Thesis

NOTE
This online version of the thesis may have different page formatting and
pagination from the paper copy held in the Swinburne Library.
Relationship between Leadership and
Information Technology Project Success
Mohan Thite
M.A. (HRM), M.A. (Eco.), LLB
Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate School of Management

Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
1997
Declaration
This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other
degree or diploma at any University and to the best of my knowledge and belief
contains no material previously published or written by another person or persons
except where due reference is made.
------------------
Mohan Thite
ii
Acknowledgments
The motivation to conduct this research arose from my personal experience as Human
Resource manager in information technology companies where I had to grapple with
managerial deficiencies of technical managers in business and interpersonal skills
which adversely affected their effectiveness as managers. The most important
deficiency I found was lack of leadership skills in managing project team members and
the organisational bureaucracy which became the focus of this study. I have derived
immense professional satisfaction in conducting this research and hope to utilise the
knowledge gained in the process in my future endeavours.
As with any PhD study, several people have contributed to this effort directly and
indirectly. Undoubtedly, the greatest contribution was from my supervisor, Emeritus
Professor Alfred Clark, who not only demystified the enigma surrounding the image of
PhD supervisors but also made this exercise an extremely rewarding and pleasant
experience. His vast experience in research methodology and data analysis laid a
strong foundation for this study.
I am extremely grateful to the organisations which participated in the survey and

interviews. I was overwhelmed by the cooperation extended to me by the senior
managers of these organisations who acted as coordinators for the survey and spent
considerable time in persuading their IT project people to participate in the survey and
provided their insight in to the nature of IT project leadership.
My heartfelt thanks to the School of Management of Swinburne University of

Technology, particularly to Barbara Cargill and Christ Christodoulou, for awarding me
the Divisional Post-graduate Research Scholarship without which I would not have
been able to complete this study. I am also grateful to the School for sponsoring me to
various national and international conferences which were used as sounding boards
throughout the progress of my studies.
At a personal level, my wife Anjana and kids, Pallavi and Parag, have sacrificed a lot
in sparing me from household responsibilities and encouraging me to carry on despite
several odds.
iii
Special thanks are due to Professor Bernard Bass and Professor Bruce Avolio of State
University of New York, Binghamton for allowing me to use their leadership
measurement instrument in the survey and their library during my visit to SUNY
campus and to Xicom Corporation for permitting me to use portion of Project
Implementation Profile.
I gratefully acknowledge the contribution of

• Pamela Simmons for guiding me on the niceties of IT project management
• John Pidgeon, Brian Phillips, John Taffe and Glenda Franscis for assisting me in
statistical analysis
• James Sarros of Monash University for his initial contribution in writing the
research proposal, and
• Renuka Rodrigo, Phillip Wei and Ingrid Bonn, my PhD colleagues, for their friendly
advice and guidance.
The ultimate test of this study lies in its practical utility to the IT industry. It was evident
from the senior managers of participating organisations that leadership is crucial to
project outcome. I am happy that I could empirically validate it and identify some key
characteristics of successful project managers.
iv
Abstract
This research explores the nature and importance of leadership in technical projects. It
contends that there is a need to develop a leadership model incorporating the unique
personality and occupational characteristics of technical professionals and their project
environment. Increasing attention is now being paid to the non-technical aspects, such
as leadership, in the execution of technical projects; but there is a dearth of empirical
research justifying their importance as critical success factors.
Using Bass and Avolio’s (1990) model and its measurement instrument, this study
tested the suitability of transformational leadership, considered a cornerstone of post-
industrial school of leadership, in the successful execution of information systems
projects. In addition, a separate technical leadership scale, derived from the meta
analysis of the technical leadership literature, was also tested, compared and
contrasted with Bass and Avolio’s model.
The conceptual framework postulated that a combination of transformational and

technical leadership styles augment transactional leadership leading to high project
success with the additional support of other contingency factors, such as clarity of
project mission, top management support and availability of technical resources.
The population for the research was information systems projects in Australian
organisations. The participating organisations were part of the top 100 computer using
organisations, top 50 software companies and members of the Australian Information
Industry Association (AIIA). Of the 111 organisations which were invited and found
suitable, 36 participated in the research, yielding a response rate of 32%.
Each participating organisation involved two project teams in the survey, one
considered more successful and another less successful, on specified parameters.
The sample consisted of the IT project managers (n = 70) and their subordinates (n =
228) who described the leadership behaviours of self/manager in terms of
transformational, transactional, and technical leadership scales and their perceived
effectiveness. In addition, senior IT managers (n = 18) were interviewed to obtain a
three dimensional (superiors, self and subordinates) perspective of project leadership.
v
The results were consistent with the hypothesis that managers of more successful
projects exhibit transformational and technical leadership behaviours to a greater
extent than managers of less successful projects. They also exhibited more of
transactional contingent reward behaviour, thus, supporting the augmentation effect.
Management-by-exception passive behaviour showed a strong but negative
correlation with leadership outcome. As hypothesised, transformational and technical
leadership scales were more strongly correlated with leadership outcome scales in
more successful projects than in less successful projects. These results were in line
with the previous findings on Bass and Avolio’s model.
The more successful projects also exhibited stronger presence of the contingency
factors considered in the study i.e., better clarity of project mission to team members,
top management support and greater availability of technical resources. There was a
broad agreement between the managers and their subordinates on leadership,
outcome and contingency scales.
The factor analysis of leadership scales resulted in one transformational scale

(combination of intellectual stimulation and idealised influence), one technical scale
(organisational catalyst), and three transactional scales (contingent reward,
management-by-exception active and passive). The modified leadership scales were
used to propose a technical leadership model, laying the foundation for a technical
leadership theory.
The results demonstrate the importance of leadership as a critical success factor in

technical projects and provide valuable clues on a “role model” for aspiring project
managers which include the key elements of transformational and technical
leadership. While there may be no one leadership style that is effective in all project
situations, the study recommends an underlying yet flexible style characterised by
organisational catalyst, intellectual stimulation, behavioural charisma and contingent
reward behaviours for enhanced leadership effectiveness.
vi
On Leadership
Leadership is an invisible strand as mysterious as it is powerful.

It pulls and it bonds.
It is a catalyst that creates unity out of disorder.

Yet, it defies definition.
No combination of talents can guarantee it.

No process or training can create it where the spark does not exist.
The qualities of leadership are universal:

They are found in the poor and the rich,
The humble and the proud,
The common man and the brilliant thinker;
They are qualities that suggest paradox rather than pattern.
But wherever they are found Leadership makes things happen.
The most precious and intangible quality of leadership is trust,

The confidence that the one who leads will act in the best interest
of those who follow....the assurance that he/she will serve the
group without sacrificing the rights of the individual.
Leadership's imperative is a sense of rightness,

Knowing when to advance and when to pause,
When to criticise and when to praise, and
Knowing how to encourage others to excel.
From the leader’s reserves of energy and optimism,
His/Her followers draw strength.
In his/her determination and self-confidence, they find inspiration.
In its highest sense, leadership is integrity.

This command by conscience asserts itself more by commitment and
example than by directive.
Integrity recognises external obligations.
But it heeds the quiet voice within rather than the clamour without.
(Source: Author unknown. Published in an IBM publication around 1974).

vii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ii
Abstract iv
Quote on Leadership vi
List of Figures and Tables xii
List of Appendixes xiv
1 RESEARCH OVERVIEW 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Research objectives 2
1.3 Justification for the study 2
1.4 Definition of key terms 5
1.5 Research setting 7
1.5.1 Characteristics of an IT department 8
1.5.2 Organisation structure 9
1.5.3 Types of IT projects 10
1.5.4 Traits of IT personnel 11
1.6 Overview of Australian IT industry 12
1.6.1 IT industry in general 12
1.6.2 Computer services industry 13
1.6.3 Software services industry 14
1.7 Presentation of the study 14
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 16
2.1 An historical overview of leadership theories and research 16
2.1.1 Introduction 16
2.1.2 Definition of leadership 17
2.1.3 Overview of major research approaches to leadership 17
2.2 Charismatic leadership 21
2.2.1 Concept of charisma 21
2.2.2 Research on charisma 23
viii
2.2.3 Critique on charisma 23

2.3 Transformational Leadership 24
2.3.1 Burns’s concept of transforming leadership 25
2.3.2 Bennis and Nanus 26
2.3.3 Kouzes and Posner 26
2.3.4 Tichy and Devanna 26
2.3.5 Evaluation of transformational leadership theories 28
2.4 Bass and Avolio’s Model of Transformational Leadership - Concept 28
and Research
2.4.1 Transactional leadership 29

2.4.2 Transformational leadership 30
2.4.3 The model on the full range of leadership 30
2.4.4 Augmentation effect of transformational leadership 33
2.4.5 Situational impact on transformational and transactional leadership 34
2.4.6 Multi-factor leadership questionnaire(MLQ) 35
2.4.7 Research on Bass and Avolio’s model 35
2.4.8 Research on the model in Australia and New Zealand 37
2.4.9 Critique of Bass and Avolio’s model 38
2.5 Technical Leadership 39
2.5.1 Technical employees in management 40
2.5.2 Studies on technical leadership 41
2.5.3 Relevance of transformational leadership to technical employees 43
2.6 Information Technology Projects : Critical Success Factors and Role 45
of Leadership
2.6.1 Critical success factors 45

2.6.2 Project implementation profile (PIP) 46
2.6.3 Role of leadership in IS projects 49
2.6.4 Leadership skills in IS project managers 50
2.7 Summary 51
3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 52
3.1 Conceptual Framework 52
ix
3.2 Hypotheses 54
4 METHOD 56
4.1 Population 56
4.2 Sample Design 56
4.3 Research Design 57
4.4 Research Instruments 60
4.4.1 Measurement of Transformational, Transactional Leadership and 60
Outcomes
4.4.2 Measurement of Technical Leadership 61

4.4.3 Measurement of Contingency Factors 61
4.4.4 Factor Structure and Reliability of Questionnaire Items 62
4.5 Research Procedure 62
4.5.1 Pretest of Questionnaire 62
4.5.2 Support from Industry Associations 64
4.5.3 Communication Process 64
4.5.4 Data Collection Process 65
4.5.5 Interview Process 66
4.6 Analytic Procedure 67
4.7 Characteristics of Participants 68
4.7.1 Response Analysis 68
4.7.2 Organisational Profile 70
4.7.3 Organisational Chart 71
4.7.4 Project Profile 72
4.7.5 Demographics 73
5 RESULTS 74
5.1 Introduction 74
5.2 Subordinates’ Assessment of Leadership Behaviour 74
5.3 Subordinate’s Assessment of Leadership Outcome 76
5.4 Subordinate’s Assessment of Contingency Factors 79
5.5 Self(Managers’) Ratings on Leadership, Outcome & Contingency 79
Scales
x
5.6 Correlation Between Leadership and Outcome Scales (Self Ratings) 81

5.7 Comparison of Subordinates’ and Self Ratings 83
5.8 Correlation Between the Sub-scales of Transformational and 84
Transactional Leadership
5.9 Factor Analysis of Transformational & Transactional Leadership 85

Scales
5.10 Factor Analysis of Technical Leadership Scale 88

5.11 Intercorrelation between Transformational / Transactional and 89
Technical Leadership Scales
5.12 Factor Analysis of Modified Transformational, Transactional and 89

5.13 Model for the Measurement of Technical Leadership 92

5.14 Test of the Model for the Measurement of Technical Leadership 94
5.14.1 Subordinates’ Assessment of Leadership Behaviour 94
5.14.2 Correlation Between the Scales & with Outcome Scale 95
6 INTERVIEWS WITH SENIOR MANAGERS 97

6.1 Introduction 97
6.2 Criteria for Judging Project Performance 98
6.3 Key Success Factors 98
6.4 Project Leadership 99
6.5 Leadership Style and Project Outcome 100
6.6 Assessment of Transformational, Transactional & Technical 100
Leadership
6.7 Advice for Project Managers 102
7 DISCUSSION 103
7.1 Introduction 103
7.2 Comparison of Results with Hypotheses 103
7.3 Applicability of Bass & Avolio’s Model to Information Technology 105

Projects
7.4 Construct Validity of Bass & Avolio’s model 107

xi
7.5 Is There a Technical Leadership Style? 109

7.5.1 Comparing Technical Leadership Ratings with Transformational / 110
Transactional Leadership Ratings
7.5.2 Factor Structure of Technical Leadership 110

7.5.3 Distinguishing Technical Leadership from 111
Transformational/Transactional Leadership
7.6 Towards a Theory of Technical Leadership 112

7.7 Implications for Leadership Research 114
7.8 Research Implications for Organisations 115
7.9 Limitations of the Study 117
7.10 Future Research 119
7.11 Conclusion 119
Publications as a Result of This Research 122

Bibliography 123
Appendixes 132
xii
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 2-1 The augmentation model of transactional and 34

transformational leadership
Figure 2-2 Ten key factors of the project implementation profile 48
Figure 3-1 Conceptual framework 53
Figure 4-1 Typical organisational chart of a large IT development 71

project
Table 2-1 Overview of major research approaches to leadership 18
Table 2-2 Critical success factors in an IS environment 46
Table 2-3 Essential qualities and skills of IS project managers 50
Table 4-1 Sources of data collection 59
Table 4-2 Factor structure and reliability of questionnaire items 62
Table 4-3 Pretest of research design and questionnaire 63
Table 4-4 Analysis of response to the survey 69
Table 4-5 Profile of respondent organisations 70
Table 4-6 Project participation profile 72
Table 4-7 Project performance profile 72
Table 4-8 Demographics of project managers 73
Table 4-9 Demographics of project team members 73
Table 5-1 Subordinates’ ratings on leadership behaviour 75
Table 5-2 Subordinates’ ratings on leadership outcome 77
Table 5-3 Correlations between leadership and outcome scales 78
Table 5-4 Subordinates’ ratings on contingency scales 79
Table 5-5 Self (managers’) ratings on leadership, outcome and 80

contingency scales
Table 5-6 Correlations between leadership and outcome scales (self 82

ratings)
Table 5-7 Correlation matrix of the subscales of transformational and 85
transactional leadership scales (Subordinate ratings)
xiii
Table 5-8 Maximum likelihood factor analysis of transformational and 86

transactional leadership scales (subordinate ratings)
Table 5-9 Principal components factor analysis of technical leadership 88

scale (subordinate ratings)
Table 5-10 Principal components factor analysis of modified 90

transformational, transactional and technical leadership
scales (subordinate ratings)
Table 5-11 Second order principal components factor analysis of 92

modified transformational, transactional and technical
leadership scales (subordinate ratings)
Table 5-12 Comparison between more and less successful projects 95

using modified measurement instrument (subordinate
ratings)
Table 5-13 Correlation between scales and with outcome scales of the 96
modified measurement instrument
Table 6-1 Key success factors as named by senior managers 98
Table 6-2 Key success factors as ranked by senior managers 99
Table 6-3 Ratings of senior managers on transformational, 101

transactional and technical leadership scales
xiv
List of Appendixes
Appendix-1 Invitation letter for participation in the survey 132
Appendix-2 Coordinator’s questionnaire 134
Appendix-3 Interview questionnaire for senior managers 136
Appendix-4 Questionnaire for project managers 143
Appendix-5 Questionnaire for project team members 148
Appendix-6 Essential elements of transformational, transactional and 153

technical leadership
Appendix-7 Invitation letter for the pretest of questionnaire 155
Appendix-8 Letter to industry associations to support the survey 156
Appendix-9 Letters from industry associations supporting the survey 158
Appendix-10 First reminder letter for participation in the survey 161
Appendix-11 Second reminder letter for participation in the survey 162
Appendix-12 List and profile of participating organisations 163

Chapter 1. RESEARCH OVERVIEW
1.1 Introduction
Organisations are undergoing a paradigm shift under the shock of technological

revolution. The post-industrial era is characterised by the emergence of service
industry at the cost of the manufacturing sector and increasing importance of
information or knowledge based products and services vis-a-vis labour or capital
intensive products and services. Information Technology (IT) is at the core of these
changes and is rightly called the “third wave”.
Rapid strides in technological advancements have led to globalisation, re-structuring,

downsizing, fewer management levels, out-sourcing and emergence of knowledge
workers and virtual corporations. The impact of the post-industrial revolution is
evidenced by the rapidly changing distribution and the profile of work force. According
to Richman (1994), “since 1950s, the number of technical workers in the USA has
increased nearly 300%, triple the growth rate for the work force as a whole and thus,
creating the largest broad occupational category. The technicians are becoming the
core employees of the digital information age. The sheer growth in the number of
technicians and the diversity of occupations they hold bespeak a profound change in
the importance to companies that hope to survive and thrive in an era of epochal
change”.
In response to these developments, the nature, characteristics and styles of technical

leadership are undergoing fundamental changes. A research study on the leadership
of technical professionals (Rosenbaum, 1991) revealed that “since technical
professionals are highly specialised, managing them according to traditional principles
may meet with only minimal success”. To successfully manage today’s technical
employees, organisations require powerfully effective leaders who understand the
unique needs and aspirations of their technical subordinates and lead them
accordingly. Cascio (1995) concludes that “more often today’s networked,
interdependent, culturally diverse organisation requires transformational leadership”.
Chapter 1 Research Overview 2
1.2 Research Objectives
The basic purpose of this study was to identify the nature and characteristics of the
leadership styles or behaviours that were most suitable in the successful execution of
information technology (IT) projects. The second aim of the study was to examine the
importance of leadership as a critical success factor in IT projects in conjunction with
other critical variables. In order to address the purposes of this study, the following
research objectives were formulated:
1. To describe the leadership behaviour of more and less successful IT project

managers as perceived by themselves, their subordinates, and their superiors.
2. To test the effectiveness of different leadership behaviours in the success of the
projects led by IT project managers.
3. To replicate Bass and Avolio’s (1990) model on transformational and transactional
leadership in an IT project environment. Further, to compare the key characteristics
of transformational and transactional leadership behaviours in Bass and Avolio’s
model with those of effective technical leaders identified by the technical leadership
literature in order to examine whether the subordinates perceive these behaviours
as distinct, or as significantly overlapping.
4. To examine the differences, if any, between the perception of leaders (project
managers) and their subordinates with regard to leadership behaviour and its
effectiveness.
5. To examine the role of leadership as a critical success factor in the execution of IT
projects in conjunction with other critical variables.
6. To examine the essential skills and qualities in IT project managers as perceived by
their superiors.
7. To propose a leadership model and a measurement instrument which capture the
key behaviours of technical leaders leading to positive outcomes which are
quantitatively and qualitatively better than ordinary outcomes.
1.3 Justification for the Study
Leadership is critical in any human endeavour. It is generally recognised that

technical/scientific employees lack managerial skills, including leadership skills (Mann,
Mayer, Hutton and Cupper, 1994). In technology-intensive organisations, they are a
major source of talent for promotion to management but their transition to
management often becomes difficult for lack of interpersonal skills and adequate role
models in managing people (Davis, 1981; Rosenbaum, 1991).
Further, considering the unique occupational characteristics of technical employees

(Peterson, 1987) and their work environment (Wooldridge, 1976), a different approach
is called for in successfully leading them. However, an analysis of the literature reveals
that leadership research has given scant attention to technical leadership in terms of
proposing a leadership model that specifically takes in to account the unique problems
and challenges in leading technical employees nor has it incorporated technology,
such as IT, as either independent or dependent variable in to the design of empirical
research although it represents major organisational interventions (Klenke, 1996). This
study intends correcting this imbalance by specifically focusing on technical
leadership.
For the purpose of this study, the IT industry was chosen as the research setting for
several reasons. Today, IT is the major driving force of the post-industrial society
(Sadler, 1992) and therefore, provides an appropriate setting to look at technical
leadership. Secondly, there is a widespread dissatisfaction about the performance of
information systems (IS) projects and while analysing the causes for this failure,
researchers are increasingly recognising that technology is more often a secondary
issue behind management, particularly of human resources (Sauer, 1993; Lowry,
Morgan and FitzGerald, 1996). The importance of leadership as a critical success
factor in IS project management is well recognised (Pulk, 1990; Cash and Fox, 1992;
Cleland, 1995). However, in most cases, the identification of project success factors
have been theoretically based, rather than empirically derived (Pinto and Prescott,
1988).Thirdly, the author is well acquainted with the IT industry having worked for
several years as a Human Resources Management professional in IT organisations.
This study tests the suitability of Bass and Avolio’s (1990) model of transformational
leadership in an IT environment. Transformational leadership is considered a “new
force in leadership research” having dominated the field since 1980s (Bryman, 1992;
Yukl, 1994; Rost, 1993). The effects of transformational leadership is seen to be
quantitatively greater and qualitatively different than the effects specified in past
theories (Shamir, House and Arthur, 1993) which are collectively referred to as
“transactional leadership”.
While there are many theories on transformational leadership, Bass and Avolio’s
(1990) ‘full range of leadership model’ stands out as it clearly identifies different
components of transformational and transactional leadership and provides a well-
tested measurement instrument which has produced an impressive array of findings
(Bryman, 1992). Further, Bass and Avolio’s model has been empirically validated in a
wide variety of organisations, cultures and levels within organisations.
The model has been tested with generally positive results in technical and R&D
organisations (Keller, 1992; Howell and Higgins, 1990; Beatty and Lee, 1992) but not
in an IT project environment.
The model has been criticised on several grounds and this study addresses those
criticisms while testing the model:
• According to Yukl (1994), the distinction between transformational and
transactional leadership ignores some important managerial behaviours that do not
belong to either category. This study tests the model along with some other
important leadership behaviours, derived from the meta analysis of technical
leadership, to examine whether or not the model is able to explain the key
leadership behaviours of IT project managers.
• Most of the studies on this model have used questionnaire/survey method and
thus, suffer from the limitations of questionnaire correlational research (Hunt, 1991;
Smith and Peterson, 1988; Yukl, 1994). This study uses both quantitative (survey
questionnaire) and qualitative (interview) methods to facilitate a better
understanding of this growing body of leadership.
• Much of the research on transformational leadership has concentrated on top level

leaders (Burns, 1978; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Tichy and Devanna, 1986). Bass
and Avolio (1993: 54) concurred that even though transformational leadership has
been observed at lower organisational levels, it is likely to occur more frequently at
the highest organisational levels. This study tests the relevance of transformational
leadership at the middle management level to further understand the “universality”
of transformational leadership.
• The amount of empirical research on transformational leadership is still very limited

(Yukl, 1989: 223). As noted by Bass and Avolio (1993), not all of the behaviours of
transformational leadership have been identified or accurately measured and more

work remains to be done regarding the conceptualisation and measurement of
different constructs in the model. This study contributes to that effort.
Thus, the contribution of this research is two-fold: First, it throws more light on the
nature, characteristics and importance of technical leadership, in general and IT
project leadership, in particular. Second, it adds to the research on transformational
leadership by testing its relevance, predictability of success, and construct validity in
an IT project environment.
1. 4 Definition of Key Terms
• Leadership
Considering the purpose and nature of this study, Yukl’s (1994:5) definition seems to
be most appropriate. He defines leadership broadly as “influence processes affecting
the interpretation of events for followers, the choice of objectives for the group or
organisation, the organisation of work activities to accomplish the objectives, the
motivation of followers to achieve the objectives, the maintenance of cooperative
relationships and teamwork, and the enlistment of support and cooperation from
people outside the group or organisation”.
In line with Yukl’s (1994) thinking, the terms leader and manager are used
interchangeably in this study to refer to people who occupy positions in which they are
expected to exert leadership, but without any assumption that this process actually
occurs. Further, the terms style and behaviour are used interchangeably in this study
to describe what leaders do.
• Technical Leadership
Technical leadership in the context of this thesis refers to leadership of employees
engaged in technical/scientific occupations such as engineering, information
technology, and research & development (R&D).
• Information Technology/ Systems

Information Technology (IT) can be defined as “the hardware and software that is used
to collect, transmit, process, and disseminate data (symbols) in an organisation”
(Laudon and Turner, 1989: 52). The terms “information technology” and “information
systems” (IS) are used interchangeably. The term “system” is used here for the
combination of hardware and software that provides a computer service.
• Project
“An undertaking which involves a single, definable purpose, end product or result,
usually specified in terms of cost, schedule and performance requirements” (Nicholas,
1990: 3).
• Information Technology Project

A project where the prime project activity centres on information technology or
computing activities to deliver a business requirement.
• Project Manager
The person who is charged with managing the resources to get the complete project
implemented on time, within budget and with agreed functionality.
• Critical Success Factors (CSFs)

CSFs are those few things that must go well to ensure success of an undertaking and
must be given special and continual attention to bring about high performance
(Boynton and Zmud, 1984).
• Leadership Effectiveness/ Success

The words ‘success’ and ‘effectiveness’ are used interchangeably in this study with
reference to the leader and the project. The effectiveness/success of the leader are
measured by the leaders themselves (self perception) and the team members of the
project (subordinate perception) on the following parameters:
1. ability of the project manager (leader) in representing his/her group to higher
authority,
2. ability of the leader in meeting the job-related needs of his/her subordinates,
3. ability of the leader in meeting the requirements of the organisation, and
4. the overall effectiveness of the group.
• Leadership Satisfaction
The satisfaction with leadership based on self and subordinate perception are
measured in terms of:
1. Satisfaction with the leadership abilities of the project manager, and

2. Satisfaction with the methods of leadership used by the project manager in getting
his/her group’s job done.
• Project Success
The relative success or failure of the project is assessed by the senior manager of the
respondent organisations (to whom the project managers report) and are measured on
the following parameters:
1. Technical quality: the extent to which specified quality requirements are satisfied.
2. Cost performance: the extent to which the project is within the budgeted cost.
3. Deadline: the extent to which the key milestones are achieved.
4. Customer satisfaction: the extent to which the user is satisfied with the system
performance.
5. Overall project performance.
1.5 Research Setting
There are two kinds of IT organisations: One, a service department within an

organisation engaged in a non-IT activity (eg., an IT department in a bank), and
another whose main business is IT itself, i.e., hardware or software (development/
maintenance/ enhancement) or both (eg. IBM, Microsoft). This study covers both types
of organisations.
Even though an IT department is like any other service function in an organisation, it

differs quite significantly from others in terms of its characteristics and organisational
structure. These features have a vital bearing on organisational policies and
procedures and pose unique challenges to IT managers. Donaldson (1978) argues
that “computer projects can be extremely complex and they always demand a high
degree of technical and management skill. As they grow in size, the complexity grows
in a way that seems to be exponential”.
1.5.1 Characteristics of an IT Department

According to Wooldridge (1976), an IT department in any organisation has following
distinguishing characteristics:
1. The mission of service: As a service unit, its mission is to provide workable
computer systems within acceptable limits of costs and time.
2. The technical nature of work: Not only is work largely technical in nature, but it is
also a rapidly changing technology requiring constant training and acquisition of new
hardware and software.
3. Project orientation: Most of the system development department’s resources and

time are used to work on projects. Whether those efforts are directed to new systems,
support, enhancements or maintenance, all are project oriented, with discrete start and
finish points for each. This orientation to projects sets it apart from the other
departments, making it difficult for other groups to relate to it (Peterson, 1987: 43).
4. The bifurcated career path: The traditional career path in an IT set-up is from
programmer to systems analyst to manager. Many organisations provide alternate
career paths with both technical and managerial positions going in parallel and
carrying the same benefits so that a technical employee who does not want a
managerial position can continue in the technical path without losing managerial perks.
5. High turnover of staff: The first loyalty of IT employees is to their profession rather
than to the company. To retain the challenge in their technical work and to remain
competitive, they tend to change their jobs frequently, especially if they are working in
a non-IT organisation. Further, there is a global shortage of IT specialists.
Consequently, the turnover of IT staff in most organisations is much higher than for
other occupational categories and is typically in the range of 15 to 20%.
6. Orientation to development work: Much of the work in an IT department concerns

operation and maintenance of existing systems but most of the IT staff aspire to work
in development of new systems which is nonrepetitive and challenging. This attitude
has serious implications on deployment of resources, morale, turnover of staff and
training.
7. Outsourcing: Due to the complexity and constantly changing technical skills required
in an IT project, most organisations today outsource part or whole of their information
systems development and maintenance functions. Consequently, for better career
prospects and rewards, a significant number of IT specialists (programmers, analysts,
consultants) prefer to work independently as contractors or through IT consultancy and
placement organisations which take up IT projects on a turn-key basis or on time and
material basis. This creates two groups of people in an IT project: one, the permanent
employees of the organisation and two, the outside contractors. This reflects on
difference in remuneration, organisational and project loyalty between the team
members and its impact on managerial control.
1.5.2 Organisation Structure

Wooldridge (1976: 27) identified three basic patterns of IT departmental organisation:
1. Hierarchical structure: In this pattern which was prevalent before 1980s, the
department manager is at the top and may report to the head of management
services or general manager or CEO. Reporting to him/her are a systems manager
and a programming manager, who are in turn responsible for the analysts,
programmers and trainees in each category.
2. Pool or matrix structure: In this structure, the teams are drawn from pools of
systems analysts and programmers. In the most fluid of arrangements, one
individual may be leader for one project, but may also may be a team member
cooperating with someone else on another project, simultaneously or
consecutively. The size and composition of the team often varies through the life
cycle of the project. A matrix organisation employs a “multiple command system”.
The major drawback of this structure is that it splits the lines of reporting and may
cause confusion and frustration as to who is the real ‘boss’.
3. Permanent team structure: In this structure, there may be a layer of project

managers between the head of IT department and team leaders. Each team
consists of programmers and analysts, who may be specialists in particular
application areas, and are assigned to that team almost permanently. This
structure demands a competent project leader for its success and its cohesiveness
fosters team spirit.
1.5.3 Types of IT Projects

There are a number of jobs that qualify as separate projects in implementing a data
processing system (Awani, 1986; Wooldridge, 1976):
1. Feasibility studies: In this, the data processing requirements of the organisation are
analysed to determine if there is technological, operational and economic
justification to change to a new system, and if so, what are the alternatives and the
best approach to take.
2. Systems development: This involves information gathering, data and problem

analysis, system design, programming, system testing, conversion and
implementation, and post-implementation evaluation.
3. Equipment and software selection: This concerns the evaluation and procurement
through competitive tendering of appropriate hardware and software to run and
maintain the system.
The basic activities of an IT project are best introduced in relation to the phases of
system’s life cycle:
• Initiation- requirements analysis.
• Definition- functional specification
• Design- construction specification
• Programming- coding
• Testing- integration
• Operation- maintenance.
1.5.4 Traits of IT Personnel

According to Peterson (1987:118), as an occupational group, IT personnel exhibit
certain distinguishing traits:
1. Youth: IT employees are significantly younger, on average, (typically in their
twenties and thirties) than those of most departments, both absolutely and in terms of
their salary and position levels.
2. Mobility: They are more apt to change jobs frequently and are more amenable to
geographic flexibility than most other groups. With competitive job markets, this tends
to result in short tenure (typically, less than four years).
3. Craftsman approach: As craftsmen, they place a high priority on the tools they utilise
and the abstract quality of the product they produce. This attitude is a unique mix of
the product/service orientation.
4. Sensitivity to work: They tend to identify their own worth with the success and
acceptance of the product produced. They see the system that they produce as an
extension of their personality and a statement of their level of skill.
5. Isolation from corporate society: Due to a general misunderstanding of what a

development department does and how, the corporation does not relate well to
systems development personnel. The result is a sense of isolation and a notable
aloofness and separatism in the personalities of the staff.
6. Association with absolutes: IT personnel tend to have a black/white approach to

problem solving. The pragmatism of politics and interpersonal relations is somewhat at
odds with their sense of right or wrong production systems.
7. Intenseness: The intense concentration required of IT personnel implies success for

those who can concentrate by excluding outside influences.
8. Flexibility: Due to the dynamic nature of the discipline, successful IT personnel tend
to display extraordinary flexibility in accepting and adapting to change.
1.6 Overview of Australian IT Industry
According to Da Silva (1996), “Australia is perceived as a technology-intensive nation.

It is second only to the USA in both the number of personal computers per head of
population and use of the internet. Australia also employs more IT professionals per
capita than almost any other country”.
1.6.1 IT Industry in General

Using a new IT map, the Bureau of Industry Economics (BIE) (Houghton, Pucar and
Knox, 1996) divides the IT sector into four main industries- communication services
(telephony etc.), information (computer) services (networks and computer related
services), equipment manufacturing and content (information products and
publications).
The BIE estimates that “in 1993, 7500 businesses were operating in the Australian IT
industries employing more than 160,000 people. The IT industry today represents 5%
of the Australian economy with an annual turnover of over $33 billion in 1995 and is
growing at the rate of 25% a year. The IT and telecommunications will be Australia’s
biggest single industry by the year 2000”.
According to BIE, majority (67%) of computing professionals and data processing

managers have degrees or higher education-based qualifications. They have enjoyed
a compound annual growth of 23% in the IT industries since 1989-90.
The Australasian IT industry (Australia and New Zealand) is very top heavy. For
instance, of the 3001 top computer using organisations in the region, the top 10
combined were bigger than the bottom 2500 combined (Conners, 1995). These large
users spend more money, employ more people, and develop more software, than just
about the rest of the industry put together.
In terms of industry representation in the IT sector, the government owned industries

dominate the scene. For example, of the top 100 computer using organisations, the
community services (education, health, welfare etc.), public administration, and
defence accounted for more than half (51%), followed by finance industry (banking
and insurance) (Conners, 1995).
1.6.2 Computer Services Industry

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (1995) defines the Computer Services (CS)
industry as “the businesses whose primary activities are the provision of data
processing services, computer maintenance services, computer consultancy services,
and information storage and retrieval services”. The following statistics relate to the
computer services (CS) industry for the year 1992-93, as per the latest information
compiled by the ABS (1995).
In 1992-93, there were 4894 businesses in the CS industry employing about 30,000
people with a sales turnover of $4 billion. The spread of employment within the
industry was as follows:
Computer consultancy services - 75%
Computer maintenance - 16%
Data processing services - 7%, and
Information storage and retrieval services - 2%.
The CS industry was dominated by small businesses, with 97% of businesses

employing fewer than 20 people. Particularly, over 85% of them employed less than 5
persons. The small businesses (employing less than 20 persons) accounted for 42%
of industry employment and 28% of industry operating profit before tax. In contrast, the
29 businesses in the industry employing 100 or more persons (representing less than
1% of total businesses) accounted for 42% of employment and 58% of operating profit.
The states of New South Wales (NSW) (of which Sydney is the capital) and Victoria (of
which Melbourne is the capital) dominated the CS industry as together they accounted
for 77% of employment and 81% of income for the industry. This is no surprise
considering that about 50% of the Australian population is concentrated in NSW and
Victoria.
87% of the employees in the CS industry worked full-time. While males dominated
computer maintenance and consultancy services (above 70%), females dominated the
data processing services (62%) with majority of females working part-time (56%).
Females were employed more in non-technical work whereas males dominated as
working proprietors/directors and computing/technical staff.
1.6.3 Software Services Industry

The software services sector is the driving force of the IT industry. For instance, the
top 50 software companies generated total revenues of $959 million and achieved a
growth rate of about 22% in 1994-95, nearly double the average growth of Australian
IT industry (Kennedy, 1996:4). Of these top 50, 18 were Australian companies and the
rest were multinational software vendors with local offices in Australia. Together, the
top 50 employed nearly 5500 employees in 1995.
1.7 Presentation of the Study
This research is presented in seven parts:

1. Research overview
2. Literature review
3. Conceptual framework
4. Method
5. Results
6. Interviews with senior managers, and
7. Discussion.
The first part,

• introduces technical leadership,
• states the research objectives,

• outlines the reasons justifying the study,
• defines key terms used in the study, and
• presents the characteristics of the research setting, namely, the information
technology environment and the salient features of the Australian IT industry.
The second part focuses on the literature review. It consists of:

• an historical overview of leadership theories and research,
• concept and research on charismatic leadership, a key component of
transformational leadership,
• concept and various theories on transformational leadership, in general,
• concept and research on Bass and Avolio’s model of transformational leadership
• an account of various studies on technical leadership, and
• review of critical success factors, particularly, the role of leadership, in information
technology projects.
The third part deals with:

• conceptual framework of the thesis, and
• hypothesis arising out of the conceptual framework.
The fourth part pertains to the research method and accordingly includes:
• the research design and the identified sources of data collection,
• the research instruments used to measure, both quantitatively and qualitatively,
project leadership and contingency factors influencing IT project implementation,
• the research procedure outlining the pretesting of questionnaire and
communication with respondents,
• the analytical methods used to interpret the data, and
• characteristics of participants.
In the fifth part, the results of the study are presented to test the hypotheses drawn
from the conceptual model. The data for the more and less successful projects are
compared and contrasted. First the subordinates’ ratings on their project manager’s
leadership behaviour and its perceived effectiveness are discussed and later
compared with the self ratings of managers. Thereafter, using the subordinate ratings,
the construct validity of leadership scales are examined and the results are used to
propose a refined model to test technical leadership behaviours.
The sixth part presents the results from the content analysis of the interviews with the
senior IT managers of the participating organisations. Thus, the overall results present
three views of IT project leadership, i.e., of superiors, self and subordinates.
In the final part, the results are interpreted in the light of the findings of previous
studies and conclusions drawn with regard to the applicability of Bass and Avolio’s
model (1990) to IT projects, its construct validity, comparison between the model and
the technical leadership scale tested, and finally the proposed model to measure
technical leadership. The organisational implications of the research are highlighted,
along with the limitations of the study and directions for future research.
Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 An Historical Overview of Leadership Theories and Research
2.1.1 Introduction
The history of mankind is rich with the subject of leaders and leadership. Bass (1990)
argues that the study of leadership rivals in age the emergence of civilisation, which
shaped its leaders as much as it was shaped by them. Yukl (1994) opined that the
widespread fascination with leadership may be because it is such a mysterious
process, as well as one that touches everyone’s life. Accordingly, leadership has been
a subject of intense debate and controversy among sociologists, political scientists,
historians, psychologists and management scientists.
However, it appears that the intellectual debate on leadership has generated more
heat than light. There is a deep sense of pessimism among the leadership scholars
about what has been achieved so far. In this connection, the following remarks by
some of the reputed scholars of leadership research are worth noting:
• Bernard (1948): Leadership has been the subject of an extraordinary amount of
dogmatically stated nonsense.
• Stogdill (1974): The endless accumulation of empirical data has not produced an
integrated understanding of leadership.
• Burns (1978): Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood
phenomena on earth.
• Bennis and Nanus (1985): Thousands of empirical investigations of leadership
have been conducted in the last seventy-five years alone, but no clear and
unequivocal understanding exists as to what distinguishes leaders from non-
leaders.
• Rost (1993): Most of what is written about leadership has to do with its peripheral
elements and content rather than with the essential nature of leadership as a
relationship.
• Yukl (1994): Leadership research has been characterised by narrowly focused
studies with little integration of findings from different approaches.
What is wrong with leadership research? The basic problem appears to be the lack of
consensus on almost all aspects of the study of leadership. Kunhert (1993) observes
Chapter 2 Literature Review 17
that leadership researchers have been criticised for shoddy scientific approaches: lack
of definitional focus, poor methodology, poor measurement, inappropriate
assumptions, and reliance on outdated theories. According to Burns (1978:3), one of
the most serious failures in the study of leadership has been the lack of integration
between the literature on leadership and the literature on followership. In this
connection, Crowe, Bochner, and Clark (1972) stated, on the basis of their empirical
study, that the subordinates’ influence is strong enough to bring about a response from
managers that is opposite to their own preference and therefore, the influence of
subordinates must be included in theories that seek to understand the manager-
subordinate relationship.
Considering the controversy surrounding the subject, this literature review chapter on
leadership theories takes an overall and broad historical look at the literature without
being influenced by any particular school of thought or line of thinking. During the
discussion, the theories are classified by their broad approaches.
2.1.2 Definition of Leadership

In the opinion of Bass (1990:11), “generally, leadership has been conceived as the
focus of group processes, as a matter of personality, as a matter of inducing
compliance, as the exercise of influence, as particular behaviours, as a form of
persuasion, as a power relation, as an instrument to achieve goals, as an effect of
interaction, as a differentiated role, as initiation of structure, and as many combinations
of these definitions”. Yukl (1994:3) adds that “most definitions of leadership assume
that it involves a social influence process whereby intentional influence is exerted by
one person over other people to structure the activities and relationships in a group or
organisation”. In research, the operational definition of leadership will depend to a
great extent on the purpose of the researcher (Yukl, 1994; Bass, 1990).
2.1.3 Overview of Major Research Approaches to Leadership

Theories of leadership attempt to explain the factors involved either in the emergence
of leadership or in the nature of leadership and its consequences (Bass, 1990:37).
Table 2-1 summarises the theories of leadership in terms of major approaches, as
adapted from Yukl (1994).
Table 2-1: Overview of major research approaches to leadership
Approach Essential Major Studies Major Limitations
Theme Methodologies
Trait Emphasises the • McClelland, Comparing traits of 1. Lack of attention

Approach personal 1965 successful and to intervening

(1930s to attributes of • Miner, 1965 unsuccessful variables in the
1940s) leaders such as leaders through causal chain
adaptability, interviews, critical 2. Individual traits
alertness, incidents etc. fail to strongly
achievement correlate with
orientation etc. effectiveness
Behaviour Focuses attention • Ohio State Behaviour 1. Problems with

Approach on the content of Leadership description identifying
(1950s to leadership Studies (Stogdill questionnaires meaningful
1970s) behaviour and Coons, behavioural
divided between 1957); categories;
task-orientation • Michigan 2. Emphasis on
(initiation) and Leadership individual rather
people- Studies; than patterns of
orientation • Managerial Grid specific
(consideration). (Blake and behaviours;
Mouton, 1964) 3. Mostly
contradictory
and inconclusive
results
Power- Examines • French and Questionnaires 1. Lack of validity

Influence influence Raven, 1959; for the measures
Approach processes • Social exchange of leader power;
between leaders theory; 2. Failure to deal
and followers. • Strategic with likely
Explains contingencies confounding
leadership theory; among different
effectiveness in • Leader-member sources of
terms of the Exchange power; LMX
amount and type Theory (LMX) theory is more
of power (Dansereau, descriptive than
possessed by a Graen, and prescriptive.
leader and how Haga, 1975)
power is
exercised.
Situational Looks at 1. Mintzberg, 1973 Comparative study 1. Lack of a broad
Approach contextual 2(a). Path-goal theory of situations perspective on the
(1970s to factors. Has two (House, 1971) demands and
early streams: 2(b). Leader constraints faced by a
1980s) 1. Influence of substitutes theory leader.
organisational 2(c).The multiple- 2(a). Mixed results;
type or linkage model methodological
managerial 2(d). Leadership limitations;
position on contingency theory conceptual
managerial (Fiedler, 1967); deficiencies
behaviour 2(e). Cognitive 2(d) Meaning of
2. Contingency resources theory Least Preferred Co-
theories that worker (LPC)
explain unclear; intervening
leadership variables ignored;
effectiveness in weak empirical
terms of support.
Situational
moderator
variables.
Partcipa- Primarily Vroom and Yetton Laboratory and 1. Methodological

tive concerned with (1973) Normative field experiments. weaknesses;
leadership power sharing Decision Model 2. Lack of
and consistent results
empowerment of
followers.
Charismati Explore how • Burns, 1978; Questionnaires; 1. Two factor
c and some leaders • Bass, 1985; Interviews distinction is
Transform motivate • Conger and unclear and an
ational followers to Kanungo, 1987; oversimplificatio
leadership perform beyond • Kouzes and n of a complex
(Since expectations and Posner, 1987; phenomenon.;
early identify • Tichy and 2. Ignores other
1980s) behaviours and Devanna, 1986; important
traits, such as • Bennis and managerial
charisma and Nanus, 1985 behaviours;
vision, 3. Distinction
facilitating between
leadership charisma and
effectiveness. transformational
leadership needs
clarification.
Adapted from Yukl (1994)
It is difficult to fit all the theories in the form of major approaches as leadership by its
very nature is a multi-disciplinary concept. Further, the different theories of leadership
are not separate and distinct movements in the history of leadership studies. As stated
by Rost (1993:23-28), “the models feed on one another and are a mish-mash of the
structural-functionalist framework of groups and organisations. Moreover, the theories
did not run riot in any one separate time period, nor did they disappear from the picture
when the next so-called dominant theory appeared on the scene”. Still, considering the
enormous amount of work done on leadership, some kind of categorisation becomes
inevitable.
As can be seen from the Table 2-1, the scientific research on leadership started with
individual traits of consequence which fell out of favour for some time only to reappear
again in 1980s. In direct opposition to trait theories, situational theorists suggested that
leadership is all a matter of situational demands and advanced the view that the
emergence of a great leader is a result of time, place and circumstance. Then came
the theories combining personal and situational factors. The path-goal theory focused
on the reinforcement of change in the subordinate by the leader.
A major shift in leadership research occurred when the emphasis moved to task
(initiation) vs. relations (consideration). However, these theories were criticised for not
taking into account the situational contingencies moderating the effects. These
contingencies include the make-up of the subordinates and the organisational

constraints, tasks, goals, and functions in the situation. The Hersey-Blanchard model
(1969) tried to remedy the situation by focusing on the followers’ psychological
maturity and job experience as the most important contingencies affecting the leader’s
need to be task-oriented or relations oriented. However, according to Yukl (1994:71),
“the long fixation on consideration and initiating structure appears to be ended, and
most researchers now realise that it is necessary to examine more specific types of
behaviours to understand leadership effectiveness”.
The next major impact was felt by the situation research which explained leadership
effectiveness in terms of situational moderator variables. For instance, Fiedler’s widely
researched contingency model states that 1. task orientation works best in situations
that are either extremely favourable or extremely unfavourable to the leader or in
which the leader has a very high or very low control and 2. relations orientation works
best in situations that are moderately favourable to the leader or in which the leader
has moderate control. However, this approach was criticised for lack of a broad
perspective, neglect of intervening variables, and weak empirical support (Yukl, 1994;
Bryman, 1992).
The current phase in leadership research is dominated by charismatic and

transformational leadership theories which identify the types of behaviour used by the
leader and traits that facilitate the leader’s effectiveness. They also take into account
follower perceptions and attributions. As transformational leadership is the focus of this
study, it is discussed in detail in terms of its character, contribution and controversy in
the subsequent chapters.
What is the final picture and outcome of all the leadership theories? Lau, Atwater,
Avolio and Bass (1991:11) state that “in between the oldest and the newest theories,
we have seen the rise of theories that are situational rather than personal explanations
of leadership”. Yukl (1994:16) concludes that “we have learned something about the
different pieces but have little information about the way the pieces fit together”.
According to Sashkin and Fulmer (1988), “one of the challenges for leadership theory
and research is the identification of a limited number of variables in each of the three
areas- personality, situation, and behaviour- that nonetheless explain a maximum
degree of variance in leadership effectiveness”. In response to the call for an
integrated approach, House (1988:256) feels that “although there is certainly room for
integration of the propositions of the several theories, each purports to explain a

different aspect of the leadership phenomenon and therefore, these theories are not in
direct competition with each other”.
Despite widespread discontentment about what has been achieved so far in

leadership research, Bass (1990) concludes, after reviewing more than 7500
references, that “considerable body of theory, method, evidence, and understanding is
available about how, why, and under what conditions leadership, in all its rich
variations, energises and exerts its influence”.
Having looked at historical milestones in leadership theories, the literature review now
focuses on the current phase of leadership research characterised by charismatic and
transformational leadership.
2.2 Charismatic Leadership
In the 1980s, leadership research shifted to an increasing focus on charismatic

leadership, visionary leadership, and transformational leadership. While there are
differences in these concepts, there is considerable overlap too. For instance, vision is
a critical component of charisma whereas charisma is a key component of
transformational leadership. Many writers have focused exclusively on charisma
(House, 1977; Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Bryman, 1992).
2.2.1 Concept of Charisma

Max Weber is credited with introducing the concept of charisma to the sociology of
religion in the early part of this century. Weber’s concept of charisma, as summarised
by Trice and Beyer (1986), had five components: 1. a person with extraordinary gifts,
2. a crisis, 3. a radical solution to the crisis, 4. followers who are attracted to the
exceptional person because they believe that they are linked through him to
transcendent powers, and 5. validation of the person’s gifts and transcendence in
repeated experiences of success. Since then, “Weber’s original concept has been
modified, expounded on , and extended in numerous sociological, political science,
and psychoanalytic treaties” (Bass, 1990:186).
According to Bryman (1992:41), “charismatic leadership is concerned with

relationships between leaders and their followers in which, by virtue of both the
extraordinary qualities that followers attribute to the leader and the latter’s mission, the
charismatic leader is regarded by his/her followers with a mixture of reverence,

unflinching dedication, and awe. This devotion is due to the charismatic leader qua
individual and not by occupancy of a status or position that is legitimised by traditional
criteria”.
Bass (1990:220) observes that “two attributes are seen to be essential for the
charismatic relationship. The leader must be a person of strong convictions,
determined, self-confident, and emotionally expressive and his/her followers must want
to identify with the leader as a person, whether they are or not in a crisis. Whether the
charismatic leader is self-aggrandising or prosocial, he or she generates extraordinary
performance in the followers”.
In the opinion of Bryman (1992), “routinisation is an inevitable consequence of the

emergence of charisma, in that without it the original charismatic impulse appears
doomed to failure. The success of routinisation depends on the way the succession
problem is resolved and the emergence of a structure for the perpetuation of the
charismatic influence”.
Boal and Bryson (1988:16) argue that there are two types of charismatic leaders,
visionary and crisis-produced, and the common thread is that each tries to create a
new or different world that is phenomenologically valid for his/her followers. They
further propose an integrated model of charismatic leadership consisting of six basic
components: leader characteristics and behaviours, perceptions and feelings of
followers, behaviour of followers, consequences of the behaviour of the followers,
follower characteristics, and task and environmental variables. An implication of this
model is that charismatic effects may not be limited to a few who are endowed with
exceptional gifts but that many less endowed people too may bring about similar
effects.
2.2.2 Research on Charisma

The first major application of charisma to the study of formal organisations was made
by House (1977). In his work, House developed a number of testable hypotheses
about the characteristics and behaviour of charismatic leaders, situational factors, and
other issues. According to House, charismatic leaders are likely to have a strong need
for power, engage in behaviour intended to make subordinates believe in leader’s
competence and success, articulate ideological goals of the group, set their own
examples, communicate high expectations of and belief in follower performance and

arouse motives relevant to the group’s mission.
House further believed that charismatic leadership is most likely to arise in stressful
situations. The inclusion of leader traits, behaviour, influence, and situational
conditions, makes House’s theory more comprehensive in scope than most leadership
theories (Yukl, 1989:205).
Conger and Kanungo (1987) view charismatic leadership as essentially the product of
a process of attribution, whereby certain patterns of behaviour lead some individuals to
be regarded as charismatic by others. Therefore, their emphasis is on the types of
behaviour by the leader that would make the subordinates attribute charisma to
him/her. Vision is one such key behaviour and is in fact ‘the cornerstone to charismatic
leadership’. Vision is defined as the ‘idealised goal that the leader wants the
organisation to achieve in the future’.
Conger and Kanungo (1987) view the process of attribution as involving a sequence
of stages , namely, sensing opportunity and formulating a vision, articulating the vision,
building trust in the vision, and achieving the vision through empowerment.
2.2.3 Critique on Charisma

One of the main problems in applying charisma to business organisations is that it is
considered to be an extremely rare leadership quality and is seen to be confined to the
top levels of the organisation. In fact, writers such as Bennis and Nanus (1985), Kotter
(1990) and Tichy and Devanna (1990) do not regard charisma as an important aspect
of effective leadership mainly because they often identify it as a rare quality that only
certain individuals exhibit by virtue of innate ability. Bryman (1992:164) opposes this
view by asserting that charisma is not an individual trait but a type of relationship
between the leader and the led which is the outcome of a process.
A major controversy is about whether charisma is primarily a result of leader

attributes, situational conditions, or an interactive influence process between leader
and followers (Yukl, 1989:205). Bryman (1992) bemoans the lack of attention by
researchers on charisma on its routinisation process such as succession and
institutionalisation of vision. Roberts and Bradley (1988) suggest that there are
inherent limits to the transfer of charisma and conclude that “at present, we have
neither a theory to predict outcomes nor any practical understanding to ensure “good”
charisma and prevent “bad” and therefore, it is still very poorly understood”.
However, the concept of charisma has fertilised the study of leadership (Burns,
1978:243). There is no doubt that charismatic leadership is one of the major focuses of
the new genre of leadership theories. It is also a key concept of transformational
leadership which is discussed next.
2.3 Transformational Leadership
In the beginning of 1980s, many US-based multinational corporations started feeling

the heat of globalisation. The emergence of Japan and South East Asian countries
forced them to alter their strategies and revitalise their organisations by downsizing,
restructuring and repositioning their operations. The economic rationale and ethical
consequences of such actions are beyond the scope of this study. As a consequence,
they had to enlist the support of their employees to accept and adapt to the on-going
changes in the organisational culture, structure and processes. Some of them were
attracted to the idea of doing this through “transformational”, “charismatic”, or
“visionary” leaders. Such leadership is claimed to affect followers in ways that are
quantitatively greater and qualitatively different than the effects specified in past
theories (Shamir, House and Arthur, 1993).
Rost (1993:123) argues that “transformational leadership is the cornerstone of the

post-industrial school of leadership”. According to Yukl (1994:350), “transformational
leadership refers to the process of building commitment to the organisation’s
objectives and empowering followers to accomplish these objectives”. Some theories
of transformational leadership also examine how leaders change the culture, structure
and processes of the organisation to be consistent with management strategies for
accomplishing organisational objectives.
Burns (1978) was the first to differentiate between transformational and transactional
leaders. His concept was further expanded by Bass (1985) and his team. Their
approach is explained in the next section. This section covers some of the prominent
research studies on transformational leadership. Much of the research on
transformational leadership has been descriptive and qualitative using interviews and
observations and then content analysing the data to identify characteristic behaviours,
traits and influence processes (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Tichy and Devanna, 1986;
Kouzes and Posner, 1987).
2.3.1 Burns’s concept of transforming leadership

According to Burns (1978), leadership is inseparable from followers’ needs and goals.
The essence of the leader-follower relation is the interaction of persons with different
levels of motivations and of power potential, including skill, in pursuit of a common or
at least a joint purpose. That interaction takes two fundamentally different forms. The
first is transactional leadership where one person takes the initiative in making contact
with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things. Each party to the bargain
is conscious of the power resources and attitudes of the other. Their purposes are
related and within the bargaining process. But the relationship does not go beyond
this. The bargainers have no enduring superordinate goal that holds them together.
In contrast, transforming leadership raises to higher levels of motivation and morality.

Power bases are linked not as counterweights but as a mutual support for common
purpose. Transforming leadership ultimately becomes moral in that it raises the level of
human conduct and ethical aspiration of both leader and the led, and thus, it has
transforming effect on both (p. 19-20).
For Burns (1978), transforming leadership may be exhibited by any one in the
organisation in any type of position. Burns also differentiated transforming and
transactional leadership from influence based on bureaucratic authority. Bureaucratic
organisations emphasise legitimate power and respect for rules and tradition, rather
than influence based on exchange or inspiration.
2.3.2 Bennis and Nanus

Bennis and Nanus (1985) conducted a five-year study of dynamic and innovative
leaders. They identified several common characteristics, such as developing vision,
fostering commitment and trust and facilitating organisational learning. Nanus (1992)
defined vision as a realistic, credible, attractive future for the organisation. Visionary
leaders channel the collective energies of organisational members in pursuit of a
common vision. These leaders “move followers to higher degrees of consciousness,
such as liberty, freedom, justice, and self-actualisation”.
It is not enough to identify a coherent and appealing vision, it must be communicated

and embodied in the culture of the organisation. The genius of a visionary leader lies
in articulating a vision simple enough to be understood, appealing enough to evoke

commitment, and credible enough to be accepted as realistic and attainable. Such a
leader also understood the importance of individual and organisational learning.
2.3.3 Kouzes and Posner

Kouzes and Posner (1987) identified five fundamental practices in their case studies,
surveys and interviews on exemplary leadership practices that enabled leaders to get
extraordinary things done:
• challenging the process: by searching for opportunities and experimenting and
taking risks
• inspiring a shared vision: by envisioning the future and enlisting others
• enabling others to act: by fostering collaboration and strengthening others
• modelling the way: by setting examples and planning small wins, and
• encouraging the heart: by recognising contributions and celebrating
accomplishments.
Based on their conceptual and empirical framework, Kouzes and Posner developed a
leadership measurement instrument called Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI).
2.3.4 Tichy and Devanna

According to Tichy and Devanna (1990), transformational leadership is about change,
innovation, and entrepreneurship. Their findings were based on ‘a number of clinical
cases based on individual interviews with limited data from others in their
organisations’. They view transformational leadership process as a sequence of
phases as follows:
1. Recognising the need for revitalisation- centres on the challenges the leader
encounters when he or she attempts to alert the organisation to growing threats from
the environment. They suggested that leaders increase sensitivity to environmental
changes and threats by encouraging objective critiques and dissenting opinions,
improved monitoring of the environment by developing better external networks,
visiting other organisations to learn from them, and by measuring performance against
that of competitors. Once the awareness is created, the next step is to manage the
transition process.
2. Creating a new vision- involves the leader’s struggle to focus the organisation’s
attention on a vision of the future that is exciting and positive. The vision evolves over
a longer period of time and is the product of a participative process involving key
people in the organisation. Beginning with the mission statement, an agenda of high
priority objectives should be developed, followed by strategies for attaining them.
3. Institutionalising change- the transformational leader must develop a new coalition

of key people, both inside and outside the organisation, who will be committed to the
vision. Some of the techniques suggested to facilitate the change process are special
task forces, planning meetings, workshops, team building interventions etc.
To achieve the above, the transformational leader should act as a change agent, be
courageous (take prudent risks), believe in people and empowerment, be value-driven,
be a life-long learner, have the ability to deal with complexity, ambiguity and
uncertainty, and be a visionary.
Yukl (1994) concludes that the descriptive research, described above, is too imprecise
for reaching firm conclusions about the nature of transformational leadership.
However, they do help identify the types of leadership behaviour typical of these
leaders.
2.3.5 Evaluation of transformational leadership theories

The theories on transformational, charismatic and visionary leadership are still under
development and therefore, it may be premature to judge their validity and
contribution. However, some critics have emerged. For example,
• according to Yukl (1994), the distinction between transformational and

transactional leadership is fast becoming a two factor theory of leadership
processes, which is an unwarranted oversimplification of a complex phenomenon.
Further, the distinction ignores some important managerial behaviours, such as
networking and team building, that do not belong to either category.
• Meindl (1989) suggested that the new theories are the victim of ‘hyper
romanticism’ and have been accorded an inflated significance. In his view,
individuals are inclined to exaggerate the significance of leadership, especially
when performance levels are at extreme.
• Bryman (1992: 152) felt that a preoccupation with ‘vision’ may engender a loss of
grip on other aspects of organisational reality and should not be part of “fads and
fashions which offer nostrums for complex problems”. He also pointed out the
excessive emphasis placed on top executives by many writers of these theories.
Despite the criticisms, the contribution of new leadership theories is generally

recognised in the leadership literature, in terms of providing solution to the leadership
challenges of the post-industrial era, emphasising the importance of vision and
charisma in transforming organisations, and combining the essence of most of the
earlier theories such as traits and situational approaches (Bryman, 1992; Yukl, 1994,
Bass and Avolio, 1997).
2.4 Bass and Avolio’s Model of Transformational Leadership - Concept

and Research
Bass (1985) is a major proponent of transformational leadership theory. He expanded

on Burns’s work and presented a conceptual model and a measurement instrument.
These were refined further by Bass and Avolio and their colleagues from a variety of
empirical investigations and have been widely used by researchers all over the world,
thus, forming a solid quantitative database in the study of transformational leadership.
This section outlines Bass and Avolio’s interpretation of transactional and

transformational leadership and considers their “full range of leadership model”.
Further, it presents an overview of research done on the model with regard to its factor
structure and empirical support.
2.4.1 Transactional leadership

According to Bass (1985), the “transactional” leader pursues a cost-benefit, economic
exchange to meet subordinates’ current material and psychic needs in return for
“contracted” services rendered by the subordinate. Transactional leaders clarify the
role and task requirements for the subordinates to reach the desired outcomes. This is
intended to give the subordinates sufficient confidence to exert the necessary effort.
Transactional leaders purport to know what the subordinates need and want and
accordingly clarify how these needs and wants will be satisfied if the necessary effort
is expended by the subordinate. Essentially, the transactional leaders focus on the
process, not the substance of issues (p.12-13).
Transactional leadership often fails to work for the following reasons (Bass and Avolio,
1990):
• leaders tend to underutilise transactional leadership methods due to time
pressures, poor appraisal methods, doubts about the efficacy of positive
reinforcement, lack of skill or confidence,
• leader may lack the necessary reputation or resources to deliver the needed
rewards,
• noncontingent rewards sometimes work as well as contingent rewards to bolster
performance,
• when the contingent reinforcement used is negative, the success of the
transactional leader plummets, and
• followers may take shortcuts to complete the exchange of a reward for compliance
to a task, thus, sacrificing quality.
Thus, while contingent reinforcement is successful in meeting lower-order objectives, it

will fall short of accomplishing higher-order objectives.
2.4.2 Transformational leadership

Bass views a “transformational” leader as the one who ‘motivates the subordinates to
do more than they originally expected to do’. Unlike the transactional leader who
indicates how current needs of followers can be fulfilled, the transformational leader
sharply arouses or alters the strength of needs which may have lain dormant. This is
achieved in any one of three interrelated ways:
1. By raising followers’ level of awareness of the importance of achieving valued

outcomes and the strategies for reaching them.
2. By encouraging followers to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the
team, organisation, or larger policy.
3. By developing followers’ needs to higher levels in such areas as achievement,
autonomy, and affiliation, which can be both work-related and nonwork-related.
In terms of distinction between transactional and transformational leadership, Bass

(1985) differs from Burns (1978) in three respects: First, he added the “expansion of
followers’ needs and wants”. Second, for Burns, the actions are transformational only if
society benefits from them whereas, in Bass’s point of view, transformational
leadership is not necessarily a beneficial relationship. Third, Burns sees
transformational leadership as the opposite end of a single continuum from

transactional leadership. Bass felt that leaders will exhibit a variety of patterns of
transformational and transactional leadership. In other words, according to Burns a
leader can either be transformational or transactional, whereas for Bass a leader can
be both (p.20-22).
2.4.3 The model on the full range of leadership

The model essentially covers three types of leadership behaviour: transformational,
transactional, and non-leadership. The components of these have increased over time
based on extensive research and conceptual refinement and presently, the model has
nine components (five transformational leadership factors, three transactional
leadership factors, and one non-leadership factor) which according to Avolio and Bass
(1991) explain the “full range of leadership styles”. Bass and Avolio (1990) have also
developed a measurement instrument called the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ).
Bass (1985) originally conceptualised and empirically derived the following seven
leadership factors from a sample of military officers:
Transformational Leadership Factors

Bass called the transformational factors as the four I’s: idealised influence (charisma),
inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualised consideration.
Factor 1: Charisma (idealised influence) This is generally defined with respect to

follower reactions to the leader as well as to the leader’s behaviour. Followers identify
with and emulate these leaders who are trusted and seen as having an attainable
mission and vision. Such leaders are thoroughly respected, have much referent power,
hold high standards, and set challenging goals for their followers. Sample item: “Has
my trust in his/her ability to overcome any obstacle”.
Following criticisms (House et al., 1991; Smith and Peterson, 1988; Hunt, 1991) that
charisma could be conceptualised and measured as both an attribution and a
behaviour, Bass and Avolio (1993) agreed that “charisma is undoubtedly both a
behaviour and an attribution for it requires particular follower emotional reactions to the
leader to be identified as such and therefore, there is a need to differentiate ‘attributed’
from ‘behavioural’ charisma”.
Accordingly, this factor is now subdivided in the latest MLQ (Form 5X) into “attributed
charisma” (AC) (sample item: instils pride in being associated with him or her) and
“idealised influence” (II) (sample item: specifies the importance of having a strong
sense of purpose).
Factor 2: Inspirational motivation (IM) This may or may not overlap with charismatic
leadership, depending on the extent to which followers seek to identify with the leader.
Provides symbols and simplified emotional appeals to increase awareness and
understanding of mutually desired goals. Sample item: “Uses symbols and images to
focus our efforts”.
Factor 3: Intellectual stimulation (IS) Encourages followers to question their own way
of doing things or to break with the past. Followers are supported for questioning their
own values, beliefs and expectations, as well as those of the leader and organisation.
Followers are also supported for thinking on their own, addressing challenges, and
considering creative ways to develop themselves. Sample item: “Enables me to think
about old problems in new ways”.
Factor 4: Individualised consideration (IC) Followers are treated differently but

equitably on a one-to-one basis. Not only are the maturity of their needs raised, but
their means for more effectively addressing goals and challenges are dealt with. With
individualised consideration, assignments are delegated to followers to provide
learning opportunities. Sample item: “Coaches me if I need it”.
Transactional leadership factors

Factor 5: Contingent reward (CR) Involves a positively reinforcing interaction between
leader and follower that emphasises an exchange (eg., rewards for meeting agreed
objectives). Emphasis is on facilitating the achievement of objectives agreed to by
followers. Their needs are identified, and then linked both to what the leader expects
to accomplish and to rewards for the followers if objectives are met. Sample item:
“Makes sure there is close agreement between what he or she expects me to do and
what I can get from him/her for my effort”.
Factor 6: Management-by-exception (MBE) Only when things go wrong will the leader
intervene to make some correction. Leaders may remain passive until problems
emerge that need correcting, or they may arrange to more actively monitor the
performance of followers so as to intervene when followers make mistakes. Generally,
the modes of reinforcement are correction criticism, negative feedback, and negative
contingent reinforcement, rather than the positive reinforcement used with contingent
reward leadership. Punishment and discipline are likely to be evidence of
management-by-exception. Sample item: “Takes action only when a mistake has
occurred”.
Following the result of a study by Hater and Bass (1988), the MBE factor was
subdivided into active and passive dimensions. An active leader (MBEA) attempts to
avoid mistakes while also developing supervisees to higher levels of potential. Sample
item: “Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from
standards”. A passive leader (MBEP) intervenes only when a mistake occurs. Sample
item: “He or she is a firm believer in if it ain’t brake, don’t fix it”. However, the bottom
line is that, when MBE is the dominant leadership orientation, it is considered
ineffective as such a leader lacks development orientation (Bass and Avolio, 1990).
The non-leadership factor

Factor 7: Laissez-faire Leadership is absent. Intervention by the nominal leader is
avoided. There are generally neither transactions nor agreements with followers.
Decisions are often delayed; feedback, rewards, and involvement are absent; and
there is no attempt to motivate followers or to recognise and satisfy their needs.
Sample item: “Doesn’t tell me where he or she stands on issues”.
Outcome factors
The MLQ provides three factors to measure the effectiveness of leadership:
Extra effort- Reflects the extent to which coworkers or followers exert effort beyond the
ordinary as a consequence of the leadership. Sample item: “Heightens my motivation
to succeed”.
Effectiveness- Reflects a leader’s effectiveness as seen by both self and others in four
areas: meeting the job related needs of followers, representing followers’ needs to
higher-level managers, contributing to organisational effectiveness; and performance
by the leader’s work group. Sample item: “How effective is the leader in meeting the
requirements of the organisation?”.
Satisfaction- Reflects how satisfied both leader and followers are with the leader’s
style and methods, as well as how satisfied they are in general with the leader.
Sample item: “In all, how satisfied are you with the leadership abilities of the person
you are rating?”
2.4.4 Augmentation effect of transformational leadership

A key concept of this model is the “augmentation effect” of transformational leadership
on transactional leadership. The transactional process, using contingent reward and
positive management-by exception, is viewed by the model as an essential component
of effective leadership. However, by adopting transformational leadership methods, a
transactional leader can enhance or augment the effectiveness of his/her leadership,
as shown in Figure 2-1. The newer paradigm adds transformational leadership to
previous transactional leadership models in a constructive and integrative manner to
explain more fully the range of behaviours and outcomes impacted by various styles of
leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1993).
Figure 2-1: The Augmentation model of transactional and transformational

leadership
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Charisma Inspiration Intellectual Individualised

+ + stimulation + consideration
Image not available - see printed version

TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP
Management-by- Expected Effort Extra Effort
Exception
+
Contingent Expected
Reward Performance
Performance Beyond
Expectations
(Source: Bass and Avolio, 1990)
In contrast, leaders who are inactive and laissez-faire or who exhibit MBEP behaviour
tend to produce less than desirable results, lower follower motivation, and are seen by
followers as ineffective leaders. In an “optimum” leadership profile, proactive (CR and
MBEA) and active (transformational) leadership behaviour are more frequently
observed; reactive (MBEP) and passive (lassaiz-faire) behaviour are less frequent.
2.4.5 Situational impact on transformational and transactional leadership

Bass (1985) stated that whether or not transformational or transactional leadership
emerges in a given situation depends upon the external environment, the
organisational environment, and the personality of the leader. He suggested that
transformational leaders are most likely to emerge in times of growth, change and
crisis. This does not mean that they are absent in “steady state” bureaucracies, but
merely that they will have to work harder in such conditions to push for improvements
(Bass and Avolio, 1990: 17). Bass also argued that transformational leadership is
more likely to emerge in organisations with less constrictive (organic) environments
than in constrictive (mechanistic) organisations and is also likely to occur more
frequently at the highest organisational levels than at the middle and lower levels.
2.4.6 Multi-factor leadership questionnaire (MLQ)

The MLQ is the primary quantitative instrument to measure both transactional and
transformational leader behaviour, and to investigate the nature of the relationship
between these leader styles and work unit effectiveness and satisfaction. It is available
in two forms which are parallel in content: the Rater Form, in which the subordinate or
the co-worker rates the leadership skills of the leader, and the Self-Rating Form, in
which the leader rates himself/herself on the same items. A five-point rating scale for
rating the frequency of observed leader behaviours is used for both forms and bears a
magnitude estimation-based ratio to each other of 4:3:2:1:0 with “frequently, if not
always” and “not at all” serving as the endpoint anchors.
The current MLQ (Form 5X) assesses five transformational leadership factors, three
transactional leadership factors, one non-leadership factor, and three outcome factors.
It contains a total of 80 items to measure three leadership scales (47 for
transformational leadership, 23 for transactional leadership, and 10 for non-leadership)
in addition to 9 items to measure outcome factors and 3 items to obtain biographical
data.
2.4.7 Research on Bass and Avolio’s model

Among the transformational leadership theories, most research has been done using
the MLQ (Yukl, 1994: 353), primarily because, unlike other theories which have used
qualitative research methods and suffer from a lack of conceptual clarity, Bass and
Avolio’s model clearly identifies various components of transformational and
transactional leadership and provides a well-tested measurement instrument.
Most of the research studies involved the use of MLQ Rater Form which examines
subordinates’ perception of leader behaviour and effectiveness. The studies cover a
wide variety of organisations (Hicks, 1990), cultures (Bass and Yokochi, 1991), and
levels within organisations (Yammarino and Bass, 1990b). Transactional and
transformational leadership has been observed in varying degrees in organisations
involving health (Bryant, 1990; Gottlieb, 1990), industry (Ruggiero, 1989; Hater and
Bass, 1988), education (Cowen, 1990; Koh, 1990), government (Crookall, 1989),
religious institutions (Onnen, 1987), and the military (Boyd, 1988; Curphy, 1992;
Yammarino and Bass, 1990a).
The studies have covered all levels within the organisations: apex level like senior
executives (Avolio and Howell, 1992), middle level like project managers (Keller,
1992), and lower levels like first-level supervisors (Bass, Walderman, Avolio and Bebb,
1987). In these studies, the leadership scales have been related to a range of
effectiveness criteria such as subordinate or peer perceptions of effectiveness, as well
as to a variety of organisational measures of performance such as supervisory ratings
and financial performance. Questionnaires/surveys are the predominant method of
data collection in these studies.
In most of the studies, the leadership scales used in the MLQ have been found to be
statistically reliable. For instance, in a study of samples involving 1006 followers rating
251 of their immediate supervisors in high-technology and manufacturing
organisations, Bass and Avolio (1990: 21) found that the leadership alpha reliability
coefficients yielded a range of .77 through .95 for the MLQ Rater Form scales and .60
to .92 for the MLQ Self-Rating form scales.
In terms of intercorrelations among the leadership factor scores, the transformational

leadership factors have been found to be highly correlated with each other (0.50 to
0.76) in the ratings of self, subordinates and co-workers. Similarly, transactional
contingent reward (CR) leadership correlates highly with transformational leadership
(0.35 to 0.65) (Bass and Avolio, 1990:25; Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
Research findings using the MLQ have generally reported statistically significant
relationships between leader effectiveness and transformational leadership scales.
The transactional scale contingent reward (CR) has also been associated with
effectiveness though the magnitude of the association is less than that evidenced by
the transformational scales. The transactional scale management-by-exception (MBE)

generally has low correlations with effectiveness and is often negative when significant
(Lowe et al., 1996; Yukl, 1994). For instance, in a study involving samples collected
independently from separate organisations where a diverse group of target leaders
were rated by immediate subordinates on the leadership and outcome (extra effort,
satisfaction, and effectiveness) measures, Bass and Avolio (1993: 65) reported that
the correlations with effectiveness and satisfaction typically ranged from 0.6 to 0.8 for
transformational leadership scales, 0.4 to 0.6 for CR, -0.3 to +0.3 for MBE (depending
on whether it is passive or active) and -0.3 to -0.6 for laissez-faire leadership.
A number of other correlates of transformational and transactional leadership have

been demonstrated by various studies. For example, transformational leadership has
been shown to reduce burnout and stress symptoms (Seltzer, Numerof and Bass,
1989), increase organisational commitment (Peterson, Phillips and Duran, 1989),
promote technological innovations (Howell and Higgins, 1990), and improve
organisational climate and performance requiring interdependent efforts (Curphy,
1992).
Lowe et al. (1996) conducted a meta-analytic review of 39 studies which used MLQ
(Form 5R) and concluded that transformational leadership scales were reliable and
significantly predicted effectiveness whereas transactional scales were inconsistent in
their relationships with effectiveness across studies. The results of this integrative
study further indicated that public-sector leaders are rated as demonstrating more
frequent transformational behaviour than leaders in private organisations and contrary
to widely-held beliefs, lower-level leaders were rated higher than higher-level leaders
on all three transformational leadership scales. The operationalisation of the criterion
variable used to measure effectiveness was a powerful moderator of the relationship
between MLQ scales and leader effectiveness.
2.4.8 Research on the model in Australia and New Zealand

Even though most of the work on the model has been conducted in the USA, it has
found support in many countries, including Australia and New Zealand. For example,
in a study of New Zealand company managers who were asked to rate an ideal and a
real leader, Singer (1985) found that managers preferred working with leaders who
were more transformational than transactional. Parry and Sarros (1994) reported in a
study where samples were drawn from different sources like hospitals and educational
institutions that Australians generally rate their leaders lower on most leadership
factors than do respondents from the USA. The study supported the augmentation
effect of transformational leadership.
Carless (1995) compared Bass’s model (1985) with that of Kouzes and Posner (1987)
in a study of middle-level branch managers in an Australian bank and found no
empirical difference between the leader behaviours identified by both models. The
measurement instruments of both the models yielded a single underlying construct of
transformational leadership. Further, leader self efficacy was found to be a strong
predictor of transformational leadership and that group cohesion mediated the
relationship between leadership and team performance.
2.4.9 Critique of Bass and Avolio’s model

Most of the criticisms levelled against the transformational leadership theory in
general, which were mentioned in the previous section, are applicable to Bass and
Avolio’s model. In addition, some specific criticisms have been made against the
model with respect to its conceptualisation of transformational and transactional
leadership and the measurement of their respective factors, particularly, the construct
validity of MLQ:
1. The MLQ has been criticised for its lack of discriminant validity with respect to the
factors comprising the survey, for including behavioural, impact and attributional items
in the same scale (Hunt, 1991; Smith and Peterson, 1988; and Yukl, 1994). In
response to this criticism, the recent versions of MLQ (Form 5X) distinguish between
attributed charisma from charismatic behaviour, and active versus passive
management-by-exception (Avolio, Bass and Jung, 1996).
2. The predominant use of questionnaire/survey method using MLQ has also been
criticised (Hunt, 1991; Smith and Peterson, 1988; and Yukl, 1994) on the basis of the
limitations of questionnaire correlational research, such as attributional biases in rating
the behaviour of leaders known to be effective. However, some studies have tested
the model using qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews, critical incidents and
behaviours (for example, Bass and Yokochi, 1991).
3. The MLQ instrument has been further criticised for its lack of discriminant validity
and psychometric problems (Curphy, 1992; Bycio, Hackett and Allen, 1995). These
criticisms concern the generally high correlations among the transformational scales,
as well as between the transformational leadership component scales and contingent
reward ( CR) leadership. To address some of these criticisms, MLQ 5X involving 9

factor model (five transformational, three transactional, and one non-leadership factor)
was developed and tested by Avolio, Bass and Jung (1996) in fifteen independent
samples using confirmatory factor analysis and partial least squares analysis with
generally positive results. Nonetheless, the transformational leadership components
were clearly correlated with each other.
4. The MLQ is seen to be very similar to the Leader Behaviour Description

Questionnaire (LBDQ) instrument used by the Ohio leadership research and suffers
from the same measurement problems, such as contamination by implicit leadership
theories (Bryman, 1992: 128). Further, there is a relative absence of Situational
analysis (Inkson and Moss, 1993).
However, Bass’s framework for examining transformational and transactional

leadership has produced an impressive array of findings (Bryman, 1992) and arguably
has made the most important contribution in the understanding of transformational
leadership, the corner stone of the new genre of leadership theories. As noted by
Bass and Avolio (1993), not all of the behaviours and characteristics of
transformational leadership have been identified or accurately measured and
therefore, much more work remains in its operationalisation, generalisation, and
linkage to other constructs and models.
Having discussed leadership in general and transformational leadership in particular,

the literature review will now shift to technical leadership which is the focus of this
research.
2.5 Technical Leadership
This study assumes that technical employees are considerably different from other
occupational groups in an organisation in terms of their personality and professional
profile, motivational issues, and work-related issues. Therefore, those who lead them
need to keep these differences in mind and adapt their leadership style accordingly.
To do this requires an understanding of the concept and nature of technical
leadership.
This section starts with a discussion on the role of technical professionals in

management and the leadership skills and styles required to manage them. Further, it
highlights studies that have focused on technical leadership, including the relevance of
Bass and Avolio’s transformational leadership model to technical employees.
2.5.1 Technical employees in management

Scientific and professional employees perform work that is intellectual in nature and
requires advanced education. They need to be self-disciplined and achievement -
oriented. They prefer considerable autonomy and tend to be cosmopolitans more than
locals (Davis, 1981:281). While analysing their role in management, Davis suggests
that they are a major source of talent for promotion to management, but sometimes
their transition to management is difficult, particularly if they lack management and
behavioural education and training. Their orientation towards logic, the physical world
and / or the frame work of their specialty may result in narrow viewpoints and blind
spots (p. 278).
Rosenbaum (1991:58) opines that “the challenge is even greater for most technical
leaders, who often come to management positions because of their technical
competence, not their interpersonal abilities. Many such leaders assume their
responsibilities without adequate role models. They can manage the technical aspects
of the job, but are not adept at managing the people involved in it. But the fast paced,
competitive world of technology requires balanced leaders who are responsive to the
needs of technical professionals and to the organisation’s strategic objectives”.
A number of organisations have attempted to create alternate career paths for

technical people who do not wish to become managers but they have invariably failed
(Power, 1995). Today one needs to be a “hybrid” manager with both technical and
managerial credentials and skills.
An analysis of the literature and empirical research shows that there is a widespread
global view that technical professionals lack leadership skills (Thite, 1997). In its
report, “Promoting Partnerships” (Schapper et all, 1992), the Schapper Task Force
made a critical claim that Australia is deficient in number and quality of technical
project leaders. This claim was examined in detail by a Task Force on Leadership
(Mann, Mayer, Hutton and Cupper, 1994) which found widespread agreement that
industrial R&D in Australia is hampered by the quality of R&D project leaders. The
report added that the same was the case in the U.S. and else where.
2.5.2 Studies on technical leadership

The literature on organisation, technology and people has occasionally dealt with the
special and specific characteristics of technical professionals. It has discussed their
importance in today’s increasingly technology-oriented organisations, how their
motivational needs are different and therefore, how Human Resource Management
policies and leadership skills required to manage them need to be looked at from a
different perspective. However, some studies have specifically focused their attention
on technical leadership and have suggested the best-possible leadership style to
manage technical professionals successfully.
Heroic and Post-Heroic Styles

Bradford and Cohen (1984) analysed heroic-styles of leadership, namely, manager-as-
master-technician and manager-as-conductor. They concluded that while they had
their own strengths, they are not suitable to foster excellence in organisations
characterised by complex tasks, highly interdependent subordinates’ work, a
constantly changing environment and competent subordinates. The manager-as-
master-technician may be a technical wizard but his style characterised by technical
rather than managerial aspects of the job undermines subordinates’ confidence, stifles
their growth, ignores organisational systems and procedures, and over-emphasises
technical problems to the detriment of people problems.
The manager-as-conductor encourages group decision making process and respects

organisational systems and procedures. But it fails to balance diverse specialised
concerns and view points leading to suppression of subordinate development and
causing increased manipulation and strategic manoeuvring. Thus, both Technical and
Conductor models are likely to prevent excellence, overuse task - abilities of the leader
and under-utilise the competencies of subordinates (p. 33-57).
A post-heroic leader model (Manager-as-developer) is then presented by Bradford and

Cohen. The essential components of this model are: building a shared responsibility
team, developing individual’s skills continuously and fostering a common department
vision. This leadership style increases the chance of accomplishing tasks at a higher
level of quality, extends subordinate’s feeling of responsibility beyond task issues to
managerial issues, and increases subordinate motivation. “The manager-as-developer
has in his/her mind developmental, collaborative, galvanising, but subordinate -
centred image” (p. 60-61).
Problem-Solving Leadership Style

When Weinberg (1986), an acknowledged expert on technical leadership, compared
successful and unsuccessful introduction of new technical systems, he realised that
“almost all of the successes hinged on the performance of a small number of
outstanding technical workers. What distinguished them from their less successful
colleagues was a rare combination of technical expertise, and leadership skills. These
people had transformed themselves from ordinary technical supervisors into problem
solving leaders, with the power to make things happen.” (p. viii).While analysing the
leadership styles of technical leaders, Weinberg observed that “if we look more closely
at how technical leaders emphasise innovation, we find that they concentrate on three
major areas:
• Understanding the problem, i.e., defining the problem, resolve differences, seek
clarifications, and constant re-examination of assumptions;
• Managing the flow of ideas, i.e., open-mindedness in evaluating ideas, resist time
pressure, and constructive criticism; and
• Maintaining quality, i.e., maintain quality throughout, design measurement tools,
continuous assessment of viability, seek constant customer feedback, and restore
morale in crisis.
These functions are the ingredients that characterise the problem-solving leadership
style. This is the style that characterises the best technical leaders.” (p. 21)
High-Touch Leadership Style

Rosenbaum (1991), and his team conducted extensive research over a three year
period on the leadership of technical professionals in nineteen technology-oriented
companies. They found many common patterns related to effective technical
leadership. Successful leaders :
• Coach for peak performance by aligning individual and organisational goals; making
performance analyses; and managing change.
• Run organisational interference by teaching subordinates how to take advantage of
organisational opportunities and remove organisational obstructions from the path
to innovation.
• Orchestrate the professional development of their subordinates, by providing the
business perspective; building and encouraging champions; and facilitating career
development.
• Expand individual productivity through team work by establishing clear goals;

clarifying roles; securing resources; and implementing information exchange
systems.
• Facilitate self management by sharing information; delegating responsibility; and
encouraging upward communication.
The study concluded that technical leaders in a high-technology world need to be

“High-touch”, that is, adept at communicating, influencing and motivating.
2.5.3 Relevance of Transformational Leadership to Technical Employees

As noted by Hater and Bass (1988), transformational leadership would most likely
appeal to employees who are well educated and who desire challenging work that can
enhance professional growth and development.
Bass (1985) believed that transformational leaders with the superior technical skills will
be able to make better use of rational appeals to followers, whereas the leader with
less technical skills will rely on more emotional appeals to followers.
Tichy and Devanna (1986) also observed that the transformational leaders are
technically competent at the task at hand. They will make each mistake into a learning
experience, both for themselves and for the followers. They will not make the same
mistake twice.
A longitudinal study of transformational leadership and the performance of project

groups in three R&D organisations found that transformational leadership predicted
higher project quality and budget/schedule performance ratings (Keller, 1992).
However, the study indicated that different leader behaviours may be required
depending on the type of R&D work performed in a project team: inspiration and
intellectual stimulation (transformational leadership) of group members are more
effective in research projects (involved in basic scientific and applied research)
whereas task allocation and coordination (initiating structure) are more important in
development projects (involved in product/process development and technical service)
(Keller, 1995).
Howell and Higgins (1990) examined the personality characteristics, leadership

behaviours and influence tactics of champions of technological innovation in Canada.
Analyses of matched pairs of champions and non-champions showed that champions

reported using transformational leader behaviours to a significantly greater extent than
non-champions. Champions exhibited higher risk taking and innovations, initiated
more influence attempts, and employed a greater variety of influence tactics than non-
champions.
In view of the high degree of technological obsolescence in high-technology

organisations, successful management of technological change is an important
challenge to a technical leader. Beatty and Lee (1992) used data from the empirical
case studies of the implementation of computer-aided design and manufacturing
(CAD-CAM) systems in UK and Canadian companies. They found that a
transformational approach to leadership that combines pathfinding with people related
problem-solving skills to introduce technological changes is likely to be more effective
in overcoming barriers to change than a transactional leadership approach that
concentrates on technical problem solving to the neglect of people and organisational
issues.
Brown (1993) suggested that the effective management of technological change

requires transformational leadership. Using data from 12 case studies of
Manufacturing Resource Planning II implementations, Brown discussed several ways
in which a transformational leader can successfully facilitate change through the use of
social rites. Rites are elaborate, dramatic, planned sets of activities that promote
change in individuals at both the psychological and the behavioural level.
McDonough and Barczak (1991) investigated the effect of the project leader’s style on
the speed of new product development. Their study indicated that a participatory
leadership style is associated with faster project development, presumably because
delegation of problem solving to highly skilled and knowledgeable team members
takes advantage of their expertise. However, the study suggested that the
effectiveness of leadership style depends on the types of projects such as size and
whether the technology for the project was acquired from outside (in which case
directive style may be more suitable) or developed within (which calls for participative
style).
Having looked at the unique occupational characteristics and personality of technical

employees and exploring suitable leadership styles to lead them successfully, the
literature review will now turn to information technology projects, the research setting
of this thesis.
2.6 Information Technology Projects: Critical Success Factors and Role

of Leadership
In most organisations today, information technology (IT) systems are a critical

component in their strategic or operating plans (Carter, 1988). Along with the
increased awareness of the potential for IT to facilitate re-engineering and
restructuring of business processes in response to increased competition, there is a
growing reliance on IT in all aspects of organisational work.
However, there is a widespread dissatisfaction about the performance of Information

Systems (IS) projects. De Marco (1982) reported that some 15% of all software
development never delivers anything, and overruns of 100-200% are common in
software projects. Inordinate delays, excessive budget over-runs, post-implementation
testing, user dissatisfaction, late deliveries, poor reliability, maintenance problems...
the list of woes continues (Kapur, 1989; Abdel-Hamid, Tarek and Stuart, 1990).
2.6.1 Critical Success Factors

There does not appear to be a consensus of opinion on the criteria for judging project
success and the factors that influence that success (Wateridge, 1995). Theoretical
success definitions for IS projects have traditionally followed the project dimensions of
time/cost/quality. If a project is delivered on time, within budget with agreed
functionality, then a project would be classed a success (Brown, 1994). Pinto and
Mantel (1990) identified three distinct aspects of project outcome: the implementation
process itself (internal criteria such as budget, schedule), the perceived value of the
project, and client satisfaction with the delivered project.
A comparative analysis of various studies on factors which are considered critical to

the success of a project identified nine common factors: clearly defined goals;
competent project manager; top management support; competent project team
members; sufficient resource allocation; adequate communication channels; control
mechanisms; feedback capabilities; and, responsiveness to clients (Pinto and Slevin,
1987: 3).
According to Wateridge (1995), within the IS domain there has been little research and
testing of project-success criteria and his research pointed out that there is a vast
difference between the perceptions of users and those of project managers on the
factors that contribute to successful IS projects. Table 2-2 presents a comparative
analysis of various critical success factors in an IS environment as identified in
different studies.
Table 2-2: Critical success factors in an IS environment

Deutsch (1991) “Residual management power factors”, such as management of
business risk, technical risk, external interface, multiple user
needs, problem scope and planning and feedback.
Cash and Fox Management’s involvement, leadership, staffing and control and
(1992) reporting.
Brown (1994) Organisational commitment, complete functional design and
competent project management
Khandelwal and Alignment of IS and organisational objectives, strategic IT plan
Hosey (1996) development, data availability to users, end user service
management, IS-user partnership, disaster recovery planning,
educating senior management in IT, and network security.
2.6.2 Project Implementation Profile (PIP)

Slevin and Pinto (1986) empirically developed a framework of the project
implementation process and a diagnostic instrument called the Project Implementation
Profile (PIP) which identifies ten critical success factors:
• Project mission - initial clarity of goals and general direction;

• Top management support - willingness of top management to provide the
necessary resource and authority/power for project success;
• Project schedule/plan - a detailed specification of the individual action steps
required for project implementation;
• Client consultation - communication, consultation, and active listening to all
impacted parties;
• Personnel - recruitment, selection, and training of the necessary personnel for the
project team;
• Technical tasks - availability of the required technology and expertise to
accomplish the specific technical action steps;
• Client acceptance - the act of “selling” the final project to its ultimate intended
users;
• Monitoring and feedback - timely provision of comprehensive control information at

each stage in the implementation process;
• Communication - the provision of an appropriate network and necessary data to all
key actors in the project implementation; and
• Trouble shooting - ability to handle unexpected crises and deviations from the plan.
As shown in Figure 2-2, in addition to the seven factors that can be laid out on a
sequential critical path, three additional factors are hypothesised to play a more
overriding role in the project implementation. These factors, monitoring and feedback,
communication, and trouble shooting, are essentially different facets of the same
general concern (i.e., project communication) and must all necessarily be present at
each point in the implementation process.
In addition to the above ten factors, Pinto and Slevin (1989) considered four additional
exogenous factors, which are often beyond the control of the project team but had a
powerful impact on the project outcome. They are: characteristics of the project team
leader (competence and authority available), power and politics, environmental events,
and urgency (perception about the importance of the project).
Figure 2-2: Ten key factors of the project implementation profile
Communication
Top Project Client

Project manage- schedule/ consulta- Personnel Technical Client
mission ment Image
plansnot availabletion
- see printed version tasks accepta-
support nce
Monitering &
feedback
Trouble shooting
© 1984 Randall L. Schultz and Dennis P. Slevin

Source: Slevin and Pinto, 1987
However, Pinto and Prescott (1988) concluded in another study that the relative
importance of various critical success factors change significantly based on stages of
project life cycle, namely, conceptualisation, planning, execution, and termination. For
instance, during the execution stage of the project life cycle, five factors, namely,
project mission, trouble shooting, project schedule/plan, technical tasks, and client
consultation, emerged as the most important factors having explained 60% of the
variance.
The type of project, such as construction and R&D, is another variable to be

considered while judging the performance of a project as the factors that cause a
construction project to be perceived as a failure may be quite different from those that
contribute to R&D project failure (Pinto and Mantel, 1990).
2.6.3 Role of Leadership in IS Projects

The literature on IS project management provides ample evidence on the importance
of non-technical issues as critical success factors (Phan, Vogel and Nunamaker, 1988;
Laudon and Laudon, 1990). Although there is a paucity of empirical evidence on the
causes for project failure, Sauer (1993) suggests that a consensus has been reached
among researchers that failure is generally caused by the neglect of the behavioural
and social factors. Managerial, organisational, and cultural factors, rather than
technological ones, determine success in the IT industry (Lowry, Morgan and
FitzGerald, 1996).
According to Klenke (1996), “it may seem that leadership and IT are unlikely
bedfellows since research on IS has paid little attention to the influence of leadership
processes in the design and implementation of ITs. At the same time, leadership
studies have rarely incorporated ITs as either independent or dependent variables into
the design of empirical research although they represent major organisational
interventions”.
Leadership taken in the context of projects presents special challenges. The role of the
project manager in IS projects is more challenging and vital than in other types of
projects where it may be less critical (Cleland, 1995: 86). In IS departments, project
managers are faced with increasingly complex tasks which require more than a single
set of management skills (Carter, 1988). That is why, the concept of “Hybrid”
managers, particularly in the context of IS environment is gaining prominence (Palmer
and Ottley, 1990).
In the opinion of Cash and Fox (1992), “successful projects almost always have a
“champion” who either by past experience or by persistent determination provides
needed leadership to members of the project team to see that results are achieved”. A
project’s success or failure is the result of the leadership of the project’s stakeholders
(Cleland, 1995: 85). Pulk (1990) too emphasised the importance of IS project
leadership and stated that “the most obvious cause of the increased cost is the lack of
effective leadership in software development projects. Therefore, bridging the gap
between software and product development requires effective leadership and project
management within the software design teams”.
According to Bates (1994), “the key ingredient to effective project management is good
people management and leadership skills. The more complex the people situation, the
more critical a project manager’s leadership capabilities become”. Geaney (1995)
agrees: “in today’s corporations, tremendous responsibility lies with the IS project
manager, who must take the corporation’s vision and translate that vision into systems
that support the company’s strategic direction”.
2.6.4 Leadership skills in IS project managers

In the IS environment, several studies have highlighted the essential qualities and
skills of IS project managers to ensure success. Table 2-3 gives a comparative picture
of such studies. They highlight the importance of IS manager’s ability to manage
people, technology, stress, emotions, organisational bureaucracy, and communication.
Table 2-3: Essential qualities and skills of IS project managers

Rahn (1987) Willingness to take risks, willingness to commit time, ability to
handle stress well, deposition to people management, right
emotional disposition, communication skills, ability to handle
politics.
Bander (1986) Problem solving, managerial identity, achievement orientation,
strong influence
Geaney (1995) Visible leadership, flexibility, sound business judgement, trust
worthiness, active listening skills
Bloom (1996) Technical competence, political and people skills, handle
obstacles, maturity to accept full project responsibility, stamina
and sense of humour
Lowry et al. IT staff describing their ideal manager in metaphorical terms: a
(1996) coach, one who manages by walking around, diplomat, stands up
for staff, open door policy, promoter of the best in people, juggler,
directional, maintains momentum, a large ear and superman.
Appelgate and Elam (1992) (quoted in Klenke, 1996) found that the roles of IS
managers are being redefined. This redefinition involves a shift from the emphasis on
technical competence to broader understanding of leadership functions such as
networking, the judicious use of power (i.e., information), and business expertise.
Thus, leadership and IT are emerging as central functions in information-dominated
organisations which need to be coordinated and integrated (Klenke, 1996).
2.7 Summary
This chapter started with an historical overview of leadership theories and research.
Then the concept and research on charisma, the central focus of the new genre of
leadership theories, was discussed followed by a brief description of the various
theories on transformational leadership. Since this study is a replication of Bass and
Avolio’s (1990) model on the full range of leadership, the various components of the
model, the measurement instrument and the research conducted by Bass, Avolio and
their associates and others over the last ten years were discussed in detail followed by
a critique of the model. The literature review then covered the nature and importance
of technical leadership, the focus of this study. Finally, the literature on the critical
success factors in information technology (IT) projects, particularly on IT project
leadership, was discussed.
Chapter 3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
3.1 Conceptual Framework
A major objective of this study was to replicate Bass and Avolio’s (1990) model on
transactional and transformational leadership and to test it’s relevance to information
technology projects. To make the model more situation specific, a set of behaviours
representing technical leadership was derived from the literature and tested as
supplementary component to transformational leadership. Apart from project
leadership, there are other critical success factors which have a bearing on the
outcome of IT projects. Three such contingency factors were also tested. The
conceptual framework (Figure 3-1) incorporates these essential elements.
According to Bass and Avolio (1997: 21) “transactional leaders work toward
recognising the roles and tasks required for associates to reach desired outcomes;
they also clarify these requirements for associates, thus creating the confidence they
need to exert the necessary effort” which would lead to some degree of success, as
shown in Figure 3-1. However, this kind of leadership is usually a prescription for lower
levels of performance or nonsignificant change.
Transactional leadership is viewed by Bass and Avolio (1990) as an essential

component of effective leadership. But they stress that to satisfy the higher-order
objectives or to motivate the team members to ‘perform beyond expectations’,
transactional leadership needs to be ‘augmented’ by transformational leadership.
Therefore, an “optimal profile” of leadership is the combination of transactional and
transformational leadership. This augmentation effect of transformational leadership,
as can be seen from Figure 3-1, “accounts for unique variance in ratings of
performance above and beyond that accounted for by active transactional leadership”
(Bass and Avolio, 1997: 22).
Figure 3-1: Conceptual framework

Chapter 3 Conceptual Framework 53
Leadership Style
Transactional Transformational Technical

Leadership Leadership + Leadership
Expected Extra effort

Effort Augmentation effect
Low project High project

success success
Low High
Contingency Factors
Top
Project management Technical
mission + + tasks
support
Several studies have confirmed the “universality” of transformational leadership across

cultures, countries, levels and occupational groups. But the model does not cover fully,
key aspects of technical leadership as identified in the literature. Therefore, as can be
seen from Figure 3-1, the conceptual framework incorporates technical leadership as
an ‘additional component’ of transformational leadership and suggests that the
augmentation of ‘both’ on transactional leadership will result in high project success in
an IT environment.
Apart from considering the effect of project leadership on the level of project success,
the study also takes in to account other contingency factors in the conceptual
framework. In an empirical study concerning R&D projects (including computer
software and hardware development), Pinto and Slevin (1989) concluded that at the
execution stage of project life cycle, three factors, namely, project mission, top
management support and technical tasks, exert maximum influence. As this study
concerns projects that are at the execution stage, these three factors have been
considered as the contingency factors in the framework.
Thus, the conceptual framework postulates that a combination of transformational and

technical leadership can augment the effectiveness of transactional leadership and
together with the support of contingency factors, such as clarity of project mission, top
management support and availability of technical resources, would lead to high project
success.
3.2 Hypotheses
Based on the research objectives, the gaps identified in the current literature, and the
conceptual framework, the following hypotheses are formulated for examination in this
study:
1. Managers of more successful projects will exhibit transformational and technical

leadership behaviours to a greater extent than managers of less successful
projects.
2. The relationship between transformational and technical leadership scales and

leadership outcome scales will be stronger in more successful projects than in less
successful projects.
3. The relationship between leadership and project success will be moderated by the
contingency factors such that stronger relationships will be found in projects with
more clearly specified project mission, stronger support from the top management
and better availability of technical expertise.
Bass and Avolio (1997, p.38 and 54) suggest that when leaders evaluate their own
leadership behaviour and it’s effectiveness, they tend to inflate the ratings across all
leadership factors. Several studies have reported discrepancy between the leaders’
self ratings and their subordinates’ ratings (For example, Carless, 1995; Tsui and
Barry, 1986; Atwater and Yammarino, 1992). Hence, the hypothesis,
4. There will be no agreement between the perception of project managers and their
subordinates with regard to leadership behaviour and it’s effectiveness.
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ- 5R), the measurement instrument of

Bass and Avolio’s model, was criticised for it’s lack of discriminant validity with respect
to it’s leadership factors (Hunt, 1991; Smith & Peterson, 1988; Yukl, 1994). In
response to these criticisms, Bass and Avolio subsequently refined the instrument
(MLQ 5X) and justified the construct validity of their new nine factor model (Avoilo,
Bass and Jung, 1996). This study has used seven of the nine leadership factors
measured by the new MLQ 5X and postulates that
5. Bass and Avolio’s model on transformational and transactional leadership (1990)

will be multi-dimensional and not uni-dimensional.
To assess the distinguishing leadership characteristics of technical leaders, such as IT

managers, a set of technical leadership behaviours which were different from the key
leadership elements covered by Bass and Avolio’s model were derived from the meta
analysis of the literature and tested in the study. Since this new scale, called “technical
leadership”, referred to a particular occupational group vis-a-vis others (non-technical
leaders), it was hypothesised that
6. The technical leadership scale will be uni-dimensional, and that
7. The transformational and transactional leadership scales of Bass and Avolio’s

model and the technical leadership scale will be distinct. In other words, they
measure different constructs of leadership behaviour.
Chapter 4. METHOD
4.1 Population
The population for the research was IT organisations and IT divisions of non-IT
organisations in Australia that were engaged in computer consultancy services, that is,
software development, enhancement, customisation, or maintenance activities in a
project team environment. Since the focus of the thesis was on project leadership, it
was necessary that the participating organisation had several IT projects, each
comprising of at least two team members and headed by a project manager, which
meant that the organisation should have had at least six employees, excluding the
senior management.
However, considering that the computer services industry in Australia is dominated by

small businesses with 87% of them employing less than five persons (ABS, 1995), it
was an extremely difficult task to identify and encourage suitable organisations to
participate in the research.
4.2 Sample Design
In view of the difficulties anticipated in finding suitable organisations to participate in

the research, it was decided to tap multiple sources of Australian IT organisations’
listings to get the maximum possible response rate. Accordingly, the list of
organisations which were invited to participate in the study was derived from the
following sources:
1. The Software 50 (Kennedy, 1996): This annual publication lists the top 50 software
companies in Australia. It is the ranking of those organisations classified as
independent software vendors (ISVs). Also included were companies that were
primary agents (distributors) of foreign-based ISVs. For the year 1996, the listing
excluded “hardware” companies which had substantial software revenues (e.g.,
IBM). All the 50 companies from this listing were invited to participate in the
research.
Chapter 4 Method 57
2. The MIS 100 (Conners, 1995): This is a listing of top 100 computer using
organisations in Australia and New Zealand based on the number of screens, as
measured by PCs and workstations plus terminals, employed throughout the
organisation. The MIS 100 is a subset of the MIS 3001, by far the most
comprehensive site listing compiled in Australasia.
From this listing, it was decided to delete New Zealand based companies,
universities (since they do not normally undertake commercial projects) and some
government departments. As a result, only 61 organisations from the listing of MIS
100 were invited to participate in the research.
3. The Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA): It is a leading

representative body of the Australian information technology and
telecommunications (IT & T) industry. It claims to represent more than 85% of the
IT & T industry. From the 1995 membership directory of AIIA, about 40 IT member
organisations were invited to participate in the research.
4. Personal Knowledge: Apart from the above sources, few organisations which
appeared to be engaged in software related activities, based on personal
knowledge, were also included.
It should be noted that there is a duplication of companies amongst software 50, MIS
100 and members of AIIA, as many of them are accounted for by more than one
source.
4. 3 Research Design
The study adapted a combination of quantitative (survey) and qualitative (interview)

methods in order to derive the advantages of both the approaches while minimising
the limitations of any single approach. Further, the research on Bass and Avolio’s
model of transformational leadership has been criticised for it’s predominant use of
questionnaire/survey methods using the MLQ (Hunt, 1991; Smith and Peterson, 1988;
Yukl, 1994). Therefore, it was necessary to collect qualitative data in order to minimise
the limitations of questionnaire correlational research. However, the primary data for
the study were obtained through surveys and was supplemented with interviews of a
cross-section of selected respondents.
Chapter 4 Method 58
The data were obtained from three levels within the respondent organisations: senior
IT manager, project managers of two selected projects and project team members of
two selected projects.
Senior IT Manager: The head of the organisation or the IT division was requested to
nominate a senior IT manager to whom the IT project managers reported, as the
coordinator for this survey (Appendix:1). The coordinator was asked to select two
recent IT projects in the company to participate in the survey: one, that was more
successful in his/her opinion (in terms of quality, cost, deadlines and customer
satisfaction) and another that was less successful. Both these projects were to be at
least half-way through their project duration (life cycle).
The coordinator was asked to complete the “coordinator’s questionnaire” (Appendix:2)

which required him/her to give general information about the company, it’s IT project
environment and to assess the performance of the selected projects on the following
criteria:
• Technical quality: the extent to which specified quality requirements were satisfied.
• Cost performance: the extent to which the project was within the budgeted cost.
• Deadline: the extent to which the key milestones were achieved.
• Customer satisfaction: the extent to which the user was satisfied with the system
performance.
• Overall project performance.
The coordinator then ensured the participation of the managers and team members of
the selected projects in the survey. The questionnaires to be completed by the
manager and team members of the more successful project were code-named “X” and
those for the less successful project were code-named “Y”. The information about the
codes were to be known only to the coordinator and not to be divulged to the
managers and their subordinates.
At the end of this data collection, the Melbourne-based senior IT managers were
interviewed while the others were administered a semi-structured questionnaire
(Appendix:3) asking their views on the role and nature of project leadership in
conjunction with other critical success factors affecting the outcome of IT projects.
Chapter 4 Method 59
Project Managers: The project managers of selected projects completed a

questionnaire (Appendix:4) describing their leadership behaviour, it’s effectiveness,
and their ratings on the selected contingency factors.
Project Team Members: The team members of the selected projects completed a
questionnaire (Appendix:5) describing the leadership behaviour of their managers,
their perception of it’s effectiveness, and their ratings on the selected contingency
factors.
Table 4-1 summarises the sources of data collection described above.
Table 4-1: Sources of data collection

Source of Data Nature of Data Collection Method
Senior • Selection of two projects: one more Questionnaire

Manager successful and another less successful
on specified criteria
• Assessment of performance of selected Questionnaire
projects
• Role and nature of project leadership in 1. Interviews
conjunction with other critical success (Melbourne
factors based Cos.)
2. Semi-structured
Questionnaire
(Non-Melbourne
based Cos.)
Project • Self-description of leadership behaviour Questionnaire

Managers • Self-assessment of leadership
effectiveness
• Rating of contingency factors
Project • Description of leadership behaviour of Questionnaire

Team the project manager
Members • Assessment of leadership effectiveness
• Rating of contingency factors
4.4. Research Instruments
4.4.1 Measurement of Transformational, Transactional Leadership and Outcomes

The Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) is a measurement instrument
developed by Bass and Avolio (1990) to measure transformational, transactional, and
non-leadership (laissez-faire) behaviours and the outcome measures. Over the years,
the MLQ has undergone several revisions. The current MLQ (Form 5X) assesses a
Chapter 4 Method 60
nine factor model containing five transformational leadership factors, three

transactional leadership factors, one non-leadership factor, and three outcome factors.
With the permission of Bass, the latest form of MLQ (Form 5X) was used in this
research. However, it was decided to omit one transformational leadership factor,
namely, inspirational leadership, and the non-leadership factor. Inspirational
leadership loads heavily on charisma factor (Bass and Avolio, 1990: 18). Therefore,
the most common practice among researchers is to omit it from studies (Carless,
1996: 7). The non-leadership factor which refers to absence of leadership and/or
avoidance of intervention is a totally passive leadership behaviour. This factor was
omitted as it was not going to serve the purpose of this study which was to compare
different types of active leadership styles.
Thus, this study tested a reduced model of Bass and Avolio (1990) by testing seven
instead of nine factors. In keeping with Bass’s suggestion (personal correspondence),
of those factors which were retained, all their items were included in the questionnaire
and of the factors which were omitted, all their items were deleted.
Both the forms of MLQ, namely, the self-rating form (used by the leader for self
evaluation) and the rater form (used by the subordinates to evaluate the leader) were
used in this study. Both the forms are identical in terms of directions and items.
A five-point rating scale for rating the frequency of observed leader behaviours was
used for both forms by asking how frequently the behaviour described was displayed.
The response options used to evaluate different leadership and outcome factors were
as follows:
Scale Leadership Effectiveness Satisfaction

1 Frequently, if not Extremely effective Very satisfied
always
2 Fairly often Very effective Fairly satisfied
3 Sometimes Effective Neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied
4 Once in awhile Only slightly Somewhat
effective dissatisfied
5 Not at all Not effective Very dissatisfied
Chapter 4 Method 61
The reliability of the scales (Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from .70 to .93 for subordinate
ratings and from .68 to .91 for managers’ (self) ratings.
4.4.2 Measurement of Technical Leadership

Based on the literature review on technical leadership styles, several key leadership
behaviours were identified. They were then compared with those in Bass and Avolio’s
model and a list of behaviours which did not seem to be adequately covered in Bass
and Avolio’s model were compiled and were collectively called “technical leadership”.
Appendix:6 lists the essential elements of transformational and transactional

leadership, identified by Bass (1985) and also 12 items of technical leadership
identified by the author and added to the questionnaire. For the purpose of uniformity,
the same scale and response options as used in the MLQ were used for the
measurement of technical leadership style and were added with the MLQ items. The
reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the technical leadership items was .81 for subordinate
ratings and .79 for managers’ (self) ratings.
4.4.3 Measurement of Contingency Factors

The Project Implementation Profile (PIP), a diagnostic instrument developed by Pinto
and Slevin (1992) was used in this study, with the permission of the copyright owners,
for the measurement of three selected contingency factors out of the ten identified in
the PIP. These factors were project mission, top management support, and technical
tasks. Each factor contained five items.
Both the leaders and their subordinates were asked to rate the current status of these
factors in their projects on a five-point scale as follows: 1 = Strongly agree, 2 = Agree,
3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Disagree, and 5 = Strongly disagree. The reliability
(Cronbach’s alpha) of these items ranged from .75 to .82 for subordinate ratings and
from .66 to .88 for managers’ (self) ratings.
4.4.4 Factor Structure and Reliability of Questionnaire Items

The questionnaire used in the survey of project managers and their subordinates
contained 96 items with the factor structure and reliability as shown in Table 4-2:
Table 4-2: Factor structure and reliability of questionnaire items

Scale No. of Items Reliability (α)
Subordinates Managers
Chapter 4 Method 62
Attributed Charisma 8 0.90 0.68

Idealised Influence 10 0.86 0.82
Intellectual Stimulation 10 0.91 0.89
Individualised consideration 9 0.92 0.76
Contingent reward 9 0.88 0.68
Mangt. by exception- Active 7 0.70 0.79
Mangt. by exception-Passive 7 0.88 0.72
Extra effort 3 0.90 0.82
Effectiveness 4 0.86 0.72
Satisfaction 2 0.94 0.91
Technical leadership 12 0.81 0.79
Project mission 5 0.77 0.66
Technical tasks 5 0.75 0.80
Top management support 5 0.82 0.87
Sub Total 96 0.96 0.95
Biographical items 6
Grand Total 102
4.5. Research Procedure
4.5.1 Pretest of Questionnaire

Before finalising the research design and the questionnaires, the views of the
prospective respondents were obtained. The IT manager and/or the Human Resource
Manager of six IT organisations were approached to seek their feedback on the
proposed research design and the organisation’s interest in participating in the
research (Appendix:7). Three organisations consented to participate individually in the
discussion process. The following table summarises the issues raised and the
feedback obtained during the personal discussion:
Table 4-3: Pretest of research design and questionnaire

Issues Discussed Feedback Summary
What is the organisation structure of A typical IT department structure has a
your IT department? What is the departmental head at the top followed by
average size, typical structure and the project managers, project leaders and
life cycle of IT projects in your software engineers. A typical IT project
organisation? has three members headed by a manager
who oversees several such projects with
an average duration of 4 to 6 months.
How important is the role of IT project The role of project manager is highly
manager in the project set-up as well valued. He/she is an ambassador of the
as the organisational set-up? company before the clients and is a
critical link between the two.
What are the possible and the Can be obtained through customers and
recommended methods of collecting management. Periodic appraisal of the
Chapter 4 Method 63
data on the project performance? project performance by the management

is the most acceptable option.
What are the preferred ways to collect Projects are extremely tight on time.
data on leadership behaviour from Project managers would be hesitant to
project managers and their team spend their time in participating in
members, particularly, between interviews. Quick questionnaires may be
interview and survey questionnaire administered, if managers can be
methods? persuaded.
What is your feedback on the Questionnaire should not take more than
proposed questionnaire in terms of it’s 30 minutes per person and participants be
length, structure, language and given freedom to fill it up at their
coverage of leadership and project convenience. The respondents were
success factors? happy with the content and the structure
of questionnaires.
Who is the right person to approach in The survey needs the approval and
your organisation to get support from cooperation of the CEO or the IT chief to
the IT project teams to participate in divulge confidential project performance
the research? data and to persuade the selected project
teams to participate.
Any difficulty anticipated It would be difficult to identify and

persuade a less successful project
manager and team members to
participate in the survey as some of them
would doubt the purpose of the survey
and it’s confidentiality. It is a politically
difficult exercise and may discourage
participation.
Based on the above feedback, several changes were made to the research design
and questionnaire. Originally, it was proposed to collect data on leadership behaviour
and performance only from project team members, as previous research has shown
that leaders tend to inflate their own performance (Bass and Avolio, 1990:23).
However, to gain the confidence and support of project managers, it was decided to
obtain data from the managers too.
To stress the confidentiality of data, several personal questions were deleted to make
it difficult to identify the source. The proposal to interview a cross-section of project
managers and team members apart from collecting quantitative data was also dropped
as that would have required considerable time from respondents. Instead it was
decided to interview the senior managers to get the top management perspective of
project leadership and to compare and contrast it with that of project managers and
team members.
Chapter 4 Method 64
4.5.2 Support from Industry Associations

In order to encourage participation and drive home the importance of the project to the
IT industry, the Australian Institute of Management (AIM) and two major IT industry
associations in Australia, namely, the Australian Computer Society (ACS) and the
Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA) were approached for support to
persuade their member organisations to participate in the survey and to publicise the
research project in their communication bulletins (Appendix:8). All three organisations
were happy to issue a letter of support (Appendix:9) encouraging their members’
participation.
4.5.3 Communication Process

After finalising the list of about 160 organisations to be invited to participate in the
research out of the nearly 400 considered, phone calls were made to these
organisations to identify a suitable person to address our communication. Based on
the feedback received during the pretest, the invitation letters were addressed
specifically to the CEO or if the organisation was very large, to the head of the IT
division by their exact name and title.
The invitation letter (Appendix:1) stated the purpose of the research and the potential
benefit of participation to the organisation. Then it specifically outlined the measures to
be taken for participation which involved nominating a senior IT manager as
coordinator for the survey who would select two projects to be involved in the survey
and would assess their performance as well as ensure the participation of project
manager and team members of these projects in completing the survey questionnaire.
The letters of support from the industry association were enclosed with the invitation
letter.
Also enclosed were one copy each of the questionnaire to be completed by the
coordinator, project managers, and project team members of the two selected
projects. The coordinator was asked to ensure maximum possible participation from
the project team members. The coordinator was also requested to take additional
copies of the project team members’ questionnaire as the number was not known to
us. Thus, once the decision to participate was taken by the CEO or the IT chief, the
coordinator was to play a crucial role in the participation process and be the sole
contact point.
Chapter 4 Method 65
The confidentiality of the information collected was assured on the basis that the final
report would be a collective analysis without identifying individual organisations. It was
promised that all participating organisations would receive a summary of the survey
results. Considering the efforts involved in participation, a time frame of one month
was suggested to return the completed questionnaires.
4.5.4 Data Collection Process

The first contact with the organisations was made in the beginning of October, 1995.
Four weeks later, a reminder letter was sent (Appendix:10) followed by personal calls
to check up on the progress. At this stage, many organisations informed that they were
not suitable for participation for several reasons, including not having software projects
in Australia as they were only marketing outfits for multinational corporations or not
being big enough to select suitable projects. Several organisations said that they were
still undecided while some others were in the process of identifying or persuading the
project managers to participate. A number of companies expressed their inability to
participate due to time constraints. One organisation did not want to “hurt the fragile
egos” of it’s people by involving failed projects.
After another month, a second reminder was sent (Appendix:11) along with a complete
set of questionnaires. By then, several organisations had sent their response but many
of them had got only one project member to fill up the questionnaire. These
organisations were asked to get at least 50% of the project members to participate. A
major difficulty experienced at this stage was that many project members had joined
other projects or left the company or were outside contractors who were not under the
direct control of the management. Due to various reasons, deadlines were extended
and ultimately quantitative data collection was stopped at the end of March, 1996.
4.5.5 Interview Process

In the coordinator’s questionnaire, it was asked whether the senior manager acting as
the survey coordinator would be interested in participating in an interview process
later. Nearly 25 of the 35 coordinators agreed. However, mainly due to financial
reasons, it was decided to interview only Melbourne-based senior managers and to
mail a semi-structured questionnaire to the rest. This approach effectively covered the
entire population.
The interview process began in September, 1996. With the consent of the managers,
the interviews were tape recorded. Even though a semi-structured questionnaire was
Chapter 4 Method 66
used during the interviews (Appendix:3), the natural flow of the process was not
disturbed and depending on the interest and the initiative of the managers, the
discussion took it’s own course as the interview progressed. Typically, the
conversation lasted one hour.
The senior managers were asked to comment on the following issues:

• the criteria adapted by the coordinator in the selection of the projects for
participation in the survey,
• factors that contribute to the relative success or failure of IT projects and the order
of their importance,
• ranking of critical success factors in the execution of projects as identified in the
literature,
• role of project leadership in the outcome of IT projects,
• essential qualities and skills required in an IT manager,
• significant differences in the leadership qualities and skills of more and less
successful project managers,
• rating of a shortened version of the leadership behaviours of transformational,
transactional, and technical leaders,
• advice to aspiring project managers, and
• any other views about project leadership.
4.6 Analytic Procedure
The following procedures were used to analyse the quantitative data:

• The missing data were treated using “pair-wise deletion” of cases (Hertel, 1976).
• Reliability analysis of all the scales (leadership, outcome and contingency factors)
was done using Cronbach’s alpha.
• Since the number of items for each scale was different, to facilitate better
comparison of ratings on each scale, total scores were divided by the number of items
before taking the mean for that scale.
• Since independent data were collected from two different projects (more and less
successful), “independent sample t test” was conducted to compare the mean ratings
and examine whether leadership behaviours differentiate between more and less
successful projects and which of the scales are better discriminators than others. T
tests were also used to compare the mean ratings of managers (self) and their
subordinates.
Chapter 4 Method 67
• Pearson correlation coefficient was used to quantify the strength of the linear
relationship between leadership and outcome ratings.
• Principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation was conducted to test
the construct validity of technical leadership items.
• Maximum likelihood factor analysis with Varimax rotation was conducted to test the
construct validity of transformational and transactional leadership scale items.
Maximum likelihood method was chosen over principal components method because
of the power of it’s statistical tests. According to Kilne (1994: 49), “the strongest
argument for using maximum likelihood analysis lies in the fact that it has statistical
tests for the significance of each factor as it is extracted”. Bass and Avolio (1997)
recommend the use of confirmatory factor analysis but in this case, the sample size
was not large enough (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989) to justify it’s use.
• Only subordinate ratings were used while conducting factor analysis of the scales
for two reasons: One, the self ratings are not regarded as reliable as subordinate
ratings due to the tendency of leaders to inflate their ratings (Bass and Avolio, 1997;
Carless, 1995) and two, the sample size for subordinates (n = 225) was much larger
than that for managers (n = 70).
With regard to the qualitative data obtained through interviews and a semi-structured
questionnaire, the data were “content analysed” and generalised for each question so
that the value of each response was preserved to the extent possible.
4.7 Characteristics of Participants
4.7.1 Response Analysis

Before analysing the response rate, several important things, which are peculiar to
this study, need to be considered. First of all, the computer services industry in
Australia is overwhelmingly dominated by small businesses, with 87% of them
employing less than 5 persons (ABS, 1995). As explained in the chapter on sample
design, the survey designed for this study required the participating organisation to
have had at least 6 employees (two projects with a project manager/leader and at
least two team members), excluding senior management, working in a project team
environment.
Further, the proportion of software-related organisations to the total number of IT-

related organisations is very small. For example, of the top 100 computer firms listed in
Chapter 4 Method 68
the Computerworld 100, only 11 were software related and the rest were dominated by
hardware vendors (Kennedy, 1996:3).
To compound the problem further, of the major software-related organisations in

Australia, the majority of them are multinational software vendors with local offices in
Australia which meant that these organisations developed their software else where
and were only marketing their products in Australia with marginal role in software
development. For instance, of the top 50 software organisations in Australia, 32 were
primary agents (distributors) of foreign-based independent software vendors
(Kennedy, 1996:3).
Of the comparatively small number of organisations that were suitable to participate in

the survey, the elaborate exercise required by the participants, in selecting a
coordinator for the survey and completing three different sets of questionnaire by
different people, was a further deterrent. As pointed out in the pre-test, choosing and
involving a less successful project in the survey was a politically difficult exercise.
Not all the difficulties mentioned above were anticipated before the start of the survey.
The profile of the industry became clear after analysing the initial response. Despite
the problems, maximum possible efforts were made through reminders, phone calls,
extension of deadlines etc. to obtain the best possible response rate. Table 4-3
presents an overview of the population and the response received.
Table 4-4: Analysis of response to survey

S/W 50 MIS 100 AIIA&others Total %
Total Considered 50 100 250* 400*

Total Invited 50 61** 47 158
Not Suitable 10 17 20 47 (30)
Net Population (2-3) 40 44 27 111 100
Participated 9 15 12 36 32.4
Refused to participate 5 9 6 20 18
No Response 26 20 9 55 49.5
Notes:
* There is a duplication of companies amongst S/W 50, MIS 100 & AIIA.
** From the MIS100, New Zealand-based companies, Universities and some
government departments were omitted from consideration.
Chapter 4 Method 69
As indicated in table 4-4, of the 158 companies invited to participate, 47 (30%)

indicated that they were not suitable to participate in the survey for various reasons:
• the organisation is too small to participate (45%),
• the work carried out is not in a project environment as required by the survey
(40%), and
• the organisation was basically a software vendor and not developer (15%).
Considering that 30% of the organisations invited expressed their unsuitability, it is

highly likely that of the 55 organisations (nearly 50% of the net population) who did not
respond either way to the invitation, a considerable number of them might have been
unsuitable too for various reasons mentioned above. Therefore, the response rate
might actually be higher than 32%, if the actual percentage of unsuitable organisations
from those invited were known.
A higher response rate would have been preferred; however, a response rate of 32%
is reasonable, especially in light of the nature of the content of the questionnaire
(Steeh, 1981) which specifically asked the organisations to identify and involve
relatively unsuccessful projects, a politically difficult task.
Of the 36 organisations which participated in the survey, the data from one
organisation was unusable as it related to only one project and only one team member
had filled up the questionnaire on behalf of all the team mates. Further, many
individual questionnaires had to be rejected for several reasons, such as significant
missing data, casual attitude of the respondent by choosing the same number on the
rating scale, and qualifying the responses with conditions. Finally, the responses from
35 organisations, involving 70 projects, 70 project managers, and 225 project team
members, were included in the analysis.
4.7.2 Organisational Profile

The 35 organisations which participated in the research represented a wide range of
IT and non-IT industry categories both in public and private sectors. In terms of
industry profile, there were 23 in computer services industry (including IT consultancy),
6 in government utilities (such as, water, roads, justice, health etc.), 2 in banking, and
one each in aviation, consumer goods, R&D, and manufacturing. They included large,
medium and small businesses and were spread throughout Australia. The list of these
organisations and general information about them is provided in Appendix:12. Table 4-
5 presents the overall profile of these organisations.
Chapter 4 Method 70
Table 4-5: Profile of respondent organisations

Total Average Maximum Minimum
No. of all employees 137,201 4035 36,000 12
No. of IT employees 11,784 357 2000 4
No. of current IT 1642 48 300 4

projects
Average no. of NA 7 25 1
members in each IT
project
Avr. duration of each NA 8 13 2

IT project (months)
4.7.3 Organisational Chart

The coordinator of the survey was asked to provide the organisational chart for the
company as a whole and for the IT division. As could be expected, the organisational
structure varied depending on the size of the organisation, nature of operations (IT or
non-IT), type and size of the projects etc. However, some common practices could be
identified. For instance, in all the non-IT organisations covered in the study, IS
department was on par with other key departments like marketing, sales, production
etc., in terms of importance. This shows that today, management information systems
(MIS) function is regarded as highly as any other management function.
With regard to IS projects, the structure was dependent on the size, the industry, the
applications being developed (finance, insurance, telecommunications, manufacturing
etc.) and the importance of the project to the company. However, size of the project
seemed to be the main criteria. A typical organisational chart of a small project
consisted of a project manager reporting to the head of IT services and managing a
team of applications developers, technical consultants and writers. The structure of a
large project is presented in Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1: Typical organisational chart of a large IT development project
Project Steering Committee

(Client reps., Account
manager, Projects Director)
Chapter 4 Method 71
Project Manager
Admin. support Quality

(Personnel, Costing) Assurance
Develoment Tech. Design & Business Analysis Support Services

Team Leader System Devpt. Team Leader
Team Leader - H/W & Network
- Testing &
Integration
- Documentation
- User Education
Team Members Team Members Team Members & Training
4.7.4 Project Profile
Each respondent organisation involved two IT projects in the survey, one more
successful, and another, less successful. Overall, 70 projects (35 more successful and
35 less successful), 70 project managers and 225 project team members (123
members in more successful projects and 102 in less successful projects) took part in
the survey.
Table 4-6: Project participation profile

More Less Overall
successful successful
project project
No. of projects participated 35 35 70
No. of project managers 35 35 70

participated
Total no. of team members 279 246 525
Total no. of members participated 123 102 225 (43%)
Average no. of members/ project 8 8 8
Average no. of members/ project 4 3 3

participated
Average duration of each project/ 16.5 14 15

months
The coordinator of the survey was requested to evaluate the performance of the
selected projects on specified parameters. The ratings are summarised in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7: Project performance profile

Chapter 4 Method 72
(Average ratings on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high))
Measure More successful project Less successful project
Technical quality 4 3
Cost performance 4 2
Deadlines 4 2
Customer satisfaction 4 3
Overall performance 4 2
4.7.5 Demographics
The profile of the project managers is given in Table 4-8. Respondents were mainly
male (74%), in their late thirties and were graduates (70%). They had an average IT
work experience of 15 years and had spent an average of 11 months on the project
which they were leading at the time of the survey.
Table 4-8: Demographics of project managers
Demographics More Less Total

project project
Sex
• Male 26 26 52 (74%)
• Female 8 8 14 (20%)
Average age in years 39 39 39
Qualification
• Post-secondary 2 5 7 (10%)
• Graduate 15 20 35 (50%)
• Post-graduate 11 3 14 (20%)
Average experience in years 17 13 15
Average time spent in the project 11 10 11

in months
As shown in Table 4-9, the project team members were mainly male (65%), in their
mid-thirties and had spent an average of nearly nine years as IT professionals. Like
managers, they also had spent an average of 11 months on the project they were
working on at the time of the survey.
Table 4-9: Demographics of project team members
More Less Total
Chapter 4 Method 73
project project
Sex
• Male 80 67 147 (65%)
Female 32 30 62 (28%)
Average age in years 33 35 34
Qualification Insufficient
information
Average experience in years 8 9 8.5
Average time spent in the project 11 10 11
in months
Chapter 5. RESULTS
5.1 Introduction
It was hypothesised in the study that transformational and technical leadership will be
associated more strongly with more successful projects. It was also hypothesised that
more successful projects will exhibit higher incidence of contingency factors, namely,
project mission, top management support and technical tasks. To test these, first the
subordinate ratings on managers of more and less successful projects with regard to
their leaders’ behaviours and their outcome were analysed. Then these ratings were
compared with the self ratings of managers to examine the extent of agreement
between the two. Thereafter, the construct validity of leadership scales were tested,
using subordinate ratings, to examine to what extent they were distinct. Finally, based
on the results of the factor analysis of leadership scales, a suitable measurement
instrument was proposed to test technical leadership behaviours. The proposed model
was further tested for it’s reliability and used to measure leadership behaviour, the
correlation between the scales and leadership outcome scale.
5.2 Subordinates’ Assessment of Leadership Behaviour (H1)
Consistent with hypothesis one, the results presented in Table 5-1 show that
managers of more successful projects exhibited transformational and technical
leadership behaviours to a greater extent than their counterparts of less successful
projects.
As the questionnaire scale ranged from 5 (low) to 1 (high), lower mean scores reflect
responses that indicate higher attributions of the leadership characteristics and higher
mean scores indicate lower attributions. The mean for subordinate ratings of
managers on the total of transformational leadership scales was 2.36 for more
successful projects and 2.76 for less successful projects (t = 3.79, 226 df, p < .001).
Similarly, the mean for subordinate ratings on technical leadership behaviours of the
managers of more successful projects was 2.25 as compared to 2.63 for managers of
less successful projects (t = 3.12, 225 df, p < .002).
Table 5-1: Subordinates’ ratings on leadership behaviours

Scale: 5 (low) to 1 (high)
Chapter 5 Results 75
More Less t- df p
Scale successful successful value 2 tail
projects projects
Mean SD Mean SD
Transformational L’p
Attributed 2.28 .80 2.60 .87 2.83 226 .005
Charisma
Idealised 2.29 .80 2.74 .96 3.88 226 .000
Influence
Intellectual 2.34 .83 2.73 .87 3.49 226 .001
Stimulation
Individualised 2.29 .96 2.67 .85 3.11 226 .002
Consdn.
Total 2.36 .77 2.76 .82 3.79 226 .000
Transactional L’p
Contingent 2.76 1.09 3.14 1.04 2.64 225 .009
Reward
Mangt. by 3.06 .84 3.25 .78 1.77* 226 .078*
Excepn.- Active (1 tail
< .05)
Mangt. by 3.65 .90 3.36 1.02 2.28# 210 .023#
Excpn.- Passive
Technical L’p 2.25 .89 2.63 .94 3.12 225 .002
n = 123 for more successful projects and 105 for less successful projects.
p- 2 tail = <.01, except * (<.10) and # (<.05)
* = Since the direction of effect was specified, 1-tail test of significance can be
applied, the value of which is significant.
As regards transactional leadership scales, the managers of more successful projects

exhibited more of contingent reward (CR) and management by exception- active
(MBEA) behaviours. The mean for CR for more successful projects was 2.76 as
against 3.14 for less successful projects (t = 2.64, 225 df, p <.01). Similarly, for MBEA,
the mean was 3.06 for more successful projects and 3.25 for less successful projects
(t = 1.77, 226 df, p <.05). Only with respect to management by exception- passive
(MBEP) behaviour, more successful project managers were rated lower with a mean of
3.65 as against 3.36 for their counterparts of less successful projects (t = 2.28, 210 df,
p < .05).
In terms of the ranking of leadership behaviours of their managers, the subordinates of

more successful projects rated technical leadership as the most important (mean 2.25)
followed by transformational leadership scales (2.36), contingent reward (2.76),
management-by-exception (MBE)- active (3.06) and MBE- passive (3.65). The
subordinates of less successful projects gave the same ranking as above to the
leadership behaviours tested but rated their leaders lower on all these scales, except
management-by-exception passive.
The results show that technical leadership behaviour was regarded very highly by the
subordinates in comparison with transformational and transactional leadership scales.
The results also supported the augmentation effect proposed by Bass and Avolio
(1990) whereby transformational leadership supplemented by transactional leadership
leads to greater success. Management by exception (passive) is clearly regarded by
the subordinates as a negative leadership behaviour. This is again in line with the
argument of Bass and Avolio (1997: 33) that management-by-exception behaviour is
both a active (positive) and passive (negative) form of leadership.
5.3 Subordinates’ Assessment of Leadership Outcome (H2)
The leadership outcome was measured in terms of how motivated the subordinates
were by their leader in making extra efforts, how effective they thought their leader was
and how satisfied they were with their leader’s leadership style. The results presented
in Table 5-2 show that subordinates perceived the managers of the more successful
projects as more encouraging in exerting extra efforts, more effective and more
satisfying. The mean for the total of all the three outcome scales was 2.35 for more
successful projects as against 2.86 for less successful projects (t = 4.68, 226 df, p
<.01).
Table 5-2: Subordinates’ ratings on leadership outcome

More Less t- df p
Scale successful successful value 2 tail
projects projects
Mean SD Mean SD
1. Extra effort 2.79 1.19 3.36 1.16 3.52 216 .001

2. Effectiveness 2.26 .69 2.77 .78 5.19 225 .000
3. Satisfaction 2.11 .99 2.48 1.12 2.67 225 .008
Total 2.35 .81 2.86 .83 4.68 226 .000
n = 123 for more successful projects and 105 for less successful projects.
p = <.01
However, in order to see how different leadership styles tested in the study were rated
in terms of their outcome, we need to look at the correlation between leadership and
outcome scales.
In line with hypothesis two, Table 5-3 shows that the relationship between
transformational & technical leadership scales and the combined leadership outcome
scales (extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction) were stronger in more successful
projects than in less successful projects.
It can be seen from Table 5-3 that apart from all the transformational leadership scales
and technical leadership scale, transactional contingent reward was strongly
correlated (.71) and management-by-exception active was moderately correlated (.48)
with the outcome scales for more successful projects. management-by-exception
passive was negatively correlated (-.29) with outcome. These results again show that
of all the leadership scales measured in the survey, only management-by-exception
passive was considered as the negative leadership behaviour by the subordinates.
Table 5-3: Correlation between the leadership and outcome scales

(subordinate ratings)
Leadership Scale Outcome Scales (combined)

More Less
projects projects
Attributed charisma .81 .70
Idealised influence .72 .62
Intellectual stimulation .63 .58
Individualised considn. .75 .71
Transformational Total .83 .72
Contingent reward .71 .66
Management by .48 - .00 ns*

Exception- Active
Management by - .29# .63

Exception- Passive
Technical leadership .74 .56

Notes:
• n = 116 for more successful projects and 102 for less successful projects.
• Outcome scale comprised of three sub-scales, namely, extra effort, effectiveness,
and satisfaction.
• Considering the sample, r values > .19 are considered significant.
• All the correlations are significant beyond the .000 level, except * (.97) and # (.001)
• ns = not significant
The results are generally in line with the findings of previous studies where “significant
relationships were found between leader effectiveness and the transformational scales
of charisma, individualised consideration and intellectual stimulation. The transactional
contingent reward has also been associated with effectiveness though the magnitude
of the association is less than that evidenced by the transformational scales. The
transactional management-by-exception (MBE) generally has low correlations with
effectiveness and is often negative when significant” (Lowe, Kroeck and
Subramaniam, 1996). The only deviation in the results of this study from the previous
findings is that transactional contingent reward was more strongly correlated with
leadership outcome (.71) than transformational intellectual stimulation (.63).
5.4 Subordinates’ Assessment of Contingency Factors (H3)
Affirming hypothesis three, the results presented in Table 5-4 clearly indicate that the
contingency factors were more frequent in more successful projects than in less
successful projects. The mean for project mission, top management support and
technical tasks were 1.77, 2.29 and 2.09 respectively, as against 2.03, 2.55, and 2.40
for the less successful projects (t = 3.35, df 226; t = 2.42, df 223, and t = 3.69, df 225
respectively; p <.01 for all).
Table 5-4: Subordinates’ ratings on contingency scales

More Less t- df p
Factor successful successful value 2 tail
projects projects
Mean SD Mean SD
Project 1.77 .49 2.03 .67 3.35 226 .001
Mission
Top Mangt. 2.29 .79 2.55 .82 2.42 223 .016*
Support
Technical 2.09 .63 2.40 .63 3.69 225 .000
Tasks
2.04 .52 2.31 .58 3.71 226 .000
Total
Notes:
• n = 123 for more successful projects and 103 for less successful projects
• p < .001 except * < .02
5.5 Self (Managers’) Ratings on Leadership, Outcome & Contingency

Scales
Table 5-5 presents the mean and standard deviations for the self ratings of managers of
more and less successful projects with regard to leadership, outcome and contingency
factors.
Table 5-5: Self (managers’) ratings on leadership, outcome & contingency Scales
More Less t- df p
Factor successful successful value 2 tail
projects projects
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Transformational Leadership Factors
Attributed 2.07 (.53) 2.33 (.48) 2.15 68 .035 a
Charisma
Idealised Influence 1.99 (.56) 2.26 (.53) 2.07 68 .042 a
Intellectual 1.89 (.56) 2.16 (.60) 1.92 68 .059 b
Stimulation
Individualised 1.79 (.48) 1.98 (.47) 1.68 68 .098 b
Consdn.
Total 1.98 (.45) 2.23 (.41) 2.44 68 .017 c
Transactional Leadership Factors
Contingent 2.45 (.89) 2.39 (.63) .31 68 .758 ns
Reward
MBE- Active 3.55 (.66) 3.25 (.71) 1.82 68 .073 b
MBE- Passive 4.11 (.46) 3.81 (.57) 2.39 68 .019 a
Technical Leadership 2.16 (.53) 2.18 (.38) .26 68 .798 ns
Outcome Factors
Extra effort 2.08 (.74) 2.42 (.67) 1.97 68 .053 b
Effectiveness 2.26 (.52) 2.49 (.47) 1.99 68 .051 b
Satisfaction 2.01 (.68) 2.25 (.73) 1.44 68 .155 d
Total 2.15 (.47) 2.41 (.47) 2.36 68 .021a
Contingency Factors
Project Mission 1.57 (.38) 1.92 (.45) 3.48 68 .001e
Top Mangt. 1.97 (.59) 2.46 (.88) 2.74 60 .008 f
Support
Technical Tasks 1.93 (.59) 2.25 (.61) 2.27 68 .027 a
Total 1.82 (.41) 2.21 (.46) 3.66 68 .000 e
Notes: n = 35 for more successful projects and 35 for less successful projects
p = a- 2 tail <.05; b- 1 tail <.05; c-2 tail <.02; d-1 tail <.10; e-2 tail <.001;
f-2 tail < .01 (Since the direction of effect was specified, 1 tail test of
significance can be applied).
ns = not significant
Table 5-5 shows that project managers of more successful projects perceived
themselves to be more transformational on all the four scales. On a scale of 5 (low) to
1 (high), the mean for the total of transformational scales was 1.98 for more successful
projects as against 2.23 for less successful projects (t = 2.44, 68 df, p <.02). With
regard to technical leadership behaviour, the mean rating for more successful projects
was only marginally higher than for less successful projects (2.16 against 2.18) which
was statistically insignificant.
With regard to transactional leadership behaviours, project managers of more

successful projects considered themselves to be less transactional on all the three
scales (contingent reward, management-by-exception- active and passive) than their
counterparts of less successful projects. However, with regard to contingent reward,
the difference in the ratings was insignificant.
In terms of leadership outcome, the managers of more successful projects rated

themselves higher on all the three outcome scales (extra effort, effectiveness and
satisfaction) than their counterparts of less successful projects but the difference in
ratings were not as significant as they were for subordinate ratings.
As regards contingency scales, the ratings support the hypothesis that all three
contingency factors are present more in more successful projects than in less
successful projects. The mean ratings for project mission, top management support
and technical tasks were 1.57, 1.97 and 1.93, respectively for more successful
projects as against 1.92, 2.46, and 2.25, respectively, for less successful projects.
In terms of ranking of leadership behaviours, the managers of more successful

projects regard their transformational behaviour the highest (mean 1.98), followed by
technical leadership (2.16), contingent reward (2.45), management-by-exception
(MBE) active (3.55) and MBE passive (4.11). However with regard to less successful
projects, the managers rank technical leadership as more important (mean 2.18) than
transformational leadership (2.23) followed by contingent reward (2.39), MBE active
(3.25) and MBE passive (3.81).
5.6 Correlation Between Leadership and Outcome Scales (Self Ratings)
Consistent with hypothesis two, Table 5-6 reveals that in the opinion of project
managers, the relationship between transformational & technical leadership scales and
leadership outcome scales is stronger in more successful projects than in less successful
projects.
Table 5-6: Correlation between leadership and outcome scales (self ratings)
Leadership Scale Outcome scales (combined)

More Less
projects projects
Attributed charisma .52 .64
Idealised influence .68 .45
Intellectual stimulation .54 .39

Individualised considn. .72 .48
Transformational Total .75 .62
Contingent reward .37 .63
MBEA .00 * .29
MBEP -.33 -.44
Technical leadership .78 .48

Notes:
• Outcome scale comprised of three sub-scales, namely, extra effort, effectiveness,
and satisfaction.
• Considering the sample, r values > 0.19 are considered significant.
• All the correlations are significant beyond the .000 level.
As per the self ratings of the managers of more successful projects, technical
leadership was most strongly correlated (.78) with outcome scales (extra effort,
effectiveness and satisfaction) followed by transformational leadership (.75) and
contingent reward (.37). The transactional management-by-exception (MBE) active
had zero correlation (.00) whereas MBE passive had negative correlation (-.33).
5.7 Comparison of Subordinates’ and Self Ratings (H4)
An analysis of the self and subordinate ratings indicate that there was a broad
agreement between the two. This substantially negates the hypothesis that there will
be no agreement between the perception of managers and their subordinates with
regard to leadership behaviour and it’s effectiveness.
The results show that there was a broad agreement between the managers and their
subordinates with regard to leadership, outcome and contingency scales to the extent
that both agreed that all leadership behaviours, except the negative management-by-
exception (passive) behaviour, and contingency factors are present more in more
successful projects. However, with regard to technical leadership, contingent reward
and all the three leadership outcome scales, the managers of less successful projects
rated themselves nearly as high as those of the more successful projects. This is to be
expected as previous research suggests that leaders tend to inflate their ratings,
particularly with regard to leadership effectiveness, in comparison with the ratings of
their subordinates (Bass and Avolio, 1997: 54).
With regard to the ranking of leadership behaviours, there was a slight disagreement
between the managers and subordinates of more successful projects. While the
subordinates rated technical leadership of their managers (mean 2.25) higher than
transformational leadership (2.36), the managers rated themselves higher on
transformational leadership (1.98) than technical leadership (2.16). However, with
regard to less successful projects, both the subordinates and their managers rated
technical leadership higher than transformational leadership.
In terms of correlation between leadership and outcome scales, it is interesting to note

that in the perception of managers of more successful projects, technical leadership
had the strongest relationship with outcome scales (.78) followed by individualised
consideration (.72) and idealised influence (.68) whereas in the perception of
subordinates, attributed charisma had the strongest correlation with outcome scales
(.81) followed by individualised consideration (.75) and technical leadership (.74). This
shows the difference in the degree of importance attached to various leadership scales
by leaders and subordinates.
Overall, both the subordinates and their managers generally agreed that technical,
transformational and contingent reward behaviours were strongly and positively
associated with project success, in that order, whereas management-by-exception
(MBE)- active had a moderately positive impact and MBE- passive had a moderately
negative impact on project outcome.
5.8 Correlation Between the Sub-scales of Transformational and

It was hypothesised that Bass and Avolio’s model on transformational and

transactional leadership with seven factors would be multi-dimensional. To test this,
first, the inter-correlation between the scales of transformational and transactional
leadership was examined and secondly, the factor analysis of the scales was
undertaken.
Table 5-7 presents the correlation matrix of the sub-scales of transformational and
transactional leadership as rated by the subordinates of more and less successful
projects. The results indicate that there was a very high positive correlation between
the subscales of transformational leadership. The mean correlation for these scales
was .73, the range being .64 to .79. Of the transactional leadership scales, contingent
reward (CR) was positively strongly correlated (.68) with the subscales of
transformational leadership. CR was correlated positively strongly with individualised
consideration (.80) but moderately with attributed charisma (.66), idealised influence
(.65), and intellectual stimulation (.61).
Management-by-exception (MBE)- active had a moderate but positive correlation with

contingent reward (.35) and the subscales of transformational leadership (.36). MBE-
passive had a moderate but negative correlation with all other scales (from -.29 with
intellectual stimulation to -.50 with individualised consideration) .
Table 5-7: Correlation matrix of the sub-scales of transformational and

transactional leadership (subordinate ratings)
Mean Attributd Idealised Intltl. Indvsd. Contngt MBEA MBEP

(SD) charisma influence stimltn consdn. reward
Attributed 19.42 -
charisma (6.75)
-
Idealised 24.99 .79
influence (9.04)
-
Intellectual 25.19 .73 .78
stimulation (8.69)
-
Individualised 24.64 .73 .70 .64
consdn. (9.28)
-
Contingent 26.40 .66 .65 .61 .80
reward (9.75)
-
MBE Active 22.07 .34 .34 .44 .32 .35

(5.74)
-
MBE Passive 24.61 - .43 - .37 - .29 - .50 - .36 .07 *
(6.81) ns
Note: n = 228; P (2 tailed significance) = .000 for all except * (MBEA & MBEP: 0.29).
These results are consistent with previous studies on Bass & Avolio’s model. “The
transformational leadership factors have been found to be highly correlated with each
other (.50 to .76) in the ratings of self, subordinates and coworkers. Similarly,
transactional contingent reward correlates highly with transformational leadership (.35
to .65)” (Bass and Avolio, 1990). Bass and Avolio (1997: 37) argue that these
intercorrelations provide empirical support for the theoretical links between
transformational and transactional leadership.
5.9 Factor Analysis of Transformational & Transactional Leadership

Scales (H5)
Table 5-8 presents the results of maximum likelihood factor analysis with Varimax
rotation of transformational and transactional leadership scales using subordinates’
ratings. A seven factor solution after 7 iterations accounted for 56.4% of the variance.
Table 5-8: Maximum likelihood factor analysis of transformational &
transactional leadership scales (subordinate ratings)
No. of Items/Scale Loaded on Each Factor (& their Loadings)

Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Items
Eigenvalue 21.33 4.33 2.56 1.91 1.62 1.09 .98

Percentage of
Variance 35.5 7.2 4.3 3.2 2.7 1.8 1.6 56.4
%
Attributed 3 3 - - - 2 - 8
Charisma (AC) (.60, .51,
.46)
(.53, .44,
.42)
(.67, .58)
Idealised 2 7 - - - - 1 10
Influence (II) (.66, .58) (.67, .62,
.60, .60,
(.44)
.53, .52,
.44)
Intellectual 3 7 - - - - - 10
Stimulation (IS) (.51, .48,
.40)
(.74, .70,
.65, .65,
.63, .58,
.46)
Individualised 9 - - - - - - 9
(.79, .69,
Consideration .69, .65,

.58, .57,
(IC) .49, .46,
.40)
Contingent 4 - - 5 - - - 9
Reward (CR) (.59, .53,
.38)
(.82, .76,
.73, .68,
.61)
MBE Active - - 1 - 6 - - 7
(MBEA) (-.23) (.77, .60,
.52, .44,
.42, .41)
MBE Passive - - 5 1 1 - - 7
(MBEP) (-.76, -.75,
-.73, -.73,
(-.29) (.47)
-.70)
Maximum IC II + MBEP CR MBE

convergence IS part A
n = 228
The Keiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was significantly high
at .88. The chi-square was 1908.42 (df 1371, p = .00). Varimax converged in 15
iterations and produced the following solution.
As can be seen from Table 5-8, there was a high convergence between the sub-scales
of transformational leadership scales. The first factor accounted for 35.5% of the
variance with eigenvalue of 21.33. Even though the first factor accounted for all the
nine items of individualised consideration scale, it was also loaded by three items of
attributed charisma, two items of idealised influence, three items of intellectual
stimulation, and four items of transactional contingent reward. Hence, the first factor
did not clearly account for any of the leadership scales of the Bass and Avolio’s model.
The second factor was loaded by seven of ten items each of idealised influence (II)
and intellectual stimulation (IS) apart from three of eight items of attributed charisma
with an eigenvalue of 4.33 and 7.2% variance. Thus, it represented a combination of II
and IS. The third factor, with an eigenvalue of 2.56 and variance of 4.3%, was loaded
by five of the seven items of management-by-exception- passive (MBEP) and one item
of MBE-active and therefore, represented MBEP. The fourth factor (1.91 eigenvalue
and 3.2% variance) was loaded on five of the nine items of contingent reward (CR)
and one item of MBEP, thus, accounting for CR. The fifth factor had an eigenvalue of
1.62 and accounted for 2.7% of the variance. It was loaded by six of the seven items
of MBE- active and one item of MBEP and hence, represented MBE-active.
To conclude, the first factor was loaded by all the items of individualised consideration
but was also loaded by other transformational scales and contingent reward and
hence was unable to clearly represent any factor. The second factor represented a
combination of idealised influence and intellectual stimulation; the third, MBE-passive;
the fourth, contingent reward and the fifth, MBE active. Thus, the factor analysis
indicates that of the seven factors of the Bass & Avolio’s model, the factor structure of
only three transactional factors (contingent reward, MBE-active and MBE-passive)
appear to be confirmed with the fourth one being the combination of idealised
influence and intellectual stimulation.
The results support the hypothesis that Bass & Avolio’s model is multi-dimensional;
however, the constructs are highly correlated.
5.10 Factor Analysis of Technical Leadership Scale (H6)
The principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation of 12 items of the
technical leadership scale, using subordinate ratings, yielded a two-factor solution, as
shown in Table 5-9, thus, negating the hypothesis that technical leadership scale is
uni-dimensional.
Table 5-9: Principal components factor analysis of technical leadership scale

Factor 1 Factor 2
Eigenvalue: 4.87 1.12
% of Variance: 40.6 9.3
Alignment of team goals with 1. Satisfy the desire for autonomy (.64)
organisational goals (.64)
Prevent organisational bureaucracy 2. Manage the process of change (.68)

(.48)
Encourage champions by acting as 3. Remain open-minded while evaluating

catalyst (.78) ideas (.67)
Facilitate career development by 4. Takes timely & effective steps to

providing challenging assignments achieve desired quality standards (.64)

(.82)
Encourage free exploration of 5. Secures resources to support creative

solutions (.41) endeavours (.54)
Ensure that organisation rewards 6. Impassionately implements

contributions appropriately (.75) management’s decisions (.41)
• n = 228
• The factor loadings for each item are given in brackets.
The factor analysis extracted two factors with eigenvalues more than one. Of the
twelve items of technical leadership scale, six each got loaded on each of the two
factors with a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin sampling adequacy of .88. The first factor accounted
for 40.6% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 4.87. A close look at the items loaded
on this factor suggest that they relate to the characteristics of a leader in an
organisational role as a manager. The second factor accounted for 9.3% of the
variance with an eigenvalue of 1.12. The items loaded on this factor suggest that they
relate to the characteristics of a manager in the individual role as a leader.
The second order factor analysis yielded the same results. Thus, these results indicate
that technical leadership is a two-dimensional scale and not uni-dimensional, as
hypothesised.
5.11 Intercorrelation between Transformational/Transactional and

It was hypothesised that the transformational and transactional leadership scales of

Bass & Avolio’s model and the technical leadership scale would be separate and not
overlapping as the former was a generic model on leadership whereas the latter
specifically applied to technical leadership. To test this, first, the intercorrelations
between the scales was tested and secondly, principal components factor analysis of
the scales was undertaken.
Technical leadership scale was found to be strongly correlated with attributed

charisma (0.73) and idealised influence (0.70), moderately correlated with
individualised consideration (0.69), intellectual stimulation (0.65) and contingent
reward (0.65), poorly correlated with MBE-active (0.34), and poorly but negatively
correlated with MBE-passive (- 0.34). These results indicate that the technical and
transformational scales were strongly and positively correlated.
5.12 Factor Analysis of Modified Transformational, Transactional and

Technical Leadership Scales (H7)
Table 5-8 revealed that Bass and Avolio’s model exhibited three factors (contingent
reward (CR), MBE-active and MBE-passive) along with another interrelated
transformational factor (idealised influence (II) + intellectual stimulation (IS)). Table 5-9
showed that technical leadership scale came out with two factors. For the purpose of
examining the similarity between transformational/transactional and technical
leadership scales, the above six factors which came out distinctly were considered for
further analysis and comprised of items which formed these factors in the analysis.
Thus, items selected for the analysis included 42 of the original 72 items representing
one combined transformational (II+IS) scale, three transactional (CR, MBEA and
MBEP) scales and two technical leadership scales.
Table 5-10: Principal components factor analysis of modified transformational,

transactional & technical leadership scales (subordinate ratings)

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor Factor 5 Factor Total
4 6 Items
Eigenvalue 14.33 4.01 2.36 2.01 1.61 1.12

Percentage of
Variance 34.1 9.6 5.6 4.8 3.8 2.7 60.6
%
Idealised 1 1 2 - - 3 7
influence (II) + (.49) (.45) (.49, .46) (.61, .57,
.49)
Intl. stimulation - - 6 1 - - 7
(IS) (.78, .74, .69,
.68, .56, .54)
(.48)
Contingent - 5 - - - - 5
Reward (CR) (.86, .82, .75,
.74, .73)
MBE Active - - - - 6 - 6
(MBEA) (.68, .67, .65,
.60, .59, .49)
MBE Passive 5 - - - - - 5
(MBEP) (-.86, -.85, -
.83, -.80, -
.80)
Technical- 1 - 2 - 4 - - 6
(.74, .42) (.62, .48,

.44, .40)
Technical- 2 4 - - 2 - - 6
(.64, .55, (.61, .48)
.48, .34)
Maximum MBEP CR II+IS Tech- MBEA 42

convergence 1
n = 228
The principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation of the modified
leadership scales, using subordinate ratings, extracted six factors, as shown in Table
5-10, and accounted for 60.6% of the variance. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of
sampling adequacy was .91. After Varimax converged in 10 iterations, the rotated
factor matrix revealed that factor one with an eigenvalue of 14.33 explained 34.1% of
the variance and mainly comprised of MBE-passive and Technical leadership-2
scales. Since conceptually the technical leadership does not integrate with MBEP and
also considering the high factor loadings of MBEP items (<.80), it was taken that factor
one represents MBEP. Similarly, factor two represented contingent reward, factor
three intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration, factor three technical
leadership (four items of Tech-1 and two items of Tech-2) and factor five MBE-active
scale.
Considering the above results, a second order factor analysis was done to test the five
factors (II+IS, CR, MBEA, MBEP and Technical leadership) with 30 items which
comprised these scales as shown above.
The results of the second order principal components factor analysis with Varimax
rotation are shown Table 5-11. The results very clearly demonstrate the distinct factor
structure of five factors comprising management-by-exception (MBE)- passive,
combination of intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration, contingent
reward, MBE-active and Technical leadership scales.
The results in Table 5-11 reveal that when compared to Bass and Avolio’s model of
transformational and transactional leadership scales, a part of the technical leadership
scale tested in the study comes out as a distinct factor. The initial results showed that
of the seven factors of Bass and Avolio’s model, the factor structure of one combined
transformational scale and three transactional scales were confirmed. Similarly,
technical leadership scale was shown to be comprising of two factors and was highly
correlated with transformational scales. When these six confirmed factors (one
combined transformational factor, three transactional and two technical factors) were
tested, the second order principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation
validated the constructs of five factors, comprising one transformational, three
transactional and one technical leadership scales.
Table 5-11: Second order principal components factor analysis of modified

transformational, transactional & technical leadership scales

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Total
Items
Eigenvalue 9.29 3.66 2.09 1.78 1.44

Percentage of
Variance 31 12.2 7 6 4.8 60.9%
Idealised - 2 - - - 2
influence (II) + (.58, .47)
Intl. stimulation - 6 - - - 6
(IS) (.79, .76, .74,
.69, .67, .59)
Contingent - - 5 - - 5
Reward (CR) (.87, .83, .77,
.76, .70)
MBE Active - - - 6 - 6
(MBEA) (.68, .67, .65,
.60, .59, .50)
MBE Passive 5 - - - - 5
(MBEP) (.87, .87, .82,
.81, .81)
Technical L’p - - - - 6 6
(.69, .64, .55, .49,
.43, .38)
Maximum MBEP IS+II CR MBEA TECH 30

convergence
n = 228
These results support the hypothesis that transformational, transactional and technical
leadership scales measure different constructs of leadership behaviour.
5.13 Model for the Measurement of Technical Leadership
Based on the results shown in Table 5-11, it can be argued that a model comprising
five leadership scales with 30 items is better suited to measure technical leadership
behaviour, such as information technology project managers. The items comprising of
these five leadership scales, as validated in the factor analysis, are presented below:
Scale Items (Factor Loadings)

Intellectual 1. Encourages subordinates to rethink ideas which had never
stimulation + been questioned before (.79)
Idealised 2. Questions the traditional ways of doing things (.76)
influence (*) 3. Encourages non-traditional thinking to deal with traditional
problems (.74)
4. Suggests new ways of looking at how subordinates do their
jobs (.69)
5. Emphasises the value of questioning assumptions (.67)
6. Gets subordinates to look at problems from many different
angles (.59)
7. Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose
(.58)*
8. Displays conviction in his/her ideals, beliefs and values (.47)*
Technical 9. Encourages to freely explore the solution to the problem, i.e.,

leadership hacking (.69)
10. Implements upper management’s decisions with the same
enthusiasm, even if he/she does not completely agree with
them (.64)
11. Satisfies subordinates’ desire for autonomy (.55)
12. Facilitates career development of subordinates by providing
challenging stretch assignments (.49)
13. Ensures that the goals of the subordinates are similar to the
goals of the organisation (.43)
14. Prevents the organisational bureaucracy from interfering with
the work of subordinates (.38)
Contingent 15. Works out agreements with subordinates on what they will
reward receive if they do what needs to be done (.87)
16. Negotiates with subordinates about what they can expect to
receive for what they accomplish (.83)
17. Tells subordinates what to do to be rewarded for their efforts
(.77)
18. Makes clear to subordinates what they can expect to receive,
if their performance meets standards (.76)
19. Makes sure that subordinates receive appropriate rewards for
achieving performance targets (.70).
Management- 20. Keeps track of the mistakes of subordinates (.68)

by-exception 21. Closely monitors the performance of subordinates for errors
Active (.67)
22. Directs attention toward failure to meet standards (.65)
23. Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions and

deviations from standards (.60)
24. Enforces rules to avoid mistakes (.59)
25. Searches for mistakes before commenting on the
performance of subordinates (.50)
Management- 26. Problems must become chronic before he/she takes action
by-exception (.87)
Passive 27. Things have to go wrong for him/her to take action (.87)
28. Fails to intervene until problems become serious (.82)
29. The work of subordinates has to fall below minimum
standards for him/her to try to make improvements (.81)
30. It requires a failure to meet an objective for him/her to take
action (.81)
The first scale is a combination of intellectual stimulation and idealised influence

(which in turn is part of charisma) and therefore, could be termed as “intellectual and
charismatic stimulation”. The second scale representing technical leadership
comprises of items which emphasise the ‘organisational’ role of a leader as a ‘catalyst’
in empowering the subordinates with autonomy, facilitating their career progression by
providing challenging assignments, aligning individual and organisational goals and
preventing organisational bureaucracy from hindering the work of the subordinates.
This scale was termed as “organisational catalyst”.
5.14 Test of the Model for the Measurement of Technical Leadership
The suggested model was tested for it’s reliability and used to compare the
subordinates’ ratings for more and less successful projects to distinguish the
leadership behaviours between the managers of these projects. Further, the
correlation between the scales and with leadership outcome scale was tested.
5.14.1 Subordinates’ Assessment of Leadership Behaviour

Using the above model, Table 5-12 compares more and less successful projects
based on subordinate ratings. As can be seen from the table, all the scales were found
to be reliable as the Cronbach alpha for the scales ranged from .69 to .94. As
expected, the subordinates of more successful projects rated their managers the
highest on organisational catalyst behaviour (mean 2.29, 223 df, p < .05), followed by
transformational scale of intellectual and charismatic stimulation (mean 2.38),
transactional management-by-exception (MBE)- active (3.10), contingent reward (3.24)
and last, the MBE- passive (3.81). Thus, in their perception, MBEP is the least
preferred leadership behaviour.
Table 5-12: Comparison between more & less successful projects using modified
measurement instrument (subordinates’ ratings)
More Less t- df p α
Scale successful successful value 2-tail
projects projects
Mean SD Mean SD
Intellectual & 2.38 .92 2.91 .91 4.37 226 .000 .89
charismatic
stimulation
Organisational 2.29 .94 2.57 .90 2.19 223 .03* .72
catalyst
Contingent 3.24 1.24 3.53 1.18 1.76 218 .080 .89
reward **
Mangt-by-excpn 3.10 .88 3.29 .84 1.66 226 .098 .69
Active **
Mangt-by-excpn 3.81 1.06 3.41 1.20 2.62 210 .010 .94
Passive ***
• p = * <.05 (2 tail), ** <.10 (2 tail) < .05 (1 tail), *** <.01 (2 tail)
5.14.2 Correlation Between the Scales & With Outcome Scale

As shown in Table 5-13, organisational catalyst scale was highly correlated with
transformational scale of intellectual & charismatic stimulation (.59), followed by
contingent reward (.48), MBE-active (.29) and negatively with MBE-passive (-.33). In
regard to correlation with leadership outcome scale, organisational catalyst scale had
the strongest correlation (.62), followed by contingent reward (.59), intellectual and
charismatic stimulation (.58), MBE active (.28) and negatively with MBE passive (-52).
The results in Table 5-13 show that organisational catalyst scale was most closely
associated with leadership outcome followed by transactional contingent reward scale
and transformational intellectual and charismatic stimulation scale. MBE active had a
weak association with leadership outcome whereas MBE passive had strong but
negative association. Between the various leadership scales, there was a strong
correlation between organisational catalyst, transformational intellectual and

charismatic stimulation and transactional contingent reward scales.
Table 5-13: Correlation between scales & with outcome scale of the modified
measurement instrument
Mean Intl. & Organisat- Contngt MBE MBE Outcome

(SD) charism- ional reward A P
atic stmn. catalyst
Intellectual & 2.62 -
charismatic stmn. (.95)
Organisational 2.42 .59 -
catalyst (.93)
Contingent reward 3.38 .52 .48 -
(1.22)
Mangt-by-excepn. 3.19 .44 .29 .35 -
Active (.87)
Mangt-by-excepn. 3.63 -.29 -.33 -.29 -.05 -
Passive (1.14) ns*
Outcome Scale # 2.58 .58 .62 .59 .28 -.52 -
(.85)
Notes: n = 228 ; p (2 tailed significance) <.001 for all except * .407;
# Outcome scale comprised of three subscales, namely, extra effort, effectiveness &
satisfaction; ns = not significant
These results are in line with the conceptual framework which predicted that
transactional (contingent reward and MBE active) leadership on it’s own leads to low
project success but if it is augmented with transformational and technical
(organisational catalyst) leadership, the result will be high project success.
Overall, the results confirmed the hypotheses that

• managers of more successful projects exhibit more of transformational and
technical leadership behaviours (H1)
• more successful projects have stronger relationship between transformational and
technical leadership scales and leadership outcome scales (H2)
• more successful projects exhibit higher incidence of contingency factors (H3)
• transformational and transactional leadership scales are multi-dimensional (H5)
and are distinct from technical leadership scale (H7).
The hypothesis that there would be no agreement between managers and
subordinates on leadership behaviour and effectiveness (H4) was not supported as
broad agreement was found between the two. Further, the hypothesis that technical
leadership scale would be uni-dimensional (H6) was also not supported as it was found
to be two-dimensional.
Chapter 6. INTERVIEWS WITH SENIOR MANAGERS
6.1 Introduction
Apart from collecting quantitative data from project managers and their subordinates,
qualitative data was obtained by interviewing and administering semi-structured
questionnaires to senior IT managers in order to obtain a better perspective of the
nature and importance of project leadership. This approach provided a three
dimensional perspective of leadership - from the point of view of superiors, leaders
and subordinates.
As stated in the method section, personal interviews were restricted to managers

based in Melbourne and the rest were invited to complete a mailed, semi-structured
questionnaire. A total of 18 senior managers of the 35 participating organisations
provided qualitative data, yielding a response rate of 51%. Of the 18 senior managers,
10 were interviewed in Melbourne and the remaining 8 were from other parts of
Australia and responded to semi-structured questionnaire. The questions asked in the
interview and in the questionnaire were the same.
The respondents had an average of 18 years total experience in the IT industry, the
minimum being 6 yrs and the maximum, 30 yrs. They had worked in the capacity of a
project leader and/or project manager for an average period of 9 years (min. = 4 yrs,
max. = 18 yrs). At the time of collecting the data, an average of 7 project leaders
and/or project managers were directly reporting to the respondents (min. = 1, max. =
22).
Following is the content analysis of the responses given by the senior managers of the
respondent organisations who acted as the coordinators for the survey and selected
the projects for participation.
6.2 Criteria for Judging Project Performance

Chapter 6 Interviews with Senior Managers 98
The senior managers were asked about the criteria adapted in judging the
performance of the projects they selected for participation in the survey. Majority of the
respondents chose projects which were relatively large and just completed or about to
be completed. The predominant criteria for judging the project success were customer
satisfaction, followed by ability to meet the deadlines, cost performance and morale of
the team members.
6.3 Key Success Factors
The respondents were asked to name the factors which, in their opinion, contributed to
the relative success or failure of IT projects. The summary of their response is as
follows:
Table 6-1: Key success factors as named by senior managers
Key Success Factors Total no. of times

mentioned
• Clarity of customer requirements/ 9
goals/ specifications
• Team commitment/ cohesiveness/ 5
stability
• Leadership and leadership style of 4
project manager
• Management support 4
• Supportive/ satisfied client 4
• Managing change (including 3
technology)
• Methodology 3
• Understanding of business 2
• Managing expectations 1
• Managing by principles 1
(Note: many respondents misunderstood the question as measurement criteria (how)
instead of success criteria (what) and mentioned time, cost, quality etc.).
The respondents were further asked to rank the ten critical success factors identified
by Slevin and Pinto (1986) in the order of importance. Top management support
(willingness of top management to provide the necessary resource and authority) was
rated the most important factor followed by client consultation (communication,
consultation, and active listening to all impacted parties) and project mission (initial
clarity of goals and general direction).
To summarise different rankings given by the respondents, each rank was given points
ranging from 1 (rank 10) to 10 (rank 1). The final rankings were based on the overall
score. The following is the response summary:
Table 6-2: Key success factors as ranked by senior managers
Total Points Critical Success Factor Rank

147 Top Management Support 1
129 Client Consultation 2
126 Project Mission 3
114 Client Acceptance 4
107 Project Schedule/Plan And 5
Communication
6
101 Personnel 7
77 Monitoring & Feedback 8
58 Technical Tasks 9
37 Trouble Shooting 10
6.4 Project Leadership

All the respondents agreed that project leadership is one of the critical influencing
factors in IT projects. Many felt that the importance increases with the size and
complexity of the project. One respondent stated that leadership and leadership style
is coming out as the single biggest influencing factor in his organisation and is
therefore, considered as a top selection criteria. Another respondent felt that project
leadership “can make it a great success when it would otherwise been a moderate
success and can prevent it from being a complete disaster”.
Some of the qualities and skills identified by the respondents as essential in an IT

project manager are:
• Communication (verbal/ written/ presentation)
• Inter-personal skills (people skills)
• Technical competence
• Project management skills (planning/ documentation)
• Inspirational (true leader/ enthusiastic/ drive/ motivating)
• Client relationship (customer focused/ business solution oriented)
• Good understanding of methodology
• Delegation
6.5 Leadership Style and Project Outcome
Almost all the respondents agreed that leadership style is one of the influencing
factors on project outcome. A majority also expressed the view that there is not one
leadership style that is suitable to all projects and all situations. In the words of one
respondent, the leader “may have an underlying, individual leadership style but as the
project unfolds, the style has to move back and forth across that spectrum as the
situation arise and demands”.
In the opinion of many respondents, the style should vary depending on-
1. the project situation: an open collaborative style for a smooth running project and
authoritarian or task-oriented style when things go wrong.
2. skill set of team members: teaching/collaborative style for new, inexperienced staff
and hands-off style for senior/experienced staff.
3. phase of the project: initiation, execution and conclusion. To be a nice guy & lead
from the front in the initiation stage; to make sure that they are doing everything in the
execution stage; and be a real bastard if things move slowly during the conclusion
stage.
4. Size of the project: Larger the project, more is the importance of leadership and
leadership style.
Some of the characteristics identified in a successful leadership style are: ability to

quickly identify and inform the management of problems and ask for help; delegate
tasks and not doing everyone’s job; lead by example; develop and support followers;
have clear vision; have proven people and business skills; pay attention to details;
follow formal project methodology; committed to the success of the project etc.
6.6 Assessment of Transformational, Transactional & Technical

Leadership
A short version of the questionnaire administered to project managers and project

team members was given to the senior managers asking them to judge how important
was each of the leadership behaviour described in the questionnaire in an “ideal”
project manager.
The questionnaire consisted of 32 items representing four items each for each of the
transformational (attributed charisma, idealised influence, intellectual stimulation, and
individualised consideration), transactional (contingent reward, MBEA and MBEP), and
technical leadership scales. The items for transformational and transactional scales
best represented a broader range of unique aspects representing each leadership
construct, while also maximising the convergent and discriminant validity of the scales
(Avolio, Bass and Jung, 1996: 27). Similarly the four items which represented technical
leadership scale in the questionnaire were chosen based on the factor analysis of the
scale using subordinate ratings.
Table 6-3: Ratings of senior managers on transformational, transactional &

technical leadership scales
Scale Mean SD Chronbach

(Scale: 1= High; alpha
5= Low)
Transformational Leadership
Attributed Charisma (AC) 9.72 2.42 .60
Idealised Influence (II) 8.72 2.05 .50
Intellectual Stimulation (IS) 9.06 2.13 .62
Individualised Consideration (IC) 9.39 2.17 .50
Total 36.89 5.20 .62
Contingent Reward (CR) 10.17 2.15 .39
Mangt. by Excepn- Active (MBEA) 15.39 2.93 .72
Mangt. by Excpn- Passive (MBEP) 15.67 3.88 .69
Technical Leadership 8.28 2.24 .67

• n = 18 Senior IT Executives out of whom 10 were personally interviewed and 8
replied to a semi-structured questionnaire.
• No. of items for each scale: 4
Table 6-3 shows that in the perception of senior managers, technical leadership
behaviour was the most important in an “ideal” project manager (8.28), followed by the
transformational leadership scales (II = 8.72, IS = 9.06, IC = 9.39, AC = 9.72) and
transactional leadership scales (CR = 10.17, MBEA = 15.39 and MBEP = 15.67).
These ratings are in line with those of the project managers and their subordinates.
6.7 Advice for Project Managers
The senior managers were asked as to what advice would they give to aspiring project
managers based on their experience. Some of the themes that emerged distinctly from
the advice given by the respondents are:
• It is a tough and stressful job. Therefore, one has to ensure that he/she is totally
committed to the role, able to make sacrifices and has no personal problem which
is likely to affect the performance.
• The project manager’s job is to get the team working together and not to do
everyone’s job oneself. The manager should not own the whole problem and try to
run people’s life for them or try to ‘micro manage’ them. What is important is that
the team members ‘respect’ the leader and not necessarily ‘like’ him/her.
• One should not become a project manager if he/she is not prepared to say “no”.
The manager should be honest in keeping the management informed of project
progress and problems. He/she should not hesitate in raising the alarm early and
asking for help. The management does not want to be “surprised” with good or bad
news.
• The manager should learn the necessary technical, project management, project
methodology and leadership skills by attending appropriate courses.
• The budding project manager should have a mentor/role model so as to analyse
and learn from successful project management practices.
Several respondents supported and emphasised the need for “alternate career paths”
for technical professionals who have little or no aptitude for managerial positions. They
stressed that their organisations have successfully provided technical and managerial
career paths which carry equal importance in terms of recognition and rewards and
their technical employees are free to choose the path they wish to pursue. They feel
this is the best possible way for an organisation to derive the best value from their
technical employees.
Chapter 7. DISCUSSION
7.1 Introduction
This research examined the nature and characteristics of leadership behaviours that
are most effective in the execution of IT projects. It did this by replicating Bass and
Avolio’s (1990) transformational and transactional leadership model in an Australian IT
environment using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) along with
technical leadership scale, derived from the meta analysis of technical leadership
literature. Further, it examined the nature and importance of leadership as a critical
success factor in IT projects in conjunction with other critical factors, such as project
mission, top management support and technical tasks. Both quantitative (survey) and
qualitative (interview) methods were employed to develop a comprehensive
understanding of leadership in an IT project set-up.
This chapter begins with a brief account of the findings in relation to the hypotheses. It
goes on to analyse them in the light of previous findings and theoretical and practical
issues. The discussion starts with the applicability of Bass and Avolio’s model to IT
projects in comparison with previous findings in other settings. Next, considering the
controversy surrounding the factor structure of various subscales of transformational
and transactional leadership in the model, it looks at the construct validity of the new
version of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire which was used in the study. It moves
on to consider the hypothesis that transformational and technical leadership scales
measure different constructs of leadership and to determine whether the results
support the construction of a technical leadership scale and a theory on technical
leadership. Finally, it discusses theoretical and practical implications of the results,
outlines the limitations of the study and points towards future research.
7.2 Comparison of Results with Hypotheses
In support of the first hypothesis, Table 5-1 revealed that subordinates perceived that
managers of more successful projects exhibited transformational and technical
leadership behaviours to a greater extent than managers of less successful projects.
The managers themselves felt the same way as shown in Table 5-5. According to
subordinates, managers of more successful projects also exhibited more of
Chapter 7 Discussion 104
transactional contingent reward and management-by-exception active behaviours

which reinforced the augmentation effect of transformational leadership over
transactional leadership. Management-by-exception passive was clearly regarded as a
negative behaviour by both managers and subordinates.
The second hypothesis stated that the relationship between transformational and
technical leadership scales and leadership outcome scales will be stronger in more
successful projects than in less successful projects. This was supported both by
subordinate ratings as shown in Table 5-3 and managers’ self ratings as in Table 5-6.
The third hypothesis predicted that more successful projects will exhibit higher
incidence of contingency factors (project mission, top management support and
technical tasks). This was confirmed both in subordinate ratings (Table 5-4) and self
ratings (Table 5-5).
The fourth hypothesis that there will be no agreement between the perception of
project managers and their subordinates on leadership behaviour and effectiveness
was not supported as broad agreement was found between the two. However, there
were minor differences with regard to the ratings on transactional leadership, ranking
of leadership behaviours and correlation between leadership and outcome scales
which in many instances were not statistically significant.
With regard to the hypothesis on the multi-dimensional nature of leadership scales in

Bass and Avolio’s model (1990), the results in Table 5-7 revealed that there was a
high correlation between the subscales of transformational leadership. This was
further reinforced in the factor analysis (Table 5-8) which did not clearly confirm the
factor structure of any of the transformational leadership subscales except a
combination of two subscales; however, the construct validity of three transactional
leadership scales was validated. Thus, the results, while supporting the hypothesis
that Bass and Avolio’s model is multi-dimensional, also clearly revealed that the
constructs were highly correlated.
The next hypothesis stated that the technical leadership scale will be uni-dimensional.
This was not supported as the results of principal components factor analysis of this
scale as shown in Table 5-9 yielded a two-factor solution.
Positive support was found for the final hypothesis that the transformational,
transactional and technical leadership scales measure different constructs of
leadership. The second order principal components factor analysis of these scales as
shown in Table 5-11, confirmed the factor structure of one combined transformational
scale, three transactional scales and one technical leadership scale.
The results have important implications for the applicability of Bass and Avolio’s model
of leadership to technical projects, the construct validity of the model in an IT project
setting which was not tested before and towards the building of a technical leadership
model and its measurement. These issues are discussed in subsequent sections.
7.3 Applicability of Bass & Avolio’s Model to Information Technology

Projects
Several distinguishing characteristics of technical professionals and the need for a

leadership style to suit these characteristics were identified in the literature review.
Even though the suitability of Bass and Avolio’s model in high technology industries
has been tested with generally positive results (Keller, 1992 and 1995; Howell and
Higgins, 1990; Beatty and Lee, 1992), its applicability to information technology
projects had not been tested.
The universality of the model across various industries, cultures and levels has also
been well documented (Hicks, 1990; Bass and Yokochi, 1991; Yammarino and Bass,
1990b). However, transformational leadership is identified more with top levels of
management and with organisations experiencing growth, change and crisis (Bass
and Avolio, 1990).
The applicability of the model to information technology projects was well supported by
the results of this study. The hypothesis that transformational leadership and
leadership effectiveness are associated to a greater extent with more successful
projects was supported both by subordinate and self (managers’) ratings. With regard
to transactional leadership, subordinates of more successful projects rated their
leaders as exhibiting more of contingent reward and management-by-exception active
than their counterparts of less successful projects. These results are in line with the
previous studies which found moderately positive relationship between contingent
reward and leadership effectiveness and often weak but positive relationship between
management-by-exception active and effectiveness (Lowe et al., 1996; Yukl, 1994).
The positive association of transactional leadership with transformational leadership

support the “augmentation effect” of the latter over the former. According to Bass and
Avolio (1997), “effective transactional leadership forms a base upon which
transformational leadership builds to achieve higher performance and therefore,
transactional leadership is viewed as an essential component of the full range of
effective leadership”.
Of the transactional leadership scales, only the management-by-exception passive

was regarded negatively both by subordinates and managers as it was rated the
lowest and correlated negatively with leadership outcome. This is in line with Bass and
Avolio’s (1997: 33) argument that “management-by-exception can be perceived as
both a positive or active form of leadership as well as a negative, or passive form.
However, the bottom line is that management-by-exception, used in isolation, is
negatively related to effective performance. Combining corrective action with more
active forms of transactional and transformational leadership results in a more optimal
leadership profile”.
The results also support the generality of findings on this model in different settings.
As Bass and Avolio (1997: 46) conclude “regardless of the setting, transformational
leaders are more effective than those leaders practising contingent reward; contingent
reward is more effective than management-by-exception active which in turn is more
effective than management-by-exception passive”.
The applicability of the model to middle level managers was supported by the results.
The managers, their superiors and their subordinates believe that transformational
leadership is associated more with successful project outcome followed by contingent
reward and management-by-exception active. The results are in line with previous
studies on middle managers (Carless, 1995; Keller, 1992; Beatty & Lee, 1992) and
support Bass and Avolio’s (1990) argument that transformational leadership is not
confined only to top level managers.
One of the major controversies surrounding the model is the construct validity of the
subscales of transformational and transactional leadership. The latest version of the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Form 5X) was tested in the study. Bass
and Avolio (1997) claim that this version satisfactorily resolves the problems
associated with the previous versions of this measurement instrument. This claim is
examined in the next section in the light of the results of this study.
7.4 Construct Validity of Bass & Avolio’s model
A robust measurement instrument is a prerequisite to test any theory. Leadership

researchers have been criticised for not paying enough attention to the measurement
of leadership (Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner and Lankau, 1993). The
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) developed by Bass and Avolio to measure
transformational and transactional leadership has been extensively used over the last
ten years. This survey instrument has been widely criticised for its lack of discriminant
validity with respect to the factors making up the survey and high correlations between
the subscales (Hunt, 1991; Smith and Peterson, 1988; Yukl, 1994 etc.).
In response to the criticisms on the earlier versions (Form 5R) of MLQ, Bass and
Avolio (1993) refined the instrument with a new version (Form 5X) containing nine
scales of leadership. Using confirmatory factor analysis and partial least squares
(PLS) analysis, Bass and Avolio (1997: 60) have justified the factor structure of MLQ
(Form 5X) in a sample of 14 independent studies (n = 1490). The use of confirmatory
factor analysis as against traditional exploratory techniques was justified on the basis
that the MLQ has been in use for more than 10 years and that it provides a more
rigorous test of the underlying factor structure (p. 60). In their study of subordinate
ratings, Bass and Avolio (1997) found generally high and positive intercorrelations
among the five transformational scales and transactional contingent reward. The
average intercorrelation between transformational scales was .83 and between
transformational scales and contingent reward was .71. From this study, Bass and
Avolio (1997: 78) derived a shorter and more robust version of MLQ containing 45
items with 4 items for each of the nine leadership factors that best represented the
meaning of the construct.
In the present study, the new version of MLQ (Form 5X) was used. However, of the
nine factors in the latest version, only seven were chosen for the survey. The factors
omitted were inspirational leadership [as it loads heavily with charisma (Bass and
Avolio, 1997: 34)] and the negative laissez faire leadership. The construct validity of
the seven factors was tested using maximum likelihood factor analysis. The
confirmatory factor analysis, as suggested by Bass and Avolio (1997), could not be
used to analyse the data in this study because of the lack of sample size required.
Joreskog and Sorbom (1989) recommend the use of Weighted Least Squares (WLS)
procedure with asymptotic covariances of a polychoric correlation matrix but this
procedure requires that the listwise sample be 1.5k(k+1), where k is the number of
items or observed variables. In this study, a total of 72 leadership scale items were
tested which meant that to carry out the WLS procedure, a minimum sample size of
7884 was required.
In line with previous studies, Table 5-7 revealed high correlations between the
subscales of transformational leadership. Similarly, between transformational and
transactional scales, contingent reward was highly correlated, management-by-
exception active was moderately correlated and management-by-exception passive
was negatively correlated with transformational scales.
The results of the maximum likelihood factor analysis with Varimax rotation (Table 5-8)
confirmed the factor structure of all the three transactional leadership factors
(contingent reward, management-by-exception active and passive). However, with
regard to transformational leadership scales, due to high correlations between the
scales which ranged from .64 to .79 (Table 5-7), the factor structure of none of these
scales was validated. Idealised influence and intellectual stimulation loaded heavily on
each other and formed a distinct factor whereas individualised consideration was
loaded with part of attributed charisma, transactional contingent reward and intellectual
stimulation. These results, at best, confirmed the factor structure of four of seven
factors of Bass and Avolio’s model, that is, three transactional factors and one
transformational factor being a combination of intellectual stimulation and idealised
influence.
The results fall in line with previous studies where, generally, one to three
transformational factors and two to three transactional factors have typically been
extracted (Curphy, 1990; Bycio et al., 1995). While conceding that the scales are
correlated, Bass and Avolio (1997: 77) argue that “it is probably more useful to assess
these components as individual factors. Instead of limiting future leadership studies to
a global charismatic and/or transformational leadership factor, we ought to continue to
examine separately each of the components that others may see as a unitary factor.
Not only is this important for research purposes, but it also provides the basis for
useful feedback in training programmes, as well as for assessment and evaluation
purposes”.
To conclude, it is possible to argue that the correlations between the transformational

and transactional scales partly justify the augmentation effect. While the Multifactor
leadership questionnaire (MLQ) suffers from psychometric problems with regard to its
construct validity, it should be noted that the full range of leadership and the MLQ
proposed by Bass and Avolio remain the most widely used model and the instrument
to test transformational leadership empirically and have produced an impressive array
of findings (Bryman, 1992). Moreover, all the other theories on charismatic, visionary
and transformational leadership contain the components of inspiration, intellectual
stimulation, and individualised consideration (House, 1995) proposed by Bass and
Avolio.
Having confirmed the applicability of Bass and Avolio’s model to IT projects, it is now
necessary to examine to what extent it captures the key characteristics of technical
leadership. The subsequent sections compare and contrast transformational and
transactional leadership with technical leadership.
7.5 Is There a Technical Leadership Style?
Rosenbaum (1991) argued that since technical professionals are highly specialised,
leading them according to traditional principles may meet with only minimal success.
Considering the unique personality and occupational characteristics of technical
professionals, it may be argued that technical managers need a different leadership
style. Accordingly, a set of leadership behaviours were drawn from the meta analysis
of the literature on technical leadership and after comparing them with the essential
elements of transformational and transactional leadership behaviour as identified by
Bass (1990), a set of 12 items were chosen to construct technical leadership scale
(refer Appendix- 6).
The scale was found to be both reliable and valid. The internal consistency of the
scale (Chronbach’s alpha) was .81 for subordinate ratings and .79 for self ratings. The
next test of the scale was to examine how strongly it was associated with project
success. The results in Table 5-1 clearly pointed out that in the perception of
subordinates, technical leadership behaviour was more strongly associated with more
successful projects than with less successful projects. Similarly, the relationship
between technical leadership scale and outcome (leadership effectiveness) scales
was found to be stronger in more successful projects than in less successful projects
(Table 5-3). Thus, technical leadership was shown to be positively associated with
project success.
Having confirmed that both transformational and technical leadership styles predicted
better project success, the next step was to examine the relative strengths of the two
scales in terms of leadership effectiveness.
7.5.1 Comparing Technical Leadership Ratings with Transformational/

Transactional Leadership Ratings
In comparison with transformational and transactional leadership scales, technical
leadership scale was given the highest score by the subordinates of more successful
projects (refer Table 5-1). In the perception of managers, technical leadership scale
had the strongest correlation with outcome scales (.78) as against .75 for
transformational scales and .37 for contingent reward (Table 5-6). Similarly, the senior
managers rated technical leadership as the most ideal leadership behaviour in a
project manager (Table 6-1).
7.5.2 Factor Structure of Technical Leadership

Since the items selected for technical leadership scale were specifically derived from
technical leadership literature, it was hypothesised that the scale is uni-dimensional.
However, as shown in Table 5-9, the principal components factor analysis with
Varimax rotation yielded a two factor solution.
The six items which were loaded on factor one conceptually related to the role played
by a manager, as a representative of the organisation, in effectively satisfying the
individual interests of the team members leading to a mutually beneficial relationship.
These items referred to alignment of individual goals with organisational goals,
preventing organisational bureaucracy from interfering with the work of subordinates,
playing the role of a catalyst, facilitating career development by providing challenging
assignments and appropriately rewarding individual contributions.
As against the individual-organisational interface emphasised in factor one, the items

on factor two referred to the personal style of the manager in dealing with the
subordinates. These items pertained to satisfying the desire for autonomy, managing
the process of change by involving subordinates, being open-minded while evaluating
ideas including one’s own, impassionately implementing management’s decisions
irrespective of personal opinion etc.
Thus, conceptually, the technical leadership scale represents two constructs of

leadership behaviour- one the organisational role of a manager, and two the individual
role as a leader.
7.5.3 Distinguishing Technical Leadership from Transformational/ Transactional

Leadership
It was hypothesised that the technical leadership scale and the transformational and
transactional leadership scales of Bass & Avolio’s model would be distinct and,
therefore, measure different constructs of leadership behaviour. To test this, a
principal components factor analysis was conducted on the four confirmed factors of
Bass and Avolio’s model and the two factors of the technical leadership scale.
The results (Table 5-10) revealed that while the factor structure of one combined
transformational and three transactional scales remained as they were, part of
technical leadership factors (6 out of 12 items) stood out as a separate factor. A
second order factor analysis (Table 5-11) confirmed these factors and accounted for
60.9 % of the variance.
Thus, the factor analysis of transformational, transactional and technical leadership

scales suggested that one transformational, three transactional and one technical
factor measure different constructs of leadership behaviour. The results support the
argument that there could be a technical leadership scale that is distinct from
transformational and transactional scales.
7.6 Towards a Theory of Technical Leadership
The situational context of leadership is well documented in the leadership literature

(Fiedler, 1967; House, 1971). Fiedler’s (1967) contingency theory explored the
suitability or otherwise of task vs. relations orientation depending on how favourable
the situation was to the leader. While Bass and Avolio (1997: 58) emphasise the
universal applicability of their model, they do not rule out situational influence on the
effectiveness of transformational leadership and agree that “the model may require
adjustments and fine-tuning as we move across from one type of sector, organisation,
and culture to another”.
Bass (1985) recognised that mean factor score values and norms would vary in
different organisations. For instance, in this study of IT project managers, intellectual
stimulation came out as a strong predictor of project success and confirmed the
suggestion of Bass and Avolio (1997: 57) that “more intellectual stimulation is likely to
be seen in high-technology firms”. Similarly, contingent reward was regarded more
highly than some of the transformational scales by the respondents in this study.
According to Yukl (1994: 367), “the distinction between transformational and

transactional leadership ignores some important managerial behaviours that were not
identified as components of either category, such as networking, planning, team
building, and informing”. Bass and Avolio (1993: 75) concede that “not all of the
behaviours and characteristics of transformational leadership have been identified.
Much more work needs to be done in the operationalisation of this construct, the
linkage to other constructs, and in terms of how it generalises across organisational-
societal cultures”.
Keeping in view the situational impact on leadership effectiveness, the significance

accorded by the respondents in this study (superiors, self and subordinates) to
technical leadership scale vis-a-vis transformational and transactional leadership
scales, lays a strong foundation to build a leadership model and a measurement
instrument which are better suited to assess technical leadership. The results in this
study have shown that while Bass and Avolio’s model is generally successful in linking
the leadership behaviour of more successful IT project managers to transformational
scales and that of less successful managers to transactional management-by-
exception passive scale, there are certain behaviours, such as organisational catalyst
scale, which are more important in a technical environment like information
technology.
Having dealt extensively with the recruitment, training, appraisal and career planning
of technical professionals, the author feels that traditional leadership models have not
paid enough attention to the special demands placed on the technical professionals by
rapid strides in technology and their impact on the organisational structure of technical
projects. The problem begins with academic teaching of technical courses. According
to Mann, Mayer, Hutton and Cupper (1994: 20), “many academic scientists are
dismissive of the idea that university science education should include training in
management and interpersonal skills to accommodate industry demands”. Upon
joining the industry, the technical professionals realise that technical skills alone are
not sufficient to manage people and to climb the career ladder. They are faced with a
painful dilemma of balancing the need to keep technical skills current and at the same
time learn managerial skills.
The current leadership literature falls short of guiding the technical managers in the
right direction as it ignores the dynamic changes taking place in the work place.
Outsourcing is one such development in the IT projects where a significant portion of
IT project work is contracted out to independent IT contractors who have little or no
organisational loyalty. Global virtual teams is another development where the team
members come from different parts of the world and have no opportunity to meet face
to face, yet are faced with a challenging group task. The work is carried out through
satellite links across the globe and problems are to be sorted out through video
conferencing. An increasing number of IT professionals work from their home office
and exchange memos via email. The traditional leadership models have little
relevance to such dynamic situations.
As pointed out by the senior IT managers in this study, there is no one leadership style
which is suitable for all situations within a technical project environment but there can
be an underlying style with built-in flexibility that can act as a critical success factor in
the execution of technical projects. While the results of this study are confined to
information technology projects, it is possible to broaden its applicability to a general
technical environment as technical professionals have a similar personality profile and
adjustment problems in managerial roles (Davis, 1981; Rosenbaum, 1991) irrespective
of their occupations.
This study has shown that while generic leadership models like that of Bass and Avolio
(1990) are applicable to technical environments, such as IT projects, these models
have limited success in exploring fully the uniqueness of technical situations and
therefore, there is a need to develop additional leadership models which are situation
specific. This study has indicated the direction for further research in building a
conceptually and empirically validated model for technical leadership. Already there
are some efforts in this direction (Stewart and Gable, 1996).
7.7 Implications for Leadership Research
This study made several contributions to leadership research. It added to the body of
knowledge on transformational leadership which is still considered new and in need of
further research (Yukl, 1994; Bass and Avolio, 1997) by testing it in a new
environment. It revealed that the new version of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
of Bass and Avolio (1990) still suffers from high correlations between the subscales of
leadership and needs further refinement. It also pointed out that transactional
contingent reward could be regarded as more important than some of the
transformational leadership behaviours in certain situations, such as IT projects.
While the results in this study were generally in line with previous findings, one of the
main differences was with regard to the level of agreement between the self and
subordinate ratings. The similarities in views was remarkable considering that many
previous studies have found a low level of agreement between self and subordinates
(Bass and Avolio, 1997; Carless, 1995). However, as with previous studies, the self
ratings were not as reliable as subordinate ratings.
This study also made significant contributions to technical leadership research which
has hardly been explored before. For the first time, this study integrated the key
technical leadership characteristics identified by previous studies and compared and
contrasted them with a generic leadership model. In the process, it was revealed that
the dimensions of technical leadership were quite different from the general leadership
models. For example, transactional contingent reward was shown to be as important
as transformational leadership scales in a technical project environment. This
highlights the importance of the clarity of contractual considerations for technical
professionals. Further, the ability to balance organisational and subordinates’ interests
(organisational catalyst) was regarded as the most important leadership behaviour,
ahead of transformational leadership. However, the results are exploratory and need to
be examined further in future studies.
7.8 Research Implications for Organisations
The findings of this study have important implications for organisations and project
teams, particularly in a high-technology environment, such as information technology
projects. Traditionally, technical competence has often been the sole criterion in the
recruitment and promotion of technical professionals to managerial positions (Davis,
1981). Technical knowledge of the leader and the team members was regarded as the
most vital success criterion in the execution of technical projects. While the emphasis
is now slowly shifting to managerial, organisational, and cultural factors, rather than
technological ones (Lowry et al., 1996), there is still a lack of empirical evidence to
justify this shift (Sauer, 1993). This study has provided the empirical justification on the
importance of leadership as a critical success factor in technical projects.
The ratings of the superiors, self (leaders) and subordinates in this study clearly
demonstrate that leadership style has an important bearing on the success of projects.
As pointed out by a senior manager, project leadership can make it a great success
when it would otherwise been a moderate success and can prevent it from being a
complete disaster. This implies that when selecting a project manager, organisations
need to give priority to the leadership abilities of the candidates.
Large IT projects are reported to have a failure rate of 25% (DeMarco and Lister,
1987). Wateridge (1995) quoted a survey which reported that twice as many IT
projects are considered to be ‘less successful’ than are considered to be successful
and lamented lack of research in examining the success factors. Cleland (1995) noted
the limited description of leaders and leadership in the project-management body of
knowledge (PMBOK) and suggested a more expansive discussion of leadership. This
study examines the nature and importance of project leadership and provides
empirical backing to persuade organisations to have a close look at the non-technical
aspects of project management, such as leadership, which have a crucial bearing on
the project outcome.
For technical professionals, the results indicate that, while it is still possible to do the
job and climb the career ladder on the basis of technical competence, failure to learn
important managerial skills will restrict managerial effectiveness and further career
opportunities.
For those technical professionals who want to improve their leadership skills and for
those organisations which want to instil the right skills in their present and prospective
project managers through training programmes, this study provides important clues on
a suitable “role model”. Such desirable leadership qualities include charismatic
influence over followers, capacity for intellectual stimulation, balancing organisational
and individual responsibilities as a leader (organisational catalyst) and clarifying the
rewards corresponding to efforts (contingent reward behaviour).
One of the important findings of this study is that Avolio and Bass’s (1991) full range of
leadership model and its measurement instrument (MLQ) is generally applicable to an
information technology project environment with certain modifications. The model and
the instrument have been successfully used for selection, transfer, and promotion
activities as well as for individual, group, or organisational development and
counselling (Bass and Avolio, 1997: 7).
Since the MLQ leadership scale scores make it possible to identify managers suited to
a particular kind of organisational culture, department, work group, project, or
situation, it can be used to help place managers in positions for which they are best
suited and for which they will require the least amount of training (p.8). For instance, in
this study of IT managers, it was revealed that subordinates regard transactional
contingent behaviour of their managers as more important than their transformational
intellectual stimulation behaviour in terms of leadership outcome. As suggested by
Bass and Avolio (1997: 8), this refers to a situation where “determining with associates
what needs to be accomplished and what they will receive in exchange for successful
completion of a task may require more contingent reward leadership”. The results may
also mean that transformational leadership behaviour is more transparent to
subordinates, while transactional contingent reward behaviour is more overt and
occasional. To be effective, transformational leadership may have to be more subtle,
less overt, ongoing process. Over and above this, the organisational catalyst role has
been shown to be of vital importance in an IT project environment.
The modified leadership instrument proposed in this study can be used to assess the
leadership potential and effectiveness of IT project managers as it clearly spells out
the essential leadership behaviours in an effective manager. Accordingly, appropriate
counselling and training programmes can be arranged and promotion, transfer, and
remuneration policies for project managers can be formulated. Training consultants
have effectively used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to provide
individualised feedback to managers and project leaders concerning desirable
changes in their leadership behaviour (Bass and Avolio, 1997: 8).
Today many training organisations offer leadership development and project

management training programmes for technical employees. The results of this study
show that apart from universally applicable leadership skills emphasised in models
such as Bass and Avolio (1993), there are certain other leadership behaviours which
are as or more important to technical leaders, such as organisational catalyst scale
derived in the study. These training programmes need to be fine tuned and refined to
enhance their applicability and usefulness to technical professionals.
7.9 Limitations of the Study
While the emphasis of this study was on technical leadership, the survey was limited
only to information technology project environment. In order to broaden its applicability
and appeal to all technical professionals, it is necessary to conduct further studies
involving technical specialists from other industries, such as manufacturing, R&D etc.
Keller (1992) demonstrated that transformational leadership predicted higher project

quality and budget/schedule performance ratings in R&D organisations. However,
Keller (1995) also stressed that different leadership behaviours may be required
depending on the type of R&D work performed. Task allocation and coordination
oriented style is more suitable for development projects as against inspiration and
intellectual stimulation orientated style for research projects. The senior IT managers
in this study also agreed that the effectiveness of various leadership styles are
contingent on the size and phase of the projects as well as the skill sets of team
members and the rate of progress. While the general suitability of transformational
leadership to high-technology industries is well tested (Howell and Higgins, 1990;
McDonough and Barczak, 1991; Beatty and Lee, 1992; Brown, 1993), the degree of its
effectiveness depends on several contingencies such as the type of technical work,
size and phase of the project, and profile of team members.
The senior IT managers who acted as coordinators for this study on behalf of their
organisations pointed out that the projects selected for participation in the study were
comparatively large projects and were just completed or about to be completed (refer
section 6.2). Considering that the computer services industry in Australia is
overwhelmingly dominated by small businesses employing less than five persons
(ABS, 1995), the implications of the study are limited to big companies in the industry
and big computer users in other industries.
The sample size of 18 senior managers, 70 project managers and 225 project team
members is a limitation of the study. However, statistically significant differences
between the more and less successful projects on the questionnaire measures (except
for many scales for self ratings) suggest that the findings are quite robust. Since the
subordinates rated both leadership behaviours and their effectiveness, it may seem
that the results suffer from the same source bias; however, the project performance
was independently rated by senior managers before the projects were included in the
survey and therefore, common method variance is not a serious concern in this study.
7.10 Future Research

This study tested the suitability of transformational leadership theory in an information
technology project environment which had not been explored before. While the
concept of transformational leadership and Bass’s (1985) model have been in vogue
for the past fifteen years, the theory is “still quite new” (Yukl, 1994) and “much more
work remains to be done regarding the conceptualisation and measurement of its
constructs” (Bass and Avolio, 1993; 1997). Also, large samples are required to employ
advanced analytic techniques such as confirmatory factor analysis to assess the
construct validity of various leadership scales.
This study compared more successful projects with less successful projects. There is
a need to make other valid comparisons. Such comparisons could include scenarios
such as: partially successful projects where part of the project was successful and part
of it was not; managers who oversaw both successful and unsuccessful projects but
used the same leadership style; managers whose styles differ during the life of a
project (eg., transformational style at first when progressing well, then transactional if it
starts to go wrong).
To understand better the nature and importance of technical leadership, much more
work needs to be done by adding a broad spectrum of technical professionals across
different disciplines, incorporating more critical success factors to study their impact on
leadership, using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods of data
collection, and comparing the views of all levels of leaders, their subordinates and
colleagues.
Future studies on IT project leadership also need to include the recent developments
in technology and work methods, such as outsourcing, virtual global teams, working
from home office, project meetings through video conferencing, communication
through email etc.
7.11 Conclusion
Technical professionals are a major source of talent for promotion to management but
their transition often becomes difficult for lack of adequate “role models” in managing
people (Davis, 1981; Rosenbaum, 1991). Despite the proliferation of literature on
leadership, there is widespread scepticism about the lack of agreement on the very
nature of leadership (Stogdill, 1974; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Rost, 1993). Further,
leadership researchers have given scant attention to proposing a model that

incorporates technology as an important tool of organisational interventions (Klenke,
1996).
The role of technical managers is being redefined by changing the emphasis from
technical competence to a broader understanding of leadership functions. In the
domain of information systems (IS), many researchers have highlighted the essential
qualities and skills required in IS managers to ensure project success (Rahn, 1987;
Bander, 1986; Geaney, 1995; Bloom, 1996). The concept of hybrid managers,
combining technical, managerial and business skills is increasingly gaining
prominence (Palmer and Ottley, 1990). However, there is a need for more empirical
work to explore the nature and importance of leadership as a critical success factor in
the execution of IS projects.
This study made several contributions in this regard. First, it established that project
leadership and leadership style have an important bearing on project success. The
organisational catalyst role of the managers was identified as the key element of
successful leadership style. In this role, the successful managers ensure proper
alignment of subordinates’ goals with organisational goals, shield subordinates from
the ill effects of organisational bureaucracy, impassionately implement management
decisions, and facilitate the career development of subordinates by providing
autonomy and challenging assignments. Subordinates are intellectually stimulated
through encouragement of non-traditional thinking. Further, the contingent reward
behaviour of these leaders ensures that subordinates are clear about what is expected
of them and what they can expect in return.
The results indicated that a combination of transformational, transactional and

organisational catalyst behaviours produce better success, both quantitatively and
qualitatively. On the contrary, managers who wait till the subordinates’ work falls below
minimum standards and problems become chronic before taking any action are
considered the least effective leaders. The style and success of leadership vary
depending on the size, life cycle and present performance of the project as well as the
composition of team members.
Apart from leadership, the project needs the strong support of other contingency
factors, such as top management support, clear project mission (including clarity of
customer requirements), and technical resources. There is a broad agreement
between the superiors, managers and subordinates on the nature and importance of
project leadership and other contingency factors influencing project success.
The post-industrial society is dominated by knowledge workers. Effective leadership of

these workers is vital to motivate them to perform to their full potential and beyond
ordinary contractual considerations. This calls for leadership qualities which recognise
the dramatic changes that are taking place in the work place and provide outstanding
leadership that is necessary to stimulate the subordinates to “perform beyond
expectations”. Accordingly, leadership research needs to focus more on the dynamics
of diversity in the workplace. This study is an effort in that direction as it focuses on the
“core employees of the digital information age”, identifies gaps in the current literature
on technical leadership, and suggests a model which builds on the foundations of
transformational leadership.
Bibliography 122
Publications as a Result of This Research
• Thite, M. R. (1997). Identifying key characteristics of technical project leadership. Co-

winner of the best paper of the 1997 Kenneth E. Clark Research Award. Center for
Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC, USA. To be published in the Leadership
Quarterly.
• Thite, M. R. (1997). Nature and importance of leadership in information systems projects.

Proceedings of the 1997 Annual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute (DSI), San
Diego, USA.
• Thite, M. R. (1997). Managerial skills in technical professionals- An exploration of IT

project leadership. In B. Barta et al. (Eds.) The Place of Information Technology in
Management and Business Education. London: Chapman & Hall.
• Thite, M. and Simmons. P. (1997). An empirical examination of project leadership style in

an information systems environment. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 92-
100. Also presented, published and adjudged as one of the best papers in the 7th
Australasian conference on information systems (ACIS), 725-734. Hobart: University of
Tasmania.
• Thite, M. (1996). In search of leadership style for info. tech. professionals: An empirical
investigation of transformational leadership model. Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary
Conference of the Australian & New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM).
Wollongong: University of Wollongong.
• Thite, M. (1996). Transformational leadership in an information technology project

environment. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the International Association
of Management (AIoM). Virginia Beach, Virginia: Maxmillan Press.
Bibliography 123
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdel-Hamid, Tarek, K. and Stuart, E. (1990). The elusive silver lining: How we fail
to learn from software development failures. Sloan Management Review. 32(1): 39-
48.
Atwater, L. E. and Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership

perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions?
Personnel Psychology, 45, 141-163.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1995). Computing services industry, Australia 1992-

93. Catalogue No. 8669.0. Canberra.
Avolio, B. J. and Bass, B. M. (1991). The full range of leadership development.

Binghamton, NY: Centre for Leadership Studies.
Avolio, B. J., and Howell, J. M. (1992). The effects of leadership behaviour and
leader-follower personality congruence on predicting follower satisfaction and
consolidated business unit performance. Centre for Creative Leadership’s Second
Research Conference on Leadership, Colarado.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M. and Jung, D. I. (1996). Construct validation of the

multifactor leadership questionnaire. Binghamton, NY: Center for Leadership Studies.
Awani, A. O. (1986). Data processing project management. Princeton, NJ: Petrocelli

Books.
Bander, D. (1986). Building a better project manager. Computerworld. 20(21): 69-78.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:

Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M., Walderman, D., Avolio, B. and Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational

leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group and Organisational Studies, 12,
73-87.
Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development:

Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, California: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to

critiques. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds), Leadership theory and research:
Perspectives and directions (pp. 49-80). New York: Academic Press.
Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for
the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, California: Mind Garden.
Bibliography 124
Bass, B. M. and Yokochi, N. (1991). Charisma among senior executives and the
special case of Japanese CEOs. Consulting Psychology Bulletin, Winter/Spring, 1,
31-38.
Bates, W. S. (1994). Strong leadership crucial. Computing Canada. 20(22).
Beatty, C. and Lee, G. (1992). Leadership among middle managers- An exploration

in the context of technological change. Human Relations. 45(9): 957-989.
Bennis, W. G. and Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New
York: Harper and Row.
Bernard, C. I. (1948). Organisations and management. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.
Blake, R. R., and Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Bloom, N. L. (1996). Select the right IS project manager for success. Personnel
Journal. January, 1996. 6-9.
Boal, K. B. and Bryson, J. M. (1988). Charismatic leadership: A phenomenological

and structural approach. In J. G. Hunt et al. (Eds.). Emerging leadership vistas.
Toronto: Lexington Books.
Boyd, J. T. (1988). Leadership extraordinary: A cross national military perspective on

transactional vs transformational leadership. Doctoral dissertation. Fort Lauderdale,
FL: Nova University.
Boynton, A. C. and Zmud, R. W. (1984). An assessment of critical success factors.

Sloan Management Review. Summer 1984. pp.17-27.
Bradford, D. L. and Cohen, H. R. (1984). Managing for excellence. New York: Wiley.
Brown, A. D. (1993). Leading technological change. Leadership and Organisation

Development Journal. 14(4): 21-26.
Brown, S. (1994). Critical success factors in information technology projects. Masters

thesis. Melbourne: RMIT.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organisations. London: Sage.
Bryant, M. A. (1990). Relationship between nurse managers’ perceived

transformational vs transactional leadership styles and staff nurse turnover. Masters
thesis. Akron, OH: University of Akron.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., and Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass’s
conceptualisation of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80, 468-478.
Carless, S. A. (1995). Transformational leadership and Australian bank managers.

Doctoral dissertation. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
Bibliography 125
Carter, N. (1988). The project manager: An emerging professional. Journal of

Information Systems Management. 5(4): 8-14.
Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and organisational psychology in a changing

world of work. American Phycologist, 50, 928-934.
Cash, C. H. and Fox, R. (1992). Elements of successful project management.

Journal of Systems Management. 43(9): 10-12.
Cleland, D. I. (1995). Leadership and the project-management body of knowledge.

International Journal of Project Management. 13(2): 83-88.
Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioural theory of charismatic

leadership in organisational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647.
Conners, E. (1995). MIS 100. Sydney: Strategic Publishing Group.
Cowen, S. S. (1990). A study of the relationships between perceived leadership

behaviours of presidents at public four-year institutions of higher education in the
U.S. and the changes in the FTE enrolment, perceptions of effectiveness,
subordinate satisfaction, and other factors of the presidency. Doctoral dissertation,
Washington State: Gonzaga University.
Crookall, p. (1989). Leadership in the prison industry. Doctoral dissertation. Ontario,

Canada: The University of Western Ontario.
Crowe, B. J., Bochner, S. and Clark, A. W.(1972). The effects of subordinates’

behaviour on managerial style. Human Relations, 25(3), 215-237.
Curphy, G. J. (1990). An empirical study of Bass’s (1985) theory of transformational

and transactional leadership. Doctoral dissertation, Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota.
Curphy, G. J. (1992). An empirical investigation of the effects of the transformational

and transactional leadership on organisational climate, attrition and performance. In
K. E. Clark. et al., (Eds.). Impact of leadership. Greensboro, NC: The Centre for
Creative Leadership.
Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., and Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage
approach to leadership within formal organisations: A longitudinal investigation of the
role making process. Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.
Davis, K. (1981). Human behaviour at work. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Davis, K. and Blomstrom, R. L. (1975). Business society. New York: McGraw- Hill.
Da Silva, W. (1996). Future ‘belongs’ to IT industry. Computer Age dt. 25/06/96.
De Marco, T. (1982). Controlling software projects. New York: Yourden Press.
De Marco, T. and Lister, T. (1987). Peopleware, productive projects and teams. New
York: Dorset House.
Bibliography 126
Deutsch, M. S. (1991). An exploratory analysis relating the software project

management process to project success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management. 38(4): 365-375.
Donaldson, H. (1978). A guide to the successful management of computer projects.

London: Associated Business Press.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. NY: McGraw-Hill.
French, J. R. P., and Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D.

Cartwright (Ed.), Studies of Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social
Research, pp.150-167.
Geaney, M. M. (1995). The right skills for the job. Computing Canada. 21(24).
Gottlieb, T. W. (1990). Transactional and transformational leadership styles of chief

and associate chief nurses in Department of Veterans’ Affairs Medical Centres: A
descriptive study. Doctoral dissertation. New York: Colombia University.
Hater, J. J. and Bass, B. M. (1988). Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’

perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 73, 695-702.
Hertel, B. (1976). Minimising error variance introduced by missing data routines in

survey analysis. Sociological methods and research. 4, 459-474.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of organisational behaviour.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hicks, R. S. (1990). Effectiveness of transactional and transformational leadership in

turbulent and stable conditions. Doctoral dissertation. Claremount, CA: Claremount
University.
Houghton, J. W., Pucar, M. and Knox, C. (1996). Mapping the information industries.
Canberra: Productivity Commission.
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 16, 321-339.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt and

Larson, L. L. (Eds). Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbonade, IL: Southern Illinios
University Press.
House, R. J. (1988). Leadership research: Some forgotten, ignored, or overlooked

findings. In J. G. Hunt et al. (Eds.). Emerging leadership vistas. Toronto: Lexington
Books.
House, R. J. (1995). Leadership in the twenty-first century: A speculative inquiry. In

A. Howard (Ed.). The changing nature of work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., and Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in
the U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of leadership effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 364-396.
Bibliography 127
Howell, J. M. and Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation.

Administrative Science Quarterly. 35, 317-341.
Hunt, J. B. (1991). Leadership: A new synthesis. London: Sage.
Inkson, K. and Moss, A. T. (1993). Transformational leadership: Is it universally

applicable? Leadership and Organisation Development Journal. 14(4).
Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7 user’s reference guide. Mooresville,

IN: Scientific Software Inc.
Kapur, G. (1989). Running in crisis mode? Computerworld. 23(16): 89-93.
Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of R&D project

groups. Journal of Management. 18(3): 489-501.
Keller, R. T. (1995). Transformational leaders make a difference. Research-

Technology Management. 38(3): 41-44.
Kennedy, L. (1996). The software 50. Annual publication, summer-1996. St.

Leonards: IDG Communications.
Khandelwal, V. K. and Hosey, W. L. (1996). 1996 Critical success factors for quality
IT management. Technical report 10/95. Department of Computing. Nepean:
University of Western Sydney.
Klenke, K. (1996). Leadership and information technologies: Reciprocal

transformations or medusa alliances. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of
the International Association of Management (AIoM). Virginia Beach, Virginia:
Maxmillan Press.
Kilne, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge.
Koh, W. L. (1990). An empirical validation of the theory of transformational leadership

in secondary schools in Singapore. Doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management.
New York: Free Press.
Kouzes, J. M., and Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get
extraordinary things done in organisations. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Kunhert, K. W. (1993). Leadership theory in postmodernist organisations. In

Golembiewski, R. T. (Ed.) Handbook of organisational theory. New York: Marcel
Dekker.
Lau, A., Atwater, L., Avolio, B., and Bass, B. (1991). Leadership measurement.
Technical report. Center for leadership studies, Binghamton: State University of New
York.
Laudon, K. C. and Turner, J. (Eds.). (1989). Information Technology and

Management Strategy. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Laudon, K. and Laudon, J. (1990). Management information systems: A

contemporary perspective. Maxwell Maxmillan.
Bibliography 128
Lowe, K., Kroeck, G., and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review. Leadership
Quarterly, 1, 385-426.
Lowry, G. R., Morgan, G. W., and FitzGerald, D. G. (1996). Identifying excellence in

leading Australian-owned information technology firms: Five emerging themes. 7th
Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Hobart: University of Tasmania.
Mann, L., Mayer, E., Hutton, G. and Cupper, L. (1994). Developing leaders in R&D.
Melbourne: Business/Higher Education Round Table.
McClelland, D. C. (1965). N-achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 389-392.
McDonough, E. F. and Barczak, G. (1991). Speeding up new product development:

The effects of leadership style and source of technology. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 8(3), 203-211.
Meindl, J. R. (1989). On leadership: An alternative to conventional wisdom. Fourth

International Conference on Organisational Symbolism and Corporate Culture,
INSEAD.
Miner, J. B. (1965). Studies in Management Education. Atlanta: Organisational

Measurement Systems Press.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper and Row.
Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nicholas, J. M. (1990). Managing business and engineering projects. Prentice- Hall.
Onnen, M. K. (1987). The relationship of clergy and leadership characteristics to

growing or declining churches. Doctoral dissertation. Louisville, KY: University of
Louisville.
Palmer, C. and Ottley, S. (1990). From potential to reality, A report by the British
Computer Society Task Group on Hybrids, January 1990.
Parry, K. W. and Sarros, J. (1994). Transformational leadership in Australia: How

different from the U.S.A.? Management papers: A working paper series, University of
Southern Queensland. 4(2).
Peterson, M. F., Phillips, R. L. and Duran, C. A. (1989). A comparison of Japanese

performance maintenance measures with U.S. leadership scales. Psychologica. 32,
58-70.
Peterson, R. O. (1987). Managing the systems development function. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Phan, D., Vogel, D. and Nunamaker, J. (1988). The search for perfect project
management. Computerworld. September 1988. 95-100.
Pinto, J. K. and Slevin, D. P. (1987). Critical factors in successful project

implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-34(1).
Bibliography 129
Pinto, J. K. and Prescott, J. E. (1988). Variations in critical success factors over the
stages in the project life cycle. Journal of Management. 14(1): 5-18.
Pinto, J. K. and Slevin, D. P. (1989). Critical success factors in R&D projects.

Research Technology Management. Jan-Feb 1989. 31-35.
Pinto, J. K. and Mantel, Jr., S. J. (1990). The causes of project failure. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management. 37(4): 269-276.
Pinto, J. K. and Slevin, D. P. (1992). Project Implementation Profile. New York:

Xicom Inc.
Power, K. (1995). Making the move to management. Computer World. December 1,

1995. 44-45.
Pulk, B. E. (1990). Improving software project management. Journal of Systems and

Software. 13(3): 231-235.
Rahn, D. (1987). Projects need ‘right stuff’. Computerworld. 21(14): 79-80.
Richman, S. L. (1994). The new worker elite. Fortune. August 22, 1994. 46-54.
Roberts, N. C. and Bradley, R. T. (1988). Limits of charisma. In Conger, J. A. and

Kanungo, R. N. (Eds.). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organisational
effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rosenbaum. B. L. (1991). Leading today’s technical professional. Training and

Development. 45(10): 55-66.
Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Ruggiero, M. B. (1989). A comparative analysis: Leader behaviour and industrial

project managers as related to organisational authority. Doctoral dissertation.
Philidelphia, PA: Temple University.
Sadler, P. (1988). Managerial leadership in the post-industrial society. Aldershot:

Gower.
Sashkin, M., and Fulmer, R. (1988). Toward an organisational leadership theory. In J.

G. Hunt et al. (Eds.). Emerging leadership vistas. Toronto: Lexington Books.
Sauer, C. (1993). Why information systems fail: A case study approach. UK: Alfred
Waller.
Schapper, M. et al. (1992). Promoting partnerships. Taskforce Report No. 2.

Melbourne: Business and Higher Education Round Table.
Schriesheim, C., Powers, K., Scandura, T., Gardiner, C., and Lankau, M. (1993).
Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a
quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-
pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19, 385-417.
Bibliography 130
Seltzer, J., Numerof, R. E. and Bass, B. M. (1989). Transformational leadership: Is it

a source of more burnout and stress?. Journal of Health and Human Resource
Administration. 12, 174-185.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., and Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of
charismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory. Organisational Science. 4(4).
Singer, M. S. (1985). Transformational vs transactional leadership: A study of New

Zealand company managers. Psychological Reports. 57: 143-146.
Slevin, D.P. and Pinto, J.K. (1986). The project implementation profile: New tool for
project managers. Project Management Journal. September 1986. 57-70.
Smith, P. B., and Peterson, M. F. (1988). Leadership, organisations, and culture.

New York: Sage.
Steeh, C. (1981). Trends in non-response rates 1952-1979. Public Opinion Quarterly.

45, 40-57.
Stewart, G. and Gable, G. (1996). The matching of IT leadership style to corporate

needs: The development of a conceptual model. 7th Australasian Conference on
Information Systems. Hobart: University of Tasmania.
Stogdill, R. M., and Coons, A. (1957). Leader behaviour: Its description and
measurement. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: The Free Press.
Thite, M. R. (1997). Managerial skills in technical professionals- An exploration of IT

project leadership. In B. Barta, A. Tatnall, and P. Juliff (1997). The place of
information technology in management and business education. London: Chapman
and Hall.
Tichy, N. and Devanna, M. (1986). Transformational leadership. New York: Wiley.
Trice, H. M., and Beyer, J. M. (1986). Charisma and its routinisation in two social
movement organisations. Research in Organisational Behaviour, 8, 113-164.
Tsui, A. and Barry, B. (1986). Interpersonal affect and rating errors. Academy of
Management Journal, 29, 586-598.
Vroom, Y. H., and Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Wateridge, J. (1995). IT projects: A basis for success. International Journal of Project

Management. 13(3): 169-172.
Weinberg, G. M. (1986). Becoming a technical leader. New York: Dorset House.
Wooldridge, S. (1976). Project management in data processing. New York:

Petrocelli/Charter.
Yammarino, F. J. and Bass, B. M. (1990a). Long-term forecasting of transformational

leadership and its effects among Naval officers: Some preliminary findings. In K. E.
Bibliography 131
Clark and M. B. Clark (Eds.). Measures of leadership. Greensboro, NC: Center foe
Creative Leadership.
Yammarino, F. J. and Bass, B. M. (1990b). Transformational leadership and multiple

levels of analysis. Human Relations. 43, 975-995.
Yukl, G. (1989; 1994). Leadership in organisations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.
Appendix-1
Date
«Title»«FirstName»«LastName»
«JobTitle»
«Company»
«Address1»
«City»«State»«PostalCode»
Dear «Title»«LastName»
RE: Survey on project leadership in an Information Technology environment.
We are writing to invite your company’s participation in a survey on leadership

behaviour of IT Project Managers in Australia. The study is being conducted under my
supervision by Mohan Thite, a full-time Ph.D student who has a background in Human
Resource Management in IT companies.
We are inviting a sample of IT companies/divisions to participate in this survey. We

believe that the excellent performance and experience of your organisation can make a
significant contribution to this study. The research is aimed at improving the quality of
Australian IT project management by focusing on project leadership and other critical
success factors.
The results of the survey should be useful to the IT companies/divisions in identifying

and developing an appropriate leadership style for their IT managers. We enclose
letters of support for the study from the Australian Computer Society Inc., the
Australian Information Industry Association and the Australian Institute of
Management.
In order to participate in the survey, the following steps need to be taken:
1. Please nominate as the co-ordinator for this survey a senior manager to whom your
IT Project Managers report.
2. The co-ordinator will select two recent IT projects in your company to participate
in the survey: one which is more successful in his/her opinion (in terms of quality,
cost, deadlines and customer satisfaction) and another which is less successful.
Both these projects should be at least half way through their duration (life cycle).
3. The co-ordinator will complete the enclosed “Co-ordinator’s Questionnaire”.
4. The co-ordinator will get the Project Managers in charge of the more successful and
the less successful projects to complete the enclosed “Project Manager’s
Questionnaire”.
Appendixes 133
5. The co-ordinator will get the team members of the more successful and the less
successful projects to complete the enclosed “Project Team Members’
Questionnaire”. Depending on the number of members in these projects, the co-
ordinator is requested to take additional copies of the enclosed questionnaires.
6. The co-ordinator will mail all the completed questionnaires back to us.
We estimate that it would take around 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire. We

assure complete confidentiality of all the information collected. The results of the
survey will be described in a general report without identifying particular companies.
On completion of the study, all participant companies will receive a summary of the
survey results which will provide them with valuable information about the quality of
project leadership in the Australian IT industry.
We trust that your company will be able to participate in this important survey. Should
you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact either myself on
(03) 9836 6737 or Mohan on (03) 9818 5765 (Tel./Fax) (Email:
MThite@buster.swin.edu.au).
Thanking you in anticipation.
Sincerely,
Alfred Clark
Professor Emeritus
Appendixes 134
Appendix-2
Survey on Project Leadership in an Information Technology

Environment
Co-ordinator’s Questionnaire
This questionnaire is to be completed by a senior manager to whom the IT Project

Managers report.
(I) General Information
1. Name of the company:
2. Total number of employees:
3. Number of IT employees:
4. Number of current IT projects in your company:
5. Average number of members in each IT project (approx.):
6. Average duration (life cycle) of each IT project (approx.):
7. Organisational Chart of your company:

Please attach the organisational chart of your company, if available, which indicates
designations and reporting relationships.
8. Organisational Chart of typical IT projects in your company:

Please attach the organisational chart of typical IT projects in your company, if
available, which indicates designations & reporting relationships.
(II) Project Performance Ratings
To measure leadership effectiveness, we request you to rate project “X” (which you
think is more successful) and project “Y” (which you think is less successful) on the
following scales. Please circle the number that best reflects your judgement.
1 2 3 4 5
Appendixes 135
Very low Low Average High Very high
Performance Measures Project “X” Project “Y”

(more successful) (less successful)
1. Technical Quality
(The extent to which specified quality
requirements are satisfied.) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2. Cost Performance
(The extent to which the project is within the
budgeted cost.) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
3. Deadlines
(The extent to which the key milestones
are achieved.) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4. Customer satisfaction
(The extent to which the user is satisfied with
the system performance.) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
5. Overall Project Performance 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
(III) After we analyse the survey results, we would like to conduct interviews with
selected respondents to get more detailed information. Would you be willing to
participate in this?
YES NO
(IV) Your Details:
Name:
Designation:
Address:
Phone/Fax/Email: Phone: Fax:

Email:
Thank you for completing the questionnaire. Your co-operation is greatly

appreciated. The data you provided will be kept strictly confidential.
Appendixes 136
Appendix-3

Environment
To be Completed by the Senior Manager Co-ordinating the Survey on Behalf of

the Respondent Organisation
This survey is about the leadership behaviour of IT Project Managers in Australia. It is

aimed at improving the quality of Australian IT project management by focusing on
project leadership in conjunction with other critical factors in the successful execution
of IT projects.
We thank your organisation for participating in the survey. You may recall that, on our
request, you had selected and involved two IT projects in your company in the survey:
one which was more successful in your opinion and another which was less successful.
1. Perhaps, you can begin by describing how you went about selecting these projects.
2. What specific criteria did you adapt in your selection of more and less successful
project?
Appendixes 137
3. When we assess the performance of a project, we realise that the project

performance is influenced by several key factors. In your opinion, what factors
contribute to the relative success or failure of IT projects?
4. Taking the factors you have just mentioned, can you please rank them in the order
of importance.
Appendixes 138
5. The research indicates that following are some of the critical success factors on
project implementation. Please rank them in the order of importance as deemed fit
by you.
Success Factors Rank Order
• Project Mission --------
• Top Management Support --------
• Project Schedule/Plan --------
• Client Consultation -------
• Personnel --------
• Technical Tasks --------
• Client Acceptance -------
• Monitoring & Feedback -------
• Communication -------
• Trouble Shooting -------
4. Focusing on project leadership, how do you see it influencing the outcome of IT

projects?
Appendixes 139
5. What, in your opinion, are the essential qualities and skills required in an IT project
manager?
6. Do you think there is a significant difference in the leadership qualities and skills of
more and less successful project managers? If yes, what are they? Please specify.
Appendixes 140
7. Listed below are descriptive statements about leadership behaviour. For each
statement, we would like you to judge how important is each of the behaviour
described in an ideal project manager. Please use the following scale by circling the
appropriate number. Make no more than one circle for each statement.
1 2 3 4 5
Extremely Very important Important Only slightly Not important
important important
Instils pride in subordinates in being associated with him/her. 1 2 3 4 5
Talks to subordinates about his/her most important values and
beliefs. 1 2 3 4 5
Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they
are appropriate. 1 2 3 4 5
Treats each subordinate as an individual rather than just a
member of a group. 1 2 3 4 5
Makes clear what subordinates can expect to receive, if their
performance meets designated standards. 1 2 3 4 5
Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and
deviations from standards. 1 2 3 4 5
Fails to intervene until problems become serious. 1 2 3 4 5
Goes beyond his/her own self-interest for the good of the
group. 1 2 3 4 5
Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. 1 2 3 4 5
Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems. 1 2 3 4 5
Focuses subordinates on developing their strengths. 1 2 3 4 5
Provides his/her assistance in exchange for subordinates’
efforts. 1 2 3 4 5
Spends his/her time looking to “put out fires”. 1 2 3 4 5
Things have to go wrong for him/her to take action. 1 2 3 4 5
His/her actions build subordinates’ respect for him/her. 1 2 3 4 5
Considers the moral and ethical consequences of his/her
decisions. 1 2 3 4 5
Suggests new ways of looking at how subordinates do their
jobs. 1 2 3 4 5
Spends time teaching and coaching subordinates. 1 2 3 4 5
Makes sure that subordinates receive appropriate rewards for
achieving performance targets. 1 2 3 4 5
Appendixes 141
Keeps track of subordinates’ mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5

Shows he/she is a firm believer in “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix
it”. 1 2 3 4 5
Displays a sense of power and confidence. 1 2 3 4 5
Emphasises the importance of having a collective sense of
mission. 1 2 3 4 5
Gets subordinates to look at problems from many different
angles. 1 2 3 4 5
Treats each subordinate as individuals with different needs,
abilities, and aspirations. 1 2 3 4 5
Expresses his/her satisfaction when subordinates do a good
job. 1 2 3 4 5
Directs his/her attention toward failure to meet standards. 1 2 3 4 5
Problems must become chronic before he/she will take action. 1 2 3 4 5
Encourages champions by acting as a catalyst to convert their
ideas in to actions. 1 2 3 4 5
Takes timely and effective steps to achieve desired quality
standards in the project. 1 2 3 4 5
Manages the process of change by involving the subordinates
in the implementation of change. 1 2 3 4 5
Facilitates career development of subordinates by providing
challenging “stretch” assignments. 1 2 3 4 5
Copyright: Items 1-28 © Bass & Avolio, 1991
Appendixes 142
8. Based on your experience, what advise would you give to somebody who aspires to
be a project manager?
9. Would you like to say anything else with regard to project leadership?
10. Personal Information
• Your total experience in IT is ------ years
• How many years have you spent as a Project Leader/Manager in IT? -------
• How many IT Project Leaders/Managers report to you currently in your

organisation? -----

Appendixes 143
Appendix-4

Environment
“Project Manager’s Questionnaire ”
1. Leadership
The following questions are designed to provide a description of your project

leadership. For each statement, we would like you to judge how frequently you display
the behaviour described. When the item does not apply or where you are uncertain or
do not know, leave the answer blank.
Please use the following scale by circling the appropriate number. Make no more than
one circle for each question.
1 2 3 4 5
Frequently Fairly Sometimes Once in Not at all
if not always often awhile
I make personal sacrifices for the benefit of others. 1 2 3 4 5
I talk to those I lead about my most important values and
beliefs. 1 2 3 4 5
It requires a failure to meet an objective for me to take action. 1 2 3 4 5
I focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and
I emphasise the value of questioning assumptions. 1 2 3 4 5
I give those I lead what they want in exchange for their
support. 1 2 3 4 5
I treat those I lead as individuals rather than just members of
a group. 1 2 3 4 5
I remain calm during crisis situations. 1 2 3 4 5
The work of those I lead has to fall below minimum standards
for me to try to make improvements. 1 2 3 4 5
I emphasise the importance of being committed to our beliefs. 1 2 3 4 5
I closely monitor the performance of those I lead for errors. 1 2 3 4 5
I make clear to those I lead what they can expect to receive, if
their performance meets standards. 1 2 3 4 5
I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are
appropriate. 1 2 3 4 5
I listen attentively to the concerns of those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5
* Copyright: Items 1-63 and 76-81 © Bass & Avolio, 1991.

Items 82-96 © Xicom Inc., 1992. Reprinted with permission.
Appendixes 144
1 2 3 4 5
I fail to intervene until problems become serious. 1 2 3 4 5
I instil pride in those I lead in being associated with me. 1 2 3 4 5
I spend my time looking to “put out fires”. 1 2 3 4 5
I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. 1 2 3 4 5
I work out agreements with those I lead on what they will
receive if they do what needs to be done. 1 2 3 4 5
I encourage those I lead to rethink ideas which had never been
questioned before. 1 2 3 4 5
I tell those I lead what they have done wrong rather than what
they have done right. 1 2 3 4 5
I provide useful advice for the development of those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5
I keep track of the mistakes of those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5
I go beyond my own self-interest for the good of our group. 1 2 3 4 5
I negotiate with those I lead about what they can expect to
receive for what they accomplish. 1 2 3 4 5
I consider the moral and ethical consequences of my
Things have to go wrong for me to take action. 1 2 3 4 5
I question the traditional ways of doing things. 1 2 3 4 5
I enforce rules to avoid mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5
I focus those I lead on developing their strengths. 1 2 3 4 5
I provide assistance to those I lead in exchange for their 1 2 3 4 5
effort.
I provide reassurance that we will overcome obstacles. 1 2 3 4 5
I display conviction in my ideals, beliefs and values. 1 2 3 4 5
I show that I am a firm believer in “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix
it”. 1 2 3 4 5
My attention is directed toward failure to meet standards. 1 2 3 4 5
I seek differing perspectives when solving problems. 1 2 3 4 5
I tell those I lead what to do to be rewarded for their efforts. 1 2 3 4 5
I spend time teaching and coaching those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5
I display extraordinary talent and competence in whatever I
undertake. 1 2 3 4 5
Problems must become chronic before I will take action. 1 2 3 4 5
I take a stand on difficult issues. 1 2 3 4 5
I search for mistakes before commenting on the performance
of those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5
I make sure that those I lead receive appropriate rewards for
achieving performance targets. 1 2 3 4 5
I suggest new ways of looking at how we do our jobs. 1 2 3 4 5
Appendixes 145
1 2 3 4 5
I treat each of those I lead as individuals with different needs,
abilities and aspirations. 1 2 3 4 5
I motivate those I lead to do more than they thought they
could do. 1 2 3 4 5
My actions build respect for me from those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5
Those I lead earn credit with me by doing their tasks well. 1 2 3 4 5
I clarify the central purpose underlying our actions. 1 2 3 4 5
I encourage those I lead to express their ideas and opinions. 1 2 3 4 5
I teach those I lead how to identify the needs and capabilities
of others. 1 2 3 4 5
I display a sense of power and confidence. 1 2 3 4 5
I talk about how trusting each other can help us overcome our
difficulties. 1 2 3 4 5
I heighten the motivation to succeed of those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5
I emphasise the importance of having a collective sense of
mission. 1 2 3 4 5
I get those I lead to look at problems from many different
angles. 1 2 3 4 5
I promote self-development among those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5
I behave in ways that are consistent with my expressed 1 2 3 4 5
values.
I encourage non-traditional thinking to deal with traditional
problems. 1 2 3 4 5
I give personal attention to those I lead who seem neglected. 1 2 3 4 5
I get those I lead to do more than they expected they could do. 1 2 3 4 5
I express satisfaction when those I lead do a good job. 1 2 3 4 5
I encourage addressing problems by using reasoning and
evidence, rather than unsupported opinion. 1 2 3 4 5
I ensure that the goals of those I lead are similar to the goals
of the organisation. 1 2 3 4 5
I satisfy the desire for autonomy of those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5
I manage the process of change by involving those I lead in
the implementation of change. 1 2 3 4 5
I prevent the organisational bureaucracy from interfering with
the work of those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5
I encourage champions by acting as a catalyst to convert their
ideas into actions. 1 2 3 4 5
I facilitate career development of those I lead by providing
challenging “stretch” assignments. 1 2 3 4 5
I encourage those I lead to freely explore the solution to the
problem, i.e. hacking. 1 2 3 4 5
Appendixes 146
1 2 3 4 5
I remain open-minded while evaluating the ideas of those I
lead, including my own. 1 2 3 4 5
I take timely and effective steps to achieve desired quality
I secure resources to support creative endeavours. 1 2 3 4 5
I ensure that the organisation rewards those I lead
appropriately for their contribution. 1 2 3 4 5
I implement upper management’s decisions with the same
enthusiasm, even if I do not completely agree with them. 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Not effective Only slightly effective Effective Very effective Extremely
effective
How do you rate the overall effectiveness of your group? 1 2 3 4 5
How effective are you in representing your group to
higher authority? 1 2 3 4 5
How effective are you in meeting the job-related needs
of those with whom you work? 1 2 3 4 5
How do you rate your effectiveness as a leader? 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Very Somewhat Neither satisfied Fairly satisfied Very satisfied
dissatisfied dissatisfied nor dissatisfied
In all, how satisfied are you with the methods of leadership
you use to get your group’s assignments completed? 1 2 3 4 5
you use to get your group’s job done? 1 2 3 4 5
2. Contingency Factors
Apart from leadership, there are other factors which are critical to the success of IT
projects, such as Project Mission, Top Management Support and Technical Tasks. The
following questions address these factors. Using the following scale, please circle the
appropriate number.
1 2 3 4 5
Appendixes 147
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly agree

nor disagree
The goals of the project are in line with the general goals of
the organisation. 1 2 3 4 5
The basic goals of the project were made clear to the project
team. 1 2 3 4 5
The results of the project will benefit the parent organisation. 1 2 3 4 5
I am enthusiastic about the chances for success of this project. 1 2 3 4 5
I am aware of and can identify the beneficial consequences to
the organisation of the success of this project. 1 2 3 4 5
Upper management will be responsive to our requests for
additional resources, if the need arises. 1 2 3 4 5
Upper management shares responsibility with the project team
for ensuring the project’s success. 1 2 3 4 5
I agree with upper management on the degree of my authority
and responsibility for the project. 1 2 3 4 5
Upper management will support me in a crisis. 1 2 3 4 5
Upper management has granted us the necessary authority and
will support our decisions concerning the project. 1 2 3 4 5
Specific project tasks are well managed. 1 2 3 4 5
The project engineers and other technical people are
competent. 1 2 3 4 5
The technology that is being used to support the project works
well. 1 2 3 4 5
The appropriate technology (equipment, training programs
etc.) has been selected for project success. 1 2 3 4 5
The people implementing this project understand it. 1 2 3 4 5
Personal Information
1. Sex Male Female
2. Age:
3. My qualification(s) --------------------------------------------------
4. My total experience in IT is ----- year(s) ----- month(s).
5. I have been in this project for ------- months.
Project-related Information
1. Total number of members in your project : -------------
2. Start Date of the project: -------------
3. Scheduled End Date of the project: -------------
Thank you for completing the questionnaire. Your cooperation is greatly

Appendixes 148
Appendix-5

Environment
“Project Team Members’ Questionnaire ”*

This questionnaire is to be completed by the team members of the project. (Please
take additional copies depending on the no. of members in the project).
1. Leadership
The following questions are designed to provide a description of project leadership.
Listed below are the descriptive statements about the leadership behaviour of your
Project Manager. For each statement, we would like you to judge how frequently your
Project Manager has displayed the behaviour described. When the item does not apply
or where you are uncertain or don’t know, leave the answer blank.
Please use the following scale by circling the appropriate number. Make no more than
one circle for each question.
1 2 3 4 5
Makes personal sacrifices for the benefit of others. 1 2 3 4 5
Talks to us about his/her most important values and beliefs. 1 2 3 4 5
It requires a failure to meet an objective for him/her to take
action. 1 2 3 4 5
Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and
Emphasises the value of questioning assumptions. 1 2 3 4 5
Gives me what I want in exchange for my support. 1 2 3 4 5
Treats me as an individual rather than just a member of a
group. 1 2 3 4 5
Remains calm during crisis situations. 1 2 3 4 5
Work has to fall below minimum standards for him/her to try
to make improvements. 1 2 3 4 5
Emphasises the importance of being committed to our beliefs. 1 2 3 4 5
Closely monitors my performance for errors. 1 2 3 4 5
Makes clear what I can expect to receive, if my performance
meets designated standards. 1 2 3 4 5
Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they
are appropriate. 1 2 3 4 5
Listens attentively to my concerns. 1 2 3 4 5
Fails to intervene until problems become serious. 1 2 3 4 5
* Copyright: Items 1-63 and 76-81 © Bass & Avolio, 1991

Items 82-96 © Xicom Inc., 1992 . Reprinted with permission
. 1 2 3 4 5
Appendixes 149

Instils pride in being associated with him/her. 1 2 3 4 5
Spends his/her time looking to “put out fires”. 1 2 3 4 5
Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. 1 2 3 4 5
Works out agreements with me on what I will receive if I do
what needs to be done. 1 2 3 4 5
Encourages us to rethink ideas which had never been
questioned before. 1 2 3 4 5
Tells me what I have done wrong rather than what I have
done right. 1 2 3 4 5
Provides useful advice for my development. 1 2 3 4 5
Keeps track of my mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5
Goes beyond his/her own self-interest for the good of our
group. 1 2 3 4 5
Negotiates with me about what I can expect to receive for
what I accomplish. 1 2 3 4 5
Considers the moral and ethical consequences of his/her
Things have to go wrong for him/her to take action. 1 2 3 4 5
Questions the traditional ways of doing things. 1 2 3 4 5
Enforces rules to avoid mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5
Focuses me on developing my strengths. 1 2 3 4 5
Provides his/her assistance in exchange for my effort. 1 2 3 4 5
Provides reassurance that we will overcome obstacles. 1 2 3 4 5
Displays conviction in his/her ideals, beliefs and values. 1 2 3 4 5
Shows he/she is a firm believer in “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix
it”. 1 2 3 4 5
Directs his/her attention toward failure to meet standards. 1 2 3 4 5
Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems. 1 2 3 4 5
Tells me what to do to be rewarded for my efforts. 1 2 3 4 5
Spends time teaching and coaching me. 1 2 3 4 5
Displays extraordinary talent and competence in whatever
he/she undertakes. 1 2 3 4 5
Problems must become chronic before he/she will take action. 1 2 3 4 5
Takes a stand on difficult issues. 1 2 3 4 5
Searches for mistakes before commenting on my 1 2 3 4 5
performance.
Makes sure that we receive appropriate rewards for achieving
performance targets. 1 2 3 4 5
Suggests new ways of looking at how we do our jobs. 1 2 3 4 5
Treats each of us as individuals with different needs, abilities
and aspirations. 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Appendixes 150

He/she motivates me to do more than I thought I could do. 1 2 3 4 5
His/her actions build my respect for him/her. 1 2 3 4 5
I earn credit with him/her by doing my job well. 1 2 3 4 5
Clarifies the central purpose underlying our actions. 1 2 3 4 5
Encourages me express my ideas and opinions. 1 2 3 4 5
Teaches me how to identify the needs and capabilities of
others. 1 2 3 4 5
Displays a sense of power and confidence. 1 2 3 4 5
Talks about how trusting each other can help us to overcome
our difficulties. 1 2 3 4 5
He/she heightens my motivation to succeed. 1 2 3 4 5
Emphasises the importance of having a collective sense of
mission. 1 2 3 4 5
Gets me to look at problems from many different angles. 1 2 3 4 5
Promotes self-development. 1 2 3 4 5
Behaves in ways that are consistent with his/her expressed
values. 1 2 3 4 5
Encourages non-traditional thinking to deal with traditional
problems. 1 2 3 4 5
Gives personal attention to members who seem neglected. 1 2 3 4 5
He/she gets me to do more than I expected I could do. 1 2 3 4 5
Expresses his/her satisfaction when I do a good job. 1 2 3 4 5
Encourages addressing problems by using reasoning and
evidence, rather than unsupported opinion. 1 2 3 4 5
Ensures that my goals are similar to the goals of the
organisation. 1 2 3 4 5
Satisfies my desire for autonomy. 1 2 3 4 5
Manages the process of change by involving the project team
members in the implementation of change. 1 2 3 4 5
Prevents the organisational bureaucracy from interfering with
my work. 1 2 3 4 5
Encourages champions by acting as a catalyst to convert their
ideas into actions. 1 2 3 4 5
Facilitates my career development by providing challenging
“stretch” assignments. 1 2 3 4 5
Encourages me to freely explore the solution to the problem,
i.e., hacking. 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Appendixes 151

Remains open-minded while evaluating the ideas of team
members, including his/her own. 1 2 3 4 5
Takes timely and effective steps to achieve desired quality
Secures resources to support creative endeavours. 1 2 3 4 5
Ensures that the organisation rewards me appropriately for my
contribution. 1 2 3 4 5
Implements upper management’s decisions with the same
enthusiasm, even if he/she does not completely agree with
them. 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Not effective Only slightly effective Effective Very effective Extremely
effective
How do you rate the overall effectiveness of your group? 1 2 3 4 5
How effective is your Project Manager in representing his/her
group to higher authority? 1 2 3 4 5
How effective is your Project Manager in meeting the job-
related needs of those with whom he/she works? 1 2 3 4 5
How effective is your Project Manager in meeting the
requirements of the organisation? 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Very Somewhat Neither satisfied Fairly satisfied Very satisfied
dissatisfied dissatisfied nor dissatisfied
In all how satisfied are you with the leadership abilities of
your Project Manager? 1 2 3 4 5
used by your Project Manager to get your group’s job
done? 1 2 3 4 5
2. Contingency Factors
Apart from leadership, there are other factors which are critical to the success of IT
projects, such as Project Mission, Top Management Support and Technical Tasks. The
following questions address these factors. Using the following scale, please circle the
appropriate number.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly agree
Appendixes 152
nor disagree
The goals of the project are in line with the general goals of
the organisation. 1 2 3 4 5
The basic goals of the project were made clear to the project
team. 1 2 3 4 5
The results of the project will benefit the parent organisation. 1 2 3 4 5
I am enthusiastic about the chances for success of this project. 1 2 3 4 5
I am aware of and can identify the beneficial consequences to
the organisation of the success of this project. 1 2 3 4 5
Upper management will be responsive to our requests for
additional resources, if the need arises. 1 2 3 4 5
Upper management shares responsibility with the project team
for ensuring the project’s success. 1 2 3 4 5
I agree with upper management on the degree of my authority
and responsibility for the project. 1 2 3 4 5
Upper management will support me in a crisis. 1 2 3 4 5
Upper management has granted us the necessary authority and
will support our decisions concerning the project. 1 2 3 4 5
Specific project tasks are well managed. 1 2 3 4 5
The project engineers and other technical people are
competent. 1 2 3 4 5
The technology that is being used to support the project works
well. 1 2 3 4 5
The appropriate technology (equipment, training programs
etc.) has been selected for project success. 1 2 3 4 5
The people implementing this project understand it. 1 2 3 4 5
Personal Information
1. Sex Male Female
2. Age -------
3. My qualification(s) --------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
4. My total experience in IT is ----- year(s) ----- month(s).
5. I have been in this project for ------- months.

Appendixes 153
Appendix-6
Essential Elements of Transformational, Transactional and Technical Leadership

Behaviours
I. Transformational Leadership
Charisma
1. Requisite skills and intellect
2. Energy, self-confidence, self-determination, strong-ego- ideals
3. Ideological articulation of goals and high expectations.
4. Impression management.
Inspirational Leadership
1. Providing models for followers
2. Use of persuasive words
3. Emotional appeals to competitiveness
4. Use of persuasive symbols and images
Individualised Consideration
1. Mentoring
2. Developmental orientation
3. Individualisation of followers
4. Fostering of one-on-one communication and two-way contact
5. Attention to individual differences in needs
6. Delegation of responsibilities
Intellectual Stimulation
1. Competence (general intelligence; cognitive creativity; experience)
2. Orientation (rational; empirical; existential; idealistic)
3. Freedom from conflict with superiors
4. Willingness to delegate
5. Time to think
6. Alertness to threats, challenges, and opportunities
7. Diagnostic skills
8. Solution generation
9. Articulate language and simplification
10. Symbol and image formation
II. Transactional Leadership
Contingent reinforcement
1. Rewards followers contingent on followers’ compliance
2. Clarifies role expectations and standards of performance
3. Aversely reinforces followers contingent on followers’
negative deviation from standards
Appendixes 154
(Source: Bass, 1985)
III. Technical Leadership
1. Ensures the alignment of the project goals with organisational goals

2. Satisfies the subordinates’ desire for autonomy
3. Manages the process of change by involving the subordinates in the implementation
of change
4. Prevents organisational bureaucracy from interfering with the work of the
subordinates
5. Encourages champions by acting as a catalyst to convert their ideas into actions
6. Facilitates career development of subordinates by providing challenging “stretch”
assignments
7. Encourages subordinates to freely explore the solution to the problem, i.e., hacking
8. Remains open-minded while evaluating the ideas of team members, including
his/her own
9. Takes timely and effective steps to achieve desired quality standards in the project
10. Secures resources to support creative endeavours
11. Ensures that the organisation rewards subordinates appropriately for their
contribution
12. Implements upper management’s decisions with the same enthusiasm, even if
he/she does not entirely agree with them.
Appendixes 155
Appendix-7

Division of Business, Humanities & Social Sciences
Date: xxxx
To: xxxxxx
Dear xxxxx,
RE: Request for participation in the research project on technical leadership in an

IT environment
We write to invite your participation in a research project looking at leadership in

Information Technology companies. The research is aimed at making a significant
contribution to the field of technical leadership by drawing on the direct experience of
people.
We are inviting a sample of IT companies in Australia to participate in this research

and are sure that the results of the study will be useful to the respondents. The study is
being conducted under my supervision by Mohan Thite, a full-time Ph.D student who
has a background in the Human Resource Management in IT companies.
Currently, we are finalising the research design. At this stage, Mohan would like to
meet you to seek your feedback on the proposed research and your company's interest
in participating in the research.
If you are happy to co-operate in the project, please convey your consent to Mohan on
Tel./Fax 03-9818 5765 and also please indicate a convenient date and time to meet him.
Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact either
Mohan or myself on 03-9836 6737.
Thank you for your co-operation
Sincerely,
Alfred Clark
Professor Emeritus
Swinburne Telephone +61 3 214 8911
University of Technology Fax +61 3 819 5454
Hawthorn Campus Address all correspondence to

John Street Hawthorn PO Box 218 Hawthorn
Victoria, Australia Victoria 3122 Australia
Appendixes 156
Appendix-8

Division of Business Humanities & Social Sciences
Date:
To: Michael Hedley

Education & Training Manager
Australian Information Industry Association
Dear Michael,
RE: Research project on leadership in Information Technology companies in

Australia
On the suggestion of John Gwyther of the Victorian branch of AIIA, we write to inform
you that we are conducting research on leadership in IT companies. The research is
aimed at making a significant contribution to the field of technical leadership by
drawing on the direct experience of IT professionals.
We are inviting a sample of Australian IT companies to participate in this research and

are sure that the results of the study will be useful to the respondents. The study is
being conducted under my supervision by Mohan Thite, a full-time Ph.D student who
has a background in Human Resource Management in IT companies. A brief note on
the purpose and methodology of the project is enclosed.
We will be contacting the IT companies shortly in this regard. At this stage, we would
like your support in encouraging the IT companies to participate in the research. We
would be grateful if you could provide us with a letter of support . We would then
forward this with our covering letter and questionnaire to the IT companies. We are
confident that your active support would enhance the response rate to our survey
significantly .
It was also suggested to us that you may be able to publicise the research in your
bulletin/news letter to your members. Should you require any further information on
this research, please do not hesitate to contact either Mohan on 03-9818 5765
(Tel./Fax) (Email: Mthite@buster.swin.edu.au) or myself on 03-9836 6737. Please
address your correspondence to Mohan Thite at 20/49, Robinson Road, Hawthorn,
VIC-3122.
Thank you for our co-operation.
Sincerely
Alfred Clark
Professor Emeritus
Appendixes 157
Transformational Leadership in the Management of Technical Professionals - An

Exploration of Leadership Behaviour in an Information Technology Environment
Mohan Thite
Division of Business, Humanities & Social Sciences
TEL/FAX: (03) 9818 5765; Email: MThite buster.swin.edu.au
Purpose
To examine the nature of technical leadership in an Information Technology

environment
Sample Design
The target population is IT companies and IT divisions of major companies in

Australia. The sampling frame consists of the first three managerial levels, namely,
team leader (first level of supervision), project manager (second level) and divisional
manager (third level). The technical subordinates of these IT managers will be the
respondents to the survey. They will indicate the nature of the leadership style of their
superior and their satisfaction with and the perceived effectiveness of the style.
Research Instruments
The Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass and Avolio, 1993) will be used to
examine leadership style. It contains 80 items to measure leadership characteristics and
their effectiveness.
In addition, semi-structured interviews of senior IT managers will be conducted,

wherever feasible, to collect qualitative data to strengthen the understanding of the
styles of technical leadership, major personality components of better-suited styles and
how to develop them in technical leaders.
Leadership effectiveness will be measured further by examining the project group

performance data maintained by the respondent organisations, including timeliness,
quality, budget and cost performance, value to the company, and overall project
performance. Complete confidentiality of data is assured (Managers and Projects can
be identified as A,B,C etc.) and the results will be described in a general report without
identifying particular companies. This report will be made available to participating
companies.
Appendixes 158
Appendix-9
Australian Computer Society
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
The Australian Computer Society Inc. is pleased to support the research being
conducted by Swinburne University of Technology to examine the nature of project
leadership in an Information Technology environment in Australia.
The research is aimed at exploring the suitability of Transformational Leadership

Model, a new paradigm in leadership research, in successfully leading information
technology professionals.
ACS supports such research projects and encourages your participation. Clearly a high
response rate from the companies approached to participate is highly desirable and we
are happy to encourage members to participate.
Jo Moylan
Victorian Branch Chair
Victorian Branch. Locked Bag 36, South Melbourne Victoria 3205, Australia
Telephone- (03) 9690 8000 Facsimile: (03) 9690 0201 Email: acsvic@acslink.net.au
A member of IFIP - The International Federation for Information Processing
Appendixes 159
AUSTRALIAN INFORMATION INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

LIMITED
18 August 1995
Mr Mohan Thite
Hawthorn Vic 3122
Dear Mr Thite
Thank you for contacting the Association in respect to your research. The
following words may be used to support our work.
The Australian Information Industry Association is pleased to support the Research

Project on project leadership in IT companies in Australia. This research being
conducted by Swinburne University of Technology to examine the nature of project
leadership in an information technology environment in Australia.
The research is aimed at making a significant contribution to the field of technical

leadership by exploring whether transformational leadership behaviour, a new
paradigm in leadership research, is better suited to manage technical professionals. We
understand that the concept is being tested for the first time in an Australian IT
environment.
The Association supports such research projects as it would be useful to IT companies

in identifying, encouraging and developing a better-suited leadership style for their
managers. The Association is happy to encourage its member companies to participate.
We commend the study and trust that you will decide to participate in the project.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Hedley
Manager, Education and Training
12 Cornpion Street Deakin ACT PO Box 246 Deakin West 2600

Appendixes 160
AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
September 1995
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
The Australian Institute of Management is pleased to support the research being

conducted by Swinburne University of Technology to examine the nature of leadership
in an Information Technology environment in Australia.
Considering the increasing importance of IT in today's business world, we need to look

at the quality of IT project leadership. The results of the study will be useful to all the
IT-oriented organisations and the Institute is happy to encourage those invited to
participate in the survey to respond positively.
PETER F SHELDRAKE FAIM

Chairman - Executive Committee
National Office, Australian Institute of Management ACN 004 525 017

181 Fitzroy Street St Kilda 3182 PO Box 112 St Kilda Victoria 3182
Telephone (03) 534 8181 Facsimile (03) 534 5050

State Divisions-. Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Hobart, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney
Member Asian Association of Management Organisations (AAMO) - The Regional Body of the World Council of
Management (CIOS)
Appendixes 161
Appendix-10
17th February 1996
«Title»«FirstName» «LastName»
«JobTitle»
«Company»
«Address1»
«Address2»
«City», «State»«PostalCode»
Dear «Title»«LastName»,
RE: Survey on Project Leadership in an Information Technology Environment
I am writing to draw your kind attention to my letter sent you nearly a month ago
inviting your company’s participation in a survey on leadership behaviour of IT
Project Managers in Australia.
The research is aimed at improving the quality of Australian IT project management by

focusing on project leadership and other critical success factors. The research, the first
of its kind in Australia, is being actively supported by the Australian Computer Society
Inc. (ACSI), The Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA) and the
Australian Institute of Management (AIM).
We believe that the excellent performance and experience of your organisation can
make a significant contribution to this study. Your participation is vital to the success
of this survey. I trust that despite the busy schedule your company will be able to
participate in this important survey. It would take only around thirty minutes for the
Co-ordinator, Project Managers and the project team members to complete the
questionnaire.
I would be grateful if you could confirm that you would be participating in the survey.
Should you require any further information or another set of questionnaire, please do
not hesitate to contact either myself on (03) 9836 6737 or Mr. Mohan Thite on
Tel./Fax: (03) 9818 5765; Email: MThite@buster.swin.edu.au.
Sincerely,
Alfred Clark
Professor Emeritus
School of Management
Appendixes 162
Appendix-11
5th March 1996
«Title»«FirstName» «LastName»
«JobTitle»
«Company»
«Address1»
«Address2»
«City», «State» «PostalCode»
Dear «Title»«LastName»,
RE: Survey on Project Leadership in an Information Technology Environment
I am writing to draw your kind attention to my letter sent you in January, 1996 inviting
your company’s participation in a survey on leadership behaviour of IT Project
Managers in Australia. A reminder letter was also sent in February, 1996. Since many
companies have informed that they have not received the original letter, I am sending a
copy to all those who are yet to respond to our survey.
The research is aimed at improving the quality of Australian IT project management by

focusing on project leadership and other critical success factors. The research, the first
of its kind in Australia, is being actively supported by the Australian Computer Society
Inc. (ACSI), The Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA) and the
Australian Institute of Management (AIM).
We believe that the excellent performance and experience of your organisation can
make a significant contribution to this study. Your participation is vital to the success
of this survey. I trust that despite the busy schedule your company will be able to
participate in this important survey. It would take only around thirty minutes for the
Co-ordinator, Project Managers and the project team members to complete the
questionnaire.
I would be grateful if you could confirm that you would be participating in the survey
and also indicate the likely date of completion so as to plan our analysis work. Should
you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact either myself on
(03) 9836 6737 or Mr. Mohan Thite on Tel./Fax: (03) 9818 5765 Email:
MThite@buster.swin.edu.au.
Sincerely,
Alfred Clark
Professor Emeritus, School of Management
Appendixes 163
Appendix-12: List and Profile of Participating Organisations
No. Name of Total IT No. of IT Avr. no. Avr. durtn/

company Employees Employees projects per project project-
months
1 Telstra (Corporate 8982 530 156 6 8
& Govt.)
2 EDS 600 400 18 12 6
3 ISSC (IBM) 2300 2000 100 20 7
4 QCOM 80 65 8 6 6
5 Fujitsu 1200 1000 40 10 12
6 Qantas 29000 650 200 25 12
7 Technix 12 10 4 3 6
8 DMR 400 350 12 13 10
9 Moldflow 110 50 20 2 12
10 Unichema 129 4 10 1 6
11 RHO 35 32 5 10 13
12 KAZ 70 65 5 5 6
13 Wizard 232 189 29 5 12
14 NAB 23000 740 40 10 6
15 Wacher 72 58 6 4 7
16 Megatec 63 35 11 2 3
17 CSIRO- IT 120 80 30 2 9
18 BHP IT 1800 1800 200 7 6
19 CO-CAM 160 140 300 NA 7
20 Technology One 55 50 7 7 12
21 Digital 2000 88 20 3 9
22 PA Consulting 82 NA NA 3 NA
23 Australian Water 3500 230 100 3 3

Technologies, Sydney
24 Roads & Traffic 7000 120 20 NA NA
Authority
25 Aust. Broadcasting 4500 130 7 6 6
Corporation
26 Dept. of Justice, 4700 105 4 4 9
Victoria
27 NCOM 409 409 80 3 12
28 Commonwealth 36000 1500 81 9 10
Bank of Australia
29 Queensland 9000 120 10 5 6
DEVITER
30 SAP Australia 120 80 25 4 8
31 Unisys 1100 500 40 13 12
32 Midas Kapiti Intl. 45 34 10 3 3
33 Queensland Health NA NA 7 7 6
34 DST International 180 80 20 3 2
35 Dun & Bradstreet S/W 145 140 17 4 4
Appendix-12: List and Profile of Participating Organisations
No. Name of Total IT No. of IT Avr. no. Avr. duration/

company Employees Employees projects per project project-months
1 Telstra (Corporate 8982 530 156 6 8

& Govt.)
2 EDS 600 400 18 12 6
3 ISSC (IBM) 2300 2000 100 20 7
4 QCOM 80 65 8 6 6
5 Fujitsu 1200 1000 40 10 12
6 Qantas 29000 650 200 25 12
7 Technix 12 10 4 3 6
8 DMR 400 350 12 13 10
9 Moldflow 110 50 20 2 12
10 Unichema 129 4 10 1 6
11 RHO 35 32 5 10 13
12 KAZ 70 65 5 5 6
13 Wizard 232 189 29 5 12
14 NAB 23000 740 40 10 6
15 Wacher 72 58 6 4 7
16 Megatec 63 35 11 2 3
17 CSIRO- IT 120 80 30 2 9
18 BHP IT 1800 1800 200 7 6
19 CO-CAM 160 140 300 NA 7
20 Technology One 55 50 7 7 12
21 Digital 2000 88 20 3 9
22 PA Consulting 82 NA NA 3 NA
23 Australian Water 3500 230 100 3 3
Technologies, Sydney
24 Roads & Traffic 7000 120 20 NA NA
Authority
25 Aust. Broadcasting 4500 130 7 6 6
Corporation
26 Dept. of Justice, 4700 105 4 4 9
Victoria
27 NCOM 409 409 80 3 12
28 Commonwealth 36000 1500 81 9 10
Bank of Australia
29 Queensland 9000 120 10 5 6
DEVITER
30 SAP Australia 120 80 25 4 8
31 Unisys 1100 500 40 13 12
32 Midas Kapiti Intl. 45 34 10 3 3
33 Queensland Health NA NA 7 7 6
34 DST International 180 80 20 3 2
35 Dun & Bradstreet S/W 145 140 17 4 4

Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTE

Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Graduate School of Management

I am extremely grateful to the organisations which participated in the survey and

My heartfelt thanks to the School of Management of Swinburne University of

I gratefully acknowledge the contribution of

The conceptual framework postulated that a combination of transformational and

The factor analysis of leadership scales resulted in one transformational scale

The results demonstrate the importance of leadership as a critical success factor in

Leadership is an invisible strand as mysterious as it is powerful.

It is a catalyst that creates unity out of disorder.

No combination of talents can guarantee it.

The qualities of leadership are universal:

The most precious and intangible quality of leadership is trust,

Leadership's imperative is a sense of rightness,

In its highest sense, leadership is integrity.

(Source: Author unknown. Published in an IBM publication around 1974).

2.2.3 Critique on charisma 23

2.4.1 Transactional leadership 29

2.6.1 Critical success factors 45

4.4.2 Measurement of Technical Leadership 61

5.6 Correlation Between Leadership and Outcome Scales (Self Ratings) 81

5.9 Factor Analysis of Transformational & Transactional Leadership 85

5.10 Factor Analysis of Technical Leadership Scale 88

5.12 Factor Analysis of Modified Transformational, Transactional and 89

5.13 Model for the Measurement of Technical Leadership 92

6 INTERVIEWS WITH SENIOR MANAGERS 97

6.7 Advice for Project Managers 102

7.3 Applicability of Bass & Avolio’s Model to Information Technology 105

7.4 Construct Validity of Bass & Avolio’s model 107

7.5 Is There a Technical Leadership Style? 109

7.5.2 Factor Structure of Technical Leadership 110

7.6 Towards a Theory of Technical Leadership 112

Publications as a Result of This Research 122

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 2-1 The augmentation model of transactional and 34

Figure 2-2 Ten key factors of the project implementation profile 48

Figure 3-1 Conceptual framework 53

Figure 4-1 Typical organisational chart of a large IT development 71

Table 2-1 Overview of major research approaches to leadership 18

Table 2-2 Critical success factors in an IS environment 46

Table 2-3 Essential qualities and skills of IS project managers 50

Table 4-1 Sources of data collection 59

Table 4-2 Factor structure and reliability of questionnaire items 62

Table 4-3 Pretest of research design and questionnaire 63

Table 4-4 Analysis of response to the survey 69

Table 4-5 Profile of respondent organisations 70

Table 4-6 Project participation profile 72

Table 4-7 Project performance profile 72

Table 4-8 Demographics of project managers 73

Table 4-9 Demographics of project team members 73

Table 5-1 Subordinates’ ratings on leadership behaviour 75

Table 5-2 Subordinates’ ratings on leadership outcome 77

Table 5-3 Correlations between leadership and outcome scales 78

Table 5-4 Subordinates’ ratings on contingency scales 79

Table 5-5 Self (managers’) ratings on leadership, outcome and 80

Table 5-6 Correlations between leadership and outcome scales (self 82

Table 5-8 Maximum likelihood factor analysis of transformational and 86

Table 5-9 Principal components factor analysis of technical leadership 88

Table 5-10 Principal components factor analysis of modified 90

Table 5-11 Second order principal components factor analysis of 92

Table 5-12 Comparison between more and less successful projects 95

Table 6-1 Key success factors as named by senior managers 98