indicate profession
*** 19 respondents did not indicate company size
**** 18 respondents did not indicate years of service and age
***** 17 respondents did not indicate race
291
APPENDIX N: PILOT TEAM DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS
Pilot Team Respondent Profile – n = 11
Age Team
Freq. Percentages
20 – 29
30 – 39 3 30%
40 - 49 4 40%
50 - 59 1 10%
60 - 69 2 20%
70 - Above
Total 10* 100%
Gender
Male 7 70%
Female 3 30%
Total 10* 100%
Race
Caucasian 1 10%
Hispanic
African American 7 70%
Asian
American Indian
Other 2 20%
Total 10* 100%
Years of service
0 - 9 5 50%
10 - 19 4 40%
20 - 29 1 10%
30 - 39
40 - Above
Total 10* 100%
292
Company size
0 - 99 4 44%
100 - 199 1 11%
200 - 299 1 11%
300 - 399
400 - 499
500 - 1000 2 22%
1000 - Above 1 11%
Total 9** 100%
Profession
Architect/Interior Designer 2 20%
Engineer
Construction Manager 1 10%
Program Manager 1 10%
Facility Manager
General Contractor
Administrative Support
Information 1 10%
Financial Services
Other 5 50%
Total 10* 100%
* One respondent did not indicate age, gender, race, years of service, and profession
** Two respondents did not indicate company size
293
APPENDIX O: PILOT TEAM SURVEY RESULTS
Variable
Mean -
Team
Score
- PM
S.E. -
Mean
Std
Dev Variance Min. Max.
N -
Team
N -
PM
Q01 4.50 5.00 0.31 0.97 0.94 2 5 10 1
Q02 4.20 4.00 0.33 1.03 1.07 2 5 10 1
Q03 4.20 5.00 0.42 1.32 1.73 2 5 10 1
Q04 4.30 4.00 0.40 1.25 1.57 1 5 10 1
Q05 4.20 4.00 0.29 0.92 0.84 2 5 10 1
Q06 3.60 4.00 0.37 1.17 1.38 2 5 10 1
Q07 4.00 4.00 0.26 0.82 0.67 3 5 10 1
Q08 4.50 5.00 0.22 0.71 0.50 3 5 10 1
Q09 3.90 4.00 0.38 1.20 1.43 1 5 10 1
Q10 4.10 4.00 0.46 1.45 2.10 1 5 10 1
Q11 4.60 4.00 0.22 0.70 0.49 3 5 10 1
Q12 4.20 5.00 0.29 0.92 0.84 2 5 10 1
Q13 4.00 3.00 0.45 1.41 2.00 1 5 10 1
Q14 4.10 4.00 0.46 1.45 2.10 1 5 10 1
Q15 4.10 3.00 0.35 1.10 1.21 2 5 10 1
Q16 4.00 4.00 0.30 0.94 0.89 2 5 10 1
Q17 4.00 4.00 0.39 1.25 1.56 1 5 10 1
Q18 4.20 4.00 0.25 0.79 0.62 3 5 10 1
Q19 4.10 4.00 0.46 1.45 2.10 1 5 10 1
Q20 4.60 4.00 0.16 0.52 0.27 4 5 10 1
294
Q21 4.30 4.00 0.30 0.95 0.90 2 5 10 1
Q22 4.40 4.00 0.31 0.97 0.93 2 5 10 1
Q23 4.70 4.00 0.21 0.67 0.46 3 5 10 1
Q24 3.90 5.00 0.46 1.45 2.10 1 5 10 1
Q25 4.20 4.00 0.29 0.92 0.84 2 5 10 1
Q26 3.90 4.00 0.31 0.99 0.99 2 5 10 1
Q27 4.40 4.00 0.22 0.70 0.49 3 5 10 1
295
APPENDIX P: PILOT TEAM LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS DESCRIPTIVE
STATISTICS
Independent
Variable
Team
Survey
PM
Survey
SD -
Team D-PM
Variance
Team
Variance
PM
Skewness
Team
Skewness
PM
Charisma 4.30 4.67 0.17 0.58 0.03 0.33 1.73 -1.73
Shared
Responsibility 4.03 4.00 0.38 0.00 0.14 0.00 -1.60 *
Continuous
Development 4.13 4.33 0.32 0.58 0.10 0.33 1.55 1.73
Common
Vision 4.300 4.33 0.27 0.58 0.07 0.33 1.46 1.73
Mutual
Influence
Relationships
4.07 3.33 0.06 0.58 0.00 0.33 -1.73 1.73
Group Interests 4.07 4.00 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.00 1.73 *
Risk Taking 4.33 4.00 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.59 *
Collaboration 4.33 4.33 0.40 0.58 0.16 0.33 -0.72 1.73
Empowerment 4.17 4.00 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.00 -0.59 *
* is printed if value cannot be computed.
296
APPENDIX Q: PILOT TEAM SURVEY CORRELATIONS OF LEADERSHIP
CHARACTERISTICS
Charisma Shared Responsibility Correlation Coefficient Correlation Coefficient
Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06Q01 1.000 0.88561 0.86842 Q04 1.000 0.90805 0.69577
p= p=0.430 p=0.190 p=0.185 p=0.426 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10
Q02 0.88561 1.000 0.86618 Q05 0.90805 1.000 0.59746 p=0.430 p= p=0.240 p=0.185 p= p=0.239
n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 Q03 0.86842 0.86618 1.000 Q06 0.69577 0.59746 1.000
p=0.190 p=0.240 p= p=0.426 p=0.239 p= n=10 n=10 n=10
n=10 n=10 n=10
Continuous Development Common Vision Correlation Coefficient Correlation Coefficient
Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12Q07 1.000 0.57735 0.56833 Q10 1.000 0.81147 0.31706
p= p=0.338 p=0.135 p= p=0.020 p=0.095 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10
Q08 0.57735 1.000 0.85312 Q11 0.81147 1.000 0.13834 p=0.338 p= p=0.066 p=0.020 p= p=0.214
n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 Q09 0.56833 0.85312 1.000 Q12 0.31706 0.13834 1.000
p=0.135 p=0.066 p= p=0.095 p=0.214 p= n=10 n=10 n=10
n=10 n=10 n=10
Mutual Influence Relationships Group Interests Correlation Coefficient Correlation Coefficient
Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18Q13 1.000 0.92168 0.71392 Q16 1.000 0.28347 0.59761
p= p=0.472 p=0.233 p= p=0.209 p=0.302 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10
Q14 0.92168 1.000 0.62008 Q17 0.28347 1.000 0.67763 p=0.472 p= p=0.212 p=0.209 p= p=0.094
n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 Q15 0.71392 0.62008 1.000 Q18 0.59761 0.67763 1.000
p=0.233 p=0.212 p= p=0.302 p=0.094 p= n=10 n=10 n=10
n=10 n=10 n=10
297
Risk Taking Collaboration
Correlation Coefficient Correlation Coefficient
Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24Q19 1.000 -0.0891 0.29904 Q22 1.000 0.88608 0.8254
p= p=0.003 p=0.111 p= p=0.150 p=0.121 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10
Q20 -0.0891 1.000 0.72577 Q23 0.88608 1.000 0.87472 p=0.003 p= p=0.042 p=0.150 p= p=0.016
n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 n=10 Q21 0.29904 0.72577 1.000 Q24 0.8254 0.87472 1.000
0.299 p=0.042 p= p=0.121 p=0.016 p= n=10 n=10 n=10
n=10 n=10 n=10
Empowerment
Correlation Coefficient
Q25 Q26 Q27Q25 1.000 0.87545 0.38044
p= p=0.409 p=0.214 n=10 n=10 n=10
Q26 0.87545 1.000 0.54332 p=0.409 p= p=0.154
n=10 n=10 n=10 Q27 0.38044 0.54332 1.000
p=0.214 p=0.154 p= n=10 n=10 n=10
298
Question 6Question 5Question 4Q
uest
ion
6Q
uest
ion
5Q
uest
ion
4Question 12Question 11Question 10
Que
stio
n 12
Que
stio
n 11
Que
stio
n 10
APPENDIX R: PILOT TEAM SCATTER PLOT MATRIX OF CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
Scatter plot for leadership characteristics questions from Pilot Team – A surveys:
Question 9Question 8Question 7
Que
stio
n 9
Que
stio
n 8
Que
stio
n 7
__
___
299
Question 18Question 17Question 16
Que
stio
n 18
Que
stio
n 17
Que
stio
n 16
Question 24Question 23Question 22
Que
stio
n 24
Que
stio
n 23
Que
stio
n 22
Question 15Question 14Question 13
Que
stio
n 15
Que
stio
n 14
Que
stio
n 13
__
__
Question 6Question 5Question 4
Que
stio
n 6
Que
stio
n 5
Que
stio
n 4
__
300
Question 27Question 26Question 25
Que
stio
n 27
Que
stio
n 26
Que
stio
n 25
__
301
APPENDIX S: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS REPORT
Table S1
Bottom-Performing Teams Mean Scores
Team D Team F Team P
Team
Mean
PM
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
Mean
Charisma 3.60 2.67 3.89 4.33 4.52 4.67
Shared Responsibility 3.07 2.00 3.39 3.67 4.52 4.33
Continuous Development 2.73 4.00 3.72 3.00 4.19 4.67
Common Vision 3.47 4.00 3.61 4.00 4.48 4.67
Mutual Influence
Relationships 3.20 3.33 3.56 3.67 4.19 5.00
Group Interests 3.80 4.00 3.28 4.00 4.10 4.67
Risk Taking 3.53 3.33 3.11 3.67 4.10 4.67
Collaboration 3.40 3.33 3.56 4.33 4.29 4.67
Empowerment 3.67 3.33 3.06 3.67 4.24 5.00
302
Table S2
Middle-Performing Teams Mean Scores (Teams E, I, and J)
Team E Team I Team J
Team
Mean
PM
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
Mean
Charisma 4.07 4.67 4.27 4.00 3.33 4.33
Shared Responsibility 3.53 4.00 3.93 4.00 3.08 4.33
Continuous Development 3.47 3.33 3.53 3.33 3.08 4.00
Common Vision 3.87 3.67 4.07 4.00 3.17 4.00
Mutual Influence
Relationships
3.67 4.67 4.00 3.33 2.67 4.33
Group Interests 3.80 3.67 4.00 3.67 3.13 3.67
Risk Taking 3.67 4.67 4.00 4.00 3.17 3.67
Collaboration 3.93 4.33 3.60 4.00 3.25 4.33
Empowerment 3.67 4.67 4.13 4.00 3.29 4.33
303
Table S3
Middle-Performing Teams Mean Scores (Teams M, N, and Q)
Team M Team N Team Q
Team
Mean
PM
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
Mean
Charisma 4.67 4.67 4.13 4.00 4.48 4.00
Shared Responsibility 4.50 4.00 3.67 3.67 3.95 4.00
Continuous Development 4.28 4.33 3.53 3.67 3.62 4.00
Common Vision 4.56 4.00 3.27 3.67 4.19 4.00
Mutual Influence
Relationships
4.44 4.33 3.07 3.33 4.00 3.00
Group Interests 4.72 4.00 3.60 4.00 3.91 3.33
Risk Taking 4.39 4.00 3.73 4.33 4.24 4.33
Collaboration 4.61 4.00 3.67 3.67 4.19 3.67
Empowerment 4.22 4.00 3.40 4.33 3.95 3.67
304
Table S4
High-Performing Teams Mean Scores (Teams B, C, G and H)
Team B Team C Team G Team H
Team
Mean
PM
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
Mean
Charisma 4.22 4.00 4.43 5.00 4.05 4.67 4.21 4.33
Shared
Responsibility
3.89 3.67 4.43 5.00 3.29 4.33 4.46 5.00
Continuous
Development
3.56 4.00 4.48 5.00 3.76 4.33 3.79 3.67
Common Vision 4.06 4.00 4.62 4.67 3.91 4.00 4.29 4.67
Mutual Influence
Relationships
3.61 3.33 4.47 5.00 3.91 4.67 4.04 4.33
Group Interests 3.61 4.33 4.43 5.00 3.67 4.33 4.04 4.33
Risk Taking 4.00 3.33 4.33 4.67 3.76 4.33 4.21 5.00
Collaboration 4.00 4.00 4.43 4.67 3.57 5.00 4.25 5.00
Empowerment 3.83 3.33 4.38 4.67 3.57 4.67 3.88 4.67
305
Table S5
High-Performing Teams Mean Scores (Teams K, L, O and R)
Team K Team L Team O Team R
Team
Mean
PM
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
Mean
Team
Mean
PM
Mean
Charisma 4.33 4.33 4.04 4.33 4.20 4.67 3.78 3.00
Shared
Responsibility
4.14 4.00 4.38 3.67 4.00 4.00 3.61 3.00
Continuous
Development
3.81 4.33 3.83 4.00 3.87 4.33 3.33 3.00
Common Vision 4.29 3.67 4.08 4.00 4.20 4.00 3.72 3.00
Mutual Influence
Relationships
3.91 3.67 4.04 4.00 3.67 3.67 3.44 3.33
Group Interests 4.29 4.00 4.08 4.00 3.93 4.00 3.61 3.33
Risk Taking 4.14 4.00 4.38 4.33 4.00 4.00 3.33 3.00
Collaboration 4.19 4.00 4.21 4.67 4.00 4.67 3.67 3.67
Empowerment 4.33 3.67 4.21 3.67 4.07 4.33 3.67 3.00
306
APPENDIX T: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS REPORT
Table T1
Summary Section of Team Performance
Count Mean SD SE Minimum Maximum Range
Team 109 1.64 1.56 0.14 -1.00 3.00 1.00 PM 17 1.59 1.54 0.37 -1.00 3.00 1.00
Table T2 Counts Section of Team Performance
Rows Sum of
Freq.
Distinct
Values
Missing
Values Sum
Total Sum
Squares
Adjusted
Sum Squares Team 109 109 8 0 358.00 541.00 284.98 PM 17 17 8 0 27.00 81.00 42.67
Table T3 Means Section of Team Performance
Parameter Mean Median Geometric
Mean
Harmonic
Mean Sum Mode
Team Value 1.64 1.00 1.93 1.67 358.00 3.00 Std Error 0.14 95% LCL 1.00 95% UCL 1.00 T-Value
Prob. Level 0.00
Count 109 90 90 PM Value 1.59 1.00 1.87 1.62 27.00 3.00 Std Error 0.37 95% LCL 1.00 95% UCL 1.00 T-Value
Prob. Level 0.00
Count 17 14 14
307
Table T4
Variation Section of Team Performance
Parameter Variance SD
Unbiased
SD SE
Inter-quartile
Range Range
Team Value 2.29 1.56 1.56 0.14 1.33 1.00
Std Error 0.14
95% LCL
95% UCL
PM Value 2.38 1.54 1.54 0.37 1.33 1.00
Std Error 0.37
95% LCL
95% UCL
Table T5
Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Team Performance
Parameter Skewness Kurtosis Fisher's
Coefficient
of Variation
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Team Value -0.61 1.00 4.71 2.38 0.16
Std Error 0.14
PM Value -0.59 -0.98 6.61 2.29
Std Error 0.37
308
Table T6 Summary Section of Charisma Count Mean SD SE Minimum Maximum Range
Team 109 4.11 0.80 0.05 1.67 5.00 3.33
PM 17 4.22 0.60 0.15 2.00 5.00 2.33
Table T7
Counts Section of Charisma
Rows
Sum of
Freq.
Distinct
Values
Missing
Values Sum
Total Sum
Squares
Adjusted
Sum Squares
Team 109 109 8 0 448.33 1896.56 999.05
PM 17 17 8 0 71.67 307.89 162.19
309
Table T8
Means Section of Charisma
Parameter Mean Median
Geometric
Mean
Harmonic
Mean Sum Mode
Team Value 4.11 4.33 4.01 3.87 448.33 4.33
Std Error 0.05
95% LCL -0.77 4.33
95% UCL 2.69 4.33
T-Value 1.10
Prob Level 0.28
Count 109 90 90
PM Value 4.22 4.33 4.13 4.02 71.67 4.67
Std Error 0.15
95% LCL -6.62 4.33
95% UCL 5.15 4.33
T-Value 0.85
Prob Level 0.41
Count 17 14 14
310
Table T9
Variation Section of Charisma
Parameter Variance SD
Unbiased
SD
SE of
Mean
Inter-quartile
Range Range
Team Value 3.33 0.80 0.80 0.05 0.67 3.33
Std Error 0.21
95% LCL -0.25
95% UCL 0.58
PM Value 0.36 0.60 0.60 0.15 0.66 2.33
Std Error 0.65
95% LCL -0.83 2.76
95% UCL 1.93 0.65
Table T10
Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Charisma
Parameter Skewness Kurtosis Fisher's
Coefficient
of Variation
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Team Value -0.91 0.81 0.63 0.17 0.16
Std Error 0.87
PM Value -1.51 2.33 0.72 0.55
Std Error 2.76
311
Table T11
Summary Section of Shared Responsibility
Count Mean SD SE Minimum Maximum Range
Team 109 3.90 0.58 0.05 1.33 5.00 3.17
PM 17 3.92 0.69 0.17 2.00 5.00 3.50
Table T12 Counts Section of Shared Responsibility
Rows
Sum of
Freq.
Distinct
Values
Missing
Values Sum
Total Sum
Squares
Adjusted
Sum
Squares
Team 109 109 8 0 424.67 1722.22 907.22
PM 17 17 8 0 66.67 269.11 141.76
312
Table T13
Means Section of Shared Responsibility
Parameter Mean Median
Geometric
Mean
Harmonic
Mean Sum Mode
Team Value 3.90 4.00 3.74 3.52 424.67 3.67
Std Error 0.05
95% LCL 0.02 4.00
95% UCL 0.74 4.00
T-Value 2.12
Prob Level 0.84
Count 109 90 90
PM Value 3.92 4.00 3.82 3.70 66.67 4.00
Std Error 0.17
95% LCL -0.35 4.00
95% UCL 1.94 4.00
T-Value 1.48
Prob Level 0.16
Count 17 14 14
Table T14
Variation Section of Shared Responsibility
313
Parameter Variance SD
Unbiased
SD SE
Inter-quartile
Range Range
Team Value 0.63 0.58 0.58 0.05 1.00 3.17
Std Error 0.05
95% LCL -1.28
95% UCL 1.57
PM Value 0.36 0.69 0.69 0.17 1.00 3.50
Std Error 0.54
95% LCL -6.10
95% UCL 3.02
Table T15
Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Shared Responsibility
Parameter Skewness Kurtosis Fisher's
Coefficient
of Variation
Coefficient
of
Dispersion
Team Value -0.60 0.08 4.49 0.15 0.38
Std Error 0.05
PM Value -1.11 3.14 2.20 -1.54 0.80
Std Error 0.17
314
Table T16
Summary Section of Continuous Development
Count Mean SD SE Minimum Maximum Range
Team 109 3.76 0.78 0.06 1.67 5.00 3.33
PM 17 3.98 0.57 0.14 1.00 5.00 3.00
Table T17
Counts Section of Continuous Development
Rows
Sum of
Freq.
Distinct
Values
Missing
Values Sum
Total Sum
Squares
Adjusted
Sum
Squares
Team 109 109 8 0 409.67 1600.56 843.13
PM 17 17 8 0 67.67 274.56 144.63
315
Table T18
Means Section of Continuous Development
Parameter Mean Median
Geometric
Mean
Harmonic
Mean Sum Mode
Team Value 3.76 4.00 3.59 3.38 409.67 4.00
Std Error 0.06
95% LCL -0.50 4.00
95% UCL 2.44
T-Value 1.30
Prob. Level 0.20
Count 109 90 90
PM Value 3.98 4.00 3.80 3.51 67.67 4.00
Std Error 0.14
95% LCL -6.90 4.00
95% UCL 4.68
T-Value 1.00
Prob. Level 0.69
Count 17 14 14
316
Table T19
Variation Section of Continuous Development
Parameter Variance SD
Unbiased
SD SE
Inter-quartile
Range Range
Team Value 0.56 0.78 3.76 0.06 0.66 3.33
Std Error 0.06
95% LCL -0.21
95%
UCL 0.56
PM Value 0.33 0.57 0.57 0.14 0.66 3.00
Std Error 0.14
95% LCL -0.76
95%
UCL 2.12
Table T20
Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Continuous Development
Parameter Skewness Kurtosis Fisher's
Coefficient
of Variation
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Team Value -0.42 -0.27 0.18 0.97
Std Error 0.06
PM Value -0.24 -0.42 1.00 -1.11 0.68
Std Error 0.14
317
Table T21
Summary Section of Mutual Influence Relationships
Count Mean SD SE Minimum Maximum Range
Team 109 4.00 0.64 0.05 1.33 5.00 3.17
PM 17 4.04 0.44 0.11 2.00 5.00 3.50
Table T22
Counts Section of Mutual Influence Relationships
Rows
Sum of
Freq.
Distinct
Values
Missing
Values Sum
Total Sum
Squares
Adjusted
Sum Squares
Team 109 109 10 0 436.33 1805.89 951.29
PM 17 17 10 0 68.67 280.44 147.73
318
Table T23
Means Section of Mutual Influence Relationships
Parameter Mean Median
Geometric
Mean
Harmonic
Mean Sum Mode
Team Value 4.00 4.00 3.87 3.67 436.33 4.33
Std Error 0.05
95% LCL 0.01 4.00
95% UCL 1.64
T-Value 2.01
Prob Level 0.92
Count 109 90 90
PM Value 4.04 4.00 3.99 3.92 68.67 4.00
Std Error 0.11
95% LCL -2.06 4.00
95% UCL 1.81
T-Value 0.57
Prob Level 0.58
Count 17 14 14
319
Table T24
Variation Section of Mutual Influence Relationships
Parameter Variance SD
Unbiased
SD SE
Inter-quartile
Range Range
Team Value 0.55 0.64 0.65 0.05 0.67 3.17
Std Error 0.05
95% LCL -1.48
95% UCL 0.77
PM Value 0.19 0.44 0.44 0.11 0.67 3.50
Std Error 0.11
95% LCL -5.75
95% UCL 9.95
Table T25
Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Mutual Influence Relationships
Parameter Skewness Kurtosis Fisher's
Coefficient
of Variation
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Team Value -0.78 0.63 4.06 0.08 0.39
Std Error 0.05
PM Value -0.24 0.86 0.02 2.10 -0.13
Std Error 0.11
320
Table T26
Summary Section of Common Vision
Count Mean SD SE Minimum Maximum Range
Team 109 3.76 0.67 0.06 1.00 5.00 3.00
PM 17 3.94 0.65 0.16 2.00 5.00 3.50
Table T27
Counts Section of Common Vision
Rows
Sum of
Freq.
Distinct
Values
Missing
Values Sum
Total Sum
Squares
Adjusted
Sum Squares
Team 109 109 8 0 410.00 1616.22 851.38
PM 17 17 8 0 67.00 270.78 142.64
321
Table T28
Means Section of Common Vision
Parameter Mean Median
Geometric
Mean
Harmonic
Mean Sum Mode
Team Value 3.76 4.00 3.59 3.37 410.00 4.00
Std Error 0.06
95% LCL -1.22
95% UCL 1.40
T-Value 0.51
Prob Level 0.36
Count 109 90 90
PM Value 3.94 3.67 3.84 3.73 67.00 3.33
Std Error 0.16
95% LCL -0.08
95% UCL 0.62
T-Value 1.55
Prob Level 0.62
Count 17 14 14
322
Table T29
Variation Section of Common Vision
Parameter Variance SD
Unbiased
SD SE
Inter-quartile
Range Range
Team Value 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.06 1.00 3.00
Std Error 0.06
95% LCL -3.99
95% UCL 6.47
PM Value 0.42 0.65 0.65 0.16 1.00 3.50
Std Error 0.16
95% LCL -0.71
95% UCL 1.96
Table T30
Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Common Vision
Parameter Skewness Kurtosis Fisher's
Coefficient
of Variation
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Team Value -0.71 0.64
2.40 1.24 0.09
Std Error 0.06
PM Value 0.34 -1.27 0.02 0.62 0.27
Std Error 0.16
323
Table T31
Summary Section of Group Interests
Count Mean SD SE Minimum Maximum Range
Team 109 3.88 0.68 0.05 1.00 5.00 3.00
PM 17 3.96 0.45 0.11 2.00 5.00 3.50
Table T32
Counts Section of Group Interests
Rows
Sum of
Freq.
Distinct
Values
Missing
Values Sum
Total Sum
Squares
Adjusted
Sum Squares
Team 109 109 8 0.00 423.00 1705.44 898.38
PM 17 17 8 0.00 67.33 270.00 142.23
324
Table T33
Means Section of Group Interests
Parameter Mean Median
Geometric
Mean
Harmonic
Mean Sum Mode
Team Value 3.88 4.00 3.72 3.50 423.00 3.33
Std Error 0.05
95% LCL -0.06
95% UCL 0.68
T-Value 1.64
Prob Level 0.55
Count 109 90 90
PM Value 3.96 4.00 3.89 3.80 67.33 4.00
Std Error 0.11
95% LCL -1.95
95% UCL 1.78
T-Value 0.55
Prob Level 0.59
Count 17 14 14
325
Table T34
Variation Section of Group Interests
Parameter Variance SD
Unbiased
SD SE
Inter-quartile
Range Range
Team Value 0.59 0.68 0.68 0.05 0.67 3.00
Std Error 0.05
95% LCL -1.03
95% UCL 1.92
PM Value 0.21 0.45 0.46 0.11 0.67 3.50
Std Error 0.11
95% LCL -5.53
95% UCL 9.36
Table T35
Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Group Interests
Parameter Skewness Kurtosis Fisher's
Coefficient
of Variation
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Team Value -0.70 0.78 2.69 1.90 -0.08
Std Error 0.05
PM Value 0.57 0.48 0.01 1.92 -0.10
Std Error 0.11
326
Table T36
Summary Section of Risk Taking
Count Mean SD SE Minimum Maximum Range
Team 109 3.91 0.75 0.05 1.67 5.00 3.33
PM 17 4.08 0.55 0.13 2.00 5.00 3.50
Table T37
Counts Section of Risk Taking
Rows
Sum of
Freq.
Distinct
Values
Missing
Values Sum
Total Sum
Squares
Adjusted
Sum Squares
Team 109 109 10 0 426.33 1724.78 908.57
PM 17 17 10 0 69.33 287.56 151.48
327
Table T38
Means Section of Risk Taking
Parameter Mean Median
Geometric
Mean
Harmonic
Mean Sum Mode
Team Value 3.91 4.00 3.78 3.60 69.33 4.00
Std Error 0.05
95% LCL 0.05 4.00
95% UCL 0.82
T-Value 2.21
Prob Level 0.94
Count 109 90 90
PM Value 4.08 4.00 4.00 3.90 69.33 4.33
Std Error 0.13
95% LCL -5.81 4.00
95% UCL 6.91
T-Value 0.35
Prob Level 0.86
Count 17 14 14
328
Table T39
Variation Section of Risk Taking
Parameter Variance SD
Unbiased
SD SE
Inter-quartile
Range Range
Team Value 0.53 0.75 0.55 0.05 1.00 3.33
Std Error 0.05
95% LCL -1.61
95% UCL 1.49
PM Value 0.30 0.55 0.55 0.13 1.00 3.50
Std Error 0.13
95% LCL -1.29
95% UCL 1.80
Table T40
Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Risk Taking
Parameter Skewness Kurtosis Fisher's
Coefficient
of Variation
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Team Value -0.75 0.46 4.89 -0.06 0.43
Std Error 0.20
PM Value -0.33 -0.48 0.12 0.55 0.25
Std Error 0.73
329
Table T41
Summary Section of Collaboration
Count Mean SD SE Minimum Maximum Range
Team 109 3.93 0.67 0.05 1.00 5.00 3.00
PM 17 4.24 0.50 0.12 2.00 5.00 3.50
Table T42
Counts Section of Collaboration
Rows
Sum of
Freq.
Distinct
Values
Missing
Values Sum
Total Sum
Squares
Adjusted
Sum Squares
Team 109 109 8 0 428.67 1743.11 918.22
PM 17 17 8 0 72.00 308.89 162.71
330
Table T43
Means Section of Collaboration
Parameter Mean Median
Geometric
Mean
Harmonic
Mean Sum Mode
Team Value 3.93 4.00 3.80 3.60 428.67 4.00
Std Error 0.05
95% LCL -0.51 4.00
95% UCL 2.69
T-Value 1.45
Prob Level 0.61
Count 109 90 90
PM Value 4.24 4.33 4.17 4.10 72.00 4.00
Std Error 0.12
95% LCL -0.08 4.33
95% UCL 0.71
T-Value 1.59
Prob Level 0.36
Count 17 14 14
331
Table T44
Variation Section of Collaboration
Parameter Variance SD
Unbiased
SD SE
Inter-quartile
Range Range
Team Value 0.53 0.67 0.67 0.05 0.67 4.00
Std Error 0.05
95% LCL -9.86
95% UCL 3.78
PM Value 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.12 0.67 3.00
Std Error 0.12
95% LCL -1.17
95% UCL 1.98
Table T45
Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Collaboration
Parameter Skewness Kurtosis Fisher's
Coefficient
of Variation
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Team Value -0.79 1.56
2.52 -3.04 1.10
Std Error 0.05
PM Value -0.07 -0.95 2.12 0.40 0.32
Std Error 0.12
332
Table T46
Summary Section of Empowerment
Count Mean SD SE Minimum Maximum Range
Team 109 3.88 0.73 0.05 1.00 5.00 3.00
PM 17 4.06 0.58 0.14 1.00 5.00 3.00
Table T47
Counts Section of Empowerment
Rows
Sum of
Freq.
Distinct
Values
Missing
Values Sum
Total Sum
Squares
Adjusted
Sum Squares
Team 109 109 8 0 423.00 1704.33 897.80
PM 17 17 8 0 69.00 285.44 150.37
333
Table T48
Means Section of Empowerment
Parameter Mean Median
Geometric
Mean
Harmonic
Mean Sum Mode
Team Value 3.88 4.00 3.74 3.54 423.00 4.00
Std Error 0.05
95% LCL -0.04 4.00
95% UCL 0.71
T-Value 1.77
Prob Level 0.65
Count 109 90 90
PM Value 4.06 4.00 3.93 3.73 69.00 4.67
Std Error 0.14
95% LCL -1.57 4.00
95% UCL 1.35
T-Value 0.72
Prob Level 0.48
Count 17 14 14
334
Table T49
Variation Section of Empowerment
Parameter Variance SD
Unbiased
SD SE
Inter-quartile
Range Range
Team Value 0.58 0.73 0.73 0.05 0.66 3.00
Std Error 0.05
95% LCL -1.14
95% UCL 1.82
PM Value 0.34 0.58 0.58 0.14 0.66 3.00
Std Error 0.05
95% LCL -3.96
95% UCL 8.03
Table T50
Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Empowerment
Parameter Skewness Kurtosis Fisher's
Coefficient
of Variation
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Team Value -1.01 1.82
3.14 0.34 0.33
Std Error 0.05
PM Value -0.14 -1.04 0.03
Std Error 0.14
335
APPENDIX U: CORRELATION COEFFICIENT MATRIX – PROJECT MANAGER SURVEY
Team Performance Charisma
Shared Responsibility
Continuous Development
Common Vision
Mutual Influence Relationship
Group Interests
Risk Taking Collaboration Empowerment
1.000 n=17 Team
Performance P= 1.000 0.214 1.000 n=17 n=17
Charisma P= 0.002 P= 0.000 0.325 0.859 1.000 n=17 n=17 n=17 Shared
Responsibility P= 0.008 P= 0.001 P= 0.0000 0.225 0.489 0.475 1.000 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 Continuous
Development P= 0.006 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.0000 -0.132 0.567 0.528 0.710 1.000 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 Common
Vision P= 0.005 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 0.064 0.614 0.636 0.507 0.588 1.000 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17
Mutual Influence Relationships P= 0.0055 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000
0.006 0.397 0.476 0.604 0.685 0.721 1.000 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17
Group Interests P= 0.005 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 0.022 0.666 0.685 0.461 0.546 0.612 0.591 1.000 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17
Risk Taking P= 0.004 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 0.256 0.787 0.662 0.414 0.631 0.685 0.487 0.515 1.000 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17
Collaboration P= 0.003 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 -0.111 0.711 0.701 0.476 0.639 0.749 0.606 0.795 0.664 1.000 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17
Empowerment P= 0.004 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000
336
APPENDIX V: CORRELATION COEFFICIENT MATRIX – PROJECT TEAM SURVEY
Team Performance Charisma
Shared Responsibility
Continuous Development
Common Vision
Mutual Influence Relationship
Group Interests
Risk Taking Collaboration Empowerment
1.000 n=109 Team
Performance 0.163 1.000 n=109 n=10
Charisma P 0.003 P= 0.000 0.303 0.810 1.000 n=109 n=10 n=109 Shared
Responsibility P 0.009 P= 0.001 P= 0.000 0.265 0.787 0.811 1.000 n=109 n=10 n=109 n=109 Continuous
Development P 0.017 P= 0.000 P= 0.0000 P= 0.000 0.313 0.847 0.867 0.821 1.000 n=109 n=10 n=109 n=109 n=109 Common
Vision P 0.006 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 0.230 0.827 0.810 0.828 0.943 1.000 n=109 n=10 n=109 n=109 n=109 n=109
Mutual Influence Relationships P 0.013 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.001 P 0.000
0.2412 0.725 0.789 0.693 0.829 0.797 1.00 n=109 n=10 n=109 n=109 n=109 n=109 n=10 Group
Interests P 0.009 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P 0.000 P= 0.00 0.390 0.821 0.864 0.672 0.838 0.805 0.83 1.00 n=109 n=10 n=109 n=109 n=109 n=109 n=10 n=1
Risk Taking P 0.008 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P 0.000 P= 0.00 P= 0.00 0.296 0.845 0.918 0.812 0.894 0.833 0.89 0.86 1.000 n=109 n=10 n=109 n=109 n=109 n=109 n=10 n=1 n=109
Collaboration P 0.007 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P 0.000 P= 0.00 P= 0.00 P= 0.000 0.354 0.703 0.818 0.606 0.859 0.770 0.83 0.87 0.779 1.000 n=109 n=10 n=109 n=109 n=109 n=109 n=10 n=1 n=109 n=109
Empowerment P 0.010 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P= 0.000 P 0.000 P= 0.00 P= 0.00 P= 0.000 P= 0.000