See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258568476

The Project Manager’s Leadership Style as a Success Factor on Projects: A

Literature Review

Article  in  Project Management Journal · January 2005

CITATIONS READS

342 15,583

2 authors:

Rodney Turner Ralf Müller

Kingston University London BI Norwegian Business School
63 PUBLICATIONS   5,330 CITATIONS    222 PUBLICATIONS   5,880 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

business education View project

Project Success View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ralf Müller on 02 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THE PROJECT MANAGER’S LEADERSHIP STYLE
AS A SUCCESS FACTOR ON PROJECTS:
A LITERATURE REVIEW
J. RODNEY TURNER, Lille Graduate School of Management
ESC Lille, France

RALF MÜLLER, School of Business and Economics

Umeå University, Sweden

Introduction
ABSTRACT The authors have been commissioned by the Project Management Institute to
determine:
The Project Management Institute has 1. Whether the competence, including personality and leadership style, of the
commissioned the authors to conduct
project manager is a success factor for projects; and
research into whether the project man-
ager’s leadership style is a success fac-
2. If different competence profiles are appropriate for different project types.
tor on projects, and whether its impact
is different on different types of proj- In reviewing the literature on project success factors, we found it largely
ects. In this paper, we review the liter- ignores the project manager, and his or her leadership style and competence. This
ature on the topic. Surprisingly, the is in direct contrast to the general management literature, which considers effec-
literature on project success factors tive leadership a success factor in organizations, and has shown that an appro-
does not typically mention the project priate leadership style can lead to better performance.
manager and his or her leadership
In this paper, we review the literature on leadership in a project context. We
style or competence as a success fac-
tor on projects. This is in direct con- start by reviewing the general management literature on leadership, and show
trast to the general management how the project management literature has reflected this. We indicate specific
literature, which views effective leader- instances where it has been shown that an appropriate leadership style, and the
ship as a critical success factor in the competence and emotional intelligence of the leader, delivers better results. We
management of organizations, and has then review the literature on project success factors, and consider how and why it
shown that an appropriate leadership largely ignores the project manager, and his or her leadership style and compe-
style can lead to better performance.
tence. We look at literature on the role of the project manager and his or her lead-
Since, unlike most literature on project
success factors, project management
ership style and competence. We close by indicating how this suggests further
literature does consider the role of the research as sponsored by the Project Management Institute.
project manager, we also review what
it says about his or her leadership style General Management Literature on Leadership Styles and Competence
and competence. Throughout history, people have tried to say what makes a good leader. Some of
the most often quoted historical authors include Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and
Keywords: leadership; emotional intelli- Locke from the West (Collinson, 1998), and Confucius and Xunxi from the East
gence; literature; project success factors
(Collinson, Plan, & Wilkinson, 2000). As early as 500 B.C., Confucius listed the
©2005 by the Project Management Institute virtues (de) of effective leaders. Four were key to his beliefs:
Vol. 36, No. 1, 49-61, ISSN 8756-9728/03 • Jen (love)
• Li (proper conduct)
• Xiao (piety)
• Zhang rong (the doctrine of the mean)

J U N E 2005 Project Management Journal 49

 Notice that three of the virtues are emotional and only focused on three main areas:
one managerial. Confucius’s theory has formed the basis of • Abilities: hard management skills
Chinese government for 2,500 years. • Personality: such as self-confidence and emotional variables
In this review of what the general management litera- • Physical appearance: including size and appearance.
ture says about successful leadership styles and competence,
we consider: In a recent study, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) identi-
• The development of leadership theory through the 20th fied six traits of effective leaders:
century, and how that is reflected in the project manage- • Drive and ambition
ment literature • The desire to lead and influence others
• The literature on behavior of team members • Honesty and integrity
• The literature on cultural behaviors of managers • Self-confidence
• The current literature on the competence of leaders. • Intelligence
• Technical knowledge.
Theories of Leadership in the 20th Century
Barnard (1938) suggested the functions of a leader. He said Through his work at Henley Management College,
an executive had both managerial and emotional functions, Turner (1999) identified seven traits of effective project
which he called cognitive and cathectic, respectively: managers:
• Cognitive functions include guiding, directing, and con- • Problem-solving ability
straining choices and actions. • Results orientation
• Cathectic functions include emotional and motivational • Energy and initiative
aspects of goal-setting, and developing faith and commit- • Self-confidence
ment to a larger moral purpose. • Perspective
• Communication
This is similar to Aristotle’s view of pathos, ethos, and • Negotiating ability.
logos, according to which a leader must:
1. Build relationships with those who are led The Behavioral or Style School
2. Advocate a moral vision The behavioral or style school was popular from the 1940s
3 Persuade by logic to manage actions. to the 1960s. It assumed that effective leaders adopt certain
styles or behaviors. It assumes, in effect, that effective lead-
Over the last seventy years, there have been six main ers can be made. Most of the best-known theories character-
schools of leadership theory (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2003; ize managers or leaders against one or two parameters, and
Handy, 1982; Partington, 2003): place them on a one-dimensional continuum or in a two-
dimensional matrix (see, for example, Adair, 1983; Blake &
1. The trait school Mouton, 1978; Hershey & Blanchard, 1988; Slevin, 1989;
2. The behavioral or style school Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958). The parameters (see Table
3. The contingency school 1) include:
4. The visionary or charismatic school 1. Concern for people or relationships
5. The emotional intelligence school 2. Concern for production
6. The competency school. 3. Use of authority
4. Involvement of the team in decision-making
The Trait School (formulating decisions)
The trait approach was popular up to the 1940s. The idea 5. Involvement of the team in decision-taking
behind this school is that effective leaders share common (choosing options)
traits. It effectively assumes that leaders are born, not made. 6. Flexibility versus the application of rules.
Attempts to identify the traits of effective leaders have

Parameter Blake and Tannenbaum and Hershey and Bonoma and

Mouton Schmidt Blanchard Slevin
1. People 2-D grid 2-D grid
2. Production based on 1 & 2 based on 1 & 2
3. Authority covering 3 1-D spectrum covering 3 2-D grid
4. Decision-making based on 3 based on 4 & 5
5. Decision-taking covering 4 & 5 covering 3

Table 1: : Models of leadership style based on five parameters

50 J U N E 2005 Project Management Journal

 Parameter Laissez-faire Democratic Autocratic Bureaucratic
4. Team Decision-making High High Low Low
5. Team Decision-taking High Low Low Low
6. Flexibility High High High Low

Table 2: Four styles of project manager (Turner, 1999)

Turner (1999) identified four styles of project manager • Leader-member relations: degree to which the leader is
based on parameters 4 to 6 (see Table 2). trusted and liked by members
• Task structure: degree of clearness of a task and its instructions
The Contingency School • Position power: leader power by virtue of organizational position.
The contingency school was popular in the 1960s and 1970s
(see Fiedler, 1967; House, 1971; Krech, Crutchfield, & Fiedler distinguishes between task-oriented and partici-
Ballachey, 1962; Robbins, 1997). Rather than seeking uni- pative approaches to leadership. He uses a least-preferred-
versal theories of leadership that would apply in every situ- coworker (LPC) score to assign team members to leaders
ation, contingency theories suggest that what makes an depending on the leadership situation. In very favorable sit-
effective leader would depend on the situation. They tend to uations and very unfavorable situations, he assigns task-ori-
follow the same pattern: ented leaders (having a low LPC score) to achieve
1. Assess the characteristics of the leader effectiveness through a directive and controlling style. In
2. Evaluate the situation in terms of key contingency variables moderately favorable situations, he assigns participative lead-
3. Seek a match between the leader and the situation. ers (high LPC score) for high effectiveness through interper-
sonal relationship orientation.
One contingency theory that has proven popular is In the project management field, Frame (1987) suggest-
path-goal theory (House, 1971). The idea is the leader must ed how the four leadership styles listed in Table 2 are appro-
help the team find the path to their goals and help them in priate at different stages of the project life cycle and with
that process. Path-goal theory identifies four leadership different team structures (see Table 3).
behaviors:
• Directive leaders The Visionary or Charismatic School
• Supportive leaders The visionary school was popular during the 1980s and 1990s,
• Participative leaders and arose from the study of successful business leaders leading
• Achievement-oriented leaders. their organizations through change. Bass (1990) identified two
types of leadership, transactional and transformational:
These must then be matched to environmental and 1. Transactional leadership:
subordinate contingency factors: • Emphasizes contingent rewards, rewarding followers
• Environmental factors: for meeting performance targets
- Task structure • Manages by exception, taking action when tasks are
- Formal authority system not going as planned.
- Work group. 2. Transformational leadership:
• Subordinate factors: • Exhibits charisma, developing a vision, engendering
- Locus of control pride, respect and trust
- Experience • Provides inspiration, motivating by creating high
- Perceived ability. expectations and modelling appropriate behaviors
• Gives consideration to the individual, paying personal
Fiedler (1967) recommends different leadership styles, attention to followers and giving them respect and
depending on the favorability of the leadership situation. personality
He identified three major variables to determine this favor- • Provides intellectual stimulation, challenging followers
ability, which then affects the leader’s role and influence: with new ideas and approaches.

Leadership Style Stage Team Type Team Nature

Laissez-faire Feasibility Egoless Experts with shared responsibility
Democratic Design Matrix Mixed discipline working on several tasks
Autocratic Execution Task Single discipline working on separate tasks
Bureaucratic Close-out Surgical Mixed working on a single task

Table 3: Leadership styles, project team types and the project life cycle

J U N E 2005 Project Management Journal 51

 Style Dimensions Description
Transformational Idealized influence (attributed) The charisma of the leader
Idealized influence (behavior) Charisma centered on values, beliefs, and mission
Inspirational motivation Energizing followers by optimism, goals, and vision
Intellectual stimulation Challenging creativity for problem solving
Individualized consideration Advising, supporting, and caring for individuals

Transactional Contingent reward leadership Providing role, task clarification and psychological rewards
Management by exception Active vigilance of a leader to ensure goals are met
(active)
Management by exception Leaders intervene after mistakes have happened
(passive)

Laissez-faire Laissez-faire leadership Leader avoids making decisions, abdicates responsibility, and does
not use authority

Table 4: Dimensions of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass, 1990)

The transactional leader emphasizes Barnard’s cognitive The Emotional Intelligence School
roles and Aristotle’s logos. The transformational one empha- The emotional intelligence school has been popular since
sizes Barnard’s cathectic roles, and Aristotle’s pathos and the late 1990s, and says the leader’s emotional intelligence
ethos. In reality, a different combination of the two styles has a greater impact on his or her success as a leader—and
will be appropriate in different circumstances. the performance of his or her team—than does the leader’s
Bass (1990) developed the Multifactor Leadership intellectual capability (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002).
Questionnaire (MLQ) to test transactional, transformation- They identified four dimensions of emotional intelligence
al, and non-transactional laissez-faire leadership style (see (see Table 5), and, from there, six leadership styles:
Table 4). It is now the most widely used leadership assess- • Visionary • Democratic
ment questionnaire. Antonakis, Avolio and • Coaching • Pacesetting
Sivasubramaniam (2003) identified the impact of context • Affiliative • Commanding.
on the MLQ results. Contextual factors identified were envi-
ronmental risk, leader’s hierarchical level, and gender.
Dulewicz and Higgs (2004) showed the need to integrate Domains Competencies
contextual concepts in the MLQ questionnaire and added
scales for Organizational Commitment and Organizational Personal Competence
Context. These scales contain four items designed to assess • Self-awareness Emotional self-awareness
the degree of commitment that followers show to the organ- Accurate self-awareness
ization and to the team in which they work, and one item to Self-confidence
measure the extent of change faced by the organization. • Self-management Emotional self-control
These items cover: Transparency
• Job satisfaction Adaptability
• Realism Achievement
• Commitment to requisite change and to the organization Initiative
• Understanding the need for change Optimism
• Change faced by the organization.
Social Competence
Dulewicz and Higgs’ questionnaire removes the weak- • Social awareness Empathy
nesses identified within the original version of MLQ, and Organizational awareness
provides for the broadest coverage in assessing leadership Service
and context simultaneously. • Relationship management Inspirational leadership
In a project management context, Keegan and den Influence
Hartog (2004) predict that a project manager’s leadership Developing others
style needs to be more transformational than transactional, Change catalyst
but found no significant link. What they did find is that Conflict management
although there is a significant correlation between the man- Building bonds
ager’s leadership style and employees’ commitment, moti- Teamwork and collaboration
vation, and stress for line managers, there is no such
correlation for project managers. Table 5: Domains of emotional intelligence

52 J U N E 2005 Project Management Journal

 Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002) say that the first Belbin
four of these styles will foster resonance in the team, and Belbin (1986) identified nine team roles, and associated char-
usually lead to better performance in appropriate circum- acteristics. To these we add the role of comic, identified as
stances. The last two styles can foster dissonance, so— important by the emotional intelligence school of leadership:
although appropriate in the correct circumstances—these last • Plant • Team worker
two styles need to be used with care. Goleman, Boyatzis, and • Monitor-evaluator • Implementer
McKee, as well as other authors, have shown a clear correla- • Shaper • Completer-finisher
tion between the emotional intelligence and leadership style • Coordinator • Specialist
of managers and the performance of their organizations. • Resource investigator • Comic.

The Competency School Margerison and McCann

Since the late 1990s, the emphasis has been to identify the Margerison and McCann (1990) produced a leadership
competencies of effective leaders. This may appear to be a model based on two spectra:
return to the trait approach. However, competencies can be • Controlling behavior to exploring behavior
learned, so leaders can be made, not just born. Further, differ- • Advising roles to organizing roles.
ent combinations of competencies can lead to different styles of
leadership, appropriate in different circumstances, producing The team roles adopted by an individual depend on the
transactional leaders in situations of low complexity and trans- extent to which they apply these two fundamental behav-
formational leaders in situations of high complexity. In addi- iors. Nine team roles result. Many of these roles are similar
tion, competencies can be technical or intellectual in nature, to the roles identified by Belbin.
emphasizing Barnard’s cognitive roles, or emotional in nature,
emphasizing Barnard’s cathectic roles and the domains of emo- 16PF
tional intelligence. Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) give an Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka (1970) identified 16 personality
overview of the competency school. factors (16PF) that influence a person’s performance in a
Since the competency school forms the basis of our research team. They grouped the 16 factors into three groups:
model, we discuss it in a separate section after considering the lit- 1. Those showing extroversion versus introversion
erature on team behaviors and cultural behaviors of leaders. 2. Those showing emotional stability
3. Others.
Literature on Behaviors of Team Members
In addition to the literature on the styles and behaviors of lead- Dulewicz (1995) has correlated the Belbin team roles
ers, there is a substantial literature on the behavior of team and 16PF, showing that people adopting certain team roles
members. Sometimes people apply team roles to leadership exhibit particular personality factors.
styles. However, Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) have shown there
is little correlation between competencies of leaders and com- Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
monly identified team roles and behaviors. However, many of The Myers-Briggs Type was developed by Briggs-Myers
these are used as the basis for psychometric testing to determine (1992), and mainly gives an indication of an individual’s
the personality and behaviors of team members and team lead- thinking style and temperament in a team. It describes the
ers to judge how they will perform, and as part of the recruit- individual’s personality on four scales:
ment of managers and executives. We describe five of the most • Introversion to extroversion • Thinking to feeling
commonly discussed theories: • Sensing to intuition • Judgment to perception.

FIRO-B Correlation Between Team Roles and Leadership Styles

FIRO-B stands for Fundamental Interpersonal Relations It is a common fallacy for people to mix the team roles men-
Orientation-Behavior, and was developed by Schultz (1955). tioned here with leadership styles, saying that the team roles
It examines the way people react with each other, looking at are styles adopted by leaders. However, Dulewicz and Higgs
three types of work behavior. It judges how much a person (2003) have shown that only some of the team roles and
gives and needs to receive each of the three dimensions: personality factors are correlated to performance as a leader.
• Inclusion: social skills and the need to get along with 1. Belbin: Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) showed that only the
other people roles of resource investigator and team worker were strong-
• Control: leadership behavior, and how much control one ly correlated to performance as a leader. The coordinator
wants to exert and how much one is willing to receive and implementer roles are weakly correlated to perform-
• Affection: the deep need for giving and receiving affection. ance as a leader.
2. 16PF: There was greater correlation of the 16PF personality
FIRO-B also offers two other scores, the interpersonal factors with performance as a leader. The results suggest
score and expression-of-anger score. Used by the best practi- that extroverts and more emotionally stable individuals are
tioners, it can give an accurate picture of how an individual likely to be better leaders. There is also some correlation
behaves at work and how he or she is perceived by others. with some of the other factors.

J U N E 2005 Project Management Journal 53

 Based on these results, Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) sug- problem-solving ability, as well as management skill).
gest that their 15 leader competencies give better insight However, it goes on to show that different competence profiles
into performance as a leader than the Belbin roles or 16PF are appropriate in different circumstances, covering the con-
personality factors, though the latter are correlated to their tingency school. Finally, personal characteristics also encom-
15 leader competencies. pass charisma and vision, and it is possible to build up
different competency profiles to match different forms of lead-
Literature on Cultural Behaviors of Leaders ership such as transactional and transformational leadership.
Another dimension used to explain the performance of
leaders is their cultural preferences. This tends to be pre- Types of Competence
sented as an environmental factor, with different styles Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) show that many of the authors
appropriate in different cultural contexts. The most com- identify up to four types of competence that determine lead-
monly quoted lists come from Hofstede (1991) and ership performance (Kets de Vries & Florent-Treacy, 2002;
Trompenaars (1993) (see Table 6). Although these are envi- Marshall, 1991; Zaccaro et al., 2001):
ronmental factors, many are related to the parameters deter- • Cognitive • Behavioral
mining styles of managers in the style school and in • Emotional • Motivational
path-goal theory.
Turner (1999) suggests that different cultural styles lead Cognitive competencies are related to Barnard’s cogni-
to better performance at different stages of the project life tive functions of the executive, and Confucius’s li. Emotional,
cycle. Müller and Turner (2005) have shown a correlation behavioral and motivational competencies are related to
between the cultural preferences of project managers and Barnard’s cathectic functions, and Confucius’s ren and yi.
their performance in different contexts. (How far have we come in 2,500 years?)
However, based on their own observations and their
The Competence School of Leadership analysis of the literature, Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) suggest
The focus of leadership research is now on the competence that three types of competence explain most managerial per-
of leaders, and competencies they exhibit (see, for example, formance:
Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001; Bass & Avolio, • Intellectual (IQ)
1995; Bennis, 1989; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2003; Goffee & • Managerial skill (MQ)
Jones, 2000; Goleman et al., 2002; Kets de Vries & Florent- • Emotional (EQ).
Treacy, 2002; Kotter, 1990; Kouznes & Posner, 1998;
Marshall, 1991; Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). From the above list, they have broken cognitive into
intellectual (intelligence and problem-solving abilities)
Competence and the Earlier Schools and managerial (knowledge and skills of management
At first sight, it might appear that the competence school sig- functions). They have combined emotional, behavioral and
nals a return to the trait school. However, in reality, the com- motivational (Barnard’s cathectic functions) into one.
petence school encompasses all the earlier schools. Elsewhere, Dulewicz and Higgs (2000) show that intellec-
Competence can be defined as knowledge, skills, and per- tual competence (IQ) accounts for 27% of leadership per-
sonal characteristics that deliver superior results (Boyatsis, formance, managerial competence (MQ) accounts for 16%,
1982; Crawford, 2003). and emotional competence (EQ) accounts for 36%.
Thus, competence covers personal characteristics (traits Emotional competence is therefore the most significant,
as understood by the traits school and emotional intelli- but the other two are important, as Barnard and Confucius
gence), knowledge and skills (including intelligence and suggested.

Author Cultural Dimension Explanation

Hofstede Power distance Autocracy vs. democracy, range of influence
Individualism vs. collectivism Focus on individual or group
Uncertainty avoidance Attitude toward risk, complexity and ambiguity
Masculinity Differentiation of male and female roles

Trompenaars Universalist vs. particularist Ethics and personal relationships

Specific vs. diffuse Legal processes and trust
Neutral vs. emotional Objective vs. emotional
Short term vs. long term Perspective of investment returns and results
Achievement vs. ascription Status, performance, assignment of rewards
Attitudes to time Emphasis on past, present and future
Internal vs. external Ego vs. society

Table 6: Cultural dimensions of leadership after Hofstede (1991) and Trompenaars (1993)

54 J U N E 2005 Project Management Journal

 Group Competency Goal Involving Engaging
Intellectual (IQ) 1. Critical analysis and judgment High Medium Medium
2. Vision and Imagination High High Medium
3. Strategic Perspective High Medium Medium
Managerial (MQ) 4. Engaging Communication Medium Medium High
5. Managing Resources High Medium Low
6. Empowering Low Medium High
7. Developing Medium Medium High
8. Achieving High Medium Medium
Emotional (EQ) 9. Self-awareness Medium High High
10. Emotional Resilience High High High
11. Motivation High High High
12. Sensitivity Medium Medium High
13. Influence Medium High High
14. Intuitiveness Medium Medium High
15. Conscientiousness High High High

Table 7: Fifteen leadership competencies as suggested by Dulewicz and Higgs (2003), and the competence profiles of their three styles of leadership

Leadership Competencies Leadership Competencies and Change Projects

From their review of the literature (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban- Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) go on to show that leaders
Metcalfe, 2001; Bass & Avolio, 1995; Bennis, 1989; Goffee & with the different leadership styles perform better or worse
Jones, 2000; Goleman et al., 2002; Kotter, 1990; Kouznes & on different types of change projects (see Table 8). Thus,
Posner, 1998) and from their own work, Dulewicz and their 15 leadership dimensions can be used to explain the
Higgs (2003) have identified 15 leadership competencies. performance of project managers on different types of
There are seven emotional (EQ) competencies, three intel- change projects.
lectual (IQ) ones and five managerial (MQ) ones (see Table
7). By tabulating their eight against those suggested by the Leadership and Performance
other authors, they confirm a strong agreement in the liter- Clearly, the general management literature suggests that a
ature with this list. Other authors have slightly fewer or manager’s leadership style and competence is key to suc-
slightly more factors. They merge some and split some, but cessful performance in business, and many studies have
there is a strong agreement with the list. confirmed a correlation between these and the performance
of organizations and companies. So what does the project
Styles (and Charisma) management literature have to say about the leadership style
Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) identify three leadership styles: of the project manager, and its contribution to the success of
• Engaging (E) • Involving (I) • Goal-oriented (G). the project?

These are similar to the four styles of path-goal theory Project Management Literature on Project Success
(House, 1971) and the two styles from the visionary school The literature on project success factors, surprisingly, is
(Bass, 1990). So, although these are offered as styles, they very quiet about the role of the project manager and his or
are related to the styles of the competence and visionary her leadership style or competence. Leadership style and
schools more than those of the style schools. These styles competence are seldom identified as critical success factors
depict different competence profiles, as shown in Table 8. on projects.

Leadership Style Relatively Stable Context-Significant Change Transformational Change

Goal-oriented Good Fit Moderate Fit Poor Fit
Involving Moderate Fit Good Fit Moderate Fit
Engaging Poor Fit Moderate Fit Good Fit

Table 8: Performance of different leadership styles on different types of change projects

J U N E 2005 Project Management Journal 55

Project Success Factors Baker, Murphey, & Fisher (1988) produced a list of suc-
The changing understanding of project success is discussed cess factors. The project manager is not specifically men-
by Jugdev and Müller (in press). They identify four periods, tioned in their list. Pinto and Slevin (1988), in a now-classic
each widening the definitions of success. In the 1970s, proj- piece of work, identified 10 project success factors (see Table
ect success focused on implementation, measuring time, cost 9). This is one of the most widely quoted lists. They also do
and functionality improvements, and systems for their deliv- not overtly mention the project manager. Pinto and Prescott
ery. During the 1980s and 1990s, the quality of the planning (1988) later suggested that personnel is not a success factor.
and hand-over was identified as important. Lists of Critical Belout and Gauvreau (2004) questioned this, because it is
Success Factors (CSF), which also took into account organi- contrary to human resource management literature, but in
zational and stakeholder perspectives, became popular. More their own study reached the same conclusion. However,
recently, CSF frameworks were developed on the basis that both pairs of authors asked project managers what they
success is stakeholder-dependent and involves interaction thought was important. Since project managers tend to be
between project supplier and recipient. Additional dimen- task-oriented rather than people-oriented (Mäkilouko,
sions taken into account were the project product and its uti- 2004), perhaps this result is predictable. To truly determine
lization, staff growth and development, the customer, project success factors, it may be necessary to measure what
benefits to the delivery organization, senior management, actually has an impact on project success. Andersen et al.
and the environment. For the future, they anticipate further (1987) determined their list from reviews of failed projects,
broadening of the definition of success, especially taking into so it was based on assessment of actual project performance,
account factors from the conceptual stages of the project life but the assessment was done by the project managers. Baker
cycle and the close-down of the project’s product, together et al. (1988) and Pinto and Slevin (1988) also only asked
with an increasing understanding of the importance of the the opinions of project managers. Perhaps project managers
project sponsor’s view of success. We also expect a greater are too modest to consider themselves as a success factor.
focus on the project manager’s leadership style and compe- Morris and Hough (1987) identified success factors
tence. We consider further the second and third stages. from a study of seven major projects in the UK from the
1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Some were successful and some
1980s were not. Morris (1997) further developed this list into a
The 1980s was a period of intense research into project suc- project strategy model, which Turner (1999) recast as the
cess factors, with many authors producing lists of project Seven Forces Model for project success (see Figure 1), with
success factors. Seldom does the project manager, his or her five success factors in each of seven areas:
leadership style or competence appear overtly in these lists 1. Context 5. People
as a critical success factor on projects. It could be said that 2. Attitude 6. Systems
these lists imply that the project manager should be compe- 3. Sponsorship 7. Systems
tent because they imply that things should be well done. 4. Definition
However, it is perhaps this that leads to the sense in the proj-
ect management community that project managers do not People, including leadership and management, overtly
need training, that they can just gain their competence appear as success factors, as do many of Barnard’s (1938)
through on-the-job experience, as the accidental project cognitive and cathectic roles.
manager (Turner, Keegan, & Crawford, 2003).
Andersen, Grude, Haug, & Turner (1987) identified proj- 2000s
ect pitfalls, things that project managers might do, or not do, Recently, there has been a revival of interest in project suc-
which increased the chance if failure. They identified pitfalls in cess factors. Hartman and Ashrafi (2002) identified a list of
the way the project is established, planned, organized and con- ten factors for Information Systems projects, very similar to
trolled. Only once in their list is the project manager men-
tioned directly, and that is in organizing the project the project Success Factor Description
manager should be chosen for his or her managerial compe- 1. Project Mission Clearly defined goals and direction
tence, and not technical skills. Their reasoning is that technical 2. Top Management Support Resources, authority and power for implementation
experts are not good at Barnard’s (1938) cognitive and cathec- 3. Schedule and Plans Detailed specification of implementation
tic roles. Andersen et al.’s (1987) list was compiled by asking
4. Client Consultation Communication with and consultation of all stakeholders
project managers to record why their projects had failed.
5. Personnel Recruitment, selection and training of competent personnel
Morris (1988) identified success factors and failure fac-
tors, with different factors identified at successive stages of 6. Technical Tasks Ability of the required technology and expertise
the project management life cycle. He mentions poor lead- 7. Client Acceptance Selling of the final product to the end users
ership as a failure factor during formation, build-up and 8. Monitoring and Feedback Timely and comprehensive control
close-out, but not in execution. However, he mentions many 9. Communication Provision of timely data to key players
of Barnard’s (1938) cognitive and cathectic roles as success 10. Troubleshooting Ability to handle unexpected problems
factors, and so clearly by implication the project manager
should be competent in these things. Table 9: Project success factors after Pinto and Slevin (1988)

56 J U N E 2005 Project Management Journal

 Internal to Organization
Definition Attitudes
Objectives Commitment
Systems People
Scope Motivation
Planning Leadership
Technology Support
Control Management
Design Right 1st Time
Reporting Teamwork
Resourcing Shared Vision
Quality Influence
Risk IR

Pressures Project Drivers Resistance

Organization
Roles
Sponsorship Context
Resources
Benefit Political
Type
Finance Economic
Contract
Value Social
Strategy
Schedule Environment
Urgency Legal
External to Organization
Figure 1: The Seven Forces Model for project success, after Turner (1999)

Pinto and Slevin’s (1988) list. Cooke-Davies (2001) identi- that many project managers do not recognize themselves,
fied factors linked to successful project management and their leadership style, or their competence as a contributor
factors leading to successful projects. Under successful proj- to project success. Of the three lists compiled in other ways,
ect management, he identified six factors that help ensure two (Morris, 1988; Morris & Hough, 1987) did identify
the project is completed on time, and two more which help leadership as a success factor. Cooke-Davies (2001) identi-
ensure it is completed within budget. He identified four fied project management as a success factor, but not the
more that help ensure the project is successful. Cooke- project manager. However, you see what you measure, and
Davies’ list was obtained from benchmarking project per- perhaps his study was constructed to identify project man-
formance in several benchmarking networks he manages, so agement and not the project manager. Some studies have
is based on subjective assessment of actual project perform- focused specifically on the project manager, and considered
ance. He also does not overtly mention the project manager, more directly their contribution to project success. We now
but since he has identified project management success fac- consider some of those.
tors, he is implying that the project manager should be com-
petent. Kendra and Taplin (2004) used a model of success Project Management Literature on the Project Manager’s
factors grouped into four types: micro-social, macro-social, Leadership Style
micro-technical, and macro-technical. The leadership, Although the project success literature has, by and large,
behavior, and personal attributes of the project manager are ignored the project manager (and his or her competence,
proposed as one success factor in the micro-social list. personality, or leadership style) as a project success factor,
much has been written on those subjects. For instance
And So… authors have suggested that:
Rarely does the literature on project success factors specifi- 1. The project manager’s competence is related to his or her
cally or overtly mention the project manager and his or her success as a project manager
leadership style and competence. Perhaps the project man- 2. Different project leadership styles are appropriate at each
ager does not contribute to project success. Perhaps there is stage of the project life cycle
something about the nature of projects and project teams 3. Specific leadership styles are appropriate for multi-cultural projects
that means their success is not dependent on the leadership 4. Project managers have a leadership role in creating an
style and competence of the manager. But that conclusion effective working environment for the project team
totally contradicts the preceding leadership literature review, 5. Project managers prefer task-oriented to people-oriented
as well as human resource management and organizational leadership styles
behavior literature. Many of the previously cited authors 6. The project manager’s leadership style influences his or
asked project managers their opinion, and it would seem her perception of success in different situations.

J U N E 2005 Project Management Journal 57

Competence and success cultural situations, but suggests that some project managers
The most significant work on correlating the project manag- adopt two other, more appropriate styles:
er’s competence to his or her success as a project manager • People-oriented • Relationship-oriented.
was done by Crawford (2001). Crawford’s measure of suc-
cess was not project performance, but assessment by the Team Fusion
supervisor, so it was subjective assessment by the project Thamain (2004) shows that the working environment with-
manager’s line manager. Further, it was an assessment of in the project team has a significant impact on project suc-
overall performance, not that on a specific project. Crawford cess, and therefore suggests that the project manager has a
found that once a project manager has achieved an entry significant leadership role in fusing the team. Kloppenborg
level of knowledge, more knowledge does not make him or and Petrick (1999) suggest that project leaders have a role in
her more competent. Competence can be defined as knowl- developing team characteristics into a collective set of
edge, skills, and personal attributes that lead to superior virtues including:
results or to meet defined performance standards (Boyatsis, • Ethics
1982; Crawford, 2003): • Respect and trust for others
Following the earlier definition of competence (Boyatsis, • Honesty
1982; Crawford, 2003), personality and leadership style are • Prudence
included in the manager’s competence, and it is these other • Courage
dimensions that make a project manager more competent. • Responsible use and sharing of power.
This was confirmed by Hobbs, Pettersen, and Guérette
(2004), who also showed that once the project manager has (Here are aspects reminiscent of Confucius.) Turner and
obtained an “entry ticket” level of knowledge, more knowl- Müller (2003) made similar suggestions when they likened
edge does not make him or her more competent. the project manager to the chief executive of the “temporary
organization” (i.e., the project), suggesting that the project
Management Style Through the Life Cycle manager needs to adopt the cognitive and cathectic roles
Frame (1987) was the first to suggest that different leader- suggested by Barnard (1938).
ship styles are appropriate at different stages of the project
life cycle. Building on his work, Turner (1999) suggested Task-versus-people Focus
four leadership styles based on how much he or she involves A task-versus-people focus has been a recurring theme in the
the team in decision-making, decision-taking, and his or her leadership literature. Many of the models from the behav-
flexibility (see Table 2). He then suggested that different ioral school balanced concern for people and concern for
styles were appropriate at each stage of the life cycle (see the task (see Adair, 1983; Blake & Mouton, 1978; Hershey &
Table 3). Blanchard, 1988; Slevin, 1989; Tannenbaum & Schmidt,
Turner (1999) also considered different cultural styles, 1958). From the contingency school, Fiedler (1967) identi-
using Hofstede’s (1991) four cultural parameters (see Table fied three potential focus areas of the leader:
7). He showed that different combinations of the four param- • Task focus • People focus • Power focus.
eters were appropriate at different stages of the life cycle.
From the charismatic school, Bass (1990) identified
Multi-cultural Projects two types of leadership:
Many authors have written about the leadership styles • Transactional, primarily task-focused
appropriate on multi-cultural projects (e.g., Björkman & • Transformational, primarily people-focused.
Schaap, 1992; Hastings & Briner, 1996; Hofstede, 1991;
Mäkilouko, 2004; Rees, 2003; Selmer, 2002; Trompenaars, Mäkilouko (2004) showed that project managers are
1993; Turner, 1999). Björkman and Schaap (1992) say that primarily people-focused, with 40 out of 47 project man-
expatriate managers adopt one of three styles: agers in his sample being purely people-focused. On the
• Didactical: They sell ideas by analogy and site visits other hand, Lee-Kelley, Leong, and Loong (2003) found that
• Organization design: They carefully choose team members half of their sample was relationship-oriented. Keegan and
to design out potential conflict den Hartog (2004) predict that a project manager’s leader-
• Culturally blind: They do not recognize cultural differences. ship style needs to be more transformational than transac-
tional, but found no significant link. What they did find is
Selmer (2002) suggests personality traits for coping that, whereas for line managers there is a significant correla-
with cultural differences: tion between the manager’s leadership style and employees’
• Agreeableness • Intellect commitment, motivation, and stress, there was no such cor-
• Conscientiousness • Openness/extroversion. relation for project managers. (Is it just possible that there is
• Emotional stability something about the nature of projects that makes the man-
ager’s leadership style less of a factor in their success than in
Mäkilouko (2004) suggests most project managers a routine environment?)
adopt task-oriented styles that are inappropriate in multi-

58 J U N E 2005 Project Management Journal

Leadership style and perception of success However, it is conceivable that the leadership style and
Lee-Kelley et al. (2003) set out to find which Project competence of the project manager have no impact on proj-
Management Knowledge Areas are critical to project success ect success, and the unique, novel, and transient nature of
and whether the project manager’s leadership style influ- projects (as well as the risk involved) means the leader has
ences his or her perception of control. What they did find less of an impact on performance. But that question can only
was the project manager’s leadership style influenced his or be answered if it is directly measured.
her perception of success on the project. They suggest:
[There is] a significant relationship between the leader’s References
perception of project success and his or her personality Adair, J. (1983). Effective leadership: A self-development
and contingent experiences. Thus the inner confidence manual. Aldershot, UK: Gower.
and self-belief from personal knowledge and experience Alimo-Metcalfe, B., & Alban-Metcalfe, R. J. (2001).
are likely to play an important role in a manager’s abil- Development of the TLQ. Journal of Occupational &
ity to deliver a project successfully. (p. 590). Organizational Psychology, 74(1), 1–24.
Andersen, E. S., Grude, K. V., Haug, T., & Turner, J. R.
It seems that the project manager’s emotional intelli-
(1987). Goal directed project management, London: Kogan
gence has an impact on his or her perception of the success of
Page/Coopers & Lybrand.
the project. Emotional intelligence comprises four compo-
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N.
nents, as shown in Table 5. All four of those could impinge on
(2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the
a project manager’s perception of success of the project:
nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the
• How aware are they of their own performance on the proj-
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership
ect—not whether they thought the project was a success
Quarterly, 14(3), 261-295.
(i.e., it achieved its key performance indicators), but
Baker, B. N., Murphey, P. C., & Fisher, D. (1988). Factors
whether they thought the project management was a suc-
affecting project success. In D. I. Cleland & W. R. King (Eds.),
cess. Are they satisfied with how they managed the project?
Project Management Handbook (2nd ed.). New York: Van
• That assessment may be influenced by how they felt they
Nostrand Reinhold.
comported themselves
• The satisfaction of the project team members may also Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive.
affect their assessment of the project, regardless of how the Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
project actually performed Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transforma-
• The satisfaction of the other stakeholders, particularly the tional leadership: Learning to share the vision.
client, may also have an effect. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. (1995). The multifactor leader-
The Project Manager as a Success Factor ship questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
The literature on project success factors has largely ignored Belbin, R. M. (1986). Management teams. London:
the impact of the project manager, and his or her leadership Heinemann.
style and competence, on project success. This may be Belout, A., & Gauvreau, C. (2004). Factors affecting proj-
because most of the studies asked project managers their ect success: The impact of human resource management.
opinion and the respondents have not given due considera- International Journal of Project Management, 22(1), 1-12.
tion to their own impact on project success. Or, it may be Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. London:
because the studies have not measured the impact of the Hutchinson.
project manager and, thus, not recorded it. Or, it may be Björkman, I., & Schaap, A. (1992). Outsiders in the mid-
because the project manager has no impact. However, that dle kingdom: Expatriate managers in Chinese-Western joint
last conclusion is in direct contrast to the general manage- ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(1), 55-75.
ment literature, which postulates that the leadership style Blake, R. R., & Mouton, S. J. (1978). The new manageri-
and competence of the manager has a direct and measura- al grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.
ble impact on the performance of the organization or busi- Boyatsis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model
ness. Thus, the authors have been commissioned by the for effective performance. New York: Wiley.
Project Management Institute to study whether the leader- Briggs-Myers, I. (1992). Gifts differing. Palo-Alto, CA:
ship style and competence of the project manager is a suc- Consulting Psychologists Press.
cess factor on projects and whether different styles are Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970).
appropriate on different types of projects. Handbook for the 16PF. Illinois: IPAT.
Collinson, D. (1998). Fifty major philosophers. London:
We have set ourselves the following research aims: Routledge.
1. To determine whether the competence, including person- Collinson, D., Plan, K., & Wilkinson, R. (2000). Fifty
ality and leadership style, of the project manager is a suc- eastern thinkers. London: Routledge.
cess factor for projects Cooke-Davies, T. (2001). The “real” project success
2. To determine if different competence profiles are appro- factors. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3),
priate for different project types. 185-190.

J U N E 2005 Project Management Journal 59

 Crawford, L. H. (2001). Project management competence: ect managers and line managers. International Journal of
The value of standards. DBA Thesis, Henley-on-Thames: Project Management, 22(8), 609-618.
Henley Management College. Kendra, K., & Taplin, L. J. (2004). Project success: A cul-
Crawford, L. H. (2003). Assessing and developing tural framework. Project Management Journal, 35(1), 30-45.
the project management competence of individuals. In J. Kets De Vries, M. F. R., & Florent-Treacy, E. (2002).
R. Turner (Ed.), People in Project Management. Aldershot, Global leadership from A to Z: Creating high commitment
UK: Gower. organisations. Organisations Dynamics, Spring, 295–309.
Dulewicz, V. (1995). A validation of Belbin’s team roles Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership traits
from 16PF & OPQ using bosses’ ratings of competence. do matter. Academy of Management Executive, March, 44-60.
Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 68(2). Kloppenborg T. J., & Petrick, J. A. (1999). Leadership in
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. J. (2000). Emotional intelli- project life cycle and team character development. Project
gence: A review and evaluation study. Journal of Managerial Management Journal, 30(2), 8-13.
Psychology, 15(4), 341–368. Kotter, J. P. (1990). What leaders really do. Harvard
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. J. (2003). Design of a new Business Review, May-June, 37–60.
instrument to assess leadership dimensions and styles. Kouznes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1998). Encouraging the
Henley Working Paper Series HWP 0311. Henley-on-Thames, heart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
UK: Henley Management College. Krech, D., Crutchfield, R. S., & Ballachey, E. L. (1962).
Dulewizcz, V., & Higgs, M. J. (2004). Leadership dimen- Individual in society. New York: McGraw-Hill.
sions questionnaire: Organisation context, leader perform- Lee-Kelley, L., Leong, K., & Loong. (2003). Turner’s five
ance & follower commitment. Henley Working Paper Research functions of project-based management and situational
Note. Henley-on-Thames, UK: Henley Management College. leadership in IT services projects. International Journal of
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. Project Management, 21(8), 583-591.
New York: McGraw-Hill. Mäkilouko, M. (2004). Coping with multi-cultural
Frame, J. D. (1987). Managing projects in organizations. projects: The leadership style of Finnish project managers.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass. International Journal of Project Management, 22(5), 387-396.
Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2000). Why should anyone be Margerison, M., & McCann, D. (1990). Team
led by you? Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct, 63–70. Management. Mercury Press.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). The New Marshall, W. (1991). Leaders into the ‘90s. Personnel
Leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Journal, 70(5), 80-86.
Handy, C. B. (1982). Understanding organizations. Morris, P. W. G. (1988). Managing project interfaces. In
London: Penguin. D. I. Cleland, & W. R. King (Eds.), Project Management
Hartman, F., & Ashrafi, R. A. (2002). Project manage- Handbook (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
ment in the information systems and information technolo- Morris, P. W. G. (1997). The management of projects (2nd
gies industries. Project Management Journal, 33(3), 5-15. ed.). London: Thomas Telford.
Hastings, C., & Briner, W. (1996). Coping with cultural Morris, P. W. G., & Hough, G. (1987). The anatomy of
differences. In J. R. Turner, K. V. Grude, & L. Thurloway major projects: A study of the reality of project management.
(Eds.), The project manager as change agent. London: Chichester, UK: Wiley.
McGraw-Hill. Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2005). Cultural differences in
Hershey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of project owner-manager communication. In D. P. Slevin, D.
organizational behavior (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: I. Cleland, & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), Innovations—Project
Prentice Hall. Management Research 2004. Newtown Square, PA: Project
Hobbs, J. B., Pettersen, N., & Guérette, H. (2001). Management Institute.
Building, validating and implementing a PM competency Partington, D. A. (2003). Managing and leading. In J. R.
model: The experience of one aerospace company. In Turner (Ed.), People in project management. Aldershot, UK: Gower.
Proceedings of the PMI Annual Symposium, Nashville, Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1988). Variations of critical
November 2001. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management success factors over the stages in the project life cycle. Journal
Institute. of Management, 14(1), 5-18.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organziations: Software Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). Critical success fac-
of the mind, London: McGraw-Hill. tors in effective project implementation. In D. I. Cleland &
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effec- W. R. King (Eds.), Project management handbook (2nd ed.).
tiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, September, 321-338. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Jugdev, K., & Müller, R. (in press). Project success: A ret- Rees, D. (2003). Managing culture. In J. R. Turner (Ed.),
rospective look at project success and our evolving under- People in project management Aldershot, UK: Gower.
standing of the concept. Project Management Journal. Robbins, S. P. (1997). Essentials of organizational behavior.
Keegan, A. E., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2004). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Transformational leadership in a project-based environ- Schultz, W. C. (1955). FIRO: A three dimensional theory of
ment: A comparative study of the leadership styles of proj- interpersonal behaviour. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

60 J U N E 2005 Project Management Journal

 Selmer, J. (2002). Coping strategies applied by western vs. Turner, J. R. (1999). The handbook of project-based man-
overseas Chinese business expatriates in China. International agement: Improving the processes for achieving strategic objec-
Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1), 19-34. tives. London: McGraw-Hill.
Slevin, D. P. (1989). The whole manager. New York: Turner, J. R., Keegan, A. E., & Crawford, L. H. (2003).
Amacom. Delivering improved project management maturity through
Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, K. H. (1958). How to experiential learning. In J. R. Turner (Ed.), People in project
choose a leadership style. Harvard Business Review, March-April. management. Aldershot, UK: Gower.
Thamhain, H. (2004). Linkages of project environment Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2003). On the nature of the
to performance: Lessons for team leadership. International project as a temporary organization. International Journal of
Journal of Project Management, 22(7), 533-544. Project Management, 21(1), 1-8.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture. Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001).
London, UK: Economist Books. Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 451-483.

RODNEY TURNER is Professor of Project Management at the Lille Graduate School of Management, and chief executive of
EuroProjex: the European Centre for Project Excellence (a network of trainers and consultants in project management). He
is the author or editor of nine books—including The Handbook of Project-based Management, the best selling book
published by McGraw-Hill—and is editor of The International Journal of Project Management. Rodney is past chairman of
the UK’s Association for Project Management, and past President and Chairman of the International Project Management
Association (a global federation of national associations in project management). He has also helped to establish the
Benelux Region of the European Construction Institute as foundation operations director. Rodney received PMI’s 2004
Research Achievement Award at the Global Congress in Prague in April 2004.

RALF MÜLLER holds a Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) from Henley Management College/Brunel University in the
UK. He is Assistant Professor at Umeå University in Sweden and visiting lecturer at NIMBAS University in The Netherlands.
He lectures in project management and governance of project-based organizations, as well as research design and
methodology. Ralf authored more than 30 publications including a book, several book chapters, and a number of articles
in international project management journals, as well as conference papers. He is a co-founder of several PMI chapters in
Europe and a contributing team member to various PMI standards, including the Organizational Project Management
Maturity Model (OPM3®), and PMI’s upcoming Program Management and Portfolio Management standards. Prior to his
academic career, he spent 30 years consulting for large enterprises in project management and governance, including a
period as worldwide Director of Project Management in NCR Teradata.

J U N E 2005 Project Management Journal 61

View publication stats