International Journal of Managing Projects in Business

Comparing the leadership styles of functional and project managers

J. Rodney Turner Ralf Müller Vic Dulewicz
Article information:
To cite this document:
J. Rodney Turner Ralf Müller Vic Dulewicz, (2009),"Comparing the leadership styles of functional and
project managers", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 2 Iss 2 pp. 198 - 216
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17538370910949266
Downloaded on: 13 January 2015, At: 20:49 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 35 other documents.
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2846 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Nicholas Clarke, Nicholas Clarke, (2012),"Leadership in projects: what we know from the literature and
new insights", Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 Iss 3/4 pp. 128-148 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527591211241042
Paul H. Jacques, John Garger, Michael Thomas, (2007),"Assessing leader behaviors in project managers",
Management Research News, Vol. 31 Iss 1 pp. 4-11 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409170810845912
Victor Dulewicz, Malcolm Higgs, (2005),"Assessing leadership styles and organisational context", Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 Iss 2 pp. 105-123 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940510579759

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 361826 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


IJMPB
2,2
198
Received 4 September 2008
Accepted 1 November 2008
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)
International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business
Vol. 2 No. 2, 2009
pp. 198-216
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1753-8378
DOI 10.1108/17538370910949266
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1753-8378.htm
Comparing the leadership styles
of functional
and project managers
J. Rodney Turner
Centre of Project Management, Kemmy Business School,
University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland and
Lille School of Management, Lille, France
Ralf Müller
Umeå School of Business, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden and
Norwegian School of Management BI, Oslo, Norway, and
Vic Dulewicz
Henley Management College, Henley-on-Thames, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between leadership competences
of project managers and those of functional managers.
Design/methodology/approach – Leadership styles of 414 project managers were assessed using
a validated research instrument, the leadership development questionnaire. The results were
compared with the leadership profiles of over 1,000 functional managers, assessed with the same
instrument. Quantitative analysis techniques were used to identify significant differences in the
leadership styles of project managers when compared to functional managers. Correlations between
leadership competences and leadership performance and follower commitment of project managers
were compared with those of functional managers.
Findings – The paper finds that project managers score higher than functional managers on
conscientiousness, sensitivity, and critical analysis, but they score lower on communication and
development competencies. The correlation between the fit of project managers to their organizational
context and their leadership performance and follower commitment was calculated.
Research limitations/implications – Comparisons show differences in leadership competences
for functional and project managers. Managers in general management roles should be trained to a
lesser extent in managerial and intellectual competences than those in project management roles.
However, solid training in emotional competences is needed for success in both managerial roles.
Originality/value – The differences in leadership competences of project managers and line
managers from industry and government are identified.
Keywords Leadership, Project management, Emotional intelligence
Paper type Research paper
Leadership as a success factor in projects
For the last 25 years, academics and practitioners have tried to predict the factors that
will increase the likelihood of project success (Judgev and Müller, 2005; Turner and
Müller, 2005). Early work primarily focused on identifying the tools and techniques
which project managers could use to increase the chance of success (Pinto and
Slevin, 1987; Wateridge, 1995). However, more recently attention has switched to the
 competence of the project manager (Crawford and Turner, 2007), including his or her Leadership
leadership style, and its contribution to project success (Turner and Müller, 2005). styles
Following Boyatzis (1982) and Crawford and Turner (2007) define project manager
competence as a combination of knowledge (qualification), skills (ability to do a task)
and core personality characteristics (motives, traits and self-concepts) that lead to
superior results. They suggest that project success and the project managers’
competencies are closely inter-related and project manager competence is in itself a 199
factor in the successful delivery of projects. However, Crawford and Turner note that
whereas leadership appears consistently in the highest ranking category amongst
project manager competency factors, it is not recognised in the highest ranking
category for project success factors.
Turner and Müller (2005) reviewed the changing view of the contribution of the
project manager’s competence and leadership style to project success, and identified
that whereas in the general management literatures, it is widely recognized that the
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

functional manager’s leadership style does contribute to the success of the organization
or organizational unit he or she manages, the project manager’s leadership style is
generally ignored when identifying project success factors. However, unless there are
significant differences between the nature of projects and routine organizations, and
between project managers and functional managers, we would expect the project
manager’s leadership style to contribute to the success of their project. Thus, we
undertook a study to determine if and to what extent the leadership style of project
managers influences the success of the project they are managing. The results of that
study are reported elsewhere (Turner and Müller, 2006). As part of that study, 414
project managers completed a psychometric test, the leadership development
questionnaire – LDQ (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2005), and from that we were able to
determine their profiles of leadership competencies.
Both Higgs (2003) and Turner and Müller (2005) have reviewed the literature on
leadership from early twentieth century to the present day. Six schools can be
identified (Turner and Müller, 2005): the trait, behaviour, contingency, visionary,
emotional intelligence and competency schools. The emotional intelligence school
(Goleman, 1995; Goleman et al., 2002) argues that most mangers are reasonably
intelligent, and so it is their emotional response to situations that differentiates good
leaders from adequate managers. The competence school (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2005)
combines all the previous schools. Dulewicz and Higgs (2005) reviewed the
development in thinking on the nature of effective leadership and, in particular,
having looked at the literature from a sense-making rather than discovery perspective,
saw a pattern emerging. From this emerging literature, they proposed that effective
leaders are differentiated from other leaders through the exercise of a relatively small
range of skill or competence areas (Kouzes and Posner, 1998; Goffee and Jones, 2000,
2001; Higgs and Rowland, 2001; Hogan and Hogan, 2001). The way in which these
skills and competencies are exercised is not prescribed, but is the function of the
underlying personality of the leader (Hogan and Hogan, 2001). Indeed, this
combination is implied by Goffee and Jones (2000, 2001), in their statement that
effective leadership requires “being yourself, with skill”. This relatively simple
statement has significant implications for the way in which we view leadership,
although it does challenge the view of some (Hogan and Hogan, 2001; Collins, 2001).
 IJMPB Based on their work, Higgs (2003) and Dulewicz and Higgs (2004, 2005) developed the
2,2 LDQ to assess a leader’s competence. The questionnaire contains 187 questions, to
assess his or her leadership competence against 15 competencies, grouped into three
competence areas: intellectual (IQ), managerial (MQ), and emotional (EQ). Full
definitions of all 15 LDQ competencies, and technical support for the questionnaire, are
presented in Dulewicz and Higgs (2005). The 15 LDQ competencies are listed in Table I.
200 The LDQ also contains six additional questions through which the respondents assess
their leadership performance, six through which they assess their follower commitment,
and six through which they assess their organizational context. We will return to these
additional questions later. The parameters that result from 12 of the questions are called
“self-assessed leadership performance and follower commitment”. However, the
questions in the LDQ are in random order, so the respondent does not know the nature of
any particular question as it is being answered, thereby reducing bias.
Dulewicz and Higgs (2005, 2000) validated the LDQ through a study of over 400 line
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

managers. Two further studies (Dulewicz et al., 2005; Wren and Dulewicz, 2005; Young
and Dulewicz, 2006) applied the instrument to determine the leadership profile of over
600 officers from the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, substantially increasing the
number of data points and further validating the instrument. Indeed, Young and
Dulewicz (2006) compared the LDQ to another instrument, the occupational personality
questionnaire, and found that the LDQ was better at predicting leadership performance.
These three studies showed that the leadership performance of line managers
can be predicted from the competence profiles, that is their scores against the IQ,

Leadership style
Group Competency Goal Involving Engaging

Intellectual (IQ) Critical analysis and judgement High Medium Medium

Vision and imagination High High Medium
Strategic perspective High Medium Medium
Managerial (MQ) Engaging communication Medium Medium High
Managing resources High Medium Low
Empowering Low Medium High
Developing Medium Medium High
Achieving High Medium Medium
Emotional (EQ) Self-awareness Medium High High
Emotional resilience High High High
Motivation High High High
Sensitivity Medium Medium High
Influence Medium High High
Intuitiveness Medium Medium High
Conscientiousness High High High
Notes: Goal-oriented leadership – a style that is focused on delivering results within a relatively
stable context. This is a leader-led style aligned to a stable organisation delivering clearly understood
results. Involving leadership – a style that is based on a transitional organisation which faces
significant but not radical changes in its business model or modus operandi. Engaging leadership – a
Table I. style based on a high level of empowerment and involvement appropriate in a highly transformational
15 leadership context. Such a style is focused on producing radical change with high levels of engagement and
competencies and three commitment
styles of leadership Source: After Dulewicz and Higgs (2005)
 MQ and EQ dimensions. We ask whether the same holds true for our sample of over Leadership
400 project managers, and whether there are any noticeable differences between project styles
managers and line managers. The validity of this question (and the present paper)
stems from the old question whether project managers would make good line
managers and vice versa. Project management is often seen as a training ground for
higher level line management functions, despite research findings which show that
higher level line management functions require increasingly higher levels of emotional 201
competences (Goleman et al., 2002; Parry, 2004). That leads to the two research
questions for the analysis reported in this paper:
RQ1. To what extent does the competence profile of project managers as
determined by the LDQ predict their success as a leader.
RQ2. Are there differences between project managers and functional managers.
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

In accordance with earlier studies (Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer and Spencer, 1993;
Crawford, 2001), we define a competence as comprising several competencies, and
therefore refer to EQ, IQ and MQ as competences and the 15 underlying dimensions as
competencies (Turner and Müller, 2006).
This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we review the results of the
three previous studies and from these determine hypotheses for our analysis. We then
describe how we gathered our data. In the following sections, we present the results of
our analysis. We discuss the significance of these results and their limitations. We
consider implications for project managers and managers responsible for selecting
project managers.

The previous studies

Leadership competences
In their study of general managers, Dulewicz and Higgs (2000) found that intellectual
competence, IQ, accounts for 27 per cent of the variance on leadership performance,
managerial competence, MQ, accounts for 16 per cent, and emotional competence, EQ,
36 per cent. Therefore, emotional competence is the most significant. We ask whether
the same holds true for the leadership performance of project managers, and that leads
to our first set of hypotheses:
H1A. Intellectual (IQ) competencies explain the leadership performance of project
managers.
H1B. Managerial (MQ) competencies explain the leadership performance of project
managers.
H1C. Emotional and social (EQ) competencies explain the leadership performance
of project managers.
Three other studies have investigated 15 competencies as predictors of leadership
success in different scenarios. Wren and Dulewicz (2005) conducted a study in the Royal
Air Force and identified managing resources, engaging communication and
empowerment as the three most significant leadership competencies for success in the
Royal Air Force, whereas intuitiveness, interpersonal sensitivity and conscientiousness
failed to record any significant contribution. Young and Dulewicz (2006) conducted
 IJMPB a similar study in the Royal Navy. They found that within that context superior
2,2 performance was associated with vision and imagination, perspective, and critical
analysis and judgement. They also found the universal applicability of the interpersonal
sensitivity, influence and communication skills required to interact, whether it be in
management co-ordination and problem solving, leadership motivation or command
decision making, and that personal motivation, vigour and conscientious commitment
202 that will lead to managerial control of the environment will also support leadership
mastery and command success. Geoghegan and Dulewicz (2006) conducted a study on
52 project managers in the UK. They identified that for their sample the significant
leadership competencies for project managers were conscientiousness, sensitivity and
self-awareness.
We see from the three studies quoted above that there were differences for
managers in different contexts, and so we might ask whether project managers need
different profiles from functional line managers. That leads to our second hypothesis:
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

H2. There will be no significant difference in the performance of project managers

against the 15 leadership competencies when compared to functional line
managers.

Self-assessed leadership performance

The LDQ contains a self-assessment of leadership performance containing six
questions covering: followers’ effort, capability and flexibility and overall team
performance and impact. A factor analysis revealed two components, broadly
reflecting followers’ individual contributions and team output, respectively, (Dulewicz
and Higgs, 2004, 2005).
Studies in the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy found that scores against the IQ, MQ
and EQ dimensions were correlated with appraised and self-assessed leadership
performance, respectively, (Dulewicz et al., 2005; Wren and Dulewicz, 2005; Young and
Dulewicz, 2006). We ask whether the same is true for project managers and that leads
to our third set of hypotheses:
H3A. IQ will be significantly related to self-assessed leadership performance.
H3B. MQ will be significantly related to self-assessed leadership performance.
H3C. EQ will be significantly related to self-assessed leadership performance.

Self-assessed commitment of followers

In producing their follower commitment scale, Dulewicz and Higgs (2004, 2005)
combined the attitudinal and affective aspects of commitment with measures of the
more rational calculative type of commitment. Consequently, the follower commitment
scale contains five items designed to assess the degree of commitment that followers
show to the organisation and to the team in which they work, covering job satisfaction;
realism; commitment to requisite change and to the organisation; and understanding
the need for change (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2004, 2005). Again through their studies in
the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, Wren and Dulewicz (2005) and Young and
Dulewicz (2006) found that scores against the IQ, MQ and EQ dimensions were
correlated with self-assessed follower commitment. We ask whether the same is true
for project managers and that leads to our fourth set of hypotheses:
 H4A. IQ will be significantly related to self-assessed follower commitment. Leadership
H4B. MQ will be significantly related to self-assessed follower commitment. styles
H4C. EQ will be significantly related to self-assessed follower commitment.

Organizational context
The LDQ has an embedded context scale that allows analysis of the suitability of certain 203
styles, by providing a measure of change faced by the organisation. The scale reflects
five separate components (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2005). The components of the
organizational context scale capture the impact of change in the wider environment as
well as in the organisation’s culture and climate. This reflects Higgs and Rowland’s
(2001) dynamic leadership model, within which “it is feasible that a change in leadership
behaviour may lead to a different strategic approach being adopted by the organisation”.
When testing the style-context model, Young and Dulewicz (2006) found that those
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

whose current style fitted the style appropriate to their organizational context
assessment received higher actual performance ratings than those whose style did not.
In the present study, it was possible to test whether those whose current style fitted the
style appropriate to their assessment of the organizational context showed higher
leadership performance and follower commitment than those whose style did not. This
leads to our fifth set of hypotheses:
H5A. Project managers whose current style fits the style appropriate to their
organizational context will have higher self-assessed leadership performance
than those whose style does not.
H5B. Project managers whose current style fits the style appropriate to their
organizational context will have higher self-assessed follower commitment
than those whose style does not.
Dulewicz and Higgs (2004, 2005) identified three different leadership styles, which they
called goal-oriented, involving and engaging:
(1) Goal-oriented leadership. A style that is focused on delivering results within a
relatively stable context. This is a leader-led style aligned to a stable
organisation delivering clearly understood results.
(2) Involving leadership. A style that is based on a transitional organisation which
faces significant but not radical changes in its business model or modus
operandi.
(3) Engaging leadership. A style based on a high level of empowerment and
involvement appropriate in a highly transformational context. Such a style is
focused on producing radical change with high levels of engagement and
commitment.

The details of the 15 competencies underlying the three styles are shown in Table I.
Using the organizational context score, Dulewicz and Higgs (2004, 2005) showed that
the goal-oriented style is most effective with relatively stable change, the involving style
with significant change, and the engaging style with transformational change. Having
completed the LDQ, respondents can determine their leadership style from their LDQ
report which links their own context score to the appropriate leadership styles.
 IJMPB Data collection
2,2 As a part of a larger study to investigate the relationship between a project manager’s
leadership competency profile and the success of the type of project he or she manages
(Turner and Müller, 2006), we conducted a worldwide survey among project managers.
For that, a link to a web-based questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to members of
professional project management organizations via the representatives of the country
204 organizations, and to post experience masters students in project management via their
course directors.
Leadership performance and follower commitment subscale scores are derived from
self-assessment, not from a 3608 assessment by followers, and so the problems of
intra-method ratings apply. However, Mabe and West (1982), in a major review paper,
concluded that “under certain measurement conditions, self evaluation of ability may
closely correspond to performance on criterion measures”. Enhancing the validity of
self-rating often requires little more than “simple modifications in the self evaluation
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

instructions, such as using social comparison terminology or instructing subjects that

self evaluations were to be validated” (Mabe and West, 1982, p. 294). In support of their
view, a study by Young and Dulewicz (2006) on a large sample of naval officers found a
statistically significant correlation between LDQ self-rated leadership performance and
actual performance ratings from the formal Royal Navy’s appraisal process. In
addition, Wren and Dulewicz (2005), from a study of officers using LDQ and follower
assessments in the Royal Air Force, found that self-rated LDQ leadership performance
scores were highly significantly correlated (1 per cent level) with subordinates’ ratings
of project success. Based on these two studies, the value of the self-assessed
performance should be accepted.
In addition to that, we implemented a variation of Podsakoff et al.’s (2003)
suggestions for minimization of mono-source bias due to self-rated performance. For
that we confirmed in the questionnaires anonymity and stated that there are no right or
wrong answers. Two different surveys with different layouts and scales were used.
The first survey resided on a server in Sweden, the second survey resided on a server
in the UK. A factor analysis of the 15 leadership competencies variables and the ten
success variables showed that leadership variables loaded on the first factor and
success measures on the second factor (at cut-off ¼ 0.5), except for intuitiveness (a
leadership competency) and the success measure reoccurring business, which both
loaded on their own factor. Mono-source bias was therefore assumed not to be an issue.
The first survey (in Sweden) assessed the project types, project performance,
associated success factors, and respondents’ demographics. This questionnaire was
completed by 959 respondents. Upon completion of the first questionnaire the
respondents were linked to the second survey, the LDQ at Henley Management College
in the UK to assess their leadership competencies. This questionnaire was completed
by 414 respondents, yielding a sample size of 414. A traditional response cannot be
calculated because we do not know in total how many people had access to the
web-based questionnaire. The biographical data of the 414 respondents were as
follows:
.
about 65 per cent were male and 34 per cent female (1 per cent did not answer the
question);
.
around 21 per cent were from Europe; 56 per cent from North America; 12 per cent
from Australia/New Zealand; 12 per cent from other parts of the world;
 .
almost 12 per cent were 35-years old or younger; 14 per cent between 36 and 40; Leadership
21 per cent between 41 and 45; 23 per cent between 46 and 50; 15 per cent styles
between 51 and 55; 14 per cent older than 55 years;
.
about 67 per cent worked in the private sector, 28 per cent in the public sector
and 5 per cent in not-for-profit;
.
around 43 per cent worked in a technical job role; 18 per cent in general
management; 6 per cent in R&D; 5 per cent in marketing, human resources,
205
finance; 5 per cent in manufacturing; 21 per cent in other roles; and
. almost 38 per cent had a professional qualification; 32 per cent a higher degree;
24 per cent a first degree; and the remaining 16 per cent a different education.

The sample is dominated by responses from the western world. The analysis results
below should therefore be carefully interpreted for other parts of the world.
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

Analysis and discussion

The analysis was done in six steps:
(1) H1A, H1B, and H1C were tested through a series of regression analyses using
EQ, IQ, MQ as independent variables and leadership performance, as well as
follower commitment as dependent variables.
(2) H2 was assessed through a comparison of the leadership profiles of project
managers and functional managers, using t-tests.
(3) H3A, H3B, and H3C were tested through analysis of the correlation between the
15 LDQ competencies and self-assessed leadership performance.
(4) H4A, H4B, and H4C were tested through analysis of the correlation between the
15 leadership competencies and self-assessed follower commitment.
(5) Significant differences in the leadership profiles of high- and low-performing
project managers were assessed using t-tests.
(6) H5A and H5B were tested through the fit between leadership style and leadership
situation (style-context fit). This was assessed through t-tests comparing the
leadership performance in best fit and less than best fit situations.

Step 1. EQ, IQ and MQ correlation with leadership performance and follower commitment
Multiple regression analyses were conducted on each of the LDQ competencies by
entering the EQ, IQ and MQ groups of items separately, whereby all variables per
competence were entered in a single step. The results of the regression analysis with
self-assessed leadership performance as the dependent variable are presented in
Table II. Of the independent variables, EQ items account for 21 per cent of the
leadership variance (R 2 expressed as a percentage), with sensitivity and motivation
being significant contributors. IQ items account for 22 per cent of the total leadership
variance, with critical analysis, vision and strategic perspective all being significant.
Finally, MQ items account for 30 per cent of the total variance. Engaging
communication, empowering and developing all make significant contributions. Thus,
H1A, H1B, and H1C are fully supported; scores against the EQ, IQ and MQ competencies
of the LDQ explain the leadership performance of project managers.
 IJMPB
Change
2,2 statistics Sig.
Model R R2 Adj. R 2 Competencies t-sig. R 2 F-change df1 df2 F-change

Regression (enter)
EQ 0.46 0.21 0.20Sensitivity 0.001
206 Motivation 0.001
IQ 0.47 0.22 0.21 Critical analysis 0.01
Vision 0.001
Strategic perspective 0.02
MQ 0.55 0.30 0.29 Communication 0.01
Empowering 0.02
Table II. Developing 0.01
Regression analysis of Hierarchical IQ þ EQ þ MQ model summary
LDQ IQ, MQ and EQ 1. EQ 0.46 0.21 0.20 0.21 15.55 7 406 0.00
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

dimensions and 2. IQ 0.51 0.26 0.24 0.05 8.25 3 403 0.00

leadership performance 3. MQ 0.56 0.31 0.29 0.06 6.56 5 398 0.00

Separate hierarchical regression analyses were conducted using the EQ, IQ, and MQ
competences to investigate their combined correlation with leadership performance.
This tests Goleman’s (1995) proposition that EQ þ IQ contribute to success. The
hierarchical regression results, also reported in Table II, show that the EQ scales model
accounts for 21 per cent of the variance on self-assessed leadership performance and is
significant initially. However, introducing the IQ scales adds a further 5 per cent to the
variance explained, which is a significant contribution. The five MQ variables add a
further 6 per cent, also a significant addition, so that the 15 LDQ in total account for
almost one-third (31 per cent) of the total variance on the leadership scale.
The regression analysis results with follower commitment as the dependent
variable are presented in Table III. This time, all three groups accounted independently
for around 7 per cent of the total variance on follower commitment. The EQ items
account for 6 per cent, with sensitivity making the only significant contribution. IQ
items account for 7 per cent, with strategic perspective making a significant
contribution and MQ items account for 9 per cent, with communication making a
significant contribution. The results of the hierarchical regression analysis on follower
commitment are also presented in Table III which shows less of the total variance

Change
statistics Sig.
Model R R2 Adj. R 2 Dimensions t-sig. R 2 F-change df1 df2 F-change

Regression (enter)
EQ 0.28 0.08 0.06 Sensitivity 0.02
IQ 0.27 0.07 0.07 Strategic perspective 0.001
Table III. MQ 0.30 0.09 0.08 Communication 0.01
Regression analysis of Hierarchical IQ þ EQ þ MQ model summary
LDQ IQ, MQ and EQ 1. EQ 0.28 0.08 0.06 0.08 4.81 7 406 0.00
dimensions and follower 2. IQ 0.32 0.10 0.08 0.03 4.03 3 403 0.01
commitment 3 MQ 0.35 0.12 0.09 0.02 1.69 5 398 0.14
 (12 per cent) is explained than on the leadership scale. The seven EQ scales account for Leadership
8 per cent of the variance and the three IQ scales add 3 per cent, a statistically styles
significant increment; but the five MQ scales only add a further 2 per cent, an
increment which is not significant.

Step 2. Differences between project managers and functional managers

As we have seen above with project managers, the EQ, IQ and MQ competences 207
account for 21, 22 and 30 per cent, respectively, of leadership performance. This
compares to 36, 27 and 16 per cent for functional managers (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2000).
Thus, for project managers, while the EQ competencies are important, they are
significantly less important than for functional managers. On the other hand, the MQ
competencies are significantly more important for project managers than for functional
managers. Thus, project managers must give much greater attention to the managerial
competencies than functional managers, and do not need to give as great a focus to the
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

emotional competencies. For project managers the mechanistic, managerial

competencies seem to be more important than the emotional, relationship
competencies. This is consistent with the results of Keegan and Den Hartog (2004)
and Den Hartog and Keegan (2007). It also means that H2 is not supported.
The LDQ calculates a raw score for each of the 15 leadership competencies. These
raw scores have differing mean and standard deviation. To allow for comparison
between respondents on a given competency or between competencies for a given
respondent, the raw scores were standardized into standardized ten-point (sten) scores
with a mean of 5.5 and a standard deviation of 2, an approach used in earlier studies
(Young and Dulewicz, 2006). Dulewicz and Higgs (2005) have now amassed a sample of
1,009 military officers and managers from different sectors from around the world. We
were therefore able to compare the sten scores of our sample of 414 project managers
with this sample of 1,009 functional managers. The results of the t-tests are shown in
Table IV. This project manager sample had higher scores on three dimensions: critical

LDQ dimension Mean Mean dif. SD t df Sig.

Critical analysis 5.75 0.25 1.70 2.98 413 0.00

Vision 5.36 20.14 1.79 21.57 413 0.12
Perspective 5.49 20.01 1.75 20.14 413 0.89
Managing resources 5.40 20.10 1.73 21.19 413 0.23
Self-awareness 5.46 20.04 1.70 20.43 413 0.66
Emotional resilience 5.37 20.13 1.77 21.44 413 0.15
Intuitiveness 5.54 0.04 1.86 0.47 413 0.64
Sensitivity 5.73 0.23 1.70 2.78 413 0.01
Influencing 5.46 20.04 1.68 20.50 413 0.62
Engaging communication 5.21 20.29 1.84 23.21 413 0.00
Empowering 5.61 0.11 1.78 1.30 413 0.20
Developing 5.27 20.23 1.85 22.57 413 0.01
Motivation 5.44 20.06 1.71 20.69 413 0.49
Achieving 5.52 0.02 1.55 0.28 413 0.78 Table IV.
Conscientiousness 6.09 0.59 1.73 6.97 413 0.00 One sample t-test
comparing LDQ sten
Notes: n ¼ 414; mean: scale ¼ 1 to 10, 1 – low, 10 – high; test value ¼ 5.5 ( ¼ normalized mean of scores with
reference sample). Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed) standardization sample
 IJMPB analysis (IQ); sensitivity and conscientiousness (both EQ); and lower scores on two
2,2 dimensions: communication and developing (both MQ). The largest difference, on
conscientiousness, was highly significant. Thus, again H2 is not supported. Project
managers do have different competency profiles than line managers.
These findings are substantiated in part by results of a study by Geoghegan and
Dulewicz (2006) using the LDQ on UK project managers. They found significantly
208 higher scores on conscientious (the highest score in both studies) and sensitivity, and
highly significantly lower scores on vision (found in this study for those outside North
America; t ¼ 3.00; df ¼ 182; sig. at 0.001 level).
From the literature review above, a number of these competencies were found to be
relevant to project manager effectiveness. Competencies of effective project managers
include problem solving ability, energy and communication (Turner, 1999), problem
solving capabilities, communication and vision (Pinto and Trailer, 1998) as well as the
need for leadership (Turner, 1999). Research using LDQ and follower assessments in
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

the Royal Air Force found that six LDQ dimensions scores significantly correlated with
subordinates’ ratings of project success. These were critical analysis, motivation,
managing resources, communicating, empowering and developing (Wren and
Dulewicz, 2005). The value of the findings from this analysis is that further support
is given to the importance of the IQ and MQ competencies but they also show that
some EQ competencies are also important for success.

Step 3. The 15 leadership dimensions’ correlation with self-assessed leadership performance

Next we consider the relationship between the 15 LDQ competencies and self-assessed
leadership performance. Table V shows the correlations. Highly significant
correlations were found between self-assessed leader performance and 14 of the 15
LDQ competencies, the exception being intuitiveness. Six coefficients were greater
than 0.4: vision, strategic perspective and managing resources (all IQ); and
communication, empowering and developing (all MQ). Thus, H3A, H3B and H3C are

LDQ dimension Performance Commitment

Critical analysis 0.38 * * 0.16 * *

Vision 0.42 * * 0.22 * *
Perspective 0.41 * * 0.27 * *
Managing resources 0.47 * * 0.24 * *
Self-awareness 0.32 * * 0.17 * *
Emotional resilience 0.28 * * 0.13 * *
Intuitiveness 0.09 20.01
Sensitivity 0.36 * * 0.23 * *
Influencing 0.24 * * 0.12 *
Engaging communication 0.46 * * 0.29 * *
Empowering 0.46 * * 0.22 * *
Developing 0.48 * * 0.24 * *
Motivation 0.38 * * 0.19 * *
Table V. Achieving 0.38 * * 0.21 * *
Correlation between LDQ Conscientiousness 0.33 * * 0.22 * *
dimensions and N 414 414
leadership performance
and follower commitment Note: Correlation is significant at: *0.05; * *0.01 levels (two-tailed), respectively
 supported: the self-assessed leadership performance of project managers is related to Leadership
the LDQ competency profile. styles
Step 4. The 15 leadership dimensions’ correlation with self-assessed follower commitment
Table V also shows correlations between scores of the 15 LDQ competencies and
self-assessed follower commitment in these competencies. Statistically significant
correlations were found between self-assessed follower commitment and 15 of the LDQ 209
competencies, the exception being intuitiveness (as with leadership above). The two
highest coefficients were with strategic perspective (IQ) and communication. Thus,
H4A, H4B, and H4C are all supported; the self-assessed follower commitment of project
managers is related to the 15 LDQ competencies.

Step 5. Differences between high and low performers

In order to investigate the profiles of high and low performers on leadership and
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

follower commitment, the samples were divided into high, medium and low
performers, each accounting for approximately one third of the sample’s performance
scores. Taking the performance scores into account allowed us to split the sample at
the top 26 per cent and bottom 35 per cent for high performers, as well as top 35 per
cent and bottom 33 per cent for low performers. We applied t-tests to compare scores.
Results were very similar to the correlational analysis just reported. “Top” leadership
performers had significantly higher scores (at the 1 per cent level) on all dimensions
than “low” performers, except on Intuitiveness (t ¼ 2 2.17; df ¼ 259; sig. ¼ 0.03),
which did not show a highly significant difference. Those with high-follower
commitment showed highly significant differences on 13 dimensions with the other
two being not significant: intuitiveness (t ¼ 0.12; df ¼ 278; sig. ¼ 0.90) and
influencing (t ¼ 2 1.95; df ¼ 278; sig. ¼ 0.06).

Step 6. Style-context fit

The LDQ measures the self-rated degree of change experienced in the workplace.
Table VI presents the results for degree of change faced, current-style and context-style
differences. Of the 414 respondents, 99 (23.9 per cent) considered that they worked in a
low change, relatively stable environment, 194 (46.9 per cent) considered that they
worked in a “significant” change environment while the remaining 121 (29.2 per cent)
considered that they worked in a fundamental, “transformational” change context. Of
the 414 LDQs analysed, 341 (82.4 per cent) were found to have an “Involving” style of
leadership, 29 (7 per cent) were classified as having an “Engaging” style and 44 (10.6
per cent) are “Goal-orientated.”
The LDQ model aligns each of the leadership styles with a particular change context.
Cross-tabulation showed the measures of association for “perceived change” and the
leadership styles and the results were then mapped against a “goodness of fit” matrix
which forms part of the LDQ model (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2005). This analysis replicates
part of a study using LDQ (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2006) whose results are also
included in parenthesis in the text below. Table VI shows the results of the present study.
Of the LDQs analysed, 43.2 per cent (53 per cent) of returns identified the appropriate
styles of leadership for the change context – the leadership style of the respondents was
a “good fit” for the change context. One-half, 50.5 per cent, of returns (44 per cent)
identified a leadership style, which was of a “moderate fit” for the change context.
 IJMPB
Frequency %
2,2
Degree of change faced
Low change 99 23.9
Significant change 194 46.9
Fundamental change 121 29.2
210 Total 414 100.0
Current-style difference
Goal 44 10.6
Involving 341 82.4
Engaging 29 7.0
Total 414 100.0
Context-style difference
Difference of ^2 26 6.3
Difference of ^1 209 50.5
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

Difference of 0 179 43.2

Total 414 100.0
Notes: Goal-oriented leadership – a style that is focused on delivering results within a relatively
stable context. This is a leader-led style aligned to a stable organisation delivering clearly understood
results. Involving leadership – a style that is based on a transitional organisation which faces
Table VI. significant but not radical changes in its business model or modus operandi. Engaging leadership – a
Degree of change faced, style based on a high level of empowerment and involvement appropriate in a highly transformational
current-style and context. Such a style is focused on producing radical change with high levels of engagement and
context-style differences commitment

Only, 6.3 per cent showed a really “poor fit” (2 per cent) where the leadership style was
totally inappropriate to the change context.
To test H5A and H5B relating to the style-context model, the sample was split into
two groups: Those whose style fitted the context (difference of 0 in Table VI; n ¼ 179)
and those whose did not (difference of ^ 1 and 2; n ¼ 235). A series of t-tests were
conducted on self-ratings of leadership performance and follower commitment, but the
differences on both variables were not significant, as shown in Table VII. Therefore,
H5A and H5B were not supported; project managers seem to be able to cope with
situations where there is quite a poor-context fit. This supports the results of Dolfi and
Andrews (2007) and is consistent with the results in Keegan and Den Hartog (2004) and
Den Hartog and Keegan (2007).
The literature mentions leadership style as a factor in increasing our understanding
of how leadership is conducted. Dulewicz and Higgs (2005) assert that different
leadership profiles are appropriate in different circumstances. The literature also
suggests that effective managers adopt styles appropriate to the team and task in

Table VII. t-test for equality of

t-tests conducted on Group statistics means
ratings of leadership Style fit N Mean SD T df Sig. (two-tailed)
performance and follower
commitment of two Leadership Fitted 179 23.02 2.59 21.08 412 0.28
groups: those whose style Performance Not 235 23.32 2.92
fitted the context and Follower Fitted 179 17.48 2.37 0.92 412 0.36
those whose style did not Commitment Not 235 17.24 2.87
 hand. The study by Geoghegan and Dulewicz (2006) using LDQ on UK project Leadership
managers, found very similar results to this much more wide scale study. Regarding styles
the three leadership styles and their distribution across the group, they also found the
dominant leadership style is “involving” with 76 per cent of their respondents
demonstrating this style, while the other two groups, goal orientated (14 per cent) and
engaging (10 per cent), were smaller.
Geoghegan and Dulewicz (2006) also found the degree of change faced was similar 211
(this study’s findings in brackets) since 23 per cent (24 per cent) considered they worked
in a low change, relatively stable environment, 55 per cent (47 per cent) considered that
they worked in a “significant” change environment while the remaining, 22 per cent
(29 per cent) considered they worked in a fundamental, “transformational” change
context. In addition, their results on degree of style-context fit were similar. Of the
returns they analysed, a majority (53.2 per cent) identified the appropriate style of
leadership for the change context, the leadership style of the respondents was a “good
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

fit” for the change context; 44 per cent identified a leadership style, which was of a
“not-so-good fit” for the change context; and only 2 per cent showed “poor fit”, where the
leadership style was totally inappropriate to the change context. The similarity of
results from these two independent studies of PMs using the same instrument provides
further support for the validity of these results which, taken together, indicate project
managers face “significant” but not “fundamental” change, their predominant style is
“involving” and for the large minority (43.2 per cent), this is the appropriate style.
Our tests of the LDQ style-context model did not support H5A and H5B. Those
whose styles fitted their perceived context did not have higher scores on either
leadership performance or follower commitment. While Young and Dulewicz (2006) did
provide support, their research involved actual ratings of performance, as opposed to
self-ratings here. This might have accounted for the difference. Nevertheless, further
replication studies seem required, using both self and actual ratings, to provide further
tests in different contexts.

Summary and conclusions

The study aimed to answer the question to what extent competence profiles of project
managers predict success as a leader, and whether there is a difference between project
and functional managers in their leadership profile. Results show that 31 per cent of
leadership performance (Table II) and 12 per cent of follower commitment (Table III)
can be predicted by leadership competences. Significant differences between project
and functional managers were found (Table IV) in critical analysis, sensitivity, and
conscientiousness being higher, and engaging communication and developing being
lower in projects managers.
A summary of the strength of relationship between the leadership dimensions and
self-rated leadership performance and follower commitment from this, and two other
similar studies (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2006; Wren and Dulewicz, 2005) is presented
in Table VIII. For leadership, support is shown for all dimensions with medium or high
correlations from at least one of the other two studies. These were largely in the MQ
area – managing resources, communicating, empowering and developing but two
were in IQ area – vision and strategic perspective. All of these also featured
prominently in the simple regression analysis (Table V). In contrast, intuitiveness was
the only one not to be significant in any of the three studies.
 IJMPB
Leadership performance Follower commitment
2,2 LDQ dimension This study Study 1 Study 2 This study Study 1 Study 2

Critical analysis Lo Med Med Med Lo Lo

Vision Hi Lo Med Med Lo Lo
Perspective Hi Lo Med Med Lo Lo
212 Self-awareness Med Hi Hi Med Lo Lo
Emotional resilience Med Hi Med Med Lo Lo
Intuitiveness Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo
Sensitivity Med Hi Hi Med Med Lo
Influencing Med Lo Hi Med Lo Lo
Motivation Med Med Hi Med Lo Hi
Conscientiousness Med Hi Med Med Med Lo
Managing resources Hi Hi Hi Med Med Lo
Communication Hi Med Hi Med Lo Med
Table VIII.
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

Empowering Hi Med Hi Med Lo Lo

Summary of correlations Developing Hi Hi Med Med Lo Lo
between LDQ Achieving Med Med Med Med Lo Lo
dimensions, leadership
performance and follower Notes: Hi – correlation is significant and .0.4; Med – correlation is significant; Lo – correlation is
commitment from three not significant
studies Sources: Study 1 – Geoghegan and Dulewicz (2006); study 2 – Wren and Dulewicz (2005)

The picture for follower commitment is less clear-cut. Again, intuitiveness was not
significant in any of the studies and the only one not to be so in this study. Support
from at least one other study was forthcoming for the significance of three EQ
dimensions, sensitivity, motivation and conscientious, and for two MQ dimensions –
managing resources and communicating. sensitivity and communicating also featured
prominently in the simple regression analysis (Table VIII) while sensitivity and
conscientious were two dimensions on which project managers had significantly
higher scores than the norm group of senior managers and officers. Thus, it would
appear that managerial and intellectual competencies are of primary importance for
leaders of projects while emotional competencies become more important when
gaining the commitment of followers in the team. It supports the assertion of Goleman
et al. (2002) that increasing EQ capability is required at higher levels of general
management. These findings are likely to be relevant to anyone involved in selecting or
developing project managers. Finally, another key finding relates to the fit between
perceived context and current leadership style (Table VI). The predominant context
reflected “significant”, but not “fundamental” change was being faced, while the
predominant style was involving. Fortunately, the majority currently adopt this style.
Further implications are the following.

Managerial implications
Career selection for individuals (general management versus project management)
should be done in accordance with the Table IV. Candidates with a strong
conscientiousness, sensitivity and critical thinking profile should be selected for a
project management career path, while those strong in communication and developing
may better be selected for a general management role.
 Projects and their management are often used as a training ground for development Leadership
of general managers. The study has shown that successful management of projects styles
does not automatically qualify for successful general management. Different
leadership dimensions play a role at different levels of management. Accordingly,
training programs for managers should prepare candidates in line with the
requirements of their tasks. Those pursuing a general management career should be
trained to a lesser extent in MQ and IQ dimensions than those pursuing a project 213
management career. However, with involving being by far the most often used
leadership style, a solid training in EQ capabilities is needed for success in both
managerial roles. A frequent switch between project and line management roles is
therefore only recommended to gain short-term insight in different organizational
processes or to satisfy a person’s job-enrichment desires, but not as a long-term
personal strategy. The personality structures required in different roles vary too much.
The involving leadership style appears to be sufficiently flexible to cope with
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

less-than-perfect context fit. So project management training should initially focus on

this leadership style to allow project managers to build a solid base there and then add
other styles on a contingency basis.
All but one of the 15 leadership competencies (intuitiveness) are significantly
stronger in successful project managers, when compared with less successful project
managers. Therefore, EQ, IQ and MQ competencies should be taken into account when
assigning project managers to projects.

Theoretical implications
The study has confirmed much of the already published theory on EQ and its
contribution to understanding of leadership (Goleman et al., 2002). However, it also
showed the need for clear distinction between leadership performance and follower
commitment, and their different expressions in different managerial roles and
industries. The results support Goleman’s (1995) theory that EQ þ IQ ¼ success, and
extents it into MQ competences.
To that end, project management clearly distinguishes itself from general
management, which warrants appreciation in academia and business of project
management being a standalone management technique.
While EQ capabilities are important for both project and general management
leadership roles (Goleman et al., 2002; Müller and Turner, 2007) projects require a
strong managerial role (MQ and IQ) as well. That may be explained by the clearer
goals that projects have compared to organizations, with the latter being associated
with a wider and more complex set of objectives to be achieved (Turner and Müller,
2003). Increasing goal complexity and conflicts requires managers to move gradually
from being a manager (that is guiding people towards a common goal) to becoming a
leader (that is having people follow him or her).
A relatively balanced predictability of leadership performance across samples and
industries contrasts with sample dependent predictability of follower commitment.
Together, with the differences in EQ, MQ, and IQ profiles for project management and
general management performance the following model is indicated:
.
EQ, MQ and IQ capabilities as independent variables influence leadership
success as dependent variable. However, the relationship between the
 IJMPB independent and dependent variables is moderated by management type, that is,
2,2 project management or general management.
.
Similarly, explain EQ, MQ and IQ capabilities as independent variables followers
commitment as dependent variable. This relationship appears to be moderated
by context factors, such as industry and geography.

214 This model implies a dominant role of leadership in goal achievement for both general
management and project management. The extent people involve themselves in
achieving these goals is, however, context dependent.

Limitations and further research

While the sample size (n ¼ 414) and range, that is from around the world, are highly
positive features of this study, over one-half of respondents were from North America
and so this composition might limit the generalisability of findings. Furthermore, the
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

latter group showed higher scores on 11 of the dimensions and on the leadership
performance scale. The sample also contained a high proportion of males (65.7 per
cent), who scored lower on eight dimensions, and of those from the technical/IT
function (42.5 per cent), who had higher scores on follower commitment. We do not
know how representative are these findings and so further research is proposed to
answer this question. Performance on the job was not assessed independently, it was
assessed by self-rating. Although respondents were promised a feedback report, and
this may well have encouraged them to be realistic. Further research using 3608 tools
(as used by Wren and Dulewicz, 2005), would be desirable.
The value of the study lies in the identification of leadership impact on performance
and the differences between project managers and line managers. It thereby
contributes to a better understanding of the particular leadership competences needed
to be successful in each of the two roles. Suggestions for training programs were given.
Careful application of the findings may provide for better results in both project
management and functional management.

References
Boyatzis, R. (1982), The Competent Manager – A Model for Effective Performance, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Collins, J. (2001), “Level 5 leadership. The triumph of humility and fierce resolve”, Harvard
Business Review, January/February, pp. 67-76.
Crawford, L.H. (2001), “Project management competence: the value of standards”, unpublished
DBA thesis, Henley Management College, Henley-on-Thames.
Crawford, L.W. and Turner, J.R. (2007), “Developing the project management competence of
individuals”, in Turner, J.R. (Ed.), Gower Handbook of Project Management, 4th ed., Gower
Publishing, Aldershot.
Den Hartog, D.N. and Keegan, A.E. (2007), “Leading in virtual contexts”, Proceedings of the
Academy of Management Conference 2007, Academy of Management, Philadelphia, PA.
Dolfi, J. and Andrews, E.J. (2007), “The submittal characteristics of project managers: an
exploratory study of optimism overcoming challenge in the project management work
environment”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 674-83.
Dulewicz, C., Young, M. and Dulewicz, V. (2005), “The relevance of emotional intelligence for
effective leadership”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 71-86.
 Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M. (2000), “Emotional intelligence: a review and evaluation study”, Leadership
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 341-68.
Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M. (2004), “A new approach to assessing leadership dimensions, styles
styles
& context”, Competency & Emotional Intelligence Quarterly, Winter.
Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M. (2005), “Assessing leadership styles and organisational context”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 105-23.
Geoghegan, L. and Dulewicz, V. (2006), “Project managers’ leadership project success”, Henley 215
Working Paper Series, HWP 0607.
Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (2000), “Why should anyone be led by you?”, Harvard Business Review,
September/October, pp. 63-70.
Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (2001), “Followership: its personal too”, Harvard Business Review,
December, p. 148.
Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence, Bantam Books, New York, NY.
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2002), The New Leaders, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
Higgs, M. (2003), “Developments in leadership thinking”, Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 273-84.
Higgs, M. and Rowland, D. (2001), “Building change leadership capability: the quest for change
competence”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 116-31.
Hogan, R. and Hogan, J. (2001), “Assessing leadership: a view from the dark side”, International
Journal of Selection and Development, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 40-51.
Judgev, K. and Müller, R. (2005), “A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project
success”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 19-31.
Keegan, A.E. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2004), “Transformational leadership in a project-based
environment: a comparative study of the leadership styles of project managers and line
managers”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 609-18.
Kouzes, J. and Posner, B. (1998), Encouraging the Heart, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Mabe, P. and West, S. (1982), “Validity of self-evaluation of ability: a review and meta-analysis”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 280-96.
Müller, R. and Turner, J.R. (2007), “Matching the project manager’s leadership style to project
type”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 21-32.
Parry, K. (2004), “The seven sins and the seven virtues of leadership: which path to follow?”,
paper presented at the Leading Matters Symposium, available at: www.griffith.edu.au/
education/centre-leadership-management-education/publications (accessed 25 September
2008).
Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1987), “Critical factors in successful project implementation”,
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 22-8.
Pinto, J.K. and Trailer, J.T. (1998), Leadership Skills for Project Managers, Project Management
Institute, Newton Square, PA.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Posakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 879-903.
Spencer, L.M.J. and Spencer, S.M. (1993), Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Turner, J.R. (1999), Handbook of Project-based Management: Improving the Process for Achieving
Strategic Objectives, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, London.
 IJMPB Turner, J.R. and Müller, R. (2003), “On the nature of the project as a temporary organization”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
2,2 Turner, J.R. and Müller, R. (2005), “The project manager’s leadership style as a success factor on
projects: a literature review”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 49-61.
Turner, J.R. and Müller, R. (2006), Choosing Appropriate Project Managers: Matching their
Leadership Style to the Type of Project, Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
216 Wateridge, J.H. (1995), “IT projects: a basis for success”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 169-72.
Wren, J. and Dulewicz, V. (2005), “Leader competencies, activities and the successful change
in the Royal Airforce”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 295-306.
Young, M. and Dulewicz, V. (2006), “Leadership styles, change context and leader performance
in the Royal Navy”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 383-96.

Corresponding author
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

Ralf Müller can be contacted at: Ralf.mueller@usbe.umu.se

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Alicia Mazur, Anne Pisarski, Artemis Chang, Neal M. Ashkanasy. 2014. Rating defence major project
success: The role of personal attributes and stakeholder relationships. International Journal of Project
Management 32:6, 944-957. [CrossRef]
2. Shankar Sankaran, Nilgün Okay and Gerhard Chroust, Morten Emil Berg, Jan Terje Karlsen. 2014. How
project managers can encourage and develop positive emotions in project teams. International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business 7:3, 449-472. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Shankar Sankaran, Nilgün Okay and Gerhard Chroust, Derek Walker, Paul Steinfort, Tayyab Maqsood.
2014. Stakeholder voices through rich pictures. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 7:3,
342-361. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Kam Jugdev, David Perkins, Joyce Fortune, Diana White, Derek Walker. 2013. An exploratory study of
project success with tools, software and methods. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business
6:3, 534-551. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Erciyes University At 20:49 13 January 2015 (PT)

5. Panagiotis Trivellas, Christos Drimoussis. 2013. Investigating Leadership Styles, Behavioural and
Managerial Competency Profiles of Successful Project Managers in Greece. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 73, 692-700. [CrossRef]
6. Nicholas Clarke, Nicholas Clarke. 2012. Leadership in projects: what we know from the literature and
new insights. Team Performance Management: An International Journal 18:3/4, 128-148. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
7. Jingting Shao, Ralf Müller. 2011. The development of constructs of program context and program success:
A qualitative study. International Journal of Project Management 29:8, 947-959. [CrossRef]
8. Beverley Lloyd-Walker, Derek Walker. 2011. Authentic leadership for 21st century project delivery.
International Journal of Project Management 29:4, 383-395. [CrossRef]
9. Ralf Müller, J. Rodney Turner. 2010. Attitudes and leadership competences for project success. Baltic
Journal of Management 5:3, 307-329. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Ralf Müller, Rodney Turner. 2010. Leadership competency profiles of successful project managers.
International Journal of Project Management 28:5, 437-448. [CrossRef]