the influence of project mgr leadership on project team performance

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


ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

THE INFLUENCE OF PROJECT MANAGERS' LEADERSHIP STYLES ON

PROJECT TEAM PERFORMANCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

by


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


members for the shared responsibility survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). ..89


members for continuous development survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). ..90


members for common vision development survey questions for Pilot Team A (n =

11). ...............................................................................................................................92


members for mutual influence relationships survey questions for Pilot Team A (n =

11). ...............................................................................................................................93


members for the group interests survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).............95


members for the risk taking survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). ..................96


members for the collaboration survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). ..............98


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


Team C (n = 8)...........................................................................................................109


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


Team D (n = 6)...........................................................................................................114


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


Team E (n = 6). ..........................................................................................................120


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


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



Team G (n = 8)...........................................................................................................132


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


Team H (n = 9)...........................................................................................................138


H (n = 9).....................................................................................................................139

Figure 31. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team H (n



Team I (n = 6). ...........................................................................................................144

xviii


I (n = 6). .....................................................................................................................145

Figure 34. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team I (n



Team J (n = 9). ...........................................................................................................150


J (n = 9). .....................................................................................................................151

Figure 37. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team J (n



Team K (n = 8)...........................................................................................................155


K (n = 8).....................................................................................................................156

Figure 40. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team K (n



Team L (n = 9). ..........................................................................................................160


L (n = 9). ....................................................................................................................161

Figure 43. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team L (n


xix


Team M (n = 7). .........................................................................................................165


M (n = 7). ...................................................................................................................166

Figure 46. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team M (n



Team N (n = 6)...........................................................................................................171


N (n = 6).....................................................................................................................172

Figure 49. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team N (n



Team O (n = 6)...........................................................................................................177


O (n = 6).....................................................................................................................178

Figure 52. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team O (n



Team P (n = 9). ..........................................................................................................182


P (n = 9). ....................................................................................................................183

xx

Figure 55. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team P (n



Team Q (n = 8)...........................................................................................................187


Q (n = 8).....................................................................................................................188

Figure 58. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team Q (n



Team R (n = 7)...........................................................................................................192


R (n = 7). ....................................................................................................................193

Figure 61. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team R (n


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


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


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:






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:


manager and the project manager’s performance as perceived by the project team

members.


manager and the project manager’s performance as perceived by the project team

members.


the project manager’s effectiveness.

Ha2: There is a relationship between a project manager’s leadership styles and the


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


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


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.




75



The hypotheses are as follows:



team members.



members.





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


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


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


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


Q04Q05Q06


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


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.


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


Q07Q08Q09


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


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,



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


Q10Q11Q12


members for common vision development survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).


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


Q13Q14Q15


members for mutual influence relationships survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).

94


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


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



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


Q16Q17Q18


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



the means, standard deviations, and correlations for Questions 16, 17, and 18, and the


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


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,


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


Q19Q20Q21


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,


97

and 21 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.71 (Appendix Q). A scatter



the means, standard deviations, and correlations for Questions 19, 20, and 21, and the


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,




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


Q22Q23Q24


members for the collaboration survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).


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


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



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


Q25Q26Q27


members for the empowerment survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).

100



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


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


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


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


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 *


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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



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


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


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


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


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



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).


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


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


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



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



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



F (n = 7).

The team performance score for Team F was -1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks


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


Figure 25. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team F (n


Team G

Team G consisted of 8 participants (n = 8), with 2 individuals not disclosing


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


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


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



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


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



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


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


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


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


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 *


Common vision 4.29 4.67 0.14 0.33 0.69 0.58 0.48 0.33 -0.71 -0.46 -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



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


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



H (n = 9).

The team performance score for Team H was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks


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


Figure 31. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team H (n


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 =


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


members, mutual influence relationships and group interests appear to be the most

normally distributed leadership characteristics, while risk taking and empowerment


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


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 *


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 *



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


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



I (n = 6).

The team performance score for Team I was 1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks


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


Figure 34. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team I (n


147

Team J

Team J consisted of 9 participants (n = 9). The team had a mean range number of



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


members, mutual influence relationships and group interests appear to be the most

normally distributed leadership characteristics, while risk taking and empowerment


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


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


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


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


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


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



J (n = 9).

The team performance score for Team J was 1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks


manager and team member mean scores for Team J and the combined mean scores for


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 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


Figure 37. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team J (n


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-


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


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


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



Common vision 4.29 3.67 0.14 0.33 0.64 0.58 0.41 0.33 -0.51 -0.33 -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



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


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



K (n = 8).

The team performance score for Team K was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks


manager and team member mean scores for Team K and the combined mean scores for


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


Figure 40. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team K (n


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


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


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


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



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



160


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


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



L (n = 9).

The team performance score for Team L was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks


manager and team member mean scores for Team L and the combined mean scores for


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


Figure 43. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team L (n


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


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


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 *


Common vision 4.56 4.00 0.12 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.26 0.00 -2.20 -0.24 *


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 *



165


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


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



M (n = 7).

The team performance score for Team M was 1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks


manager and team member mean scores for Team M and the combined mean scores for


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


for the same characteristics by 0.39, 0.55, and 0.50 respectively. The remaining

167


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


Figure 46. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team M (n


168

Team N

Team N consisted of 6 participants (n = 6), with 1 participant not disclosing


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


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


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 *



Common vision 3.27 3.67 0.37 0.33 1.44 0.58 2.07 0.33 -1.26 -0.21 -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



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


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



N (n = 6).

The team performance score for Team N was 1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks


manager and team member mean scores for Team N and the combined mean scores for


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


for the same characteristics by 0.28, 0.33, 0.50, and 0.33 respectively. The remaining


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


Figure 49. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team N (n


Team O

Team O consisted of 6 participants (n = 6), with 1 participant not disclosing


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


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).


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


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


Common vision 4.20 4.00 0.18 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.46 0.00 -0.51 -0.26 *


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



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


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



O (n = 6).

The team performance score for Team O was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks


manager and team member mean scores for Team O and the combined mean scores for


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


Figure 52. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team O (n


Team P

Team P consisted of 9 participants (n = 9), with 1 participant not disclosing



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


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


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


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 *



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


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



P (n = 9).

The team performance score for Team P was -1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks


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


Figure 55. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team P (n


Team Q

Team Q consisted of 8 participants (n = 8). The team had a mean range number of



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


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


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 *


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 *


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



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


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



Q (n = 8).

The team performance score for Team Q was 1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks


manager and team member mean scores for Team Q and the combined mean scores for


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


Figure 58. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team Q (n


Team R

Team R consisted of 7 participants (n = 7). The team had a mean range number of


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


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


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



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



192


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


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



R (n = 7).

The team performance score for Team R was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks


manager and team member mean scores for Team R and the combined mean scores for


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


Figure 61. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team R (n


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:






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).


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).


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:




217



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


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



team members.



members.





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.


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.


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


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.


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


leadership characteristic of common vision and a project manager’s performance as


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


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.


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.


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.


of mutual influence relationships, individually, appeared to be an important factor in


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.


leadership characteristic of group interests and a project manager’s performance as



independent variable of group interests and team performance, r = 0. 0.24 with a


224

characteristics of group interests had a higher mean score in five of the eight teams on the


The result of the analysis indicated that a project manager’s leadership

characteristic of group interests, individually, appeared to be an important factor in


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.


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


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.


leadership characteristic of collaboration and a project manager’s performance as



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



of collaboration, individually, appeared to be an important factor in influencing team


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.


leadership characteristic empowerment and a project manager’s performance as



independent variable of empowerment and team performance, r = 0. 0.35 with a


characteristics of collaboration had a higher mean score in four of the eight teams on the



of empowerment, individually, appeared to be an important factor in influencing team


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,


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,


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.


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


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.


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


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,


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


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,


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,


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,


256

Krishnan, V. R. (2005). Transformational leaders and outcomes: Role of relationship

duration. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 442-457.


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,


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,


Lucas, J. R. (1998). Anatomy of a vision statement. Management Review, 87(2), 22-26.


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,


Martin, V. (2006). Leading in teams: Part 2. Nursing Management, 13(2), 32-35.


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,


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.


McGuire, E., & Kennerly, S. M. (2006). Nurse managers as transformational and

transactional leaders. Nursing Economic$, 24(4), 179-185. Retrieved December 4,


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.


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,


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,


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,


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,


Smith, G. R. (1999). Project leadership: Why project management alone doesn’t work.

Hospital Material Management Quarterly, 21, 88-92. Retrieved February 15,


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,


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,


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.


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,


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

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.


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.


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


Que

stio

n 18

Que

stio

n 17

Que

stio

n 16


Que

stio

n 24

Que

stio

n 23

Que

stio

n 22


Que

stio

n 15

Que

stio

n 14

Que

stio

n 13

__

__


Que

stio

n 6

Que

stio

n 5

Que

stio

n 4

__

300


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



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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Coefficient

of Variation

Coefficient of

Dispersion


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


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


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


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


Coefficient

of Variation

Coefficient of

Dispersion


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



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



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

the influence of project mgr leadership on project team performance

Documents