The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm

IJPPM
61,2 Leadership performance is
significant to project success or
failure: a critical analysis
204
Phil Nixon
Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Queensland,
Received June 2011
Accepted July 2011 Brisbane, Australia
Megan Harrington
School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia, and
David Parker
Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management
Vol. 61 No. 2, 2012
pp. 204-216
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0401
DOI 10.1108/17410401211194699
Abstract
Purpose – This paper seeks to review the current literature in order to explore how performance of
leadership in project management determines project outcomes. The specific causes of project success or
failure have been an area of much debate in the project management literature. Performance of
leadership has been cited as a critical success factor, determining either the success or failure of a project.
Design/methodology/approach – An extensive literature review has been undertaken to explore
our understanding of how project leadership performance impacts on project outcome.
Findings – The mechanisms through which leadership may impact on outcomes are considered.
Implications include the need for project managers to prioritize training in leadership skills, and the
need for continuous professional improvement to enhance leadership outcomes. No single leadership
model is appropriate throughout the duration of the project. Performance, therefore, must be modified
to align with the stages of the project duration.
Research limitations/implications – While the literature has given meaningful insights into
leadership of projects, there has been little research into performance management of project
leadership. The work is the basis of developing a research agenda and establishing a conceptual
framework. The opportunity exists, based on this work, for carrying out research on project leadership
performance and its effect on project outcomes.
Practical implications – Insightful learning has been achieved into project leadership and the failing
of practitioners in appropriate training and development at various stages of the projects life cycle.
Social implications – Projects and project-based management, delivered nationally and
internationally, are of significant importance to organizations. Increasing understanding of the
implications of leadership performance, therefore, is of critical importance.
Originality/value – The literature review has identified significant limitation in project leadership
performance management. It is anticipated that this work will trigger further research.
Keywords Project leadership performance, Project management, Project evaluation, Project managers,
Project success, Project failure
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
The performance of leadership is fundamental to how people work together in teams; and
is reported to be the most researched aspect of human behavior (Dulewicz and Higgs,
2005). Although leadership has also been the subject of much research in project Leadership
management literature, its role in contributing to project success or failure continues to performance
provoke debate. This paper therefore seeks to explore leadership performance in the
context of project management outcomes, where leadership is hypothetically crucial to the
success or failure of a project. This hypothesis is considered in light of leadership
performance theory, empirical studies of leadership performance, and a critical analysis of
the mechanisms through which performance of leadership impacts on project outcomes. 205
Project success and the effect of the project manager on the outcome is frequently
discussed, and yet so rarely agreed upon (Pinto and Slevin, 1988a). Critical success
factors are common in projects today as a means of assessing project success. There
has been a broadening of measurement from simply time, cost (on budget), and
functionality improvement measurement in the 1970s to a more quality-based focus in
the 1980s and 1990s. Project success today embraces stakeholder satisfaction, product
success, business and organization benefit, and team development as measures of
project success (Atkinson, 1999; Baccarini, 1999).
A key question in practice is how to measure project success (Wateridge, 1998). The
Project Management Body of Knowledge (Project Management Institute (PMI), 2008)
frequently refers to project success, but does not give a definition; instead it states that
the project charter should define the success criteria and objectives of the project.
Establishing criteria of success at the planning stage, and therefore by default, failure
if not achieved, is extensively supported in the literature. For example, “For those
involved with a project, project success is normally thought of as the achievement of
some pre-determined project goals” (Lim and Mohamed, 1999, p. 244). Lim and
Mohamed suggest that project success needs to be considered from the perspectives of
stakeholders and identify two perspectives: a macro perspective, which aggregates all
stakeholders and a micro perspective, which considers only those directly involved
with the execution of the project.
An example of different perspectives of a project is the Sydney Opera House
(Thomsett, 2002), which went 16 times over budget and took four times longer than
originally planned. The Opera House is now seen as a success for the nation; and at the
same time a failure from a project management perspective. Conversely, the
Millennium Dome in London was a project on time and on budget but in the eyes of the
British public was considered a failure because it did not deliver the awe and glamour
that it was supposed to generate (Cooke-Davies, 2001).
In the 1980s, research into project success factors intensified. Some authors
identified functionality (performance), project management (schedule, on budget),
commercial success, termination efficiency, and client satisfaction as success factors
(Baker et al., 1988; Pinto and Slevin, 1988a). No explicit reference is made, however, to
the performance of project managers, the composite skill set of the team or the point of
execution of the project (project context). Andersen et al. (1987) examined the pitfalls
that may prevent project success and increase the chances of failure. Such pitfalls
include the way the project was planned, organized, and controlled but does not
consider project team’s performance criteria. Baker et al. (1988) defined “perceived”
project success as meeting the project’s technical specification and/or project’s mission
and attaining a high level of satisfaction from the client, the users, and the project team.
Pinto and Slevin (1988b) conducted a study of project success and identified ten
factors for success; and highlighted the need for excellent communication channels.
IJPPM Interestingly, as part of communication, no clear performance objectives were
61,2 identified as contributing to success.
Turner (1999) defined a strategy for the successful implementation of projects. This
seven forces model (based on the work of Morris and Hough, 1987) contains a “people”
force, representing the people on the project and their management, leadership,
teamwork, and industrial relations. However, there is no acknowledgment of key
206 performance criteria in the delivery of the project – apart from milestones and stage
completion targets.
Cooke-Davies (2001) stated that despite research results and decades of collective
experience of managing projects, project results continue to disappoint stakeholders.
Cooke-Davies focused on cost, time, and quality when studying project success and
identified related success factors – but no consideration was made of individual team
member or team performance.
Jugdev and Müller (2005) reviewed the literature on project success and concluded
that four conditions are necessary, but not sufficient, for success:
(1) Success criteria should be agreed with stakeholders before and during the
project.
(2) A collaborative working relationship should be maintained between project
owner/sponsor and manager.
(3) A project manager should be empowered to deal flexibly with unforeseen
circumstances.
(4) The project owner/sponsors should take an interest in the performance of the
project.

Turner and Müller (2005) reviewed the contribution of the project manager’s
competence and leadership style to project success and concluded that “the literature
has largely ignored the impact of the project manager, and his/her leadership style and
competence, on project success” (p. 59). They found that in the general management
literature, it is widely recognized that the performance of the functional manager’s
leadership style contributes to the success of the organization he or she manages. The
project manager’s performance is ignored when identifying project success factors.
Cannon et al. (2010) suggest that a buyer’s trust of a supplier and the supplier’s
performance affect the buyer’s long-term orientation toward the relationship. They
identified that the relative effects of trust and performance on long-term orientation are
moderated by culture – specifically the individualism/collectivism dimension.
Hypotheses were tested on data from two individualist and two collectivist cultures.
Pullman et al. (2001), highlight that those dealing with multicultural customer
segments face unique performance challenges in developing the appropriate service
strategy. They offer an approach for modeling the preferences of different cultural
segments, evaluating the differences between the segments and determining the
appropriate service strategy for service providers such as those delivering
multi-national projects.
According to Baccarini (1999, p. 25) project success consists of two separate
components, specifically project management success and project product success. He
distinguishes between them as follows:
 (1) Project management success focuses on the project management process and in Leadership
particular on the successful accomplishment of the project with regards to cost, performance
time and quality.
(2) Project product success focuses on the effects of the project’s end-deliverable.

The three dimensions of time, budget and quality feature in many definitions of project
management success (Blaney, 1989; Duncan, 1987; Globerson and Zwikael, 2002; 207
Redmill, 1997; Thomsett, 2002). However, time, budget and quality are not sufficient to
measure project management success. Dimensions such as the quality of the project
management process – leadership performance – and the satisfaction of the project
stakeholder’s expectations also need to be considered (Baccarini, 1999, p. 28; Schwalbe,
2004, pp. 109-10). Therefore, extending the traditional triangle – time þ quality þ cost
– to include the performance of the management process provides a more complete
view of project management success.
Belassi and Tukel (1996) have outlined a framework where they can be grouped into
four interrelated areas (Belassi and Tukel, 1996):
(1) the project;
(2) the project manager and team members;
(3) the organization; and
(4) the external environment.

Others have also considered the limitation of traditional success/failure criteria, with
the aim of making outcomes project-context specific. For example, The DeLone and
McLean (1992) model is an important contribution to the literature on IS success
measurement as it was the first study to impose some order in information systems (IS)
researchers’ choices of success measures (Seddon et al., 1999). To construct the model,
DeLone and McLean reviewed 100 papers containing empirical IS success measures
published in seven publications during 1981-1987. They distilled the resulting huge
range of IS success measures into an integrated view of IS success, represented by the
following six dimensions:
(1) System quality: measure of the information processing system itself.
(2) Information quality: measure of information system output.
(3) Information use: measure of recipient consumption of the output of an
information system.
(4) User satisfaction: measure of recipient response to the use of the output of an
information system.
(5) Individual impact: measure of the effect of information on the recipient.
(6) Organizational impact: measure of the effect of information on organizational
performance.

Ten years after the original DeLone and McLean (2003, p. 24) model was published, it
was updated to include:
.
“Service quality” was added as an extra dimension to “information quality” and
“system quality”.
IJPPM .
“Intention to use” was placed alongside “use”.
61,2 .
“Individual impact” and “organizational impact” were collapsed into a “net
benefits” dimension.

Whatever the merits of this particular context-based model, we argue that there is still
insufficient consideration given to the significant influence of leadership; and in
208 particular there is a need for meditative line of sight on leadership performance.

Leadership performance
In considering the effect of leadership performance on the success or failure of a
project, it is important to understand the differences between project management and
project leadership. These differences have been discussed throughout the project
management literature; and invariably leadership traits are associated with project
leadership when contrasted with project management (Yang et al., 2011). Anantatmula
(2010) suggests that project management refers to the planning and organizing of
project activities, through decision-making processes that improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of a project. Leadership, conversely, is about guiding others towards the
attainment of project objectives, “motivating and guiding people to realize their
potential and achieve tougher and challenging organizational goals,” (Anantatmula,
2010, p. 14). Successful leadership convinces people of the need to change, stimulates
new ways of thinking and problem solving, and then encourages them to work
together in order to accomplish project objectives in difficult work environments
(Keller, 1992; Anantatmula, 2010). Leadership also guides people to grow together as
professionals while simultaneously completing their project responsibilities
(Anantatmula, 2010). Although the terms management and leadership continue to be
used to denote different attributes and responsibilities, it is important to note that
overlap exists. Furthermore, in the achievement of successful project outcomes, project
management always involves effective leadership.
It was long believed that leaders were born, not developed, in an archaic theory
based on inherent traits. The “great man” theory dominated empirical and theoretical
work in the early stages of leadership research, dating back to 1869 with Galton’s
Hereditary Genius (Zaccaro, 2007). However, this “great man” theory of genetic leaders
offered insufficient evidence and was discarded in the late 1940s (Zaccaro, 2007),
resulting in a surge of alternative leadership theories. Nevertheless, certain traits are
desirable and comprise a shining facet of the leadership gem. As Ralph Stogdill
observed in 1948:
.
there are a large number of traits;
.
they must fit the situation; and
.
it requires a proactive leader to execute these traits properly (Pierce and
Newstrom, 2011).

Today’s evidence-based theories of leadership can be characterized into six major

classes, which include a leader’s aforementioned traits in addition to the following
attributes: behavior, contingency, visionary, emotional intelligence and competency
(Dulewicz and Higgs, 2005). Within these classes, popular leadership styles such as
transformational and transactional styles (types of visionary leadership) can be
fashioned to produce a suitable leader for each situation. There is a current belief in Leadership
leadership success that combines this transformational style with an emotional performance
intelligence (EI), which is described later. More recent studies of traits have been
identified and can be seen in Table I.
Despite the variance in modern leadership theories, they all agree that it takes a
combination of skills and knowledge coupled with personal characteristics to define a
leader (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008). Orchestrating these skills, knowledge and 209
personality in a sinuous manner can create the symphony that is great leadership.
However, mismatching these key leadership elements can produce the deafening noise
of metaphorical failure.

Creating a vision and motivating change: transformational leadership

There are different schools of leadership theory in the literature, in which
transformational leadership can be found amongst the contemporary perspectives
(Keegan and Den Hartog, 2004; Turner and Müller, 2005). Transformational leadership
has been defined by the ability of the leader to create a shared vision and a strong
identification with team members that is based on more than just rewarding completion
of project activities (Bass, 1985; Keegan and Den Hartog, 2004). Through this shared
vision, the transformational leader is then able to mobilize commitment and transcendent
performance of both the individual and the project as a whole. Such leaders are said to
show charisma, as a means of motivating others to integrate into the collective vision,
and a strong consideration of and support for individual team member needs (Keegan
and Den Hartog, 2004). Developing connections between the leader and individual team
members is also thought to help individuals achieve their full potential. As stated Parker
and Craig (2008, p. 173) “. . . it is reasonable to surmise that in a project, transformational
leadership can turn an ensemble of skilled, varied personnel into a multi-skilled, creative
and synergized force accomplishing project goals with alacrity.”

Emotional intelligence
Are you lacking emotional awareness in others? This may read like the headline in a
popular magazine, but recent studies have shown a connection between business
results and an “emotional intelligence.” Daniel Goleman (1998) conducted research on a
200 international companies and determined that the traditionally accepted leadership
qualities were lacking the “softer” traits that encourage and contribute to successful
outcomes. Some of the more traditional qualities include intelligence, toughness,
determination and vision, whereas the “softer” traits include self-awareness,

Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) Turner (1999)

1. Drive and ambition 1. Problem-solving ability

2. The desire to lead and influence others 2. Results orientation
3. Honesty and integrity 3. Energy and initiative
4. Self-confidence 4. Self-confidence
5. Intelligence 5. Perspective
6. Technical knowledge 6. Communication Table I.
7. Negotiating ability Important traits of
effective leaders and
Source: Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991); Turner (1999) managers
IJPPM self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills. His research in addition to other
61,2 recent studies show that “emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership,”
(Goleman, 1998, pp. 1-2). Reversing Goleman’s five components of successful emotional
intelligence is useful in illustrating an “emotionally un-intelligent” professional, as seen
in Table II.
Emotional intelligence has become so widely recognized as a necessary characteristic
210 of leaders, that Dulewicz and Higgs (2005) classified “emotional intelligence” as one of
their six major schools of leadership. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between
emotional intelligence and the different styles of leadership, namely transformational
leadership, which can additionally promote a projects outcome (Clarke, 2010). As a
critical factor of leadership, a poor level of emotional intelligence can directly contribute
to poor leadership. Fortunately, this characteristic of leadership can be learned.

Leadership performance and project outcome

Leadership is an indispensable part of project management, impacting directly on project
outcomes (Shenhar et al., 2002). The importance of leadership has been noted throughout
the project management literature, as a requirement for project excellence (Kerzner,
1987), a determinant of overall project culture (Shore, 2008), and a vehicle for mobilizing
people for change (Patterson, 2010). In much research, leadership style and personal
traits have also been identified as a critical success factor, determining either the success
or failure of a project (Kerzner, 1987; Keller, 1992; Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008;
Anantatmula, 2010). For example, the research conducted by Keller (1992), applied
transformational leadership abilities that were hypothesized to improve the performance
of project groups. The study was longitudinal in design, involving the assessment of

Component Definition Hallmarks

1. No self-awareness The inability to recognize and No self-confidence

understand your moods, emotions,
and drives, as well as their effect on
others
2. No self-regulation The inability to control or redirect
disruptive impulses and moods; no
tendency to suspend judgment and
think before acting
3. No motivation Not exhibiting a passion to work for
reasons outside money or status;
lacking a drive to pursue goals with
energy and persistence
4. No empathy The inability to understand the
emotional makeup of others; no skill
in treating others according to their
emotional reactions
Table II. 5. No social skill Incapable of managing relationships
Five qualities of the and building networks; unable to
emotionally unintelligent find common ground and build a
(Goleman, 1998) relationship
Unrealistic self-assessment
Directs humor at others, never at
self
Not trustworthy
Uncomfortable with ambiguity
Unwilling to change
No drive to achieve
Pessimistic
No organizational commitment
Cannot build or retain talent
Cross-cultural insensitivity
Disservice to clients and customers
Ineffective in leading change
Not believable or persuasive
Fails in building and leading teams
three projects and their leaders from industrial research and development organizations. Leadership
In this study, project managers were scored by their subordinates on the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), in order to assess their achievement of different
performance
dimensions of transformational leadership: charismatic leadership, intellectual
stimulation, consideration and initiation. These same projects were then evaluated
according to five measures of project success: budget, schedule, technical quality, value
to the company, and overall project performance. Factor analysis revealed two key 211
factors: the first two-project success measures in a factor of budget/schedule
performance, and a factor of project quality comprised of the final three. The results
of the study showed that both these project success factors: budget/schedule and project
quality, were positively correlated with higher MLQ scores of transformational
leadership. This is suggested to occur due to the role of leadership in motivating group
members to perform at a higher level than might be expected otherwise, thus
contributing to improved project outcomes (Keller, 1992). Keller also notes that staff
guided by strong leadership has a greater sense of mission, purpose and importance of
the project, and are therefore better positioned to contribute to its success.
There are multiple mechanisms through which leadership is theorized to impact on
project outcomes. According to Bass’ theory of transformational leadership (1985),
leadership can achieve improved performance in three inter-related ways:
.
by increasing awareness among team members of the importance of project
outcomes;
.
increasing motivation for team members to move beyond self-interest for the
benefit of the team; and
.
by expanding the set of individual needs on Maslow’s hierarchy (Bass, 1985).

Through these mechanisms, the leader is said to contribute to improved team member
performance, such that they can achieve goals beyond those normally accomplished.
Clarke refers to this as stretching the capabilities of team members, according to
challenges associated with the collective vision (Clarke, 2009). These mechanisms form
the basis for the contribution of leadership to either project success or failure.

Leadership performance metrics

As a critical determinant of project outcomes, it follows that leadership is an important
consideration in the formation of project teams. Leadership should also be a focus for
professional training and development, in addition to programs for development of
technical and management skills alone (Turner and Müller, 2010). Smith (1999)
suggests that specific attributes of leadership are more able to add value to project
outcomes. This was confirmed in a study of leadership competencies, in which some
leadership attributes were identified as being more highly correlated with project
outcomes (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008). These leadership attributes were compared
to various measures of project success, including success in problem solving, and
project delivery within budget. Success as problem solving was significantly
correlated at the 0.01 level to the following leadership attributes: motivating others,
managing resources, empowering, and developing. In regard to project success
according to budget, correlation was significant at the 0.05 level with attributes of
managing resources and empowering others (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008). This
research provides important information for those seeking to develop leaders, as a
IJPPM means of identifying leadership attributes that need specific emphasis. Leadership
61,2 dimensions more directly linked to project outcomes should therefore be the focus of
training for project managers.
Evaluating project leadership performance and taking remedial action accordingly, is
a critical factor in determining the likelihood of project success or failure. As stated by
Chris Argyris, author and Harvard business professor, “professionals are enthusiastic
212 about continuous improvement – and often the biggest obstacle to its success,” (Argyris,
1991, p. 5). Argyris identifies this problem and suggests a basic “learning dilemma” is at
fault. In order for companies to succeed and grow with time, there exists a need for
continual learning, even as managers. When failure is rarely experienced, one cannot
learn from it. Argyris proposes that if failure is experienced by a professional, followed
by defensive behavior, chances are a block has been inadvertently placed on the natural
learning process. A common misconception follows, in which motivation is believed to be
the driving factor of learning. In order to overcome the learning dilemma, Argyris
advocates that the professional must “look inward” past the defensive feelings and truly
reflect on their thought process, “teaching people how to reason about their behavior in
new and more effective ways breaks down the defenses that block learning” (Argyris,
1991, p. 5). These defenses add to the overall problem. In constructive practice, with
oneself or with a team, the useless defense banter can be avoided, turning failure into a
useful learning process, and exemplifying ones leadership skills. After all, leaders thrive
on continuous improvement!

Reasons why projects fail

There are a number of different reasons where leadership is not at fault for an adverse
outcome. However, it should be noted that “the concept of project failure is nebulous,”
(Pinto and Mantel, 1990, p. 269), thus truly making a single, unified definition of “project
failure” quite unattainable. But as Pinto and Mantel (1990, p. 270) indicate, there are
“some common aspects that suggest certain characteristics are strongly related to
perceived project failure.” These common aspects are classified as internal and external
processes. The internal processes constitute the implementation of the project itself (i.e.
team performance, meeting budgets and deadlines, etc), and the external processes are
measures of effectiveness made by the client and/or miscellaneous external pressures.
Early termination of a project can be perceived as a failed project. The factors
contributing to this theoretically failed project can include legal, political, environmental,
or social setbacks, which are examples of external pressures. In addition, sick employees
and other internal “emergencies” could have added to a deteriorated relationship with the
client through additional project delays; these are examples of internal pressures. As any
project manager will agree, there are almost always some unpredicted factors that can
alter the efficiency of a project. Some of these internal and external factors bear more
burden than others, and certain combinations of these lead to bigger problems,
contributing to a resulting “failed” project.
There has been a comprehensive study commissioned by the Project Management
Institute that concluded the possibility of leadership having little to no impact on
project success. Turner and Müller conducted an intensive literature study, which was
triggered by an overall lack of information linking the project manager’s performance
and his or her leadership style to project success (Turner and Müller, 2005). They
offered three possible explanations to this lack of information in literatures:
 (1) Studies conducted did not include respondent impact, just project manager Leadership
impact. performance
(2) Studies conducted did not actually measure project manager impact, thus were
not recorded.
(3) Project managers simply have no impact.

However, the overwhelming view in the literature is that leadership performance is 213
significantly important in determining project outcome. This paradox was concluded
in Turner and Müller’s literature research by stating further research was necessary to
better understand the impacts and styles of leadership on the vastly diverse projects
and their outcomes.

Key performance questions

It is important to establish the project’s key performance questions (KPQs) prior to
determining the related project leader’s key performance indicators (KPIs).
Establishing a generic series of KPQs applicable to all organizational situations is
fraught with problems due to their specific qualities. A mistake made by many
organizations is to develop KPIs before identifying the KPQs.
However, typically such KPQs might address such questions as shown in Table III.
A KPQ is a management question that captures exactly what it is that people want
to know when it comes to leadership performance. The rationale for KPQs is that they
provide guidance for collecting relevant and meaningful KPIs and focus our attention
on what actually needs to be discussed when we review performance. Far too often do
we jump straight to designing indicators before we are clear about what it is that we
want to know (OECD, 1997).

Conclusion
In summary, this critique assessed the role and impact of leadership performance in
project management outcomes. The hypothesis that leadership is crucial to a projects
success or failure was considered in light of various leadership theories, empirical

Key performance
Key performance questions indicators

Is there universal agreement on what the end-goal looks like?

How well are we building active partnerships with our key stakeholders?
How effective is the communications strategy?
How well are we shifting toward an innovative organization?
How does the outside world view our organization?
To what extent do we trust each other?
To what level are our employees engaged?
How well are we using the information we possess?
How well are we building our new competencies?
To what extent are we retaining the talent in our organization?
Are we fostering a culture of continuous improvement? Table III.
How well are we managing our allocated financial resources? Examples of key
Do people feel passionate about working for us? performance questions
IJPPM studies, and mechanisms of impact on project outcomes. Leadership remains a highly
61,2 researched and debatable human behavior, continuing to impress upon literatures its
necessity for project success. Literature has been assessed in this research and it has
been shown that leadership is an important factor in effective management. Yet,
leadership performance management was found to be relatively ambivalent; and its
application and direct impact on a projects success or failure due to varying internal and
214 external factors has not been addressed. For this reason, each project would need to be
individually approached and critiqued to determine KPQs and corresponding KPIs of
leadership style(s) directly affect the project outcome. Since leadership style is an
effective tool used by project managers to influence a project outcome, it can be
established that a lack of leadership performance monitoring can be directly associated
with project failure. Furthermore, since leadership is a leading behavioral trait exhibited
in effective managers, it is entirely plausible that leadership performance, and lack of
performance management, can be a significant cause in project success or failure.

References
Anantatmula, V. (2010), “Project manager leadership role in improving project performance”,
Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 13-22.
Andersen, E.S., Crude, K.V. and Haug, T. (1987), Goal Directed Project Management,
Kogan Page/Coopers & Lybrand, London.
Argyris, C. (1991), “Teaching smart people how to learn”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 4-15.
Atkinson, R. (1999), “Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a
phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 337-42.
Baccarini, D. (1999), “The logical framework method for determining critical success/failure
factors in projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 141-51.
Baker, B., Murphy, D. and Fisher, D. (1988), “Factors affecting project success”, in Cleland, D.I.
and King, W.R. (Eds), Project Management Handbook, 2nd ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, NY, pp. 669-85.
Bass, B. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Belassi, W. and Tukel, O. (1996), “A new framework for determining critical success/failure
factors in projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 141-51.
Blaney, J. (1989), “Managing software development projects”, paper presented at the Project
Management Seminar/Symposium, Atlanta, GA.
Cannon, J.P., Doney, P.M., Mullen, M.R. and Petersen, K.J. (2010), “Building long-term orientation
in buyer-supplier relationships: the moderating role of culture”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 506-21.
Clarke, N. (2010), “Emotional intelligence and its relationship to transformational leadership and
key project manager competences”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 5-20.
Clarke, P. (2009), “Leadership, beyond project management”, Industrial and Commercial
Training, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 187-94.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2001), “The real project success factors”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 185-90.
DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (1992), “Information system success: the quest for the dependent
variable”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 60-95.
DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (2003), “The DeLone and McLean model of information systems Leadership
success: a ten-year update”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 9-30. performance
Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M. (2005), “Assessing leadership dimensions, styles and organizational
context”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 105-23.
Duncan, W. (1987), “Get out from under”, Computerworld, pp. 89-93, 9 March.
Geoghegan, L. and Dulewicz, V. (2008), “Do project managers’ leadership competencies 215
contribute to project success?”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 58-67.
Globerson, S. and Zwikael, O. (2002), “The impact of the project manager on project management
planning processes”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 58-64.
Goleman, D. (1998), “What makes a leader?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76 No. 6, pp. 93-103.
Jugdev, K. and Müller, R. (2005), “A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project
success”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 19-31.
Keegan, A. and Den Hartog, D. (2004), “Transformational leadership in a project-based
environment: a comparative study of the leadership styles of project managers and line
managers”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 609-17.
Keller, R. (1992), “Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development
project groups”, Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 489-501.
Kerzner, H. (1987), “In search of excellence in project management”, Journal of Systems
Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 30-9.
Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1991), “Leadership traits do matter”, Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 5 No. 2, March, pp. 44-60.
Lim, C.S. and Mohamed, Z. (1999), “Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-examination”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 243-8.
Morris, P.W.G. and Hough, G. (1987), The Anatomy of Major Projects: A Study of the Reality of
Project Management, Chichester, Wiley.
OECD (1997), In Search of Results: Performance Management Practices, OECD Report, OECD,
Paris.
Parker, D.W. and Craig, M. (2008), “Leadership and interpersonal skills”, Managing Projects,
Managing People, Palgrave-Macmillan, New York, NY.
Patterson, J. (2010), “Leadership: the project management essential”, Production and Inventory
Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 73-89.
Pierce, J.L. and Newstrom, J.W. (2011), Leaders and the Leadership Process, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1988a), “Project success: definition and measurement techniques”,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 67-71.
Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1988b), “Critical success factors in effective project implementation”,
in Cleland, D.I. and King, W.R. (Eds), Project Management Handbook, 2nd ed., Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, pp. 479-512.
Pinto, J.K. and Mantel, S. Jr (1990), “The causes of project failure”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 269-76.
Project Management Institute (PMI) (2008), A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), PMI, Brighton, pp. 1-459.
Pullman, M.E., Verma, R. and Goodale, J.C. (2001), “Service design and operations strategy
formulation in multicultural markets”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 239-54.
IJPPM Redmill, F. (1997), Software Projects: Evolutionary vs Big-bang Delivery, Wiley Series in Software
Engineering Practice, Wiley, Chichester.
61,2 Schwalbe, K. (2004), Information Technology Project Management, 3rd ed., Course Technology,
Boston, MA.
Seddon, P.B., Staples, S., Patnayakoni, R. and Bowtell, M. (1999), “Dimensions of information
system success”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 2 No. 3,
216 pp. 9-17.
Shenhar, A.J., Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S. and Lechler, T. (2002), “Refining the search for
project success factors: a multivariate typological approach”, R&D Management, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 111-26.
Shore, B. (2008), “Systematic biases and culture in project failures”, Project Management Journal,
Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 5-16.
Smith, G. (1999), “Project leadership: why project management alone doesn’t work”, Hospital
Material Management Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 88-92.
Thomsett, R. (2002), Radical Project Management, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Turner, R. (1999), The Handbook of Project-based Management: Improving the Processes for
Achieving Strategic Objectives, McGraw-Hill, London.
Turner, R. and Müller, R. (2005), “The project manager’s leadership style as a success factor on
projects: a literature review”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 49-61.
Turner, R. and Müller, R. (2010), “Leadership competency profiles of successful project
managers”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 437-48.
Wateridge, J. (1998), “How can IS/IT projects be measured for success?”, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 59-63.
Yang, L., Huang, C. and Wu, K. (2011), “The association among project manager’s leadership
style, teamwork and project success”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 258-67.
Zaccaro, S.J. (2007), “Trait-based perspectives of leadership”, American Psychologist, Vol. 62
No. 1, pp. 6-16.

About the authors

Phil Nixon is studying towards a Master’s in Development Practice through the Faculty of Social
and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Queensland. The Master’s program will provide
him with a solid foundation from which to pursue a career working in project teams in the field of
community development.
Megan Harrington is a Postgraduate Student studying at the University of Queensland’s
School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering where she is pursuing a Master’s of Engineering.
She is hoping to apply the skills acquired from business and management courses towards a
career in engineering and entrepreneurial management.
David Parker is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Queensland Business School
researching and lecturing in project management and service operations analytics. David Parker
is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: d.parker@business.uq.edu.au

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

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints