CHAPTER 3
Method
Sample
Data for this study were collected from 236 core members, project managers, and senior managers on 69 project teams. Participating project teams originated in organizations from the manufacturing, software, and telecommunication industries based in the U.S. The participating team members worked on new product or software development projects (42%), IT implementation projects (33%), and construction and engineering projects (25%). The projects that were included in the final sample met our selection criteria, in that they had recently been completed or were close to completion, had a budget of at least $500,000 (US), and had a duration of at least three months.
Each participating organization had a primary company contact who identified a project team located within his or her organization to participate in the study. Participation on the part of the project team was voluntary. The contacts were each handed four surveys. It was the responsibility of the primary contacts to distribute surveys to the project leader, to the senior manager overseeing the project, and to each of the two core project team members. Project leaders, senior managers, and team members were provided with instructions to relate their responses to the predetermined project and not to their organization. To avoid single-source bias, project success was assessed by the project team leaders and senior managers; the leadership measures were assessed by the team members.
The average project duration was 14 months with an average budget of $1.5 million (US). On average, the project leaders changed 0.5 times during the implementation of the project. The project teams consisted on average of eight core team members who were responsible for specific tasks throughout the entire implementation of the project. In addition to core team members, the average number of part-time and full-time project team members was six, and an average of two project team members changed during the implementation of these projects. Further, on average, five departments were involved in implementing the projects. The majority of the projects (62%) in our sample were organized in a matrix structure (either functional, balanced, or project matrix). Only 9% of the projects were organized as pure project organizations, and 9% were directly integrated in the line organizations. Several empirical studies (for example, Larson and Gobeli 1989; Might and Fischer 1985) showed similar distributions of project organization structures.
Measures
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership of project leaders was measured using the 36-item multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X) (Avolio, Bass, and Jung 1999). Project members described their leader using a frequency scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (frequently, if not always). The MLQ Form 5X uses a 0 to 4-point rating scale; we used a 1 to 7-point scale in this study to be consistent with the rating scales used throughout this study’s survey. However, the items and anchors for our rating scale were identical to those from the MLQ; thus the change in scale is a straightforward linear transformation. Furthermore, raters should have used the rating scales in an equivalent manner because considerable research suggests that it is rater training and not the rating format that most influences rating variance (for example, Murphy and Cleveland 1995). The five scales used to measure transformational leadership were: charisma-idealized influence (attributed), charisma-idealized influence (behavior), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Similar to previous research, Judge and Bono (2000) combined these dimensions into an overall measure of transformational leadership.
Project Success
To assess the different aspects of project performance we used the following variables: project efficiency, project effectiveness, client satisfaction, and business success. The success items used were developed by Pinto and Slevin (1988) and modified and supplemented by Lechler (1997). All of the success items were rated by the project leaders and responsible senior managers using the 7-point rating scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Moderating Variables
Scales for project innovativeness and urgency were developed by Pinto (1987). To justify aggregation of the model variables to the project team level, we calculated within unit agreement rwg(j) (James, Demaree, and Wolf 1984, 1993; Klein, Conn, and Sorra 2001; George 1990). The average rwg(j) value across scales in the present study was .94, above the generally acceptable level of .70 (George 1990), thus demonstrating within unit agreement.
Project Manager Authority as a Moderator of Transformational Leadership
Another potential moderator of the effects of transformational leadership is the degree of authority of the leader. While the overall positive effects of transformational leadership have been replicated for many leaders at different levels of authority (Bass 1997), a number of questions remain open. First, as others have noted (for example, Zaccaro 2001) there are frequently qualitative differences between the behaviors demonstrated by high and low-level leaders. For example, at lower levels, individualized consideration might be more apparent then at higher levels (Antonakis and Atwater 2002). Similarly at higher levels where leaders have greater responsibility for strategic planning, inspirational motivation might be more apparent. In other words, the behavioral nature of transformational leadership might look different at one level versus the other. In fact, the recent meta-analysis by Antonakis et al. (2003) suggests that the hierarchical context does moderate inter-factor relations amongst dimensions of transformational leadership. As the authors’ note, however, further research is needed to explore whether predictive relations are similarly bound by hierarchical context. In other words, does hierarchical context (for example, relative position authority) moderate the extent to which transformational leadership impacts unit level performance and are certain dimensions more predictive of performance at different levels of authority?
Although prior research has focused on hierarchical authority, there are other ways to define authority that are particularly relevant to project-based or cross-functional work in general. In these settings, it is also possible to distinguish between position or hierarchical authority and decision authority (for example, the ability to make decisions regarding project goals, and/or to negotiate directly with customers or clients over project goals or processes).
Project managers vary in the extent to which they have either or both of these kinds of authority and, as others have noted, their presence or absence has implications for the kinds of influence processes that project managers are able to use (Pinto et al. 1998). The results across several independent studies show a positive correlation between a project manager’s level of authority and project success (Rubin and Seelig 1967; Murphy et al. 1974; Rubenstein et al. 1976; Balachandra and Raelin 1984; Katz and Allen 1985; Might and Fischer 1985; Pinto 1986; Allen et al. 1988). At the same time, other studies have also shown that project managers use alternative power bases like informal networks, expertise, and integrity (Allen et al. 1988; Sotirou and Wittmer 2000) to compensate for a lack of formal authority. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that different dimensions of transformational leadership will be more or less important depending upon the scope of authority inherent in a project manager’s role. (see Appendix A for decision making, position authority scales, urgency and innovativeness scales).
H4. Decision authority will moderate the impact of transformational leadership on project success. The effect of transformational leadership on success will be greater when decision authority is greater.
H5. Position authority will moderate the impact of transformational leadership. The effect of transformational leadership on project success will be greater when position authority is lower.