International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 393±401

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Project leadership in clinical research organisations

Peter Kangis*, Liz Lee-Kelley
Surrey European Management School, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH, UK
Received 21 December 1999; received in revised form 8 March 2000; accepted 8 March 2000

Abstract

Do managers adjust the contextual variables of a project with a view to suiting their personal style? A survey among project
leaders in clinical research organisations has given limited support to this proposition but has identi®ed a relationship between
the perception of the diculties involved in a project and types of leaders, based on Fiedler's theory. This observation has
important implications both for project de®nition in terms of contextual characteristics and for the choice of appropriate project
managers, particularly where knowledge workers are involved. 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Project management; Project leadership; Service operations; Operations control; Situational management

1. Introduction teristics of the e€ective leader, but there is little to help

This paper contributes to the body of knowledge on
managing projects through the study of the relation-
ship between situational impact and leadership of
small groups working on clinical research projects. Its
aim is to explore the relationship between several pro-
ject variables and the extent to which these relate
between them and with the project manager's leader-
ship orientation. This has important implications not
only in terms of matching project leaders to project
characteristics, but also in view of the rapidly expand-
ing knowledge services sector and outsourcing of many
activities previously undertaken within ®rms.
There is a need to understand the way projects are
managed in the light of continuous change and speci®-
cally to look at the role of leadership, for, it is increas-
ingly claimed, `a good project plan is only as good as
the leader' [1]. Project leadership entails technical com-
petence but also the ability to manage a team [2]. Nu-
merous studies [3,4] have led to paradigms of how
projects should be managed and the role and charac-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1483-259900; fax: +44-1483-
259511.
E-mail address: p.kangis@surrey.ac.uk (P. Kangis).
select the project manager or to decide which would be
the more appropriate method of managing. Basically,
project management is an applied discipline. One
aspect of it relates to `what to do', in terms of theory
and knowledge, and another part is concerned with
`how to do it'; managers are likely to be more inter-
ested in the latter.
Mullins [5] de®nes leadership as a relationship
through which one person in¯uences the behaviour of
other people. This, inevitably, raises the question Ð is
a project manager also a leader? [6]. Does power and
in¯uence over subordinates vest through authority or
through style and personal characteristics? How do
such characteristics relate to those of the project being
managed and of the team involved in it? Harrison [7]
contends that a project manager must provide both
the management and the necessary leadership. Sayles
[8] argues that leadership a€ects managers at all levels
and is based on work issues, not just people issues; it
is treated as a di€erent method and style of managing
that has evolved from traditional management prin-
ciples. Despite the plethora of leadership studies in
diverse situations, relatively little attention seems to
have been given to examining the variables involved in
the context of managing the operations of temporary,

0263-7863/00/$20.00 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 3 - 7 8 6 3 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 1 8 - 1
394 P. Kangis, L. Lee-Kelley / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 393±401
small groups, particularly within services, such as in
clinical research. Project management is a powerful
tool for operational management as well as for stra-
tegic change. It is also useful for the implementation
of initiatives such as business process re-engineering
and total quality management, hence its increasing use.
Projects are goal-oriented, budget-driven, timeline
speci®c and generally operate outside the conventional
organisation structure of a ®rm. Such characteristics
can create interesting challenges for the project man-
ager, who has to cut across established lines of control.
However, despite its increased adoption, not much is
known on the relationship between leadership beha-
viour and managing these structures.
2. Literature review
Leadership and its association with certain personal-
ity traits, behavioural styles or the situation itself has
been studied at great length, but the discourse remains
on the in¯uence of situational issues. The transition
from (the nostalgia of ?) a state of relative technologi-
cal stability and steady core values, towards a percep-
tion of faster change, has led to alternative paradigms
of leadership in the management of operations to be
considered. The evidence suggests that there is no
single style that is right for every manager and all cir-
cumstances. Hence the rise of the situational approach
[9], which concentrates on the relationship between a
speci®c situation and leadership. Blake and Mouton
[10], whilst recognising the existence of dominant style
preferences, emphasised the need for managers to
switch styles or to combine elements of di€erent styles
to `suit the situation'. The situational approach treats
leadership e€ectiveness as arising from the dynamic
interplay of three factors: the leader, the followers and
the situation in which they ®nd themselves [11,12].
2.1. Situational leadership
Fiedler [13] claims that leadership e€ectiveness is
achieved when the leader's style matches the demands
of a given situation, particularly the task, the work
group and the position of the leader with respect to
that group. Such situational e€ects and contingencies
have received support in the literature [14±18]. The
theory holds that the e€ectiveness of a group is depen-
dent on two interacting factors:
. the personality of the leader (leadership style) and
. the degree to which the situation allows the leader
to control and in¯uence.
The leader's personality, according to Fiedler [13], may
be identi®ed by a measure that re¯ects the individual's
primary characteristics, being `relationship-motivated'
or `task-motivated'. These two motivational
approaches originate from Fiedler's Least Preferred
Co-Worker (LPC) score, obtained from summing the
responses to a battery of 18 items, measured on bipo-
lar semantic di€erential scales [19]. A `task-motivated'
person is likely to describe the least preferred co-
worker in negative and rejecting ways. The `relation-
ship-oriented' manager, on the other hand, is less
dependent on the esteem expected to result from task
accomplishment and is able to see a co-worker in
terms of other success or failure factors, e.g. friendly
or helpful. Although LPC scores are expected to be
normally distributed, the segment in the middle of the
distribution cannot be clearly identi®ed as being either
task or relationship motivated. Fiedler called this
group, the `socio-independent' group.
Fiedler [13,20±22] and others [23±26], found that
extremely favourable or unfavourable situations
required `task-oriented', autocratic leadership, whilst
those situations between the two extremes seemed to
favour a `relationship-oriented' style. This implies that
managers can improve the success rate of project oper-
ations by choosing to manage only (or mostly) those
situations that suit their dominant (or `default') style.
Conversely, leaders could attempt, if it were possible,
to change style to match the situation. Fiedler advises
the former. Managers who know their own styles,
would aim to acquire and maintain a level of control
consistent with achieving the results that they are con-
templating [27]. In many respects, this may mean chan-
ging some aspects of the situation, including sta€
recruitment and training and setting up an appropriate
system of sanctions and rewards. This approach is con-
sistent with generating group collaboration through
`coaching' [28,29]. The leader as a coach ®ts in with
Fiedler's model based on the level of situational con-
trol. Ekvall and Arvonen [18] observed that certain
employees are happy working in a structure-centred
environment, regardless of how they felt about their
superiors or fellow employees. This also concurs with
Fiedler's theory, in that both structure-oriented as well
as relationship-oriented leaders are successful in mana-
ging projects, but only under certain conditions. Ob-
servations elsewhere [26], have linked project
characteristics with styles of management, though it
was not clear if a direction of causality could be
claimed between leader style and these characteristics.
3. The project management environment
Turner [30] de®nes a project as a complex e€ort to
achieve a speci®c objective with a schedule and a bud-
get target, which typically cuts across organisational
lines, is unique, and is usually non-repetitive within a
 P. Kangis, L. Lee-Kelley / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 393±401
®rm. A project entails the management of time and
e€ort with a view to achieving a prede®ned goal. The
person in charge of a project may carry one of a var-
iety of titles (e.g. project leader or project manager)
and is usually the main focal point of responsibility
for the project [7,31].
Structure is the pattern of relationships among pos-
itions and members in a ®rm [5]. It adds value to the
®rm by helping with the de®nition of tasks and respon-
sibilities, work roles, relationships and channels of
communication, with a view to achieving the corporate
goals. These arrangements have a marked e€ect on the
motivation of the individuals, the extent of the team-
work and the ebb and ¯ow of con¯ict and politics [7],
and thus on the performance of those involved.
Drucker [32] contends that good organisation structure
does not by itself produce good performance . . . but
poor structure makes good performance impossible, no
matter how good the individual manager is.
Establishments such as Clinical Research Organis-
ations (CROs) are generally structured in sundry var-
iants of a matrix. Handy [33] locates the matrix system
as belonging to a task culture, i.e. one that is job or
task-oriented. Depending on corporate needs, teams
may be permanent or temporary (usually the latter),
functional or cross functional, part of or ancillary to
the activities of the main work of the group, conven-
tionally supervised or self-managed (in various
degrees). The project structure tends not to be part of
the main ¯ow of power, where operations may be
managed in a more established functional form.
Within the matrix system, each project manager in this
`internal market' has to `buy from' or `negotiate with'
the line managers for expertise and resources for the
project. Temporary systems, such as project groups,
are likely to di€er in structure [34] and in leadership
styles [35,36] when compared with more permanent
counterparts. In addition to the temporary±permanent
dichotomy, it seems likely that the duration of a pro-
ject might have implications for organisational struc-
tural arrangements and performance e€ectiveness [26].
4. Leadership in temporary systems
The person in charge of a clinical research project,
as might be the case for most projects, has a limited
period in which to complete the project tasks. In terms
of Fiedler's `situational control' variable, there would
appear to be several areas of concern:
(a) the project manager's power position may be
undermined since the balance of power between
project manager and functional manager can be
delicate and con¯ict can arise over scarce resources;
(b) depending on clarity of speci®cation, the man-
395
ager may ®nd it dicult if the project objectives
and speci®cation are weak or ambiguous, and
(c) the short term nature of a project may prevent
the manager from building relationships and getting
support and loyalty from the team, particularly if
team members are to return to the original group
upon completion of the project. The project leader
may thus start and end with poor, or at best med-
iocre, leader±member relationships.
On the other hand, the temporary nature of projects,
may itself be a stimulant to motivating both the leader
and the participants to perform at higher levels of e-
ciency and under less acceptable conditions than if
they were linked together under a more permanent
structure. This aspect of behaviour, i.e. the more posi-
tive e€ects of a short term structure, are not ade-
quately addressed in the literature. Vroom and Yetton
[15] have examined the in¯uence of the time available
for project completion on leadership decision making.
In their contingency model of leadership, time con-
siderations were deemed to be relevant to leadership
decision making. Katz's [37] research on 50 R&D
teams con®rmed that the variation in length of time
that project members worked together had an import-
ant e€ect on communication patterns both internal
and external to the group. These ®ndings support the
argument that the temporariness of a project may be
an important variable in the management of a project.
Bryman et al. [38], in a study of site management
found that:
(a) the situational context of leaders in temporary
structures di€ers from that of their counterparts in
more permanent systems,
(b) although site managers are more task-oriented
than most other leaders, the more relationship-
oriented they are, the more e€ective they seem to
be.
Their ®ndings have implications for the selection of
site managers and possibly for managers in similar
positions in other temporary structures.
Fiedler's theories are in agreement with project man-
agement writers such as Harrison [7], Meredith and
Mantel [39] and Lock [40]. Whilst the length of pro-
jects or the choice of the people in a team cannot
always be controlled, project managers can, through
understanding of their own leadership style, manage
the situation by other means so as to bring it to a
state that would allow greater in¯uence to be exer-
cised. It is thus plausible that a manager would manip-
ulate those variables that can be changed so as to
increase control over the project. The ®rm where a
project is taking place can contribute to the likelihood
of success by structuring the task and adjusting the
project manager's power position and the team compo-
396 P. Kangis, L. Lee-Kelley / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 393±401
sition. Given these expectations from the literature, the
present project aims to verify the extent to which they
hold true in the management of projects in ®rms
involved in clinical research.
5. Methodology
5.1. Clinical Research Organisations and project
managers
A CRO is any ®rm that undertakes as its primary
activity, medical and scienti®c or technical work on a
commercial basis, on behalf of more than one client in
the health care industry [41]. In Europe, this is a rela-
tively young industry, expanding mostly over the last
20 years. CROs provide a basket of services to ®rms in
the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices
industries, whose products need clinical evaluation and
regulatory clearances. These ®rms may resort to CROs
due to resource limitations, insucient know-how of
the regulatory processes or as a result of a policy to
outsource. However, owing to the large ®nancial out-
lay and the length of development required before a
drug or device may be dispensed to the public, the
sponsor (or client) requires that the CROs work clo-
sely with them, often becoming a virtual extension of
the client.
Within CROs, each contract to deliver an agreed
service is treated as a project, the de®nition of which
falls in line with that adopted in this paper as a tem-
porary structure. CROs may consist of a small group
of scientists providing a predominantly specialist ser-
vice, or a larger, multinational ®rm, capable of run-
ning trials for clients in many di€erent jurisdictions. It
is a secretive market due to extensive con®dentiality
agreements imposed by clients. Although there are var-
ious sources of information and contact references for
CROs, the number of those operating in this area can-
not be easily established.
Managers in charge of clinical projects are not
expected to be `quali®ed' in project management, in
the sense of having received an appropriate training or
belonging to a professional body in that discipline.
Not only do their titles vary but also the route to gain-
ing (or ending up in) that position. Selection is often
based on scienti®c quali®cations and achievement in a
particular therapeutic area of research rather than on
experience in managing projects or people. This is a
situation where one scientist is leading other scientists
through the project; indeed, it is thought (though not
proven) that scientists would resent working for a pro-
ject leader who is not a scientist. Those working in
CROs are expected to be well-quali®ed knowledge
workers. Their management of resources towards the
aims of the project constitutes, e€ectively, management
of both tacit and explicit knowledge, with greater
emphasis on the latter. Given the industry secrecy, it
was not possible to identify a sampling frame with
names of individuals in the role of project leader. The
approach had to be indirect, via the human resources
management function of CROs. The register of CROs
compiled by Hughes and Brancaccio [41] was accepted
within the industry as the most comprehensive list
available; it was therefore, decided to use it as the
guiding frame.
In examining this register it was noted that most of
the European CROs are small to medium sized ®rms,
with only a minority employing over 200 members.
Possible explanations would be that:
(a) it is a relatively young industry, resulting from
changes in business strategies, outsourcing, downsiz-
ing;
(b) until the European Union `harmonisation' pol-
icies were put into e€ect, clinical trials had to be
performed in each one of the Member States where
sales were intended;
(c) many of the European CROs are subsidiaries of
larger ®rms established elsewhere; and
(d) a proportion of the work is further subcon-
tracted to third parties, such as freelance clinical
researchers, other laboratories, hospitals and
doctors.
5.2. Data collection
A pilot run of initial letters soliciting cooperation,
together with a copy of the draft questionnaire, was
sent to a convenience sample of 36 CROs employing
over 30 full-time sta€. Of these, 17 responded, result-
ing in minor adjustments being made to the question-
naire before proceeding with the main survey. The
questionnaire comprised three parts. The ®rst part was
based on Fiedler's LPC instrument described above;
pre-testing showed that it would be easily understood.
Scores from the responses were categorised according
to Fiedler. Those equal to 64 points and below, repre-
senting `task-motivated' leaders; those scoring 65±72,
representing the `socio-dependent' leadership group;
and those with 73 and above, representing `relation-
ship-motivated' leaders. The scores recorded were also
kept in their absolute values (ungrouped), as a separate
variable. The second part of the questionnaire sought
to gather data on contextual and operational aspects
of their projects, these were identi®ed in the literature
and partitioned according to the pilot run ®ndings:
. the number of projects managed, in three categories
(1±10; 11±20; over 20);
. the estimated project duration in months (below 12;
12±24; over 24);
 P. Kangis, L. Lee-Kelley / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 393±401 397

. the size of the project team (below 5; 5±10; over 10);
. changes in team composition (yes±no);
. freedom of choice of team composition (yes±no);
. freedom of choice of project (yes±no);
. most dicult objective to deliver (time; cost; qual-
ity);
. perception of the extent of freedom of action
bestowed in the leader (high, medium, low).
The ®nal part of the questionnaire collected demo-
graphic data about the project leader (age, gender,
education). A sample of 169 CROs with the same
characteristics as those of the pre-test, was sent the
questionnaire by post, yielding a response of 79 (46%).
Of these, 73 (barring 1 missing value) were useable.
The data was analysed on SPSS; the nature of the
scales used and the absence of parameters about the
population led to the use of Spearman's Rho and chi-
square cross-tabulations.
6. Results
Table 1 displays descriptive characteristics of the
sample and the responses to each variable. It will be
noted that the `typical pro®le' of the project leader in
the sample was a female, graduate, in the 31±40 age
bracket and ®tting in to Fiedler's `socio-dependent'
leadership category. The predominance of female pro-
ject leaders in the sample goes against the generally
low representation of women in managerial positions;
it could be that this pro®le is indeed a feature of
CROs, or that a higher proportion of female project
leaders chose to respond.
Table 2 displays the p estimates from the chi-
square calculation between each pair of variables,
the objective being to estimate the extent to which
it could be claimed that they are independent. Fig. 1
displays a mapping of those relationships between
the variables that showed statistically signi®cant re-

Table 1
The samplea

LPC score: Fiedler's type:

Mean 69.233 Task-oriented 32

SD 20.739 Socio-dependent 14
Relationship-motivated 27

Variable Frequency Variable Frequency

Age: Frequency of team changes:

20±30 22 Yes 18
31±40 35 No 58
41±50 14 (1 missing value)
Over 50 2
Gender: Choice of team members:
Female 47 Yes 17
Male 26 No 56
Highest quali®cation: Choice of projects:
Doctorate 13 Yes 15
Medical Degree 5 No 58
Master Degree 15
First Degree 34
No Degree 6
Number of projects being managed: Challenging project objectives:
1±10 Time 47
11±20 59 Cost 19
21±30 11 Quality 7
(1 missing value) 2
Project duration: Perceived situational control:
Up to 12 months 43 Low 3
Up to 24 months 22 Medium 38
Over 24 months 8 High 32
Team size:
4 or below 32
5 to 10 33
Over 10 8

a
N = 73; LPC score: cardinal values; other entries are frequencies.
398 P. Kangis, L. Lee-Kelley / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 393±401

Gender
lationships (chi-square, 2-tail, p < 0.05). Interestingly,

0.079
the project variables were generally independent in the
statistical sense from the socio-economic characteristics

0.094
0.279
of the sample (age, gender, education). There was
Age some indication, however, that men found it more dif-
®cult to meet the project deadlines, whereas women
Control

found meeting quality and service speci®cation a

0.465
0.731
0.906
greater challenge ( p < 0.05). The age of the project
leader was not related to many of the measured project
Project objectives

variables, other than younger leaders being female and

older ones male, and that older leaders claimed to
have (marginally) a greater say in the composition of
their team. The observed independence of age is of
0.004
0.677
0.022
0.557
interest in that it is generally considered that `older
bosses are best' [42], or, at least, that team perform-
Project choice

ance is somehow related to the leader's ability to ser-

vice the team on the basis of experience [9]. It is worth
noting that Fiedler [21] found no relationship between
0.002
0.530
0.519
0.836
0.651

leadership experience and team performance. Surpris-

ingly, the quali®cations of the incumbent also
remained statistically independent of the other charac-
Team choice

teristics of the project.

In considering Fiedler's LPC scores in their cardinal
0.086
0.074
0.116
0.074
0.975
0.386

values, it is noted that the higher the LPC score the

larger the number of projects managed by a leader ( p
Team changes

< 0.05). Also, the higher the LPC score the lower the
perceived control that the project leader claims to be
exercising over the team's work ( p < 0.05). When par-
0.096
0.438
0.185
0.466
0.538
0.104
0.822

titioning the LPC scores into the three types proposed

Team size

0.332
0.251
0.078
0.199
0.121
0.559
0.762
0.733
Duration

0.643
0.000
0.605
0.699
0.008
0.081
0.302
0.783
0.113
Project nos.

0.957
0.662
0.774
0.629
0.026
0.078
0.226
0.905
0.335
0.750
Fiedler types

Values of p from chi-square test, two-tail.

0.357
0.674
0.844
0.463
0.045
0.516
0.274
0.031
0.075
0.322
0.790
Relationship between project variablesa

LPC score

0.277
0.000
0.023
0.173
0.408
0.904
0.360
0.652
0.348
0.041
0.494
0.293
Project objectives
Team changes

Project choice

Quali®cations
Fiedler types

Team choice
Project nos.

Team size
Duration

Control
Table 2

Gender

Fig. 1. Mapping of statistically signi®cant relationships ( p values

Age

where p < 0.05, 2-tail, chi square).

 P. Kangis, L. Lee-Kelley / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 393±401
by Fiedler, a di€erent set of relationships appear. The
higher the Fiedler score (i.e. for managers in or close
to the `relationship-motivated' type), the less frequent
the changes in team composition ( p < 0.05) and the
greater the concern with achieving quality service
delivery ( p < 0.05) in the project objectives.
It is important to note that the raw LPC scores (car-
dinal values) and the three leadership types proposed
by Fiedler, yield marginally di€erent sets of relation-
ships with the other variables, even though these were,
as expected, highly correlated (Pearson's R = 0.81;
Spearman's Rho = 0.89; chi-square = 146.00; all p <
0.01). It could be that the sample size of 73 was too
small to support consistency between the raw data and
their partitioned version into Fiedler's leadership types
or that the positioning of the partitions would need to
be reconsidered according to some external variable,
such as industrial classi®cation. It could also be that
although these leadership types can be identi®ed at
some speci®ed point of the range, the variance in the
scores within leadership types was too large to support
their distinctive classi®cation (i.e. variance between
groups) in the sample. Indeed, the one way analysis of
variance across the three leadership types and the pro-
ject variables did not yield statistically signi®cant
results. Some patterns were, nevertheless, noted and
might be worthy of further investigation under di€er-
ent methodological conditions. Project leaders ®tting
in to the `task-motivated' group, also held fewer pro-
jects in their portfolio than those of the `relationship-
motivated' pro®le, they claimed to have greater choice
in the composition of their teams and were mostly
female.
Considering the relationships between the remaining
measured dimensions of projects, it is worth noting the
strong association between project duration and team
size. The longer the project duration the larger the
team size ( p = 0.000) (or, for the cynic, the larger the
team, the longer the project duration!). The longer the
project duration, the greater the perceived freedom of
the leader as to which project to take on ( p < 0.01).
The nature of diculty experienced in achieving the
project objectives showed the greatest number of stat-
istically supportable associations with the other vari-
ables and is an interesting ®nding of this study.
Projects where time was deemed to be a dicult con-
straint were managed by a Fiedler `task-motivated'
type of leader; these leaders also perceived exercising a
high level of control, but claimed to have little choice
as to which project they would take on. Time manage-
ment appears to have support in the literature when
the attributes of an e€ective leader are being de®ned
[43]. Projects with critical performance based on cost
and on keeping within budgets were mostly in the
hands of managers with a `relationship-motivated' pro-
®le. These leaders perceived an ability to exercise a
399
`medium' level of control and also claimed to have no
choice as to which project they would take on. Projects
with concerns about quality and delivery to the
required speci®cation, were managed by leaders with a
`socio-dependent' pro®le, who also claimed to have a
choice as to which project they would manage; inter-
estingly, projects in this group also had leaders who
were the least quali®ed academically.
When relating Fiedler's types with the remaining
variables, the only two pairs of relationships supported
statistically were the nature of the diculty in achiev-
ing the project objectives ( p < 0.05) and some in¯u-
ence on the frequency of changes of the composition
of the project team ( p < 0.05). Use of the cardinal
values of the LPC score did not yield statistically sig-
ni®cant relationships except in two cases. The higher
the LPC score, the larger the number of projects being
managed ( p < 0.05) and, the lower the LPC score the
greater the claim that some control could be exercised
by the manager over the project team ( p < 0.05).
An attempt to explore further the explanatory
power of the variables through entering a multiple re-
gression, using Fiedler's types as the dependent, did
not yield statistically signi®cant results. Similarly,
using the objectives that presented the greatest di-
culty as the dependent variable and entering all the
other variables in a multiple regression did not shed
more light on relationships.
A Spearman's Rho was also calculated for the
matrix of variables as a means of cross-checking the
chi-square estimates; this was deemed a necessary pre-
caution, given the nature of the scales used. Fig. 2
shows the mapping for those estimates where Rho was
statistically signi®cant (2-tail, p < 0.05). It was reassur-
ing to note that the relationships observed in the chi-
square cross-tabulations were generally supported by
the rank-order correlation coecients. Di€erences
between Figs. 1 and 2, may hold their origin in the
conversion of categorical data into ordinal for the pur-
pose of calculation.
Fig. 2. Mapping of Spearman's Rho.
400 P. Kangis, L. Lee-Kelley / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 393±401
7. Discussion and Implications
The literature on project management is extensive
and growing rapidly; there is, however, limited empiri-
cally supported work on what might constitute better
ways of managing projects, particularly by experts
within service industries. Pro®les of what might make
a successful project manager continue being reported
in the literature [44], but the outcomes remain uncer-
tain. The role of the project manager as a leader, and
ways of de®ning and measuring this `leadership', have
also exercised scholars and practitioners alike [45]. The
present paper aims to contribute to the body of knowl-
edge on project management [46] by examining the
extent to which one speci®c approach to de®ning lea-
dership could be linked with certain situational vari-
ables in a project. Of particular interest are those
aspects of a project where the leader could make
changes in the project operations. Fiedler suggested
that project leaders might orchestrate situational
change by modifying some variables or attributes of a
project, so that they would perform better under their
own `default' style of leadership. It was expected that
there would be some association between pro®les
established by Fiedler's LPC scores (and the associated
partitioning in to leadership types) and the project
characteristics.
The evidence collected from a sample of 73 project
managers working in clinical research organisations
supported some of the expectations. There was little
evidence, however, associating Fiedler's types with the
perceived ability of a manager to manipulate the pro-
ject variables. The debate thus remains open on the
extent to which leaders would use their position to
modify situational variables with a view to bringing
the project to a level where they would manage more
comfortably.
This study has discovered, however, that there is an
association between Fiedler's type of leader and what
was considered to be a dicult aspect of the project to
achieve. Projects with concerns about time were in the
hands of, or associated with, project leaders who
exhibited a `task-motivated' pro®le. Projects with cost
constraints were associated with a `relationship-motiv-
ated' pro®le of leader. Projects where achievement of
their qualitative characteristics was deemed a chal-
lenge, were associated with the `socio-dependent' lea-
dership pro®le. It is, of course, dicult to determine
from the data if the pro®le exhibited by these project
leaders has been conditioned by their experiences of
managing these projects and by the project character-
istics, including the composition of their teams. It
could be, for example, that the operational require-
ments of a project with time constraints would in¯u-
ence the project leader to respond according to the
`task motivated' pro®le. Alternatively, it could be that
leaders predisposed to functioning under the `task mo-
tivated' pro®le would be drawn intuitively towards
time constrained projects. It might even be that a task
motivated leader perceives a time constraint whereas a
project leader of another pro®le, perceives a quality
constraint on the very same project. The same logic
may apply to the other pro®les of leader. To the extent
that leadership style conditions the leader's perception
of what are the challenging aspects of a project, it
could be argued that style would also in¯uence the
way these leaders go about managing their projects.
Thus, even though the evidence did not give support
to the proposition that leaders would change the con-
textual characteristics of a project to suit their style,
the possibility that they might change their style to ®t
the situational characteristics cannot be excluded.
More research will be required not only to explore
further the above observations in other settings, but
also to check the extent to which the project leader's
perceptions are consistent with those of other partici-
pants in the value chain, including members of the
project team and the leader's managers. To the extent
that the observed relationships can be supported by
further research, there are important implications both
in relation to project de®nition and the selection of a
leader. Pre-de®ned project characteristics, and the an-
ticipated diculties in achieving some of their objec-
tives, are part of the situational factors and should be
taken into account when deciding who should be
appointed to manage the operations of a project. The
information gleaned from clinical research organis-
ations in this study has given selective support to the
proposition that project managers are likely to perform
di€erently, according to the project characteristics and
their leadership style; identifying that style would be
one way of addressing this match.
References
[1] Puccinelli B. Principles of a project leader. Inform, 1999;13(1).
[2] Kloppenberg TJ, Petrick JA. Leadership in project life cycle
and team character development. Project Management Journal
1999;30(2):8±13.
[3] Ghiselli EE. Managerial talent. American Psychologist
1963;18:631±42.
[4] Stogdill RM. Handbook of leadership: a survey of theory and
research. New York: Free Press, 1974.
[5] Mullins LJ. Management and organisational behaviour.
London: Pitman, 1996.
[6] Zaleznik A. Managers and leaders: are they di€erent? Harvard
Business Review 1992;126±135.
[7] Harrison FL. Advanced project management. Aldershot: Gower
Press, 1992.
[8] Sayles LR. Leadership: managing in real organisations.
London: McGraw Hill, 1993.
[9] Kerr S, Schriesheim CA, Murphy CJ, Stogdill RM. Toward a
contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration
 P. Kangis, L. Lee-Kelley / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 393±401
and initiating structure literature. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance 1974;12:62±82.
[10] Blake RP, Mouton JS. The managerial grid III. Houston: Gulf
Publishing, 1985.
[11] Yukl GA. Leadership in organisations. London: Prentice-Hall,
1981.
[12] Bass BM. Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership. New York:
Free Press, 1990.
[13] Fiedler FE. A Contingency Model of Leadership E€ectiveness.
In: Berkowitz I, editor. Advances in experimental social psy-
chology, vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, 1964.
[14] House RJ, Dressler G. A path-goal theory of leadership. In:
Hunt JG, Larson LL, editors. Contingency approaches to lea-
dership, 1974, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,
1971.
[15] Vroom VH, Yetton PW. Leadership and decision-making.
Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press, 1973.
[16] Vecchio RP. Situational leadership theory: an examination of a
prescriptive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology 1987;72:444±
51.
[17] Ekvall G. Change-centred Leaders. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal 1991;12(6):18±23.
[18] Ekvall G, Arvonen J. Leadership pro®les, situation and e€ec-
tiveness. Creativity and Innovation Management 1994;3(3):139±
61.
[19] Nebeker DM. Situational favorability and perceived environ-
mental uncertainty: an integrative approach. Administrative
Science Quarterly 1975;20:281±94.
[20] Fiedler FE. A contingency theory of leadership e€ectiveness.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
[21] Fiedler FE. Leadership experience and leadership performance-
another hypothesis shot to hell. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance 1970;5:1±14.
[22] Fiedler FE. Cognitive resources and leadership performance.
Applied Psychology: an International Review 1995;44(1):5±28.
[23] Mitchell ES. Leadership style in academic libraries: a test of
Fiedler's contingency model of leadership e€ectiveness. Ph.D.
Thesis, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New
Brunswick. Disseration Abstracts International, 48-08 (A), 1919,
1987.
[24] Spector JM. The testing of Fiedler's contingency model on two
organisational constructs: organizational climate and school
e€ectiveness. Ed.D. Thesis, St. John's University. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 51-03 (A), 0707, 1989.
[25] Knopp, GJ, Jr. Organisational e€ectiveness, leadership style,
group atmosphere and stress among Missouri elementary school
principals: a look at Fiedler's contingency model. Ph.D. Thesis,
Saint Louis University, Dissertation Abstracts International, 53-
07 (A), 2186, 1982.
[26] Clift TB, Vanderbosch MB. Project complexity and e€orts to
reduce product development cycle time. Journal of Business
Research 1999;45(2):187±98.
[27] Fiedler FE, Chemers MM. Improving leadership e€ectiveness:
the leader match concept. New York: Wiley, 1984.
[28] Nicholls JR. A new approach to situational leadership.
Leadership and Organisation Development Journal 1985;6(4):2±
7.
[29] Keeys G. E€ective leaders need to be good coaches. Personnel
Management 1994; 52±54.
[30] Turner JR. A handbook of project-based management. London:
McGraw-Hill, 1993.
[31] Cooke-Davies T. Return of the project managers. Management
Today 1990;119.
[32] Drucker PF. The practice of management. London: Heinemann,
1995.
[33] Handy CB. Understanding organisations. Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1993.
401
[34] Palisi BJ. Some suggestions about the transitory-permanence
dimension of organizations. British Journal of Sociology
1970;21:200±6.
[35] Goodman RA, Goodman LP. Some management issues in tem-
porary systems: a study of professional development and man-
power Ð the theater case. Administrative Science Quarterly
1976;21:494±501.
[36] Thamhain HJ, Gemmill GR. In¯uence styles of project man-
agers: some project performance correlates. Academy of
Management Journal 1974;17:216±24.
[37] Katz R. The e€ects of group longevity on project communi-
cation and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly
1982;27:81±104.
[38] Bryman L, Bresnen M, Ford J, Beardsworth A, Keil T. Leader
orientation and organizational transience: an investigation using
Fiedler's LPC Scale. Journal of Occupational Psychology
1987;60:13±9.
[39] Meredith JR, Mantel SJ. Project management: a managerial
approach. New York: Wiley, 1995.
[40] Lock D. Project management. Aldershot: Gower Press, 1996.
[41] Hughes RG, Brancaccio NM. In: The Technomark Register,
European Contract Research Organisations, vol. I: Clinical
Research. London: Technomark Consulting Services, 1995
ISBN 1 871272 09 2.
[42] Wah L, Older bosses are best. Management Review 1999;7.
[43] Thoms P, Pinto JK. Project leadership: a question of timing.
Project Management Journal 1999;30(1):19±26.
[44] Zimmerer TW, Yasin MM. A leadership pro®le of American
project managers. Project Management Journal 1998;29(1):31±9.
[45] Smith GR. Project leadership: why project management alone
doesn't work. Hospitality Materiel Management 1999;21(1):88±
92.
[46] Curling DH editor. Project management body of knowledge.
International Journal of Project Management 1995;13(3), special
issue.
Professor Peter Kangis, L.L.B., B.Sc.,
B.Phil., M.A., M.Com., Ph.D.,
F.Inst.D., is Deputy Director of the
Surrey European Management School,
University of Surrey. Prior to joining
the academic world, he was a senior
manager in international business and
management consultancy. His research
interests are in the services industries,
where he has published extensively.
Liz Lee-Kelley, MBA, FCMA, FCIS,
FRSA is management lecturer in Pro-
ject Management and Corporate Strat-
egy at the Surrey European
Management School (SEMS), Univer-
sity of Surrey. Liz left industry
recently to join SEMS. She has exten-
sive senior management experience in
distribution, engineering and clinical
research.