European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Management Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/emj

Transformational versus transactional leadership styles and project success:

A meta-analytic review
Muhammad Abbas a, *, Raza Ali b
a
FAST School of Management, National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, A.K. Brohi Road, Islamabad, Pakistan
b
Institute of Management Sciences, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Despite the fact that the reliance on project teams and project-based organizations has significantly increased
Transformational leadership over the past decades, previous meta-analyses paid no attention to the examination of leadership styles in the
Transactional leadership context of projects. The purpose of this study was to meta-analytically synthesize and investigate the contra­
Project success
dictory evidence on the effects of transformational leadership and transactional leadership on project success.
Meta-analysis
The study also examined several project-level and country-level moderators in such effects. The study used 64
effect sizes from 41 primary studies on projects to examine the proposed relationships. The findings suggested
that transformational leadership had a stronger effect on project success than transactional leadership. The re­
sults further indicated that project-level factors (i.e., project size and project type) moderated the relationships of
leadership styles with project success. Moreover, the country-level factors (i.e., power distance, collectivism, and
economic status of the country) also moderated some of the relationships. Theoretical and practical implications
are provided in the end.

1. Introduction
Over the last couple of decades, researchers have explored many
leadership styles and their relative importance for organizational and
employees’ effectiveness. These leadership styles include trans­
formational leadership (Wang, Waldman, & Zhang, 2014), transactional
leadership (Burke et al., 2006), distributed leadership (Agarwal, Dixit,
Nikolova, Jain, & Sankaran, 2021), and informal leadership (Zhang,
Nahrgang, Ashford, & DeRue, 2020) within teams. Among these lead­
ership styles, transformational leadership and transactional leadership
have been extensively studied in functional organizational settings (see,
Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & Van Engen, 2003; Judge & Piccolo,
2004). While transformational leadership is considered as a
person-focused or people-oriented leadership style, transactional lead­
ership is considered as a task-focused leadership style (Burke et al.,
2006; Ceri-Booms, Curşeu, & Oerlemans, 2017; Koeslag-Kreunen, Van
den Bossche, Hoven, Van der Klink, & Gijselaers, 2018). Trans­
formational leaders go beyond self-interest and demonstrate intellectual
stimulation, idealized influence (charisma), inspirational motivation,
and individualized consideration (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass,
Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). These leaders sacrifice their own interest
for the betterment of the team, create and share their vision, and stim­
ulate the intellectual capacity of their followers (Avolio et al., 1999; Bass
et al., 2003). In contrast, transactional leaders attempt to motivate their
followers by providing contingent rewards, actively monitoring the
progress of their followers, and taking corrective measures where
necessary (Bass et al., 2003; Ceri-Booms et al., 2017).
Numerous meta-analyses provide evidence that these leadership
styles are effective in enhancing followers’ satisfaction with leader, job
motivation (Judge & Piccolo, 2004), job performance, and creativity
(Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011). Despite a sizable number of
studies in functional organizations, which examined the effects of
transformational and transactional leadership on job outcomes, re­
searchers have paid little attention to the effects of these leadership
styles on project-related outcomes, specifically project success or project
performance. Moreover, the extant literature on the effectiveness of
these leadership styles in project-based organizations has remained
inconclusive. For example, whereas some studies suggest that trans­
formational leadership is positively related to project success (Aga,
Noorderhaven, Vallejo, 2016; Tyssen, Wald, & Heidenreich, 2014;
Waldman & Atwater, 1994), evidence also suggests that the same
leadership style is negatively related to project success (Keller, 2006).

* Corresponding author. FAST School of Management, National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, A.K. Brohi Road, H11/4, Islamabad, Pakistan.
E-mail addresses: pirthegreat@gmail.com, pirthegreat@gmail.com (M. Abbas), razaali@bzu.edu.pk (R. Ali).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.10.011
Received 28 November 2020; Received in revised form 9 September 2021; Accepted 29 October 2021
Available online 1 November 2021
0263-2373/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Muhammad Abbas, Raza Ali, European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.10.011
M. Abbas and R. Ali
Similarly, while some studies considered transactional leadership as
critical for project success (Liphadzi, Aigbavboa, & Thwala, 2015;
Zheng, Wu, & Xie, 2017), others found that the same leadership style
was not directly related to project success (Tyssen et al., 2014; Zhu &
Kindarto, 2016). Thus, scholarship in the domain of project manage­
ment is yet to determine the relative importance of these two leadership
styles in affecting project outcomes. Moreover, such contradictory
findings on the main effects of leadership styles may suggest the possi­
bility of the presence of moderators in these relationships (Robbins,
Ford, & Tetrick, 2012).
In the same vein, scholars have indicated that numerous contextual
factors such as project type, project size (Kruglianskas & Thamhain,
2000), and cultural orientations (Grisham & Walker, 2008) may deter­
mine whether leadership styles affect project performance in multicul­
tural environments. This view is also supported by the contingency
perspective on leadership that suggests that the effectiveness of lead­
ership styles depends on the contextual factors (De Poel, Stoker, & Van
der Zee, 2014). For example, it may be possible that transformational
leaders are more critical for project success in change-oriented projects
(e.g., IT-related projects), which require frequent innovation for growth.
In contrast, transactional leaders may be more effective for those pro­
jects, which involve routine work or which do not involve frequent
changes and innovations (e.g., construction projects). In addition, it may
be possible that transformational leaders are more effective for project
success in collectivistic cultures as compared to individualistic cultures
because of their selflessness, individualized consideration, and
team-orientation (Avolio et al., 1999; Bass, 1985). Furthermore, past
research on project teams in an international context indicates that
many project operations now transcend across national boundaries
(Eriksson, Lilliesköld, Jonsson, & Novosel, 2002; Shore & Cross, 2005;
Yap & Cheah, 2019). Managing those projects whose members come
from diverse cultural orientations is highly challenging (Eriksson et al.,
2002; Kruglianskas & Thamhain, 2000). However, prior research pro­
vides very little insights on the role of leadership and culture in project
management in the context of international projects (Grisham & Walker,
2008; Kruglianskas & Thamhain, 2000; Shore & Cross, 2005).
Therefore, it is both theoretically and practically important to syn­
thesize the existing literature and examine the relative importance of
these two leadership styles for project success. More specifically, it is
important to conduct a meta-analytical investigation of the prior liter­
ature to synthesize the effects of transformational leadership and
transactional leadership styles on project success and to examine their
boundary conditions. Although few meta-analyses have investigated the
effects of leadership styles on team outcomes, most of these studies have
focused on attitudinal outcomes such as team satisfaction and team
commitment (Wang et al., 2014), and behavioral outcomes, such as
team cohesion, team coordination, team learning (Burke et al., 2006;
Koeslag-Kreunen et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2014), subjective perfor­
mance (e.g., subjective ratings), and objective performance (e.g., pro­
ductivity, actual sales) in functional teams (Wang et al., 2011, 2014), or
these studies used samples from projects involving undergraduate and
MBA students only (e.g., Wang et al., 2014). Unfortunately, none of
these meta-analyses have exclusively focused on the effects of leadership
styles on project success. Hence, a critical understanding of the effec­
tiveness of leadership styles in the context of projects is poor (Raziq,
Borini, Malik, Ahmad, & Shabaz, 2018).
We suggest that the effectiveness of leadership styles for team per­
formance in functional organizations differs from those in a project
context in several ways. First, project success or performance is different
from group or team performance. While the regular tasks assigned to
individuals or teams in functional organizations are generally not
defined in terms of scope, time, risks, costs, and budget, projects are
primarily defined in terms of scope, time, risks, communication, pro­
curement, and budget to accomplish the specified project goals (Zwi­
kael, 2009). For example, numerous aspects of project performance are
used as benchmarks for measuring a project’s success or failure (Pinto &
2
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Mantel, 1990). Similarly, while team performance is generally defined
as the extent to which a team achieves its goals or mission (Devine &
Philips, 2001) or the extent to which a team is successful in completing
its tasks (Hofhuis et al., 2018), project success is defined as meeting
project stakeholders’ expectations with a focus on project quality, scope,
time, and cost (PMI, 2017) and clients’ satisfaction with the delivered
project (Shenhar, Dvir, & Levy, 1997). Second, individuals or teams
working on projects are relatively more prone to uncertainties in terms
of possible changes in clients’ requirements, budget, time, or scope
during the life cycle of a project as compared to the individuals or teams
working on regular tasks (Eriksson, Larsson, & Pesämaa, 2017; Fu, Li, &
Chen, 2012). Third, the nature of employment in projects may be tem­
porary and the job responsibilities of the members may vary from
project to project (Braun, Ferreira, & Sydow, 2013; Turner & Müller,
2003). In the same vein, project teams seldom develop a history of
working as teams over multiple projects (Faraj & Sproull, 2000) as the
changing demands of projects may require firms to establish different
teams every time a new project is initiated (Raidén & Dainty, 2006;
Tabassi, Roufechaei, Bakar, & Yusof, 2017). However, the work context
or the nature of work for the employees working on regular tasks in
functional organizations usually remains similar. Finally, project work is
a collaborative process requiring frequent interactions and high task
interdependence (Faraj & Sproull, 2000; Lester, 2017).
Furthermore, reliance on project teams and project-based organiza­
tions has significantly increased over time in the wake of rapidly
transforming business environments (Bakker, 2010; Ceri-Booms et al.,
2017; Huemann & Silvius, 2017). Coupled with discontinuous work
contents, a lack of organizational routines, a cross-disciplinary integra­
tion of internal and external experts (Tyssen et al., 2014), and cultural
differences among project managers (Liu, Meng, & Fellows, 2015), many
project operations now transcend across national boundaries (Eriksson
et al., 2002; Shore & Cross, 2005) – and therefore require detailed in­
sights on how leadership styles interplay with numerous aspects of
projects and national culture to affect project outcomes.
Taken together, given the differences in the context of work between
project-based jobs and regular jobs, the contradictory evidence on the
relative effectiveness of leadership styles in project context, and the
potential role of cultural factors and project contingencies, the current
meta-analysis has several objectives. First, this investigation provides an
overview of the prior literature on transformational and transactional
leadership styles. Second, the study conducts a meta-analysis to examine
the respective and relative effects of both leadership styles on project
success. Third, the study examines several project-level (i.e., project
type and project size) and country-level (i.e., power distance, individ­
ualism/collectivism, and economic status) moderators to draw the
boundary conditions for the effects of these leadership styles on project
success. Finally, based on the meta-analytical findings, the study pro­
vides important insights for further theory development and managerial
practices in the area of project management.
2. Literature and hypotheses
2.1. Leadership styles and project success
Bass (1985) proposed the theory of transformational leadership
where the leader is able to inspire the subordinates to the extent that
they perform beyond expectations. Transformational leaders are those
who focus on the higher-order intrinsic needs of their followers and offer
a purpose that transcends short-term objectives (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).
Previously, scholars have examined the relevance and effectiveness of
transformation leadership in a variety of contexts (see, Burke et al.,
2006; Eagly et al., 2003; Hassan, Bashir, & Abbas, 2017; Tabassi et al.,
2016). In addition, several meta-analytical studies have examined the
effects of transformational leadership on employees’ outcomes in func­
tional organizations such as job performance, organizational commit­
ment, and job satisfaction (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Wang et al., 2011).
M. Abbas and R. Ali
However, there has been relatively less research on the effects of
transformational leadership on project-related outcomes. Even among
these studies, there is some contradictory evidence regarding the rela­
tionship of transformational leadership with project outcomes. For
example, using data from 118 research and development project teams
in US-based organizations, Keller (2006) found a negative but insignif­
icant relationship between transformational leadership and cost per­
formance. Moreover, Kariuki (2015) found a negative effect of all
dimensions of transformational leadership on overall project perfor­
mance in a sample of Kenya’s construction industry. Using data gathered
from project managers in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, Tyssen
et al. (2014) found a positive but insignificant effect of transformational
leadership on project success. In contrast, many studies have shown
positive relationships between transformational leadership and project
outcomes. For example, Waldman and Atwater (1994) conducted a
study among US firms and found a significantly positive association
between transformational leadership and project success. Similarly,
Thite (1999) found a positive relationship of transformational leader­
ship with project success in Australian IT projects. Further, using the
data of various projects from twenty-eight nations, Tyssen et al. (2014)
found that transformational leadership had positive effects on project
success. Another study by Liphadzi et al. (2015) found that trans­
formational leadership had a positive impact on project success in South
African construction projects. Similarly, a study conducted by Tabassi
et al. (2017) in Malaysia revealed that transformational leadership was
positively related to project team performance.
In addition, self-determination theory (SDT) suggests that autono­
mous or intrinsic motivation is based on three human needs: autonomy,
competence, and relatedness (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Transformational
leadership facilitates the development of these needs and has been
linked to autonomous motivation (Conchie, 2013; Shin & Zhou, 2003).
Transformational leaders motivate their followers through group iden­
tification (Wang & Howell, 2010) – and they influence the extent to
which followers view their work as more congruent with their personal
values (Bono & Judge, 2003). Therefore, we expect that trans­
formational project leaders have the ability to clearly articulate a future
vision and inspire their subordinates toward the achievement of project
goals. Such leaders have the capability to foster team collaboration and
communication and ensure project success. Consequently, we suggest
the following:
Hypothesis 1a. Transformational leadership will be positively related
to project success.
Contrary to transformational leaders, the transactional leaders focus
only on the transactional nature of their relationships with their fol­
lowers. Previous meta-analyses suggest that this leadership style is
effective in enhancing followers’ satisfaction with leader, job motivation
(Judge & Piccolo, 2004), job performance, and creativity (Wang et al.,
2011). However, past research on the effects of transactional leadership
on project outcomes provides some contradictory evidence. Some
studies suggest a negative impact of transactional leadership on project
success. For example, Thite (1999) examined the relationship of trans­
actional leadership with team members’ efforts and effectiveness in the
more versus less successful projects. The author found that
management-by-exception passive (i.e., a dimension of transactional
leadership style) was negatively related to the project outcomes in case
of more successful projects. In addition, Zhu and Kindarto (2016) con­
ducted a study on IT project managers in an Indonesian organization.
These authors found a negative but insignificant effect of transactional
leadership on project success. In another study, Tyssen et al. (2014) also
found a negative but insignificant effect of transactional leadership on
project success.
On the contrary, another stream of research suggests a positive
relationship between transactional leadership and project-related out­
comes. For example, Liphadzi et al. (2015) found that transactional
leadership style was positively related to project success in the
3
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
construction industry of South Africa. Aga (2016) also reported that
contingent reward (i.e., a dimension of transactional leadership) had a
positive impact on project success in a sample of development projects in
Ethiopia. Similarly, Zheng et al. (2017) found a positive effect of
contingent rewards on project success in the Chinese construction in­
dustry. Furthermore, the foundations of transactional leadership style
are argued to fall within expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) and equity
theory (Adams, 1963). Both theories emphasize on
performance-contingent rewards and task accomplishment (Burke et al.,
2006; Pearce et al., 2003). These theories suggest that individuals are
likely to get the motivation to accomplish their targets if they expect to
receive appropriate and equitable rewards for their accomplishments.
As transactional leaders are good at providing performance-contingent
rewards and they focus on their subordinates’ extrinsic needs and
their timely task accomplishments, their strategy of reward contingency
may motivate their followers toward the achievement of project goals.
Further, these leaders are expected to take corrective actions (actively or
passively) whenever they identify mistakes or errors in order to ensure
the successful execution of the projects. Therefore, project leaders are
likely to achieve the desired project outcomes by demonstrating trans­
actional leadership style. Consequently, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1b. Transactional leadership will be positively related to
project success.
An objective of this meta-analytic review is to compare the effects of
both leadership styles on project success. Previous studies, comparing
the relative strength of these two leadership styles in predicting project
outcomes, have generally found that transformational leadership has a
stronger effect on project outcomes (Liphadzi et al., 2015; Tyssen et al.,
2014). Further, transformational leadership is one of the most effective
leadership styles in times of uncertainty and change (Bass et al., 2003).
As project-based organizations are characterized by a high level of
complexity and uncertainty (Geraldi, Maylor, & Williams, 2011; Tyssen
et al., 2014), transformational leadership may be more effective in these
organizations. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1c. Transformational leadership will have a stronger
relationship with project success than transactional leadership.
2.2. Moderators for the relationships of leadership styles with project
success
As discussed earlier, the literature has shown some contradictory
evidence on the relationship of the leadership styles with project suc­
cess. While some studies have suggested negative effects of trans­
formational leadership and transactional leadership on project success
(Kariuki, 2015; Thite, 1999), others have found positive relationships
(Tyssen et al., 2014; Waldman & Atwater, 1994; Zheng et al., 2017). In
essence, these mixed findings may suggest the possibility of the presence
of moderators for the relationships between leadership styles and project
success (O’Donnell, 2010).
Scholars have indicated that project type, project size (Kruglianskas
& Thamhain, 2000), and cultural aspects (Grisham & Walker, 2008)
may determine whether leadership styles affect project performance
(Kruglianskas & Thamhain, 2000). Moreover, among the national cul­
tural dimensions, power distance and collectivism are considered to be
more relevant to the context of leadership and work teams (Schau­
broeck, Lam, & Cha, 2007). Finally, the economic status of a country –
where a project is executed – may be relevant to the context of leader­
ship because leadership styles may differ in their capacity to use moti­
vational elements. For example, transformational leaders tend to use
intrinsic motivation to boost their followers (Conchie, 2013; Judge &
Piccolo, 2004; Shin & Zhou, 2003). In contrast, transactional leaders
rely on formal extrinsic motivators to encourage their team members
(Caillier & Sa, 2017). Past meta-analyses have also used a few
national-level moderators in their studies based on the theoretical
relevance. For example, a recent meta-analysis by Gupta and Chauhan
M. Abbas and R. Ali
(2020) used only individualism/collectivism and the economic status of
the country as potential country-level moderators between firm capa­
bilities and export performance. Taken together, we propose that the
project-level (i.e., project type and project size) and the country-level (i.
e., individualism versus collectivism, power distance, and economic
status) moderators could help to explain the inconsistent findings
regarding leadership style–project success relationships. Next, we
discuss each proposed moderator.
2.2.1. Moderating role of project type
We propose the type of project as a moderator that may help to
determine the boundary conditions for the effects of leadership styles on
project success (Barrantes-Guevara, 2013). Prior studies on leadership
have mainly focused on projects in construction firms and information
technology (IT) companies (e.g., Maqbool, Sudong, Manzoor, & Rashid,
2017; Tabassi et al., 2017; Thite, 1999; Zhu & Kindarto, 2016). There­
fore, our discussion will focus on these contexts only.
Transformational leaders have the disposition to articulate a strong
vision to their followers – and they are able to boost their followers’
morale toward the achievement of the assigned goals and are change-
oriented (Bass, 1985; Kissi, Dainty, & Tuuli, 2013). These leaders
motivate their followers to think divergently, push their boundaries, and
innovate new strategies (Bass, 1985). Therefore, we expect that this
leadership style would be more effective in industries which are
change-oriented and which require innovation for their growth and
survival. For example, IT sector is one of the major sectors (Bloch,
Blumberg, & Laartz, 2012) where innovation and change are mandatory
for survival and growth (Banker, Wattal, & Plehn-Dujowich, 2011), and
the working environment is highly demanding and dynamic (Coombs,
2009). Therefore, in such industries, the transformational leadership
style of project managers may be more critical for project success.
In contrast, the transactional leadership is characterized by the ex­
change relationships between the leaders and the followers. Trans­
actional leaders set standards and then expect their followers to follow
those standards and take corrective measures actively or passively if the
followers diverge from these standards (Bass, 1985). We argue that this
leadership style may be more effective in contexts where change and
innovation are not prerequisites. For example, construction industries
involve a routine style of work as compared to IT industries – and
therefore the changes in these sectors occur at a relatively slower pace.
We further suggest that change-oriented organizations (i.e., IT-related
firms) require innovative and creative workforce for their growth –
and workers can be less creative when their relationships with their
leaders are transactional in nature. For example, Tung (2016) found that
transactional leadership had a negative effect on employees’ creativity,
which is a prerequisite for innovation in IT-related firms. Therefore, we
believe that the transactional leadership style may not be effective, or
may be less effective, for the projects which require an innovative
workforce. However, this leadership style may lead to project success in
those industries which are not exposed to rapid changes and hence do
not need to be very innovative. Hence, we suggest the following:
Hypothesis 2a. Project type will moderate the positive relationship
between transformational leadership and project success such that the
relationship will be stronger in case of IT projects.
Hypothesis 2b. Project type will moderate the positive relationship
between transactional leadership and project success such that the
relationship will be stronger in case of construction projects.
2.2.2. Moderating role of project size
Project size is another important factor in determining the effec­
tiveness of leadership styles. Koene, Vogelaar, and Soeters (2002) found
that leaders in smaller firms have a strong influential role compared to
larger ones. Since the leader–member exchange is rarer in larger firms, it
becomes challenging for the leaders to influence every member’s
behavior – and, consequently, the level of desired commitment is
4
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
affected (Atwater & Bass, 1994). In larger projects, the level of
complexity increases, thereby deteriorating the direct communication
between the leader and the team members, which further makes it
difficult for them to frequently express themselves and share their
opinions (Bantel & Jackson, 1989). Therefore, it may be difficult for a
transformational leader to clearly articulate their vision, exert an
idealized influence, and ensure individualized consideration for the
needs and feelings of their followers when the project size is large.
However, these leaders may have a stronger influence on their teams in
case of smaller projects.
Atwater and Bass (1994) argue that the likelihood of direct interac­
tion of the transformational leaders and their followers is expected to be
high in case of smaller organizations, thereby boosting the level of
commitment. Similarly, Berson, Shamir, Avolio, and Popper (2001)
argue that the organizational size has a significant effect on the trans­
mission of vision by the leaders. These authors also suggested that it
would be difficult for the leaders to stimulate inspirational motivation
among their followers in larger organizations. In large organizations,
transformational leaders face difficulty in encouraging their followers to
challenge the status quo (Pawar & Eastman, 1997). Therefore, we expect
that transformational leaders will have a strong influence on project
success in case of smaller projects.
Moreover, we expect that the transactional leadership may also have
a strong effect on project success for smaller projects. Transactional
leadership is characterized by setting standards for performance and
achieving objectives through rewards and punishments. These leaders
actively or passively monitor the progress of their followers and take
corrective measures where required (Bass et al., 2003). In smaller pro­
jects, it is easy for the leaders to set performance goals for each project,
evaluate their teams’ performance frequently, and take corrective
measures. As the size of a project increases, the level of complexity may
also increase, thereby making it difficult for the leaders to communicate
with their followers (Atwater & Bass, 1994). The main essence of
transactional leadership is that such leaders are more concerned about
the exchanges in terms of performance and rewards and taking correc­
tive measures to improve their teams’ performance (Bass et al., 2003).
These leaders will be better able to foster those exchanges and take
corrective actions in smaller projects. If a leader has a very large span of
control, then the transactional leadership style may not be useful in
terms of motivating employees because of the difficulty of identifying
free riders in a large team (i.e., a large project) and providing contingent
rewards. In contrast, a transaction leader may easily ensure that the
rewards are contingent upon performance in small groups (i.e., small
projects). Therefore, we expect that the relationship between trans­
actional leadership and project success will be stronger in case of smaller
projects. Together, both transactional and transformational leaders
would be able to effectively exercise their influence and foster their
relationships with their followers and thus ensure project success in
smaller projects compared to larger projects. Therefore, we suggest the
following:
Hypothesis 3a. Project size will moderate the positive relationship
between transformational leadership and project success such that the
relationship will be stronger in case of smaller projects.
Hypothesis 3b. Project size will moderate the positive relationship
between transactional leadership and project success such that the
relationship will be stronger in case of smaller projects.
2.2.3. Moderating role of power distance
We suggest that the effect of leadership styles on project success will
vary across high power distance versus lower power distance cultures.
Power distance is one of the most important cultural values present in
the majority of the dominant cultural value frameworks (Dorfman,
Javidan, Hanges, Dastmalchian, & House, 2012; Hofstede, 1980a). It
refers to the degree to which a society or individuals accept uneven
distribution of power (Hofstede, 1980a). Employees in high power
M. Abbas and R. Ali
distance cultures generally trust their leaders blindly in decision making
– and they defer to their authoritative figures and follow the standards
unquestionably (Dorfman et al., 2012). Employees with high power
distance orientation demonstrate submission and obedience to the au­
thority (Dorfman et al., 2012) and prefer to follow the instructions of
their supervisors (Hon & Lu, 2016).
Employees in high power distance cultures are generally more
comfortable with the role-constrained interactions with their supervi­
sors (Auh, Menguc, Spyropoulou, & Wang, 2016), which suggests that
they may be more comfortable with transactional leadership style.
Further, employees with high power distance orientation prefer to
receive clear directions from their supervisors. However, employees
with low power distance orientation expect their supervisors to
empower and coach them instead of just giving directions (Mulki,
Caemmerer, & Heggde, 2015). Since the characteristics of empower­
ment and coaching commensurate well with the transformational
leadership style and the characteristics of giving directions or in­
structions match with the transactional leadership style, we may expect
that transformational leaders would be more effective in low power
distance cultures and transactional leaders would be more effective in
high power distance cultures.
Moreover, Newman and Nollen (1996) argue that if a leader in a high
power distance culture demonstrates a participative style in decision
making, his or her followers would perceive that the leader is incom­
petent. Therefore, we suggest that the transactional leadership style –
characterized by contingent rewards and corrective measures – will
have a stronger relationship with project success in high power distance
cultures. In contrast, subordinates in low power distance cultures
believe in the equal distribution of power and favor a participative
working environment (Hofstede, 1980a, 2001). Therefore, we expect
that transformational leadership will have a stronger effect on project
success in low power distance cultures because such leaders are
participative – and they inspire their subordinates through their vision
and individualized consideration. However, transactional leadership
will have a stronger effect on project success in high power distance
cultures because these leaders generally do not pay personalized
attention to their followers and their relationships with their sub­
ordinates are transactional in nature. Consequently, we suggest the
following:
Hypothesis 4a. Power distance will moderate the positive relation­
ship between transformational leadership and project success such that
the relationship will be stronger in case of low power distance cultures.
Hypothesis 4b. Power distance will moderate the positive relation­
ship between transactional leadership and project success such that the
relationship will be stronger in case of high power distance cultures.
2.2.4. Moderating role of individualism/collectivism
Individualism is a loosely knit social framework in which an in­
dividual’s ‘identity is based in the individual’ and the ‘belief is placed in
individual decisions’ (Hofstede, 1980b, p. 48). In individualistic cul­
tures, the interests of one’s own self are generally considered superior
over the interests of others. Individuals in these cultures put emphasis on
self-accomplishments rather than the achievement of the group. In
contrast, collectivism is a tightly knit cultural framework in which an
individual’s ‘identity is based in the social system’ and his or her ‘belief
is placed in group decisions’ (Hofstede, 1980b, p. 48). In such cultures,
the interests of the community are considered superior and beyond one’s
own self-interest (Triandis, 1995). Collectivists consider themselves as a
fragment of the large group with high interdependency (Triandis, 1995).
Individuals in collectivistic cultures prefer the achievement of the group
rather than self-accomplishments. In these cultures, obedience, persis­
tence, and cooperation are highly emphasized (Hofstede, 1980b, 2001),
and accomplishments are seen as socially oriented (Triandis, 1995).
According to Bass (1985), transformational leaders motivate and
inspire their followers to surpass their self-interests for the welfare of the
5
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
group and the organization. These leaders transform the perceptions of
their followers from self-beliefs to collective ideas – and make them loyal
to their leaders’ vision and excite them to think for the benefits of the
group even at the expense of self (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993).
Transformational leaders’ quality of individualized consideration en­
ables them to take care of their team members (Bass, 1985). Prior
research found that when the leaders allow their subordinates to
participate in decision-making, the subordinates become more loyal to
the team and demonstrate a higher level of trust in leadership (Kors­
gaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995). In addition, transformational
leaders, through their ability to stimulate their followers, develop
cohesiveness among their team members (Bass et al., 2003). Therefore,
we expect that the positive effect of transformational leadership on
project success will be stronger in case of collectivistic cultures. Spe­
cifically, the ability of the transformational leaders to articulate their
vision, encourage their followers toward shared goals, and convince
them to prefer the group interests over their personal interests may yield
a stronger effect on project success in collectivistic societies.
In contrast, employees in individualistic cultures are generally more
concerned about their own self-interest and are motivated toward
achieving their personal goals rather than collective goals (Hofstede,
1980a). Individuals belonging to such cultures rely more on their own
self-initiatives (Jones & Davis, 2000) and have higher needs for personal
achievement (Hofstede, 1980a). In line with this, we suggest that
transactional leaders will be more effective in individualistic cultures
because these leaders offer performance-based rewards and make sure
that the employees receive their fair share in proportion to their efforts.
Therefore, we expect that the positive relationship between trans­
actional leadership and project success will be stronger in individualistic
cultures. Consequently, we suggest the following:
Hypothesis 5a. Individualism/collectivism will moderate the positive
relationship between transformational leadership and project success
such that the relationship will be stronger in case of collectivistic
cultures.
Hypothesis 5b. Individualism/collectivism will moderate the positive
relationship between transactional leadership and project success such
that the relationship will be stronger in case of individualistic cultures.
2.2.5. Moderating role of economic status
The current study further proposes that the economic status of a
country may also draw a boundary condition for the effects of these
leadership styles on project success. Developed and developing coun­
tries may have differences in their employment rates, per capita income,
social security, and financial resources (Raja, Sheikh, Abbas, & Bouck­
enooghe, 2018). Maslow’s (1943) theory of need gratification states that
human needs vary from lower-order needs (i.e., basic physiological
needs) to higher-order needs (i.e., self-esteem, growth needs). The the­
ory further suggests that unless the lower needs are satisfied,
higher-order needs would not be salient in motivating individuals.
Therefore, we propose that employees belonging to developed countries,
where per capita income is high and basic needs may be already ful­
filled, are more likely to be influenced by transformational leaders who
motivate their team members through their vision and intellectual
stimulation. In contrast, individuals in developing countries, where
basic needs may not already be fulfilled, are more likely to be influenced
by transactional leaders who use extrinsic rewards to achieve the project
goals. For example, Adigun and Stephenson (1992) showed that em­
ployees in Nigeria – a developing country – were more inclined toward
the extrinsic factors (i.e., pay and working environment). In contrast,
these authors found that British (i.e., a developed country) workers were
more inclined toward the intrinsic factors (i.e., recognition and
accomplishments).
Therefore, we expect that rewards may be more salient in countries
where employment opportunities are rare and people have relatively
low levels of income. Previous literature suggests that individuals in
M. Abbas and R. Ali
developed countries are more concerned with the fulfillment of self-
actualization and developmental needs compared to monetary goals
(Inglehart, 1990, pp. 43–66). In contrast, social security systems in the
developing countries are not well established, and the employment
opportunities are rare due to which the basic needs of people may not be
well satisfied. Consequently, workers in developing countries may be
attracted more to extrinsic rewards (Raja, Sheikh, et al., 2018).
Taken together, we propose that transactional leadership will be
more effective for project success in case of developing countries
because transactional leaders are more concerned about the extrinsic
needs of their followers – and they reward their team members for their
performance. However, transformational leadership may be more
effective for project success in case of developed countries because in
these countries higher needs are more salient. We argue that trans­
formational leaders’ ability to motivate their team members through
intellectual stimulation, self-expression, and achievement-orientation
will be more effective for projects in developed societies. Conse­
quently, we suggest the following:
Hypothesis 6a. Economic status will moderate the positive relation­
ship between transformational leadership and project success such that
the relationship will be stronger in case of developed countries.
Hypothesis 6b. Economic status will moderate the positive relation­
ship between transactional leadership and project success such that the
relationship will be stronger in case of developing countries.
3. Methods
3.1. Search procedure
Fig. 1 presents the theoretical framework of the study. This study
used meta-analytical techniques to test the stated hypotheses. Meta-
analysis has been widely used in several areas to quantitatively
Fig. 1. Theoretical framework of the study.
6
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
analyze and synthesize the available literature in a systematic way (e.g.,
Ali, Lynch, Melewar, & Jin, 2015; Ceri-Booms et al., 2017; also see,
Barari, Ross, Thaichon, & Surachartkumtonkun, 2021; Paul & Criado,
2020 for an overview). This study followed the general thumb rules and
recommendations set by prior studies (e.g., Paul & Criado, 2020; Steel,
Beugelsdijk, & Aguinis, 2021) and adapted multi-stage procedures from
Cooper (2010) and Ali et al. (2015) to conduct the meta-analysis (see
Fig. 2).
The first stage was about searching for the relevant literature. The key
search terms included ‘transformational leadership,’ ‘transactional
leadership,’ ‘transformational leader(s),’ ‘transactional leader(s),’
‘leadership,’ ‘leadership style(s),’ ‘project success,’ ‘project effective­
ness,’ ‘project failure,’ ‘project outcome(s),’ and ‘project performance.’
These keywords were searched for in several databases, including Psy­
cINFO, PsycARTICLES, Google Scholar, Academic Search Complete,
Business Source Complete, ABI/INFORM, and ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses. We selected these databases because of their usage in the
previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the area of leadership
(see Burke et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2011). The first stage generated 62
articles. It is recommended that researchers should include all the
relevant unpublished studies as well in order to avoid publication bias in
a meta-analysis (Stone & Rosopa, 2017). Avoiding publication bias is
important in the meta-analysis because such bias may potentially affect
the nature of the results (Rothstein, Sutton, & Borenstein, 2005).
Therefore, we purposefully did not exclude any study (i.e., thesis or
dissertation), which seemed to be relevant, but not published.
In the second stage, we filtered the searched articles/documents to get
a pool of relevant studies. This study used the ‘Pearson correlation co­
efficient’ as an effect-size measure representing the relationship be­
tween leadership styles and project success. The usage of ‘correlation
coefficient’ as an effect-size measure can be found in the previous meta-
analyses (see e.g., Ali et al., 2015; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Therefore, the
62 articles identified in the first stage were filtered to retain only those
M. Abbas and R. Ali
Fig. 2. Multi-step procedure to conduct meta-analysis (6-stages).
articles which had the terms ‘correlation’ or ‘correlate’ present any­
where in their full texts. Because we required only academically valid
studies for further analysis, we filtered out those articles which were not
having the term ‘reference’ present anywhere in their full texts (see e.g.,
Ali et al., 2015). Moreover, we did not include those studies which did
not investigate transformational or transactional leadership styles.
Studies that examined the effects of leadership styles on team outcomes
in a non-project setting (e.g., team performance within a functional
department or an organization) were also excluded. This activity ended
up with a pool of 55 articles available for further analysis. Of these ar­
ticles, 8 were removed after further screening because they did not
report correlations or had inconsistencies in the reporting. We had 47
articles at the end of this stage.
In the third stage, we manually identified and removed any duplicate
entries. It was also ensured that the full text of resulting articles was
accessible for further extraction of the required information. A pool of
45 articles was available at the end of this stage. The fourth stage
comprised of a manual review of these 45 articles. The purpose of this
manual review was to ensure that we retained only those articles for
further analysis which had the following characteristics:
1. A study must have examined the relationship between transactional
leadership and project success/performance, and/or the relationship
between transformational leadership and project success/perfor­
mance, and
2. Such relationship(s) must be investigated in a quantitative way in the
respective study, and
3. ‘Correlation coefficient’ must have been estimated and reported in
the testing of such relationship(s).
This stage of manual review resulted in the removal of four articles as
they used the organizational performance of project-based firms instead
of project performance or project success. Finally, we had 41 articles and
64 effect sizes for inclusion in our meta-analysis. The fifth stage consisted
of data extraction activity. We were looking for the following informa­
tion in the shortlisted articles to address our study’s objectives: article
identification information (i.e., author/s, year of publication, name of
7
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
journal); type of leadership studied (i.e., transformational and/or
transactional leadership); dependent variable used; effect-size measure
(i.e., correlation coefficient); sample size; country of study; project type
(e.g., IT-related or construction-related project); and project size (i.e.,
small or large).
The required information extracted from each article was placed on a
coding sheet. As the objective measures of project size (e.g., actual
project cost, project period) that would have helped us to clearly
differentiate between small and large projects were not available in the
primary studies, we used the subjective details of the project or the or­
ganization given in each study to classify projects into small or large. For
example, construction and infrastructure projects were categorized as
large projects. In contrast, projects related to free medical checkups and
provision of books to needy students at local levels were categorized as
small projects. The information about the cultural characteristics (i.e.,
power distance and individualism) of the respective countries, where the
studies were conducted, was obtained from Hofstede (2001). The
countries were coded as ‘high power distance’ or ‘low power distance’
countries based on the categorization made by Hofstede (2001). Simi­
larly, countries were coded as ‘individualistic’ or ‘collectivistic’ coun­
tries based on the same criterion. Further, to determine the economic
status, the countries, where primary studies included in the
meta-analysis were conducted, were coded as ‘developing’ or ‘devel­
oped’ countries by using the criteria given by the World Bank (2019).
3.2. Statistical analysis
The sixth (final) stage of our meta-analytic procedures comprised of
statistical analysis required for Hypothesis testing. This study mainly
used the meta-analysis method suggested by Cooper (2010) for the
statistical analysis of effect sizes, and for testing of hypothesized direct,
comparative, and moderating effects. The unit of analysis was the
relationship between leadership style (i.e., transformational or trans­
actional leadership) and project success. ‘Average corrected correlation
coefficient (Rc)’ was estimated for each unit of analysis in the testing of
all hypotheses. We used the following procedure to estimate ‘Rc’
(Cooper, 2010).
M. Abbas and R. Ali
1. We weighted each correlation coefficient by its respective sample
size to eliminate any sampling error.
2. We then divided the sum of weighted correlation coefficients by the
sum of respective sample sizes (i.e., overall sample size corre­
sponding to the sum of weighted correlation coefficients) to estimate
‘Rc.’
3. The statistical significance of each ‘Rc’ was assessed through its p-
value by using a 95% confidence interval.
Further, a homogeneity analysis technique was used to test the
moderating effects (Ali et al., 2015; Cooper, 2010). For this purpose,
z-scores were calculated for respective correlation coefficients.
Qt-statistics were estimated for each moderation analysis. Significance
of Qt-statistic (if any) revealed possible moderating effects. Qb-statistics
were then estimated to test the moderating effects.
3.3. Sample profile
The shortlisted 41 studies provided 64 effect sizes (i.e., correlation
coefficients) based on a sample size of 9338 observations. The selected
studies were published between 1992 and 2019 in a variety of research
journals. While the highest number of effect sizes (17.2%) belonged to
year 2017, a majority of effect sizes (75%) were reported from 2012 to
2019. Approximately, two-thirds (70.3%) of the total effect sizes were
representing transformational leadership style-project success relation­
ship, whereas approximately one-third (29.7%) of the effect sizes were
representing transactional leadership style-project success relationship.
Almost an equal/similar number of effect sizes were found from studies
belonging to each of the developing (47.6%) and developed countries
(52.4%); high power distance (52.4%) and low power distance countries
(47.6%); and individualistic (52.4%) and collectivistic countries
(47.6%). With respect to the country of each study, major sources of
effect sizes included the USA (32.8%), Pakistan (17.2%), Malaysia
(6.3%), and Australia (6.3%). Appendix A presents some key charac­
teristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis.
A sizable number of effect sizes were extracted from studies that
were conducted in mixed-projects setting (57.9%) where it was difficult
to identify the type of project. However, 26.6% effect sizes were sourced
from studies conducted for IT-related projects, as compared to 15.6%
effect sizes sourced from construction-related projects. Studies involving
large projects provided the majority of effect sizes (76.6%) as compared
to the studies involving small projects (23.4%). All the primary studies
selected for the current meta-analysis used quantitative field surveys.
We also reviewed each selected study and noted that all of the studies
measured the leadership styles of project managers. Furthermore,
around 54% (N = 22) of the studies used responses from project man­
agers/leaders to measure leadership style, and the remaining studies (N
= 19) used responses from project team members/employees to measure
leadership style. The details of the measurement scales used in each
selected study are reported in Table 7.
4. Results
4.1. Main effects
Table 1 reports the results for the associations between leadership
styles and project success. The findings showed that transformational
leadership had a positive association with project success (Rc = .41, p <
.001). Similarly, transactional leadership was found to be positively
associated with project success (Rc = .29, p < .001). These findings
supported Hypothesis 1a and Hypothesis 1b. As reported in Table 2, a
comparison of both associations revealed a stronger relationship of
transformational leadership style with project success (Qb = 32.17, p <
.001) as compared to transactional leadership style, thereby supporting
Hypothesis 1c.
As shown in Table 2, Qt values for both sub-groups representing
8
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Table 1
Results for the association of leadership styles with project success.
Relationships Ka Nb Mean s.d. (Rc)d
(R) (R)c
Transformational leadership- 45 7042 0.41 0.23 0.41***
project success
Transactional leadership-project 19 2296 0.27 0.21 0.29***
success
a
K=Total number of effect-size measures.
∑
b
N=Overall sample size= ni.
c
s.d. (R)=Standard deviation of effect-size measures (i.e., correlation
coefficients)
d
Rc=Corrected correlation coefficient, i.e., ‘R’ corrected for sampling error
∑
= (Ri × ni)/N ***p < .001.
transformational leadership style-project success association (Qt =
428.11) and transactional leadership style-project success association
(Qt = 133.98) were found significant (p < .001). Such significance of Qt
values reveals that sampling error does not completely explain variation
in effect-size measures; rather some moderating factors may explain
variations in effect-size measures within each sub-group (Cooper, 2010).
In this vein, this study attempts to hypothesize some possible moder­
ating effects (see Hypothesis 2a through Hypothesis 6b) and tests these
hypotheses using the homogeneity analysis technique, as suggested by
Cooper (2010). Table 3 presents the results of homogeneity analysis for
testing the moderating effects.
4.2. Moderating effects of project type
As shown in Table 3, project type moderated the effect of trans­
formational leadership on project success (Qb = 15.28, p < .001) in such
a way that this effect was stronger in case of IT-related projects (Rc =
0.53) as compared to construction-related projects (Rc = 0.43). More­
over, project type moderated the effect of transactional leadership on
project success (Qb = 16.25, p < .001), in such a way that this effect was
stronger in case of construction-related projects (Rc = 0.51) as compared
to IT-related projects (Rc = 0.29). These results thus supported Hy­
pothesis 2a and Hypothesis 2b, respectively.
4.3. Moderating effects of project size
Hypothesis 3a presented the moderating effects of project size for
transformational leadership style-project success relationship. The re­
sults, presented in Table 3, supported this hypothesis (Qb = 71.11, p <
.001). The effect of transformational leadership on project success was
stronger in case of smaller projects (Rc = .57) as compared to larger
projects (Rc = 0.37). However, the results did not support Hypothesis 3b
as the moderating effect of project size for transactional leadership style-
project success relationship was not significant (Qb = 0.32, p = .57).
4.4. Moderating effects of power distance
The findings reported in Table 3 further revealed that power distance
moderated the relationship between transformational leadership and
project success (Qb = 31.83, p < .001), in such a way that this rela­
tionship was stronger in high power distance countries (Rc = .46) as
compared to low power distance countries (Rc = 0.33). These results
were contrary to Hypothesis 4a. Further, power distance moderated the
relationship between transactional leadership and project success (Qb =
26.02, p < .001), in such a way that this relationship was stronger for
high power distance countries (Rc = .36) as compared to low power
distance countries (Rc = 0.18). These results supported Hypothesis 4b.
4.5. Moderating effects of collectivism/individualism
As shown in Table 3, we found a stronger positive relationship
M. Abbas and R. Ali European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2
Homogeneity analysis – comparative effects of leadership styles on project success.
Relationships Ka Rcb Qt (sub-groups)c Qwd Overall Qt Qbe

Transformational leadership-project success 45 0.41 428.11*** 562.09 594.26*** 32.17***

Transactional leadership-project success 19 0.29 133.98***
a
K = Total number of effect-size measures.
b ∑
Rc=‘R’ corrected for sampling error = (Ri × ni)/N.
c
Qt =Q-statistic (used to test homogeneity of effect-size measures) having chi-square distribution with ‘k− 1’ degrees of freedom.
d
Qw=Summation ofQt values for respective sub-groups.
e
Qb=OverallQt – Qw, using chi-square test with’g− 1’degrees of freedom (g=number of sub-groups)***p < .001.

Table 3
Homogeneity analysis – moderating effects for the relationships of leadership styles with project success.
Relationships Sub-groups Ka Nb Mean (R) Rcc Qt (sub-groups)d Qwe Overall Qt Qbf
Moderators

Transformational leadership-project success

Type of project ITg 9 1098 .51 .53 107.70 216.62 231.90 15.28***
Construction 7 1353 .34 .43 108.93
Size of project Large 36 5722 .38 .37 309.49 356.99 428.10 71.11***
Small 9 1320 .54 .57 47.50
Power distance Low 21 2583 .35 .33 156.55 390.80 422.63 31.83***
High 23 4352 .48 .46 234.25
Collectivism Low 23 3493 .35 .33 164.76 350.58 422.64 72.06 ***
High 21 3442 .48 .50 185.82
Economic status Developing 21 3372 .47 .49 168.99 373.69 422.63 48.93***
Developed 23 3563 .36 .34 204.70

Transactional leadership-project success

Type of project IT 8 820 .28 .29 77.35 80.91 97.15 16.25***
Construction 3 447 .48 .51 3.56
Size of project Large 13 1569 .27 .30 59.39 133.67 133.98 0.32
Small 6 727 .26 .26 74.28
Power distance Low 9 920 .17 .18 21.25 107.95 133.97 26.02***
High 10 1376 .36 .36 86.70
Individualism High 10 1031 .19 .20 26.79 113.45 133.98 20.53***
Low 9 1265 .35 .36 86.66
Economic status Developing 9 1195 .32 .32 55.41 132.01 133.97 1.95
Developed 10 1101 .22 .26 76.60
a
K = Total number of effect-size measures.
b ∑
N = Overall sample size = ni.
c ∑
Rc=‘R’ corrected for sampling error = (Ri × ni)/N.
d
Qt =Q-statistic (used to test homogeneity of effect-size measures) having chi-square distribution with ‘k− 1’ degrees of freedom.
e
Qw=Summation ofQt values for respective sub-groups.
f
Qb=OverallQt – Qw, using chi-square test with’g− 1’degrees of freedom (g=number of sub-groups)
g
IT=Information technology***p < .001.

between transformational leadership and project success in the case of
countries with high level of collectivism (Rc = .50), as compared to
countries with low level of collectivism (Rc = 0.33). Therefore, Hy­
pothesis 5a was supported (Qb = 72.06, p < .001). However, contrary to
Hypothesis 5b, we found a stronger positive relationship between
transactional leadership and project success in the case of countries with
low level of individualism (Rc = .36), as compared to countries with
high level of individualism (Rc = 0.20). The level of individualism thus
significantly moderated the transactional leadership style-project suc­
cess relationship (Qb = 20.53, p < .001), but it was contrary to our
expectation. Therefore, Hypothesis 5b was not supported.
4.6. Moderating effects of economic status
Further, the economic status of a country (i.e., developing versus
developed countries) moderated the relationship between trans­
formational leadership and project success (Qb = 48.93, p < .001), in
such a way that this relationship was found stronger in developing
countries (Rc = 0.49) as compared to developed countries (Rc = 0.34).
Therefore, Hypothesis 6a was not supported. Moreover, the findings
suggested an insignificant moderating effect of economic status for the
transactional leadership style-project success relationship (Qb = 1.95, p
= .16). Therefore, Hypothesis 6b was also not supported. Table 4
presents a summary of study’s hypotheses and results.
4.7. Sensitivity tests for publication bias analysis
We conducted sensitivity tests to assess the robustness of the findings
of our meta-analytic review. Such sensitivity tests are important because
they help to determine whether the findings of a meta-analysis are
suffering from bias, for example, the publication bias (Gupta & Chau­
han, 2020; Kepes, Banks, McDaniel, & Whetzel, 2012). We did not
purposefully neglect or exclude any unpublished studies (e.g., theses or
dissertations) right from the initial search stage to the final statistical
analysis stage, to avoid any publication bias. As a result, 11 out of 41
(26.8%) studies included in our final sample were theses or disserta­
tions. However, to further assess the existence of any publication bias,
we used two statistical tests including rank correlation test (Begg &
Mazumdar, 1994) and Egger’s regression test (Egger, Smith, Schneider,
& Minder, 1997).
Rank correlation test estimates the interrelationship of standardized
effect sizes with their respective standard errors through Kendall’s tau
correlation coefficient. An insignificant Kendall’s tau reveals that there
is no significant effect of publication bias on the results of meta-analysis
(Begg & Mazumdar, 1994; Gupta & Chauhan, 2020). Table 5 presents
the Kendall’s tau correlation coefficients for the association of project

9
M. Abbas and R. Ali
Table 4
Results summary – hypotheses testing.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1a: Transformational
leadership will be positively
related to project success.
Hypothesis 1b: Transactional
leadership will be positively
related to project success.
Hypothesis 1c: Transformational
leadership will have a stronger
relationship with project success
than transactional leadership.
Hypothesis 2a: Project type will
moderate the positive
relationship between
transformational leadership and
project success such that the
relationship will be stronger in
case of IT projects.
Hypothesis 2b: Project type will
moderate the positive
relationship between
transactional leadership and
project success such that the
relationship will be stronger in
case of construction projects.
Hypothesis 3a: Project size will
moderate the positive
relationship between
transformational leadership and
project success such that the
relationship will be stronger in
case of smaller projects.
Hypothesis 3b: Project size will
moderate the positive
relationship between
transactional leadership and
project success such that the
relationship will be stronger in
case of smaller projects.
Hypothesis 4a: Power distance will
moderate the positive
relationship between
transformational leadership and
project success such that the
relationship will be stronger in
case of low power distance
cultures.
Hypothesis 4b: Power distance will
moderate the positive
relationship between
transactional leadership and
project success such that the
relationship will be stronger in
case of high power distance
cultures.
Hypothesis 5a: Individualism/
collectivism will moderate the
positive relationship between
transformational leadership and
project success such that the
relationship will be stronger in
case of collectivistic cultures.
Hypothesis 5b: Individualism/
collectivism will moderate the
positive relationship between
transactional leadership and
project success such that the
relationship will be stronger in
case of individualistic cultures.
Hypothesis 6a: Economic status will
moderate the positive
relationship between
transformational leadership and
project success such that the
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Table 4 (continued )
Hypotheses Results Remarks
Results Remarks
relationship will be stronger in
Accepted case of developed countries.
Hypothesis 6b: Economic status will Not No significant difference was
moderate the positive Accepted found in TAL-PSa relationship
Accepted relationship between across both groups, i.e.,
transactional leadership and developing and developed
project success such that the countries.
Accepted relationship will be stronger in
case of developing countries.
a
TAL-PS relationship refers to transactional leadership-project success
Accepted relationship.
Table 5
Publication bias analysis – Kendall’s tau correlation coefficients (Rank correla­
tion test).
Accepted Relationships Ka Kendall’s tau p-
coefficient value
Overallb
Transformational leadership- 45 − 0.067 0.518
project success
Transactional leadership-project 19 − 0.076 0.649
success
Accepted
Selectivec
Transformational leadership- 34 − 0.065 0.593
project success
Transactional leadership-project 11 − 0.164 0.484
success
a
K = Total number of effect-size measures.
Not No significant difference was b
Accepted found in TAL-PSa relationship Based on total number of studies,i.e., 41 studies (including 30 published
across both the groups, i.e., articles and 11 theses/dissertations)
c
large and small projects. By excluding theses and dissertations.
success with each of transformational leadership style and transactional
Not Relationship is significantly leadership style. Insignificant Kendall’s tau coefficients (i.e., where p >
Accepted stronger in case of high power .05) for the relationships between leadership styles and project success
distance cultures. reveal that publication bias is not expected to influence the results of this
study. The Kendall’s tau coefficients remain insignificant even if we
exclude the theses and dissertations from the selected studies to use the
rank correlation test.
We also used the Egger’s regression test (Egger et al., 1997) to detect
Accepted any publication bias. Egger’s test uses the following regression equation:
SND = α + (β * Precision).
where SND refers to standard normal deviate defined as effect sizes (i.e.,
correlation coefficients) divided by their respective standard errors, and
precision is defined as the inverse of the standard errors. If the ‘α’ (i.e.,
Accepted intercept) in this regression equation is significantly different from zero,
the publication bias is likely to affect the results of a meta-analysis
(Egger et al., 1997; Kepes et al., 2012). As reported in Table 6, the
intercept estimates (i.e., 0.496, p = .595 and − 1.692, p = .373) of
Egger’s regression equations for the relationships of transformational
leadership and transactional leadership with project success, respec­
Not Relationship is significantly tively, reveal that the intercepts are not significantly different from zero.
Accepted stronger in case of collectivistic
Therefore, publication bias is not likely to affect the results of this study.
cultures.
Further, the intercept values are not significantly different from zero
even if we exclude the theses and dissertations from the selected studies
to estimate the Egger’s regression equations.
Not Relationship is significantly
Accepted stronger in case of developing 4.8. Sensitivity test for measurement scales
countries.
The studies included in our review have used different measurement
scales for the independent variables (i.e., transformational and trans­
actional leadership styles) and the dependent variable (i.e., project
success). Table 7 includes a list of measurement scales used in the
10
M. Abbas and R. Ali European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 6 Table 7
Publication bias analysis – intercept estimates (Egger’s regression test). Measurement scales used in the selected studies.
Relationships Ka Intercept p- 95% CI Relationships Measurement Ka Measurement Ka
value scales for scales for
independent dependent variable
Overallb
variable
Transformational leadership- 45 0.496 0.595 − 1.369,
project success 2.361 Transformational MLQ (Bass, 1985) 35b Keller (1992) 7
Transactional leadership- 19 − 1.692 0.373 − 5.596, leadership- Podsakoff et al. 4 Slevin and Pinto 5
project success 2.212 project success (1990) (1986)
Posner and Kouzes 2 Auh et al. (2016) 4
Selectivec
(1988)
Transformational leadership- 34 1.481 0.121 − 0.412,
Chen and Farh 1 Pinto and Slevin 3
project success 3.374
(1999); Cheung, each (1988)
Transactional leadership- 11 − 1.596 0.581 − 7.909,
Ng, Lam, and Yue
project success 4.717
(2001); Daft and
Note: CI = Confidence interval. Pirola-Merlo
a
K = Total number of effect-size measures. (2009)
b Complete details not 1 Müller and Turner 2
Based on total number of studies, i.e., 41 studies (including 30 published
provided (2010); Pinto and each
articles and 11 theses/dissertations).
c Slevin (1992)
By excluding theses and dissertations. Bain, Mann, and 1
Pirola-Merlo each
selected studies. We observed a high variation in the usage of mea­ (2001); Belout and
Gauvreau (2004);
surement scales for project success, whereby a variety of scales were
Bolman (2012);
used in the selected studies. In contrast, a low variation is observed in Dulaimi, Nepal,
the usage of scales to measure transactional leadership style, whereby and Park (2005);
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Avolio et al., 1999; Bass Hirst (1999); Gu,
et al., 2003) was used in the majority of the selected studies (i.e., in the Yishi, and Aimin
(2009); Hoegl and
estimation of 89.5% of the effect sizes involving transactional leadership Gemuenden
style). MLQ was also used to measure transformational leadership style (2001); Keller
in the majority of the selected studies (i.e., in the estimation of 78% of (2001); Keller
the effect sizes involving transformational leadership style). (2006); Pauwee
and Boselie (2005);
There was a possibility that the results of our meta-analysis might be
Pearce and Sims
affected by the type of measures used in the selected studies (see e.g., Ali (2002); Pinto
et al., 2015). Therefore, we used a sensitivity test to investigate whether (1986); Robey,
the ‘type of measures used’ moderated the relationship of leadership Smith, and
style with project success. Based on the variation in the usage of mea­ Vijayasarathy
(1993); Tabassi
surement scales and the availability of sufficient effect sizes in each et al. (2016); Tsui,
sub-group (see Table 7), we tested the moderating effect of type of Pearce, Porter, and
measures (i.e., ‘MLQ’ versus ‘other scales’) for the relationship between Tripoli (1997);
transformational leadership style and project success. The homogeneity Turner and Müller
(2005); Tyssen
analysis technique was used to test the moderating effects (Cooper,
et al. (2014); Ware
2010). The results suggested no significant moderating effect of the type (2018)
of measures on the relationship between transformational leadership More than one 3
style and project success (Qb = 1.49, p = .222). scale used for
measurement of
one effect size
Complete details not 1
4.9. Sensitivity test for target respondents provided

Transactional MLQ (Bass, 1985) 17 Slevin and Pinto 5

The type of target respondents may affect the results of a meta-
leadership- (1986)
analysis (see e.g., Ali et al., 2015). We therefore used a sensitivity test project success Podsakoff et al. 1 Pinto and Slevin 2
to find any moderating effects of the type of target respondents on the (1990) (1988); Pinto and each
relationships between leadership styles and project success. Table 8 Slevin (1992)
reports the results of these moderating effects. Complete details not 1 Aga (2016); Aga 1
provided et al. (2016); each
The effect sizes were classified into three groups based on the type of Belout and
respondents who assessed leadership styles and project success. Group 1 Gauvreau (2004);
consists of the effect sizes where employees/team members assessed Gu et al. (2009);
both leadership styles and project success. Group 2 includes the effect Pauwee and
Boselie (2005);
sizes where managers assessed both leadership styles and project suc­
Shenhar, Dvir,
cess. In contrast, Group 3 consists of the effect sizes where employees levy, & Maltz
assessed the leadership style and managers assessed project success. For (2001); Tyssen
transactional leadership style–project success relationship, Group 3 et al. (2014); Ware
included only one effect size, and therefore, it was not included in the (2018)
More than one 1
homogeneity analysis (see Table 8). Moreover, one effect size scale used for
(measuring transformational leadership style–project success relation­ measurement of
ship) was dropped from this respondents-related sensitivity test because one effect size
we could not extract the sufficient information for classification of that Complete details not 1
provided
effect size.
The results presented in Table 8 report significant moderating effects

11
M. Abbas and R. Ali European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

a
K=Total number of effect-size measures in which the corresponding mea­
surement scale was used.
b
MLQ (K = 34) and a scale based on MLQ, i.e.,Wang and Howell (2010) (K =
1)
of the type of respondents for the relationships of transformational and
transactional leadership styles with project success (Qb = 76.79, p <
.001; and Qb = 23.31, p < .001, respectively). For transformational
leadership style–project success relationship, Group 1 effect sizes report
the higher positive association (Rc = 0.499) than Group 2 (Rc = 0.429)
and Group 3 (Rc = 0.294). Similarly, for transactional leadership
style–project success relationship, Group 1 effect sizes report the higher
positive association (Rc = 0.409) than Group 2 (Rc = 0.239).
5. Discussion
5.1. Major findings
The current meta-analysis examined the respective and relative ef­
fects of transformational and transactional leadership styles on project
success. To determine the boundary conditions for these effects, the
study also examined several moderators for these relationships. The
findings contribute to the existing literature by providing support for
some hypotheses while providing some evidence which was contrary to
the expectations. Consistent with our hypotheses, the findings suggested
that both leadership styles were positively related to project success. The
findings also suggested that transformational leadership style had a
stronger effect on project success than transactional leadership style.
This finding is consistent with the idea that transformational leaders
may be more effective in project-based organizations which are char­
acterized by a higher level of change, uncertainty, and complexity
(Geraldi et al., 2011; Tyssen et al., 2014). Prior research also indicates
that transformational leadership is better for non-routine work contexts
(Bass, 1985).
Regarding the moderators, we hypothesized that project-level (i.e.,
project type and project size) and country-level (i.e., power distance,
individualism/collectivism, and economic status) factors would mod­
erate the relationships of leadership styles with project success.
Consistent with our expectations, the results revealed that trans­
formational leadership style was more effective in enhancing project
performance in case of IT-related projects as compared to construction-
related projects. The results also suggested that transactional leadership
was more effective for construction projects as compared to trans­
formational leadership. These findings suggest that transformational
project leaders, because of their change-orientation and their ability to
motivate their followers to think divergently (Bass, 1985; Kissi et al.,
2013), are more effective for projects that require change and innova­
tion (i.e., IT-related projects). Since these leaders inspire and stimulate
their followers by offering a compelling vision for future changes and by
challenging them to bring creative solutions to the problems (Bass,
1985), they are likely to demonstrate well in IT-related projects which
are characterized by frequent innovations. In contrast, construction
projects are characterized by a routine style of work, which generally
require a project manager to set standards and plans, and then expect the
team members to follow those standards. In such contexts, transactional
project leaders may be more effective for projects because such leaders
focus on setting work standards and taking corrective measures actively
or passively if the followers diverge from the standards (Bass, 1985).
Our findings further revealed that transformational leadership had a
positive effect on project success in case of small projects. This finding
supports the idea that transformational project leaders may find it
difficult to directly communicate, share their vision, exert idealized in­
fluence, and pay individualized consideration to their team members
when the project size is large (Berson et al., 2001; Pawar & Eastman,
1997). Exerting idealized influence, individualized consideration, and
inspirational motivation requires effective communication via personal
interaction with followers (Bass, 1985; Shamir et al., 1993) which be­
comes more difficult as the team size increases. However, in smaller
projects, such leaders would be able to effectively share their vision and
exert influence on their followers. Contrary to our expectations, the
results suggested that project size did not significantly moderate the
relationship between transactional leadership and project success. We
found no significant differences in the transactional leadership
style-project success relationship across the two groups (i.e., large versus
small projects). Since transactional leaders primarily rely on established
standards to lead their team members and use performance-contingent
rewards to influence teams (Wang et al., 2011), they may find it easy
to manage larger as well as smaller project teams.
The country-level moderators included power distance, individu­
alism/collectivism, and economic status. Consistent with our Hypothe­
sis, the positive relationship between transactional project leadership
and project success was stronger for high power distance cultures as
compared to low power distance cultures. This finding suggests that
project teams in high power distance cultures may be more comfortable
with role-constrained interactions – and team members in these cultures
may prefer to receive clear directions from their team leaders. Therefore,
it is possible that transactional leadership is more effective for project
success in cultures where the power distance between leaders and their
followers is high. As low power distance cultures are characterized by
empowerment and a participative work environment (Hofstede, 2001;

Table 8
Sensitivity analysis – moderating effects of the type of target respondents for leadership styles-project success relationships.
Relationships Type of respondents Type of respondents Kb Nc Mean Rcd Qt (sub- Qwf Overall Qbg
Groups of effect assessing leadership style assessing project success (R) groups)e Qt
sizes a

Transformational leadership-project success

Group 1 Employees/team members Employees/team members 14 2119 0.484 0.499 128.68 350.14 426.93 76.79*** (dfh
Group 2 Managers Managers 20 2660 0.409 0.429 167.65 = 2)
Group 3 Employees/team members Managers 10 2145 0.315 0.294 53.82

Transactional leadership-project success

Group 1 Employees/team members Employees/team members 7 950 0.331 0.409 60.19 89.26 112.57 23.31*** (df
Group 2 Managers Managers 11 1178 0.254 0.239 29.07 = 1)
a
Based on type of target respondents, who assessed leadership style and project success.
b
K=Total number of effect-size measures.
c ∑
N=Overall sample size= ni.
d ∑
Rc=‘R’ corrected for sampling error = (Ri × ni)/N.
e
Qt=Q-statistic (used to test homogeneity of effect-size measures) having chi-square distribution with ‘k− 1’ degrees of freedom.
f
Qw=Summation of Qt values for respective sub-groups.
g
Qb=Overall Qt – Qw, using chi-square test with ‘g− 1’ degrees of freedom (g=number of sub-groups)
h
df=Degree/s of freedom***p < .001.

12
M. Abbas and R. Ali
Mulki et al., 2015), project teams with low power distance orientation
may be less motivated to work under transactional project leaders.
Surprisingly, contrary to the expectations, the transformational leader­
ship style also had a stronger effect on project success in case of high
power distance cultures as compared to low power distance cultures.
Perhaps, team members in low power distance cultures may want to be
on their own when it comes to receiving vision and influence from their
project managers, thereby creating a context where both leadership
styles are relatively less effective as compared to high power distance
cultures. In contrast, team members in high power distance may be more
open for leaders’ influence because they have a great respect for au­
thority (Schaubroeck et al., 2007).
The second country-level moderator was the level of individualism
or collectivism. Consistent with the expectations, transformational
project leadership had a stronger effect on project success in the case of
collectivistic cultures. These findings are consistent with prior studies,
which suggest that transformational leadership is likely to be more
effective in collectivistic settings (Jung, Bass, & Sosik, 1995). Trans­
formational leaders are people-oriented (Ceri-Booms et al., 2017; Koe­
slag-Kreunen et al., 2018) who go beyond self-interest to support their
teams (Avolio et al., 1999), which is valued more in collectivistic soci­
eties. However, contrary to the expectations, transactional leadership
also had a stronger effect on project success for collectivistic cultures.
One plausible reason could be the nature of extended family systems in
collectivistic cultures. In collectivistic societies, people are generally
more attracted to rewards to meet the household expenses of their
extended families (Hofstede, 1980b; Raja, Javed, & Abbas, 2018; Raja,
Sheikh, et al., 2018). Transactional leaders motivate their followers by
providing contingent rewards and taking corrective measures where
necessary (Bass et al., 2003; Ceri-Booms et al., 2017). Together, it seems
that both leadership styles are more effective in enhancing project
outcomes in collectivistic cultures than in individualistic cultures.
We further predicted that the economic status of a country, where
the project was executed, would moderate the relationships of leader­
ship styles with project success. Contrary to our expectations, the find­
ings suggested that transformational project leaders were more effective
in improving project performance in developing countries. As trans­
formational leaders inspire followers to transcend their own self-interest
for the benefit of the group, organization, or country (Bass, 1997), they
may be at advantage, in a developing country, in linking their vision to
the overall development of the organization or the country – and thus
successfully stimulating the motivation levels of their team members.
The results for the moderating role of economic status in the trans­
actional leadership style-project success relationship were also contrary
to our expectations. The results revealed that there were no significant
differences in the transactional leadership style-project success rela­
tionship across the two groups (i.e., developing countries versus devel­
oped countries). This finding suggests that the economic status of a
country may not play a role in determining the effectiveness of trans­
actional leadership style for project success.
Finally, the varying effects of leadership styles on project success
across different types of respondents (i.e., employees/team members
and managers) may be because of the differences in respondents’
exposure, expertise, experiences, level of inside information, and
benchmarks/reference groups/standards used for the assessment of
project success. Drawing on stakeholder theory, different stakeholder
groups may have different attributes and nature of stakes in their
respective organizations or projects (see e.g., Fassin, 2012), which may
affect their assessments of leadership style and project success. Simi­
larly, different stakeholders may have different qualification levels and
levels of information (Ali et al., 2015; Brown & Perry, 1994), which may
have some impact on their evaluations. Moreover, employees directly
observe and get influenced by the leadership style, and therefore may
perceive its stronger connection with project success, as compared to
managers.
13
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
5.2. Theoretical implications
The current meta-analysis provides several important implications
for the body of knowledge in the domains of leadership and project
management. First, the study synthesizes the prior literature in an
attempt to resolve the inconsistencies in the relationships of both lead­
ership styles with project success. The study also contributes to the
literature by providing evidence that transformational leadership may
be more effective in enhancing project performance than transactional
leadership. The study further adds to the knowledge by suggesting that
the effectiveness of leadership styles in the context of projects may
depend on project-level moderators (i.e., project size and project type).
While the study’s findings suggest that transactional leaders are more
effective in construction projects, transformational leaders appear to be
more effective in IT-related projects. These findings add to the literature
by suggesting that the effectiveness of these leadership styles may vary
across industries or projects. The study also provides important impli­
cations by suggesting that several country-level moderators – such as
power distance, individualism/collectivism, and economic status – play
their role in leadership style–project success relationships. For power
distance, the study adds to the body of knowledge by suggesting that
both leadership styles may be more effective for projects in high power
distance cultures. Similarly, in case of individualism/collectivism, the
study suggests that both leadership styles may be more effective in
collectivistic cultures. Finally, the study’s finding that the trans­
formational leadership style is more effective for projects’ success in
developing countries provides important implications for future theory
development.
5.3. Practical implications
The findings of the current study provide significant implications for
the practice of project managers. The findings suggest that project
leaders should prefer to demonstrate transformational leadership style
over transactional leadership style in their teams for better project
performance. Project-based organizations may attempt to develop
transformational leadership styles among the project managers through
training interventions and workshops.
However, project managers should be careful about the adoption of a
specific leadership style across different project-related and cultural
contexts.
Our findings suggest that project leaders should adopt a trans­
formational leadership style if they are working on projects driven by
innovation and change, specifically IT-related projects. However, proj­
ect managers working on projects which are relatively less driven by
change and innovation – such as construction-related projects – may
demonstrate the transactional leadership style for better project per­
formance. Moreover, project leaders should demonstrate the trans­
formational leadership style if the project size is small and if they can
easily communicate with all team members. In addition, both leadership
styles appear to be more effective in high power distance cultures as
compared to lower power distance cultures and in collectivistic cultures
as compared to individualistic cultures. Similarly, the transformational
leadership style may be more effective in enhancing project perfor­
mance in case of developing countries as compared to developed
countries. Project-based organizations working in developing countries
may emphasize on the demonstration of transformational leadership by
the project managers to enhance project performance. Together, our
findings suggest that any previous assumptions about transformational
leadership as a one-for-all type leadership style may not be true, as the
effectiveness of this leadership style largely depends on multiple
contextual factors.
5.4. Limitations of the study
This study is not without limitations. First, the current study focused
M. Abbas and R. Ali European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

only on two leadership styles, because very few effect-size measures
related to other leadership styles were available in the context of project
management. Second, we only included project success or project per­
formance as the criterion variable in our study. Third, we could not
examine the relationships of leadership styles with different dimensions
of project success because of the high variation and some possible
overlapping in the usage of measurement scales for project success in the
selected studies, which made it difficult to classify effect sizes into
meaningful groups for their comparison. Fourth, since the objective
measures of project size (e.g., actual project cost, project period) were
not available, our classification of project size was based on the sub­
jective information provided in each study. Fifth, the moderating effects
of the type of respondents who assessed leadership styles and project
success may indicate the presence of some common method bias. Lastly,
this study tested multiple moderators for the relationships of leadership
styles with project success. However, this is by no means an exhaustive
list of moderators. For example, we only used two cultural dimensions
from Hofstede’s (1980a) framework which appeared to be more relevant
to project context. We did not use GLOBE study’s (Dorfman et al., 2012)
framework to identify the theoretically relevant country-level
moderators.
relationships. Such investigations would help to understand the condi­
tions under which leadership styles may or may not contribute toward
project outcomes. These potential moderators may include project team
characteristics (e.g., team size, team diversity, and/or team climate).
Fourth, the primary studies included in our meta-analysis did not
objectively define project size in terms of project cost and/or project
length. Future scholars conducting primary studies may clearly define
and use project size as a potential moderator for the relationships be­
tween leadership styles and project outcomes. Fifth, since the personal
characteristics of the respondents (e.g., exposure, experiences, and level
of inside information) may affect their assessment of leadership styles
and project success, future meta-analyses may investigate the varying
effects of leadership styles on project success across various character­
istics of respondents. Finally, as our meta-analysis focused only on two
dimensions of Hofstede’s (1980a) framework, future research may
consider to include its other dimensions, and the dimensions introduced
by the GLOBE project (Dorfman et al., 2012) to provide further evidence
on how the effects of leadership styles vary across other cultural
contexts.
6. Conclusion

5.5. Directions for future research
The study provides several directions for future research in the do­
mains of theory, context, and methodology. First, future meta-analyses
may explore the relative effectiveness of other leadership styles such
as servant leadership or knowledge-oriented leadership in the context of
projects, depending upon the availability of sufficient effect sizes. Future
empirical studies using primary sources may also explore the relative
effectiveness of other leadership styles for projects. Second, future meta-
analyses may examine the effects of different leadership styles on several
other project-related outcomes such as project team cohesiveness, team
communication quality, and/or team commitment, along with project
success/performance. Future meta-analyses may also investigate the
effects of leadership styles on different dimensions of project perfor­
mance or success.
Third, future studies may examine other possible boundary condi­
tions (i.e., moderators) for the leadership style–project outcomes
The current study is the first study that meta-analytically reviews
prior literature on the effects of transformational and transactional
leadership styles on project success. The study also investigates several
moderators for these relationships. The findings contribute to the
existing literature and provide important implications for project man­
agers. Nevertheless, more work is needed to enhance our understanding
of the effectiveness of several leadership styles for project management
across multiple contexts.
Funding information
No funding was received for this research.
Declaration of competing interest
None.

Appendix A. Profile of the selected studies

S. Studies Journal/thesis Sample Target respondents Country Leadership style Data collection
No. size studied method

1 Afzal, Khan, and Marketing and Management of 250 Project Managers Pakistan TFL Pen & paper
Mujtaba (2018) Innovations survey
2 Aga (2016) Procedia Computer Science 224 Project Managers Ethiopia TAL Pen & paper
survey
3 Aga et al. (2016) International Journal of Project 200 Project Managers Ethiopia TFL Pen & paper
Management survey
4 Amin, Kamal, and Sohail Apeejay-Journal of Management 118 Project Professionals Pakistan TFL Pen & paper
(2016) Sciences and Technology survey
5 Arnold (2008) Ph.D. Thesis 121 Project Managers US TFL, TAL Online survey
6 Bolman (2012) Ph.D. Thesis 167 Project Managers US TFL Online survey
7 Bond (2015) Ph.D. Thesis 97 Project Managers US TFL, TAL Online survey
8 Chou, Lin, Chang, and Sage Open 39 Project Employees Taiwan TFL Pen & paper
Chuang (2013) survey
9 Chun (2017) Masters Thesis 34 Project Managers Malaysia TFL, TAL Pen & paper
survey
10 De Poel et al. (2014) Group and organization 34 Project Employees Netherlands TFL Online survey
Management
11 Frimpong (2017) Ph.D. Thesis 92 Project Managers US TFL, TAL Online survey
12 Gundersen, Hellesøy, Leadership & Organizational 286 Project Employees Norway TFL Pen & paper
and Raeder (2012) Studies survey
13 Hassan et al. (2017) Project Management Journal 170 Project Managers Pakistan TFL Pen & paper
survey
14 125 Project Managers Pakistan TFL
(continued on next page)

14
M. Abbas and R. Ali European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

(continued )
S. Studies Journal/thesis Sample Target respondents Country Leadership style Data collection
No. size studied method

Iqbal, Long, Fei, and Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Pen & paper
Bukhari (2015) Social Sciences survey
15 Ishikawa (2012) Asia Pacific Journal of Management 799 Team Members & Higher- Japan TFL Pen & paper
level Managers survey
16 Kalu, Lew, and Sim Australian Journal of Basic and 42 Project Employees Nigeria TFL, TAL Online survey
(2013) Applied Sciences
17 Kariuki (2015) Ph.D. Thesis 68 Project Managers Kenya TFL, TAL Pen & paper
survey
18 Keller (1992) Journal of Management 66 Team Members & Project US TFL Pen & paper
Managers survey
18 Keller (1992) Journal of Management 61 Team Members & Project US TFL Pen & paper
Managers survey
18 Keller (1992) Journal of Management 48 Team Members & Project US TFL Pen & paper
Managers survey
19 Keller (2006) Journal of Applied Psychology 674 Team Members/Teams & US TFL Pen & paper
Higher-level Managers survey
20 Kissi & Tuuli (2013) International Journal of Project 112 Project Managers UK TFL Pen & paper
Management survey
21 Liphadzi et al. (2015) Procedia Engineering 111 Project Managers South Africa TFL, TAL Pen & paper
survey
22 Maqbool et al. (2017) Project Management Journal 345 Project Managers Pakistan TFL Pen & paper
survey
23 Morgan (2012) Ph.D. Thesis 52 Project Managers US TFL, TAL Online survey
24 Naeem and Khanzada International Journal of Business 152 Project Employees Pakistan TFL Pen & paper
(2017) and Social Science survey
25 Oh, Lee, and Zo (2019) Journal of Computer Information 181 Project Employees Korea TFL, TAL Online survey
Systems
26 Oliveira, Valentina, and International Journal of 32 Project Managers Brazil TFL, TAL Pen & paper
Possamai (2012) Productivity and Performance survey
Management
27 Paracha (2017) Masters Thesis 209 Project Employees Pakistan TFL Pen & paper
survey
28 Prabhakar (2005) Project Management Journal 107 Project Managers 28 nations TFL Online survey
29 Raziq et al. (2018) Leadership & Organization 248 Project Managers Pakistan TFL, TAL Pen & paper
Development Journal survey
30 Tabassi et al. (2016) Journal of Cleaner Production 70 Project Managers Malaysia TFL Pen & paper
survey
31 Tabassi et al. (2017) Project Management Journal 282 Team Members/Teams & Malaysia TFL Pen & paper
Higher-level Managers survey
32 Thite (1999) Leadership & Organization 116 Project Employees Australia TFL, TAL Pen & paper
Development Journal survey
32 Thite (1999) Leadership & Organization 102 Project Employees Australia TFL, TAL Pen & paper
Development Journal survey
33 Tyssen et al. (2014) Journal of Leadership & 163 Project Employees Germany, Austria TFL, TAL Online survey
Organizational Studies and Switzerland
34 Waldman and Atwater The Journal of High Technology 40 Team Members/Teams & US TFL Pen & paper
(1994) Management Research Higher-level Managers survey
35 Waller (2015) Ph.D. Thesis 99 Project Managers US TFL, TAL Online survey
36 Ware (2018) Ph.D. Thesis 78 Project Employees US TFL, TAL Online survey
37 Yang et al.(2012) Quality and Quantity 196 Project Employees Taiwan TFL Pen & paper
survey
38 Yasin (2019) Masters Thesis 253 Project Employees Pakistan TFL Pen & paper
survey
39 Zaman, Nawaz, Tariq, International Journal of Managing 160 Project Managers Pakistan TFL Pen & paper
and Humayoun (2019) Projects in Business survey
40 Zheng et al. (2017) Sustainability 268 Project Employees China TFL, TAL Pen & paper
survey
41 Zhu and Kindarto (2016) Government Information Quarterly 168 Team Members/Teams & Indonesia TAL Pen & paper
Higher-level Managers survey
a TFL = Transformational leadership; TAL = Transactional leadership.

References * Aga, D. A. (2016a). Transactional leadership and project success: the moderating role
of goal clarity. Procedia Computer Science, 100, 517–525. *.
* Aga, D. A., Noorderhaven, N., & Vallejo, B. (2016b). Transformational leadership and
References marked with an asterisk indicate the studies included in this meta-analysis.
project success: The mediating role of team-building. International Journal of Project
Adams, J. S. (1963). Wage inequities, productivity and work quality. Industrial Relations:
Management, 34(5), 806–818.
A Journal of Economy and Society, 3(1), 9–16.
Agarwal, U. A., Dixit, V., Nikolova, N., Jain, K., & Sankaran, S. (2021). A psychological
Adigun, I. O., & Stephenson, G. M. (1992). Sources of job motivation and satisfaction
contract perspective of vertical and distributed leadership in project-based
among British and Nigerian employees. The Journal of Social Psychology, 132(3),
organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 39(3), 249–258.
369–376.
Ali, R., Lynch, R., Melewar, T. C., & Jin, Z. (2015). The moderating influences on the
* Afzal, A., Khan, M. M., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2018). The impact of project manager’s
relationship of corporate reputation with its antecedents and consequences: A meta-
competencies, emotional intelligence and transformational leadership on project in
analytic review. Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 1105–1117.
the information technology sector. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 2,
* Amin, S. U., Kamal, Y., & Sohail, A. (2016). The relationship between transformational
142–154.
leadership and project team performance: Assessing the mediating role of a project

15
M. Abbas and R. Ali
team management education. Apeejay Journal of Management Sciences and
Technology, 3(3), 1–12.
*Arnold, G. E. (2008). Examining the relationship between leadership style and project
success in virtual projects (Doctoral dissertation), University of Phoenix, Arizona,
USA. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. (UMI No.
3345049).
Atwater, D. C., & Bass, B. M. (1994). Transformational leadership in teams. In B. M. Bass
& B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership (pp. 48 – 83). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Auh, S., Menguc, B., Spyropoulou, S., & Wang, F. (2016). Service employee burnout and
engagement: the moderating role of power distance orientation. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 44(6), 726–745.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441–462.
Bain, P. G., Mann, L., & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001). The innovation imperative. Small Group
Research, 32, 55–73.
Bakker, R. M. (2010). Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: a systematic
review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4),
466–486.
Banker, R. D., Wattal, S., & Plehn-Dujowich, J. M. (2011). R & D versus acquisitions: Role
of diversification in the choice of innovation strategy by information technology
firms. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(2), 109–144.
Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: does
the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10
(S1), 107–124.
Barari, M., Ross, M., Thaichon, S., & Surachartkumtonkun, J. (2021). A meta-analysis of
customer engagement behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4),
457–477.
Barrantes-Guevara, R. I. (2013). Leadership in Project Management: A Study of the
Relationship between Leadership Styles and Industry Type on Project Success
(Doctoral dissertation), Capella University. Available from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global database. (UMI No. 3594751).
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm
transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2),
130–139.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(2), 207–218.
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test
for publication bias. Biometrics, 50(4), 1088–1101.
Belout, A., & Gauvreau, C. (2004). Factors influencing project success: the impact of
human resource management. International Journal of Project Management, 22(1),
1–11.
Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B. J., & Popper, M. (2001). The relationship between
vision strength, leadership style, and context. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 53–73.
Bloch, M., Blumberg, S., & Laartz, J. (2012). Delivering large-scale IT projects on time, on
budget, and on value. Harvard Business Review, 2–7.
*Bolman, D. B. (2012). Examining the relationship between technology leadership behaviors
and project success (Doctoral dissertation), Northcentral University. Available from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. (UMI No. 3536047).
*Bond, U. E. (2015). Project management, leadership, and performance: A quantitative study
of the relationship between project managers’ leadership styles, years of experience and
critical success factors (CSFs) to project success (Doctoral dissertation), Capella
University. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. (UMI
No. 3682570).
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the
motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46
(5), 554–571.
Braun, T., Ferreira, A. I., & Sydow, J. (2013). Citizenship behavior and effectiveness in
temporary organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 31(6),
862–876.
Brown, B., & Perry, S. (1994). Removing the financial performance halo from Fortune’s
“Most Admired” companies. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1347–1359.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What
type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17(3), 288–307.
Caillier, J. G., & Sa, Y. (2017). Do transformational-oriented leadership and
transactional-oriented leadership have an impact on whistle-blowing attitudes? A
longitudinal examination conducted in US federal agencies. Public Management
Review, 19(4), 406–422.
Ceri-Booms, M., Curşeu, P. L., & Oerlemans, L. A. (2017). Task and person-focused
leadership behaviors and team performance: A meta-analysis. Human Resource
Management Review, 27(1), 178–192.
Chen, X., & Farh, J. L. (1999). The effectiveness of transactional and transformational
leader behaviors in Chinese organizations: Evidence from Taiwan. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago.
Cheung, S. O., Ng, S. T., Lam, K. C., & Yue, W. M. (2001). A satisfying leadership
behaviour model for design consultants. International Journal of Project Management,
19(7), 421–429.
* Chou, H. W., Lin, Y. H., Chang, H. H., & Chuang, W. W. (2013). Transformational
leadership and team performance: The mediating roles of cognitive trust and
collective efficacy. Sage Open, 3(3), 1–10.
16
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
*Chun, C. W. (2017). Effect of Leadership Styles on the Success of Virtual Project Teams
Among Multinational Companies in Malaysia (Master’s thesis, Universiti Tunku
Abdul Rahman, Perak, Malaysia). Retrieved from http://eprints.utar.edu.my/
2477/1/MBA-2017-1106217-1-Final_project_submission_copy.docx.pdf.
Conchie, S. M. (2013). Transformational leadership, intrinsic motivation, and trust: A
moderated-mediated model of workplace safety. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 18(2), 198–210.
Coombs, C. R. (2009). Improving retention strategies for IT professionals working in the
public sector. Information & Management, 46(4), 233–240.
Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta analysis-A step-by-step approach (4th
ed.). California: Sage.
Daft, R. L., & Pirola-Merlo, A., (2009). The Leadership Experience, Asia Pacific Edition,
1ed. Cengage Learning Australia, South Melbourne.
* De Poel, F. M., Stoker, J. I., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2014). Leadership and organizational
tenure diversity as determinants of project team effectiveness. Group & Organization
Management, 39(5), 532–560.
Devine, D. J., & Philips, J. L. (2001). Do smarter teams do better? A meta-analysis of
cognitive ability and team performance. Small Group Research, 32, 507–532.
Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A., & House, R. (2012). GLOBE: A
twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership. Journal of
World Business, 47(4), 504–518.
Dulaimi, M. F., Nepal, M. P., & Park, M. (2005). A hierarchical structural model of
assessing innovation and project performance. Construction Management and
Economics, 23(6), 565–577.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women
and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591.
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis
detected by a simple, graphical test. The British Medical Journal, 315(7109),
629–634.
Eriksson, P. E., Larsson, J., & Pesämaa, O. (2017). Managing complex projects in the
infrastructure sector—A structural equation model for flexibility-focused project
management. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1512–1523.
Eriksson, M., Lilliesköld, J., Jonsson, N., & Novosel, D. (2002). How to manage complex,
multinational R&D projects successfully. Engineering Management Journal, 14(2),
53–60.
Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software development teams.
Management Science, 46(12), 1554–1568.
Fassin, Y. (2012). Stakeholder management, reciprocity and stakeholder responsibility.
Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 83–96.
*Frimpong, F. (2017). Leadership Style and Project Success in Complex Humanitarian
Emergencies: A Correlational Study (Doctoral dissertation), Capella University.
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. (UMI No.
10690369).
Fu, Y., Li, M., & Chen, F. (2012). Impact propagation and risk assessment of requirement
changes for software development projects based on design structure matrix.
International Journal of Project Management, 30(3), 363–373.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.
Geraldi, J., Maylor, H., & Williams, T. (2011). Now, let’s make it really complex
(complicated): A systematic review of the complexities of projects. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(9), 966–990.
Gu, Q., Yishi, F., & Aimin, H. (2009). Knowledge sharing and organizational
performance: the role of knowledge-driven human resource management practice.
Nankai Business Review, 12, 59–66.
Grisham, T., & Walker, D. H. (2008). Cross-cultural leadership. International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, 1(3), 439–445.
Gupta, P., & Chauhan, S. (2020). Firm Capabilities and Export Performance of Small
Firms: A Meta-Analytical Review. European Management Journal. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.emj.2020.12.003
* Gundersen, G., Hellesøy, B. T., & Raeder, S. (2012). Leading international project
teams: The effectiveness of transformational leadership in dynamic work
environments. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1), 46–57.
* Hassan, M. M., Bashir, S., & Abbas, S. M. (2017). The impact of project managers’
personality on project success in NGOs: The mediating role of transformational
leadership. Project Management Journal, 48(2), 74–87.
Hirst, G. (1999). The relationship between team communication and R&D project
performance: A five factor model of team communication. University of Melbourne,
Melbourne, Australia.
Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative
projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12,
435–449.
Hofhuis, J., Mensen, M., ten Den, L. M., van den Berg, A. M., Koopman-Draijer, M., van
Tilburg, M. C., & de Vries, S. (2018). Does functional diversity increase effectiveness
of community care teams? The moderating role of shared vision, interaction
frequency, and team reflexivity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(10),
535–548.
Hofstede, G. (1980a). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1980b). Motivation, leadership, and organizations: Do American theories
apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9, 42–63.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions,
and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hon, A. H., & Lu, L. (2016). When will the trickle-down effect of abusive supervision be
alleviated? The moderating roles of power distance and traditional cultures. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly, 57(4), 421–433.
M. Abbas and R. Ali
Huemann, M., & Silvius, G. (2017). Projects to create the future: managing projects meets
sustainable development. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6),
1066–1070.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Values, ideology, and cognitive mobilization in new social
movements (pp. 43-66). Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton.
* Iqbal, S. M. J., Long, C. S., Fei, G. C., & Bukhari, S. M. L. A. B. (2015). Moderating effect
of top management support on relationship between transformational leadership and
project success. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 9(2), 540–567.
* Ishikawa, J. (2012). Transformational leadership and gatekeeping leadership: The roles
of norm for maintaining consensus and shared leadership in team performance. Asia
Pacific Journal of Management, 29(2), 265–283.
Jones, G. K., & Davis, J. (2000). National culture and innovation: Implications for
locating global R&D operations. Management International Review, 40, 1–39.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a
meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5),
755–768.
Jung, D., Bass, B., & Sosik, J. (1995). Bridging leadership and culture: A theoretical
consideration of transformational leadership and collectivistic cultures. The Journal
of Leadership Studies, 2(4), 3–18.
* Kalu, U. U., Lew, T. Y., & Sim, A. K. (2013). Relationship between leadership style and
project success among IT professionals in Nigeria: Implications to project
management. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7, 74–83.
*Kariuki, J. (2015). Project manager leadership style, teamwork, Project Characteristics
and Performance of Water Projects in Kenya (Doctoral dissertation), University of
Nairobi. Retrieved from http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/94685.
* Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and
development project groups. Journal of Management, 18(3), 489–501.
Keller, R. T. (2001). Cross-functional project group in research and new product
development: Diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of
Management Journal, 44, 547–555.
* Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes
for leadership: a longitudinal study of research and development project team
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 202–210.
Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., McDaniel, M., & Whetzel, D. L. (2012). Publication bias in the
organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15(4), 624–662.
* Kissi, J., Dainty, A., & Tuuli, M. (2013). Examining the role of transformational
leadership of portfolio managers in project performance. International Journal of
Project Management, 31(4), 485–497.
Koene, B. A., Vogelaar, A. L., & Soeters, J. L. (2002). Leadership effects on organizational
climate and financial performance: Local leadership effect in chain organizations.
The Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 193–215.
Koeslag-Kreunen, M., Van den Bossche, P., Hoven, M., Van der Klink, M., & Gijselaers, W.
(2018). When leadership powers team learning: a meta-analysis. Small Group
Research, 49(4), 475–513.
Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment,
attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural
justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 60–84.
Kruglianskas, I., & Thamhain, H. J. (2000). Managing technology-based projects in
multinational environments. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(1),
55–64.
Lester, E. I. A. (2017). Chapter 38 - Communication. Project Management, Planning and
Control (Seventh Edition), Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, pp. 363-368.
* Liphadzi, M., Aigbavboa, C., & Thwala, W. (2015). Relationship between leadership
styles and project success in the South Africa construction industry. Procedia
Engineering, 123, 284–290.
Liu, J., Meng, F., & Fellows, R. (2015). An exploratory study of understanding project risk
management from the perspective of national culture. International Journal of Project
Management, 33(3), 564–575.
* Maqbool, R., Sudong, Y., Manzoor, N., & Rashid, Y. (2017). The impact of emotional
intelligence, project managers’ competencies, and transformational leadership on
project success: An empirical perspective. Project Management Journal, 48(3), 58–75.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.
*Morgan, T. L. (2012). An examination of project managers’ leadership contributions to
project success using critical success factors (Doctoral dissertation), Capella University.
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. (UMI No.
3498739).
Mulki, J. P., Caemmerer, B., & Heggde, G. S. (2015). Leadership style, salesperson’s work
effort and job performance: the influence of power distance. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 35(1), 3–22.
Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2010). Attitudes and leadership competences for project
success. Baltic Journal of Management, 5(3), 307–329.
* Naeem, S., & Khanzada, B. (2017). Impact of transformational leadership in attainment
of project success: the mediating role of job satisfaction. International Journal of
Business and Social Science, 8(9), 168–177.
Newman, K. L., & Nollen, S. D. (1996). Culture and congruence: The fit between
management practices and national culture. Journal of International Business Studies,
27(4), 753–779.
O’Donnell, J. G. (2010). A study of the relationships among project managers’ leadership
practices, project complexity, and project success (Doctoral dissertation), Argosy
University. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. (UMI
No. 3487788).
* Oh, J., Lee, H., & Zo, H. (2019). The Effect of Leadership and Teamwork on ISD Project
Success. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 1–11.
* Oliveira, M. A., Valentina, L. V. O. D., & Possamai, O. (2012). Forecasting project
performance considering the influence of leadership style on organizational agility.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61(6), 653–671.
17
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
*Paracha, U. K. (2017). Impact of Team Focused Transformational Leadership on Project
Success Through Leader Member Exchange (LMX) and Moderating Role of Team
Cohesiveness (Master’s thesis, Capital University of Science and Technology,
Islamabad, Pakistan). Retrieved from https://thesis.cust.edu.pk/UploadedFiles
/Usman%20Kaleem%20Paracha%20-MPM153012.pdf.
Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual
influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy of
Management Review, 22(1), 80–109.
Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know
and what do we need to know? International Business Review, 29(4), 1–7.
Pauwee, J., & Boselie, J. P. (2005). HRM and performance: what’s next?, working
papers, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Pearce, C., & Sims, H. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the
effectiveness of change management teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 6, 172–197.
Pearce, C. L., Sims, H. P., Cox, J. F., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K. A., & Trevino, L.
(2003). Transactors, transformers and beyond: A multi-method development of a
theoretical typology of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 22(4),
273–308.
Pinto, J. K. (1986). Project Implementation: A Determination of its Critical Success Factors,
Moderators, and Their Relative Importance Across the Project Life Cycle (Doctoral
dissertation), University of Pittsburgh. Available from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global database. (UMI No. 8707585).
Pinto, J. K., & Mantel, S. J. (1990). The causes of project failure. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 37(4), 269–276.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). Project success: Definitions and measurement
techniques. Project Management Journal, 19, 67–72.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin D. P. (1992). Project implementation profile. Pittsburgh, PA:
Innodyne.
Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1988). Development and Validation of the Leadership
Practices Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(3), 483–496.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2017). A guide to the project management body of
knowledge (PMBOK Guide). 6th ed. Newton Square (PA): Project Management
Institute.
* Prabhakar, G. P. (2005). An empirical study reflecting the importance of
transformational leadership on project success across twenty-eight nations. Project
Management Journal, 36(4), 53–60.
Raidén, A. B., & Dainty, A. R. (2006). Human resource development in construction
organisations: an example of a “chaordic” learning organisation? The Learning
Organization, 13(1), 63–79.
Raja, U., Javed, Y., & Abbas, M. (2018). A time lagged study of burnout as a mediator in
the relationship between workplace bullying and work–family conflict. International
Journal of Stress Management, 25(4), 377–390.
Raja, U., Sheikh, R. A., Abbas, M., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2018). Do procedures really
matter when rewards are more important? A Pakistani perspective on the effects of
distributive and procedural justice on employee behaviors. European Review of
Applied Psychology, 68(2), 79–88.
* Raziq, M. M., Borini, F. M., Malik, O. F., Ahmad, M., & Shabaz, M. (2018). Leadership
styles, goal clarity, and project success: Evidence from project-based organizations in
Pakistan. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(2), 309–323.
Robey, D., Smith, L. A., & Vijayasarathy, L. R. (1993). Perceptions of conflict and success
in information systems development projects. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 10(1), 123–140.
Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-
analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Robbins, J. M., Ford, M. T., & Tetrick, L. E. (2012). Perceived unfairness and employee
health: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 235–272.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership:
team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1020–1030.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594.
Shenhar, A., Levy, O., & Dvir, D. (1997). Mapping the dimensions of project success.
Project Management Journal, 28(2), 5–13.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity:
Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 703–714.
Shore, B., & Cross, B. J. (2005). Exploring the role of national culture in the management
of large-scale international science projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 23(1), 55–64.
Slevin, D. P., & Pinto, J. K. (1986). The project implementation profile: New tool for
project managers. Project Management Journal, 18(4), 57–71.
Steel, P., Beugelsdijk, S., & Aguinis, H. (2021). The anatomy of an award-winning meta-
analysis: Recommendations for authors, reviewers, and readers of meta-analytic
reviews. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(1), 23–44.
Stone, D. L., & Rosopa, P. J. (2017). The advantages and limitations of using meta-
analysis in human resource management research. Human Resource Management
Review, 27, 1–7.
* Tabassi, A. A., Roufechaei, K. M., Bakar, A. H. A., & Yusof, N. A. (2017). Linking team
condition and team performance: A transformational leadership approach. Project
Management Journal, 48(2), 22–38.
* Tabassi, A. A., Roufechaei, K. M., Ramli, M., Bakar, A. H. A., Ismail, R., & Pakir, A. H. K.
(2016). Leadership competences of sustainable construction project managers.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 339–349.
Thite, M. (1999). Identifying key characteristics of technical project leadership.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20(5), 253–261. *.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
M. Abbas and R. Ali
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to
the employee-organization relationship: Does investment pay off? Academy of
Management Journal, 40, 1089–1121.
Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2003). On the nature of the project as a temporary
organization. International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 1–8.
Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2005). The project manager’s leadership style as a success
factor on projects: A literature review. Project Management Journal, 36(2), 49–61.
Tung, F. C. (2016). Does transformational, ambidextrous, transactional leadership
promote employee creativity? Mediating effects of empowerment and promotion
focus. International Journal of Manpower, 37(8), 1250–1263.
* Tyssen, A. K., Wald, A., & Heidenreich, S. (2014). Leadership in the context of
temporary organizations: A study on the effects of transactional and
transformational leadership on followers’ commitment in projects. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(4), 376–393.
Vroom, V. H. (1964), Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York, NY.
* Waldman, D. A., & Atwater, L. E. (1994). The nature of effective leadership and
championing processes at different levels in a R&D hierarchy. The Journal of High
Technology Management Research, 5(2), 233–245.
*Waller Jr, E. B. (2015). Uncertainty, leadership style, and information technology project
success in a dynamic public sector environment (Doctoral dissertation), Capella
University. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. (UMI
No. 3724734).
Wang, X. H. F., & Howell, J. M. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of
transformational leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6),
1134–1144.
Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational
leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25
years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36(2), 223–270.
Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and
team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 181–198.
18
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
*Ware, G. (2018). Relationship between IT Leaders’ Leadership Styles, Cultural Competence,
and IT Project Success (Doctoral dissertation), University of Phoenix. Available from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. (UMI No. 10791952).
World Bank (2019). Countries and Economies. Data retrieved from https://data.
worldbank.org/country on 20 December, 2018.
* Yang, L. R., Wu, K. S., Wang, F. K., & Chin, P. C. (2012). Relationships among project
manager’s leadership style, team interaction and project performance in the
Taiwanese server industry. Quality & Quantity, 46(1), 207–219.
Yap, J. B. H., & Cheah, S. Y. (2019). Key challenges faced by Chinese contractors in
Malaysian construction industry: Empirical study. Journal of Engineering, Design and
Technology, 18(3), 705–726.
Yasin, K. (2019). Impact of Transformational Leadership on Project Success with
Mediating Effect of Self-Efficacy and Moderated Effect of Conscientiousness.
(Master’s thesis, Capital University of Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan).
Retrieved from https://thesis.cust.edu.pk/UploadedFiles/kalsoom%20yasin%
20final.pdf.*.
* Zaman, U., Nawaz, S., Tariq, S., & Humayoun, A. A. (2019). Linking transformational
leadership and “multi-dimensions” of project success: Moderating effects of project
flexibility and project visibility using PLS-SEM. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, 13(1), 103–127.
Zhang, C., Nahrgang, J. D., Ashford, S. J., & DeRue, D. S. (2020). The risky side of
leadership: Conceptualizing risk perceptions in informal leadership and investigating
the effects of their over-time changes in teams. Organization Science, 31(5),
1138–1158.
Zheng, J., Wu, G., & Xie, H. (2017). Impacts of leadership on project-based
organizational innovation performance: The mediator of knowledge sharing and
moderator of social capital. Sustainability, 9(10), 1–22. *.
* Zhu, Y. Q., & Kindarto, A. (2016). A garbage can model of government IT project
failures in developing countries: The effects of leadership, decision structure and
team competence. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 629–637.
Zwikael, O. (2009). The relative importance of the PMBOK® Guide’s nine Knowledge
Areas during project planning. Project Management Journal, 40(4), 94–103.