This article was downloaded by: [Acadia University]

On: 07 October 2013, At: 16:28

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Technology Analysis & Strategic

Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctas20

Successful project managers: an

exploratory study into the impact of
personality
a a
Alfred E. Thal Jr. & John D. Bedingfield
a
Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base , Ohio, USA
Published online: 28 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Alfred E. Thal Jr. & John D. Bedingfield (2010) Successful project managers:
an exploratory study into the impact of personality, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,
22:2, 243-259, DOI: 10.1080/09537320903498587

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537320903498587

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Technology Analysis & Strategic Management
Vol. 22, No. 2, February 2010, 243–259

Successful project managers: an exploratory

study into the impact of personality

Alfred E. Thal, Jr.∗ and John D. Bedingfield

Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, USA
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 16:28 07 October 2013

Although the literature is replete with studies regarding project success, there appears to be
little information regarding the effect of the project manager’s personality, specifically as deter-
mined by peer assessments. Therefore, this paper reports the results of an exploratory study
to investigate the influence of project manger personality traits, as determined by the Five-
Factor Model (FFM), on project manager success. Perceptions of both personality and project
manager success were analysed using Student’s t-test, a correlation matrix, and hierarchical
generalised linear modelling (HGLM). The results indicated that two of the FFM personality
traits, Conscientiousness and Openness, seemed to positively correlate with project manager
success. Emotional Stability, another personality trait, was found to be significant with the dif-
ference of means test but not the HGLM effort. Finally, the remaining FFM traits, Extraversion
and Agreeableness, did not appear to correlate with project manager success.

Keywords: project manager; job performance; personality; five-factor model

Introduction
The discipline of project management is an evolving one; this is particularly true regarding our
views on success. It means different things to different people (Freeman and Beale 1992) and
is typically a matter of perception (Baker, Murphy, and Fisher 1988). Discussion about project
success has moved from a focus on cost, time and performance to integrated frameworks recog-
nising the importance of customer satisfaction and accomplishment of organisational strategies
(e.g. Jugdev and Mueller 2005). A central part of the research has focused on the impact project
managers have on project success (Munns and Bjeirmi 1996) and the attributes of successful
project managers (e.g. Pettersen 1991; Valencia 2007). Although our understanding of project
management and criterion for successful project managers, has grown significantly, there is still
much to explore.
In particular, our understanding of how project manager personality might influence success has
received little attention. Both Shenhar (1998) and Pines, Dvir, and Sadeh (2007) observed that few
studies have examined the impact of a project manager’s personality on project performance. From
the personnel psychology field, researchers generally agree that personality is well correlated with
job performance (e.g. Barrick and Mount 1991; Tett, Jackson, and Rothstein 1991; Salgado 1997;

∗ Corresponding author. Email: al.thal@afit.edu

ISSN 0953-7325 print/ISSN 1465-3990 online
© 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09537320903498587
http://www.informaworld.com
 244 A.E. Thal, Jr. and J.D. Bedingfield

Hough and Ones 2001). Furthermore, it is widely accepted that the five-factor model provides an
adequate taxonomy of personality (e.g. Goldberg 1981; Costa and McCrae 1992). Additionally,
researchers have found a strong correlation between job performance and the five-factor model
(Barrick and Mount 1991; Tett, Jackson, and Rothstein 1991; Salgado 1997; Mount and Barrick
1998; Barrick, Mount, and Judge 2001; Salgado 2003).
Specific knowledge about the impact of a project manager’s personality on project success is
very limited though. Using the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator assessment, Gehring (2007) found
a relationship between project manager competencies and personality type. Dvir, Sadeh, and
Malach-Pines (2006) matched personality dimensions from various models to project dimensions
and found that project managers who matched their personality type with project type were
more successful. However, our literature review did not uncover any studies which considered all
dimensions of personality as a predictor specifically for project manager performance.
Therefore, our purpose for this exploratory study was to investigate the influence of project
manager personality traits on project manager success. Because success is very context-dependent
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 16:28 07 October 2013

(Jugdev and Mueller 2005), we framed our research around peer perceptions – perceptions of a
programme manager’s personality traits and perceptions of his or her success. We were interested
in learning if there was a significant difference in any of the personality dimensions, as defined
by the five-factor model taxonomy, between individuals considered to be the most successful
project managers and those considered to be the least successful. To accomplish this goal, this
paper begins with a background section which provides necessary foundational material. After
briefly reviewing the literature regarding both project and project manager success, we discuss the
critical link between personality and job performance. We then describe the methodology used
in the study before presenting results and discussion. The paper closes with our conclusions and
limitations.

Background
Project success
Although the organisational theory literature is replete with studies regarding organisational suc-
cess, project success seems to remain an elusive concept in the project management field. In fact,
definitions of project success have evolved considerably since the 1960s. For instance, consider
the work of Murphy, Baker, and Fisher (1974). In a study of 650 completed projects, they identi-
fied 29 factors related to project failure, 23 factors related to project success and 10 factors that
were related to both project success and failure. In all three lists, cost and schedule performance
were not included. They subsequently offered the following definition for the perceived success
of a project.

If the project meets the technical performance specifications and/or mission to be performed, and if
there is a high level of satisfaction concerning the project outcome among key people in the parent
organisation, key people in the client organisation, key people on the project team, and key users or
clientele of the project effort, the project is considered an overall success. (Baker, Murphy and Fisher
1988)

Numerous other researchers have expressed similar conclusions. Cleland (1986) suggested that
project success should be based on whether the project meets its technical performance objective
and whether it contributes to the strategic mission of the organisation. Additionally, Pinto and
Slevin (1988a) stated that project success is much more complex than simply meeting the triple
 Successful project managers 245

constraints of time, cost and performance; they felt that client satisfaction played a large role in
determining the perceived success or failure of a project. Nicholas (1989) opined that the ‘best
overall criterion for project success is when the user, project manager, and system development
group all think their expectations were met or exceeded’ (p. 24).
During the 1980s and 1990s, researchers expanded on earlier work regarding Critical Success
Factors (CSFs) reported by Ruben and Seeling (1967), Sayles and Chandler (1971) and Martin
(1976). Kerzner (1987) characterised CSFs as the ‘things [that] must go right’ and defined them
as the ‘elements required to create an environment where projects are managed consistently
with excellence’ (p. 32). Belassi and Tukel (1996) summarised the CSF lists from seven studies
reported in the literature; Kuen, Zailani, and Fernando (2009) similarly reviewed the efforts of
nine additional studies. Because most of these lists were developed from anecdotal experience and
case studies, many researchers began examining the interactions of CSFs to develop integrated
frameworks (e.g. Morris and Hough 1987; Pinto and Slevin 1988a,b; Pinto and Prescott 1990;
Freeman and Beale 1992; Belassi and Tukel 1996). More recently, a number of related efforts
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 16:28 07 October 2013

have been reported regarding the development of a typological theory for project management
and project success (e.g. Shenhar and Dvir 1996; Shenhar, Levy, and Dvir 1997; Shenhar et al.
2002). For more information regarding the development of our understanding of project success,
the reader is referred to Jugdev and Mueller (2005), who describe this evolution by categorising
efforts into four periods.
In the 16 CSF lists cited above (Belassi and Tukel 1996; Kuen, Zailani, and Fernando 2009), the
impact of the project manager on project success was only marginally addressed (i.e. it was one
of several factors that was investigated). Two studies examined the project manager’s competency
(Sayles and Chandler 1971; Locke 1984). The influence of the task versus social orientation of the
project manager was examined by Baker, Murphy, and Fisher (1988). Finally, project management
leadership and characteristics of project managers were investigated by several researchers (e.g.
Kerzner 1987; Pinto and Slevin 1989). This absence of prominent discussion regarding the impact
of the project manager may have been what prompted Turner and Mueller (2005) to state that ‘the
literature on project success factors has largely ignored the impact of the project manager, and
his or her leadership style and competence, on project success’.

Project manager success

However, numerous researchers have clearly stated the importance of the project manager to the
success of a project. In early work, Thamhain and Wilemon (1977) concluded that the effec-
tiveness of project managers depends primarily on their leadership style and work environment.
Brown and Eisenhardt (1995) found that the project leader critically affects both process perfor-
mance and product effectiveness. Using structural equation modeling, Gemuenden and Lechler
(1997) found that the project leader did not have a significant direct influence on project success;
however, the indirect influence was significant and demonstrated the importance of including inter-
actions. In later work, Lechler concluded that project success depends primarily on human factors
(Hauschildt, Keim, and Medcof 2000). Furthermore, Shenhar (1998) has posited that project man-
agement differs with the type of project being managed and that management style, attitude and
practice must be adapted accordingly. Thamhain (2004) investigated technology-based projects
and also reported a link between project success and the project manager’s style. Scott-Young and
Samson (2007) found that ‘soft’ project management issues are significant predictors of project
outcomes. These ‘soft’ skills have long been recognised as being critical to project success (Muzio
et al. 2007). Crawford (2005) summarised the literature by stating that project managers have a
 246 A.E. Thal, Jr. and J.D. Bedingfield

major impact on project performance. Valencia (2007) provided an excellent summary of key
attributes critical to project managers.
The initial research regarding successful project managers focused on identifying critical skills
(also referred to as attributes and characteristics). For instance, Katz (1974) found that effective
administrators possess three skills: technical, human and conceptual. Fryer (1979) examined the
construction industry and identified five attributes of successful project managers; these included
managing change, recognising opportunities, handling problems, decision-making and social
skill. Posner (1987) empirically studied successful project managers and identified communica-
tion, organisational resources, team building, leadership, coping and technological as categories
of interconnected skills. Thamhain (1991) proposed that project management skills could be cat-
egorised into leadership, technical, and administrative. Pettersen (1991) reviewed over 60 journal
articles and proposed five categories of project manager skills: problem solving, administration,
supervision and team management, interpersonal relationships and personal qualities.
Research regarding the skills or attributes associated with successful project managers evolved
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 16:28 07 October 2013

into various competency frameworks. Boyatzis (1982) defined competency as ‘an underlying
characteristic of a person which results in effective and/or superior performance in a job’. Com-
petencies can typically be considered either attribute-based or performance-based (Crawford
1997). This division can also be considered the actual performance of a required skill and the
personal attributes which underlie the performance (Birkhead, Sutherland, and Maxwell 2000).
Spencer and Spencer (1993) subsequently defined five competency characteristics as knowl-
edge, skill, motives, traits and self-concept. Crawford (2005) developed an integrated model in
which attribute-based competencies were knowledge, skills and core personality characteristics;
the performance-based attributes were demonstrated performance measured against standards or
expectations.

Personality and job performance

Crawford (2000) reviewed eight studies and ranked project management competencies; she found
that personal attributes were consistently ranked high. In later work, she found no direct relation-
ship between a project manager’s performance and how well he/she performed against standards
for knowledge and use of practices (Crawford 2005). This complements numerous research cited
in the literature that personality traits tend to correlate well with job performance (e.g. Barrick and
Mount 1991; Tett et al. 1991). This link between personality and job performance has only devel-
oped since the 1980s. Barrick, Mount, and Judge (2001) reviewed twentieth century literature
and found two distinct phases. Prior to the mid-1980s, they found that research tended to report
no relationship between personality and job performance (e.g. Guion and Gottier 1965; Schmitt
et al. 1984). However, this work was limited by inadequate analytical tools and the lack of a clear
taxonomy regarding personality (Reilly, Lynn, and Aronson 2002). By the 1990s though, the use
of meta-analysis and the development of a valid taxonomy caused opinions to change (Rothstein
and Goffin 2006).
Beginning with the work of Fiske (1949), numerous researchers contributed to the development
of a framework consisting of five personality factors (Tupes and Christal 1992[1961]; Norman
1963; Goldberg 1981). Known as the five-factor model (FFM), or the ‘big five’, the factors
are usually described as Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability
and Openness. Emergence of the five-factor model illustrated that ‘personality consists of five
relatively independent dimensions which provide a meaningful taxonomy for studying individual
differences’ (Barrick and Mount 1991, 5). Subsequent meta-analytic research confirmed the use
 Successful project managers 247

of the FFM to predict performance in the workplace (Barrick and Mount 1991; Tett Jackson and
Rothstein 1991). In a follow-on review of 16 additional meta-analyses, Rothstein and Goffin (2006)
reported similar conclusions. Many researchers now consider the FFM to be a sufficient taxonomy
of personality constructs (Smith, Hanges, and Dickson 2001) that improves understanding of the
relationship between personality constructs and organisational goals (Robie, Brown, and Bly
2005). The results of many prior meta-analyses suggest that Conscientiousness and Emotional
Stability are positively related to overall performance in most jobs (Barrick, Mount, and Judge
2001). Extraversion was also found to be a valid predictor but only for occupations typically
requiring interactions with others (e.g. managers and sales); finally, Openness and Agreeableness
displayed weak relationships with overall job performance (Barrick, Mount, and Judge 2001).

Methodology
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 16:28 07 October 2013

General approach
In a study of general managers, Boyatzis (1982) suggested three types of performance measures:
supervisory, peer and work-output. The supervisory and peer assessments are clearly more sub-
jective measures. However, Nathan and Alexander (1988) concluded that objective measures of
performance are not more predictive of job performance than subjective measures. Therefore, it
is no surprise that many research efforts rely on subjective measures of performance. Thamhain
and Wilemon (1977) asked supervisors to rate project managers relative to their peers on overall
project performance. Similarly, Hauschildt, Keim, and Medcof (2000) asked managers to rate
other project managers. Cheng, Dainty, and Moore (2005) asked a group of Human Resource
Management specialists, construction managers, project managers and site managers to identify
project managers who they considered either superior or average performers. The use of subjective
ratings can be very extensive as demonstrated by Muzio et al. (2007), who included 360-degree
feedback from customers, peers and management. The last two research efforts compared groups
of project managers to determine if there were any differences in the independent variables; Cheng
et al. (2005) compared superior and average performers with each other, while Muzio et al. (2007)
used the 360-degree feedback to rank-order project managers and create top-half and bottom-half
performers.
In a similar manner, we used peer perceptions and asked survey respondents to reflect on the
most successful and least successful project managers they have known. We then asked them to
complete a survey to gather personality trait information on themselves, as well as for the most
and least successful project manager they individually identified. We then examined if there were
any differences in the perceptions of personality traits between the most and least successful
project managers. In other words, we considered the criterion variable to be a dichotomous one
representing perceived project manager success, while the predictor variables were the personality
traits as determined by peer assessments.

Personality five-factor model instrument

Goldberg’s 50-item adjective checklist served as the survey instrument to collect data; it is in
the public domain and is part of the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP 2007). The sur-
vey actually consisted of three versions of the five-factor personality measure. Respondents
were initially asked to complete the survey and assess their own personality by evaluating
how accurately each statement in the survey described them; each item in the measure uses a
 248 A.E. Thal, Jr. and J.D. Bedingfield

five-point Likert scale ranging from very inaccurate to very accurate. Respondents were then
asked to recall the most successful project manager they have ever known and provide an
assessment of their personality. Finally, respondents were also asked to recall the least suc-
cessful project manager they have ever known and provide an assessment of their personality
as well. The same measure was used for all three personality assessments; however, for the
most and least successful project managers, the wording was adjusted to reflect a third person
assessment.

Subjects
Individuals who completed the survey were members of the United States Department of Defense
(DoD) acquisition community serving as either programme or project managers. These individuals
participate in the acquisition (i.e. procurement) of new products and systems for the military; they
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 16:28 07 October 2013

typically manage complex projects in research or development. Using project managers from the
military environment is not unusual; in fact, Kloppenborg and Opfer (2002) surveyed the project
management literature from 1969 to 1999 and found that 14% of the reported studies focused on
the military environment.
The Defense Acquisition University (DAU) is chartered with providing professional contin-
uing education for DoD acquisition personnel. Two of their courses are specifically targeted at
experienced project managers. The first course is designed for mid-career personnel, while the
other is intended for more senior project managers. Therefore, students attending these classes
were considered as the sample for our study. Because of the classroom environment, differences
in rank and service branch, and the fact that the respondents were from different locations, we
considered the possibility that any two respondents would assess the same project manager to be
extremely remote.

Survey administration and demographics

The surveys were self-administered, paper-based and distributed via group administration (Dane
1990). Of the 116 surveys distributed, 34 usable surveys were returned for a response rate of 29%.
The sample was 71% male and 20% female (three respondents did not provide their gender). All
four military services were represented in the sample; additionally, 56% of the respondents were
uniformed military personnel. Each respondent had at least 13 years of experience in the DoD;
over 75% of the respondents had at least 4 years of project management experience and 23% had
over 10 years of experience.

Method bias
The overall research approach was constructed to alleviate both same-source bias and leniency
bias. Same-source bias is a risk anytime the respondent provides data on both the criterion and the
predictor variable (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Leniency bias stems ‘from the very obvious fact that
raters tend to rate those whom they know well, or in whom they are ego-involved, higher than they
should’ (Guilford 1954, 278). The research was subject to leniency bias because the respondent
personally knows the project managers and may tend to view them in a more favourable light
(Podsakoff et al. 2003). Because the respondent reported on both the most and least successful
project managers, the effects of either bias should be mitigated.
 Successful project managers 249

Results
We initially evaluated the survey results to assess the reliability of the survey instrument and
provide basic descriptive statistics. As shown in Table 1, the Cronbach’s α values were 0.94 or
greater for all three iterations of the five-factor measure. Therefore, the reliability of the instrument
was better than expected and clearly met acceptable standards for instrument reliability. The
descriptive statistics for each of the five-factor dimensions are shown in Table 2. These statistics
demonstrate that the range of the data provided for each domain was acceptable and typically spans
the entire spectrum from close to 1.0 (lowest score possible) to close to 5.0 (highest score possible).
A sample with data that did not include the entire range might indicate a limitation of the research.
After this initial data evaluation, we analysed the data in three ways. To examine any potential
bias, we used a correlation matrix to determine the relationship between the respondent’s own
personality assessment and that of the most and least successful project managers. To minimise
the effect of any potential bias, we first created sub-samples of the data and used Student’s t-test
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 16:28 07 October 2013

to determine if there were any statistically significant differences in the means of the personality
traits between the most and least successful project managers. Finally, we used a hierarchical

Table 1. Cronbach’s α values.

Measured α
Personality trait Reported α Respondent Most successful Least successful

Extraversion 0.87 0.94 0.94 0.95

Agreeableness 0.82 0.94 0.95 0.95
Conscientiousness 0.79 0.95 0.95 0.96
Emotional stability 0.86 0.95 0.96 0.95
Openness 0.84 0.96 0.96 0.96
Mean 0.84 0.95 0.95 0.95

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for personality dimensions.

Lower Upper
Personality dimension Mean bound bound Median SD∗ Min Max

Extraversion
Most successful 3.81 3.52 4.09 3.95 0.82 1.3 5.0
Least successful 3.27 2.94 3.60 3.10 0.95 1.6 4.9
Agreeableness
Most successful 3.37 3.04 3.69 3.60 0.93 1.2 4.6
Least successful 2.71 2.39 3.03 2.55 0.92 1.0 4.9
Conscientiousness
Most successful 4.01 3.73 4.29 4.15 0.80 1.0 5.0
Least successful 2.82 2.60 3.04 2.85 0.63 1.2 4.2
Emotional stability
Most successful 3.47 3.17 3.78 3.55 0.87 1.4 4.7
Least successful 2.55 2.27 2.84 2.40 0.67 1.0 4.3
Openness
Most successful 3.90 3.69 4.12 4.05 0.62 2.2 4.7
Least successful 2.69 2.46 2.93 2.70 0.67 1.3 4.6
∗ SD = standard deviation.
 250 A.E. Thal, Jr. and J.D. Bedingfield

model to further examine the relationship between the predictor and criterion variables. Each of
these areas is discussed in the remainder of this section.

Correlation matrix
We used a correlation matrix to examine if any bias existed in the data that might influence the
results. If same-source bias were present, we expected too see a strong positive correlation between
the respondent’s personality evaluation and the most successful project manager’s assessment;
similarly, we also expected to see a strong negative correlation between the respondent’s person-
ality evaluation and the least successful project manager’s assessment. The resulting correlation
matrix is shown in Table 3.
As shown in Table 3, there are no statistically significant correlations between the respondent
and the least successful project manager personality assessments. However, there is a strong
positive correlation between some of the respondent’s personality assessments and those of the
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 16:28 07 October 2013

most successful project managers. Recall from the demographics discussion that over 75% of
the respondents had more than four years experience as a project manager. Although experience
does not guarantee success, all of the factors taken together might indicate the sample includes
many successful project managers. Therefore, one would expect some correlation between the
respondents and the most successful project managers. Overall though, we concluded that the
results of the correlation matrix did not support the concept that the difference of the means is due
solely to same-source bias. However, to further understand and quantify the relationship between
five-factor personality dimensions and project manager success, we created sub-samples to test
for a significant difference in means; additionally, we also analysed the data using hierarchical
modelling.

Difference of the means test

To examine the difference of the means between the most and least successful groups, we con-
ducted Student’s t-test. To begin the analysis, the assumptions underlying an appropriate use of
the test were examined and satisfied. These assumptions include random selection, approximately

Table 3. Correlation matrix.

Most successful project manager

Respondent E A C O ES

Extraversion (E) −0.171 0.123 0.124 −0.092 −0.049

Agreeableness (A) 0.062 0.343∗ 0.438∗∗ 0.322 0.070
Conscientiousness (C) 0.101 0.405∗ 0.515∗∗∗ 0.359∗ 0.140
Openness (O) −0.040 0.412 ∗ 0.200 0.354∗ 0.183
Emotional stability (ES) 0.109 0.348∗ 0.346∗ 0.355∗ 0.327∗
Least successful project manager
Extraversion (E) 0.025 −0.062 −0.225 0.086 −0.071
Agreeableness (A) 0.238 −0.074 0.054 0.130 0.050
Conscientiousness (C) −0.049 0.107 −0.184 0.079 0.170
Openness (O) 0.115 −0.129 −0.010 0.070 −0.098
Emotional stability (ES) 0.158 −0.082 −0.110 0.060 −0.076
∗p < 0.05, ∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.
 Successful project managers 251

normal distribution of the data, equality of variance and independence. By surveying members
enrolled in advanced project manager courses, the sample was not entirely random; however, as
discussed previously, the course members were considered representative of the larger population
of project managers.
Data normality was explored both visually and quantitatively. The visual tests included a his-
togram, stem and leaf plot, and a Q–Q plot for each personality trait. From a qualitative perspective,
each of the personality dimensions (e.g. extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional
stability and openness) was found to have an approximately normal distribution. This was con-
firmed quantitatively through the results of the Shapiro–Wilk test. Equality of variances was
explored using Levene’s test, which posits that the variances are not equal (i.e. the null hypothesis
is that the variances are in fact equal). Since the significance levels ranged from 0.193 to 0.851
for the personality dimensions; the null hypothesis could not be rejected and the variances were
assumed to be equal.
For our research, each of the 34 respondents assessed the most and least successful project
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 16:28 07 October 2013

managers they have ever known with the five-factor personality measure. Each respondent thus
becomes their own group and the data can be characterised by 34 groups with two cases per group.
Since the same respondent provided personality assessments for their respective most and least
successful project managers though, the samples may not be considered completely independent
and paired t-tests would not be appropriate.
Therefore, to minimise the effect of case dependency, we ran simulations of the data using a
random number generator with values ranging from 0 to 1. For random numbers greater than or
equal to 0.5, the respondent’s assessment of the most successful project manager was selected.
Likewise, if the random number was less than 0.5, the least successful project manager data was
used. These simulations ensured that the most and least successful project manager data came
from different respondents and were in fact independent. Since a good rule of thumb for many
statistical tests is a sample size of 30, we created 35 sets of simulated data; the number of most
successful project managers in the simulated sets ranged from 10 to 18 (and the number of least
successful project managers ranged from 16 to 24).
After minimising dependency issues, we considered the independent t-test to be appropriate for
the data. The results of the t-tests for the first five simulated sets are shown for illustrative purposes
in Table 4. For all 35 simulated sets, there was a clear statistical difference in Conscientiousness
and Openness between the most and least successful project managers. The difference in Emo-
tional Stability was statistically significant in 33 of the 35 simulated sets. Finally, Agreeableness
was significantly different in 20 sets with an average p-value of 0.144 and Extraversion was sig-
nificantly different in 12 sets with an average p-value of 0.158. Therefore, Conscientiousness and
Openness appear to be good predictors of project manager success in the military environment.
Emotional Stability may also be a good predictor, despite the two simulated sets with contrary
results, while the Extraversion and Agreeableness personality dimensions do not appear to be
good predictors.

Hierarchical non-linear model

The data dependency might be better described by using hierarchical modelling, which provides
additional insight into group-level effects and is the most appropriate model for use with grouped
data (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992). In this case, each respondent becomes their own group with
two sub-groups (most successful and least successful project manager). This hierarchical con-
struct facilitates an analysis utilising a Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM). However, since the
 252 A.E. Thal, Jr. and J.D. Bedingfield

Table 4. Student’s t-test results.

Significance
Sub-sample t (2-tailed)

Extraversion 1 −1.323 0.195

2 −1.053 0.300
3 −1.715 0.096
4 −1.043 0.305
5 −1.380 0.177
Agreeableness 1 −0.150 0.882
2 −1.786 0.084
3 −1.182 0.246
4 −2.764 0.009
5 −2.592 0.014
Conscientiousness 1 −3.719 0.001
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 16:28 07 October 2013

2 −5.780 0.000
3 −3.748 0.001
4 −4.426 0.000
5 −5.335 0.000
Openness 1 −3.438 0.002
2 −5.058 0.000
3 −3.804 0.001
4 −5.040 0.000
5 −6.754 0.000
Emotional stability 1 −0.846 0.404
2 −3.360 0.002
3 −2.627 0.013
4 −3.797 0.001
5 −4.326 0.000

dependent variable was dichotomous for this research effort, we used a Hierarchical Generalised
Linear Model (HGLM) (Raudenbush et al. 2000). Furthermore, because the criterion variable can
only assume two values (0 for least successful and 1 for most successful), we used a Bernoulli
model. During the hierarchical modelling effort, only Conscientiousness and Openness allowed
the model to converge with an appropriate level of statistical significance. Therefore, the remaining
personality dimensions were subsequently removed from the analysis.
With a HGLM, a model is created for each level of the hierarchy. In this case, the Level 1 model
describes the individual effects and is described by the following equations:
 
ϕ
η = Log (1)
1−ϕ
η = β0 + β1 (C) + β2 (O) (2)

where ϕ is the predicted probability of a most successful project manager, η is the log odds (or logit)
of a most successful project manager, β0 is the y-intercept or the value of the outcome when the
predict variables are zero, β1 is the coefficient for the individual level effect of Conscientiousness
and β2 is the coefficient for the individual level effect of Openness. After converting the probability
of a most successful project manager into a log odds form, the specific predictor variables are
added into the model in equation (2).
 Successful project managers 253

Similarly, Level 2 models were created to describe the group effects for each of the coefficients
in the Level 1 model. The three Level 2 equations are thus represented as:

β0 = γ00 (3)
β1 = γ10 + γ11 (I C) + u1 (4)
β2 = γ20 + γ21 (I O) + u2 (5)

where β0 is the group-level effect on the y-intercept, β1 is the group-level effect on Conscien-
tiousness, and β2 is the group-level effect on Openness.
In equation (3), β0 is allowed to vary by only the fixed effect (γ00 ) since the y-intercept has
no meaning (i.e. there are no zero scores on the personality assessment). The other Level 2
equations are allowed to vary by both fixed effects (denoted by the γ terms) and random effects
(denoted by the u terms). Equation 4 describes the group effects on the Level 1 predictor for
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 16:28 07 October 2013

Conscientiousness. The term γ10 represents the average y-intercept across all groups. The term
γ11 represents the coefficient of the group effect of the respondent’s Conscientiousness score (IC)
on the Level 1 Conscientiousness score. The random effect is included as the term u1. Similarly,
equation (5) describes the group level effects on Openness, where γ20 is the average y-intercept,
γ21 is the group effect of the respondent’s Openness score (OC), and u2 is the random effect.
In equations (4) and (5), the respondent’s Conscientiousness and Openness scores, along with
random effects, are used to predict the group-level effects. Similar to the development of equation
(2), all of the five-factor personality dimensions were initially included in the Level 2 equations;
however, only Conscientiousness and Openness were valid predictors. Consequently, substituting
each of the Level 2 equations into equation (2) gives us equation (6). After model convergence, a
subset of the HGLM output is shown in Table 5. Using the coefficients from Table 5 in equation
(6), and substituting first into equation (2) and then into equation (1), provides us the more familiar
looking logistic regression equation shown as equation (7).

η = γ00 + γ10 (C) + γ11 (I C)(C) + γ20 (O) + γ21 (I O)(O) + u1(C) + u2(O) (6)
1
P (Success) = (7)
1 + e−[−15.95+2.49(C)−0.23(I C)(C)+6.01(O)−0.73(I O)(O)]
Although equation (7) is slightly less intuitive than a regular linear regression, it describes
the positive predictive influence of both Conscientiousness and Openness on the probability

Table 5. HGLM results.

Fixed effect Coefficient Standard error T -ratio Approx df p-value

00 −15.952664 4.758413 −3.353 63 0.002

10 −2.487966 1.086917 2.289 32 0.029
11 −0.230416 0.1 −2.202 32 0.035
20 6.012708 2.154241 2.791 32 0.009
21 −0.731378 0.283777 −2.577 32 0.015
Random effect SD Variance component df χ2 p-value

u1 1.81273 3.28598 30 36.11686 0.204

u2 1.91228 3.65683 30 41.60876 0.077
 254 A.E. Thal, Jr. and J.D. Bedingfield

of a most successful project manager. In other words, the results of the analysis indicate that
Conscientiousness and Openness positively predict whether a project manager will be successful,
after controlling for group-level effects. Therefore, the hierarchical model confirms that both
Conscientiousness and Openness are factors in predicting project manager success.

Discussion
The purpose of our exploratory study was to investigate the influence of project manager person-
ality traits on project manager success. We approached the study by focusing on peer assessments
– who the respondents perceived as being more successful project managers and how the respon-
dents perceived the project manager’s personality. In the literature, an individual’s personality
traits have been determined through self-assessment using a personality instrument. In our study
though, we relied on perceptions of an individual’s personality as determined by peers. We con-
sider this to be the primary contribution of our study. Although our findings were consistent with
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 16:28 07 October 2013

the literature, some discussion of the nuances related to the project management environment is
warranted.
In both the Student’s t-test and hierarchical modelling, we found that two personality traits,
Conscientiousness and Openness, correlated strongly with perceptions of performance. The find-
ing regarding Conscientiousness is no surprise as research has clearly established a positive
correlation with job performance (e.g. Mount and Barrick 1998; Salgado 2003). Individuals who
are considered conscientious are typically characterised as dependable, organised, goal oriented
and having a strong sense of purpose and obligation (Barrick and Mount 1991; Barrick, Mount,
and Judge 2003). In a project environment, these same characteristics would prove to be very
useful.
Our findings regarding Openness contradict the literature though. In a review of various meta-
analyses, Barrick, Mount, and Judge (2001) found that Openness generally has a weak relationship
with job performance. Characteristics typically associated with Openness include being imagi-
native, broad-minded and intelligent. Based on the literature, it would appear as though these
characteristics do not have much of an impact on job performance; this context may be most
applicable to the administrative and operational portions of most organisations. However, a project
environment is different and these same characteristics may be critical. Many project management
professionals are fond of saying that the field is more art than science. If that is true, being open to
new ideas would be extremely important. When problems typically arise on a project, solutions
may require creative approaches, innovative thinking and a willingness to try something new.
Consistent with the literature, we also found that Emotional Stability may be a good predictor of
project success. Some of the characteristics associated with this trait include optimism, confidence,
clear thinking and being stable. When discussing this personality trait, the literature primarily
references its influence in situations involving teamwork. Except for very small and individual
project efforts, the project environment is typically dominated by multidisciplinary members
working together as a team. Therefore, it is important for the project manager to show strong
leadership skills, and being able to motivate and work with people is a hallmark of good leadership.
However, this finding was evident only with the Student’s t-test and not during the hierarchical
modelling.
The Extraversion and Agreeableness personality dimensions do not appear to predict project
manager success. Although some research has reported that Extraversion is positively correlated
with job performance in occupations requiring a significant amount of interactions with others
(Barrick and Mount 1991), we did not find that to be the case in our study. However, Witt
 Successful project managers 255

et al. (2002) found that Extraversion was positively correlated with performance among highly
conscientious workers and negatively correlated with less conscientious workers; this diverging
influence may be the result of interactions between Extraversion and Conscientiousness. Finally,
Agreeableness has been consistently reported as having little influence on performance. Our results
were very similar.

Conclusions
Some aspects of personality do indeed seem to predict PM success. Using difference of the means
tests and hierarchical modelling, we found that Conscientious and Openness seem to consistently
predict the success of a project manager. While Emotional Stability was not found to be significant
in the hierarchical model, it was considered significant in the difference of the means test. As a
result, the relationship between personality and PM success was more clearly described.
Since this effort was intended only as an exploratory analysis, much work regarding personality
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 16:28 07 October 2013

and project manager success remains. Implications could be far reaching. For instance, the concept
could be helpful in both employee self-selection and employer selection. With respect to employee
self-selection, the findings could be useful to new employees thinking of entering the DoD as a
project manager or current personnel who are currently in another specialty and thinking of cross-
training into project management. In either case, this research could help the individual determine
whether project management is a good fit. Furthermore, results of this study could be useful to
currently practicing project managers who often counsel others considering whether or not to
enter the project management profession. In situations where the employer makes the decision,
it would be difficult to justify making a personnel selection based on personality alone. Given
two otherwise equal candidates applying for a particular position, perhaps an employer could
select the candidate with higher Conscientiousness and Openness scores. Furthermore, perhaps
the personnel selection systems in each DoD service could use these findings, in conjunction
with their current selection processes, to determine which individuals should be assigned to the
project management career fields. However, many other factors should be considered when trying
to determine whether an individual will be a successful project manager.
Another interesting possibility is the development and application of personality-based training.
The concept involves first capturing each individual’s personality assessment. This information
could then be used to identify the teaching styles and methods that best match the student’s per-
sonality. It could also help identify gaps between the student’s personality and the personalities
of the ideal project manager to create specific training to deal with those gaps. This ‘training’ rec-
ommendation might be easier to implement in the DoD environment because all project managers
are required to attend professional continuing education courses (or other organisations with very
structured training ‘pipelines’).
To further explore the topic, a number of recommendations come to mind. First, more research
to validate the approach used in this research would obviously be helpful. Additional steps might
include collecting additional data, including a larger sample size and project characteristics, and
incorporating non-DoD project managers. Another recommendation would be to investigate sub-
factors within the five-factor model. Since the instrument used to collect the data was limited to
measurement at the domain level, no inferences could be made at the sub-factor level. Therefore,
it might be useful to investigate which sub-factors contributed to the findings. In particular,
the Conscientiousness and Openness sub-factors should be explored. Another interesting effort
would be to investigate the sub-factors of Emotional Stability since that domain did exhibit
some statistically significant findings; perhaps further investigation would explain why Emotional
 256 A.E. Thal, Jr. and J.D. Bedingfield

Stability was not a factor in the hierarchical modelling effort. Examining the influence of project
type could help project managers which types of project might best fit their personality. Finally,
since this research was based on perceptions, the use of 360-degree feedback would be interesting
to explore and might provide a fuller explanation of personality influence and interaction in the
workplace.

Limitations
There are four primary limitations associated with our research. Because of it exploratory nature,
the first limitation is relatively small sample size which restricted more detailed analysis. Addi-
tionally, although we assumed that project managers in the Department of Defense (DoD) are
representative of project managers worldwide, the fact that our sample did not include non-DoD
could restrict the applicability of our conclusions. The third limitation is the research approach
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 16:28 07 October 2013

in general. Since project success and personality assessments were based on perceptions of the
respondents, a number of biases may be present (e.g. respondent bias, same-source bias, redundant
reporting and self-selection bias). The final research limitation is unproven causality. Causality
requires three items: temporal precedence, correlation and the exclusion of all other causes. It
is the last item, the exclusion of all other causes that proves the most difficult. Perhaps future
research can more fully address and overcome these limitations.

Disclaimer
The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United
States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

Notes on contributors
Alfred E. Thal, Jr. received his PhD in environmental engineering from the University of Oklahoma. He also holds an
MS in Engineering Management from the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) and a BS in Civil Engineering from
Texas Tech University. He is currently an Assistant Professor of Engineering Management at AFIT. His research interests
include innovation, product development, project management and engineering management.

John D. Bedingfield received his MS in R&D Management from the Air Force Institute of Technology. He also holds a
BS in Aerospace Engineering from Auburn University. He has 14 years of Department of Defense acquisition programme
management experience. He is currently assigned Headquarters, Defense Information Systems Agency, as a programme
manager.

References
Baker, N., D. Murphy, and D. Fisher. 1988. Factors affecting project success. In Handbook of Project Management, ed.
D.I. Clelan and W.R. King. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Barrick, M.R., and M.K. Mount. 1991. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology 44, no. 1–2: 1–26.
Barrick, M.R., M.K. Mount, and T.A. Judge. 2001. Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium:
What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment 9, nos. 1/2: 9–30.
Belassi, W., and O.I. Tukel. 1996.A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in projects. International
Journal of Project Management 14, no. 3: 141–51.
Birkhead, M., M. Sutherland, and T. Maxwell. 2000. Core competencies required of project managers. South African
Journal of Business Management 31, no. 3: 99–105.
Boyatzis, R.E. 1982. The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York: John Wiley.
 Successful project managers 257

Brown, S.L., and K.M. Eisenhardt. 1995. Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions.
Academy of Management Review 20, no. 2: 343–78.
Bryk, A.S., and S.W. Raudenbush. 1992. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Advanced
quantitative techniques in the social sciences, Vol. 1. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cheng, M.I., A.R.J. Dainty, and D.R. Moore. 2005. Towards a multidimensional competency-based managerial
performance framework. Journal of Managerial Psychology 29: 380–96.
Cleland, D.I. 1986. Measuring success: The owner’s viewpoint. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Seminar/Symposium
(Montreal, Canada), 6–12. Upper Darby, PA: Project Management Institute.
Costa, P.T., Jr., and R.R. McCrae. 1992. Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences 13:
653–65.
Crawford, L. 1997. A global approach to project management competence. In Proceedings of the 1997 AIPM National
Conference, 220–8, Brisbane.
Crawford, L. 2000. Project management competence for the new millenium. In Proceedings of the 15th World Congress
on Project Management, London, England, IPMA.
Crawford, L. 2005. Senior management perceptions of project management competence. International Journal of Project
Management 23: 7–16.
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 16:28 07 October 2013

Dane, F.C. 1990. Research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Dvir, D., A. Sadeh, and A. Malach-Pines. 2006. Projects and project managers: The relationship between project managers’
personality, project types, and project success. Project Management Journal 37, no. 5: 36–48.
Fiske, D.W. 1949. Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology 44: 329–44.
Freeman, M., and P. Beale. 1992. Measuring project success. Project Management Journal 23, no. 1: 8–17.
Fryer, B. 1979. Management development in the construction industry. Building Technology and Management 17, no. 5:
16–18.
Gehring, D.R. 2007. Applying traits theory of leadership to project management. Project Management Journal 38, no. 1:
44–54.
Gemuenden, H.G., and T. Lechler. 1997. Success factors of project management: The critical few – an empirical inves-
tigation. Proceedings of the 1997 Portland International Conference on Management and Technology, 27–31 July,
Portland, OR, 375–7.
Goldberg, L.R. 1981. Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In Review
of personality and social psychology, ed. L. Wheeler, vol. 2, 141–65. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Guilford, J.P. 1954. Psychometric methods, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guion, R.M., and R.F. Gottier. 1965. Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology 18:
135–64.
Hauschildt, J., G. Keim, and J.W. Medcof. 2000. Realistic criteria for project manager selection and development. Project
Management Journal 31, no. 3: 23–32.
Hough, L.M., and D.S. Ones. 2001. The structure, measurement, validity, and use of personality variables in indus-
trial, work, and organisational psychology. In Handbook of industrial, work, and organisational psychology, ed.
N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil, and C. Viswesvaran, vol. 1, 233–77. London: Sage.
IPIP. 2007. International personality item pool: A scientific collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of
personality traits and other individual differences. http://ipip.ori.org/ (retrieved 1 November 2007).
Jugdev, K., and R. Mueller. 2005. A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success. Project
Management Journal 36, no. 4: 19–31.
Katz, R.L. 1974. Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review 52, no. 5: 90–102.
Kerzner, H. 1987. In search of excellence in project management. Journal of Systems Management 38, no. 2: 30–40.
Kloppenborg, T.J., and W.A. Opfer. 2002. The current state of project management research: Trends, interpretations, and
predictions. Project Management Journal 33, no. 2: 5–18.
Kuen, C.W., S. Zailani, and Y. Fernando. 2009. Critical factors influencing the project success amongst manufacturing
companies in Malaysia. African Journal of Business Management 3, no. 1: 16–27.
Locke, D. 1984. Project management. New York: St Martins Press.
Martin, C.C. 1976. Project management. New York: Amaco.
Morris, P.W., and G.H. Hough. 1987. The anatomy of major projects: A study of the reality of project management. New
York: John Wiley.
Mount, M.K., and M.R. Barrick. 1998. Five reasons why the ‘Big Five’ article has been frequently cited. Personnel
Psychology 51: 849–57.
 258 A.E. Thal, Jr. and J.D. Bedingfield

Munns, A.K., and B.F. Bjeirmi. 1996. The role of project management in achieving project success. International Journal
of Project Management 14, no. 2: 81–87.
Murphy, D.C., B.N. Baker, and D. Fisher. 1974. Determinants of project success. NASA CR-139407, N74-30392, Boston
College School of Management, Chestnut Hill, MA.
Muzio, E., D.J. Fisher, E.R. Thomas, andV. Peters. 2007. Soft skills quantification (SSQ) for project manager competencies.
Project Manager Journal 38, no. 2: 30–38.
Nathan, B.R., and R.A. Alexander. 1988. A comparison of criteria for test validation: A meta-analytic investigation.
Personnel Psychology 41, no. 3: 517–35.
Nicholas, J.M. 1989. Successful project management: A force-field analysis. Journal of Systems Management 40, no. 1:
24–30.
Norman, W.T. 1963. Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination
personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 66, no. 6: 574–83.
Pettersen, N. 1991. Selecting project managers: An integrated list of predictors. Project Management Journal 22, no. 2:
21–25.
Pines, A.M., D. Dvir, and A. Sadeh. 2007. Project manager-project (Pm-P) fit and project success. Proceedings of the
2007 Portland International Conference on Management and Technology, 5–9 August 2007, Portland, OR.
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 16:28 07 October 2013

Pinto, J.K., and D.P. Slevin. 1988a. Project success: Definitions and measurement techniques. Project Management Journal
19, no. 1: 67–72.
Pinto, J.K., and D.P. Slevin. 1988b. Critical success factors across the project life cycle. Project Management Journal 19,
no. 3: 67–75.
Pinto, J.K., and D.P. Slevin. 1989. Critical success factors in R&D projects. Research Technology Management 32, no. 1:
31–36.
Pinto, J.K., and J.E. Prescott. 1990. Planning and tactical factors in project implementation success. The Journal of
Management Studies 27, no. 3: 305–28.
Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, J.Y. Lee, and N.P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behaviour research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88, no. 5: 879–903.
Posner, B.Z. 1987. What it takes to be a good project manager. Project Management Journal 18, no. 1: 51–4.
Raudenbush, S.W., A.S. Bryk, Y.F. Cheong, and R.T. Congdon, Jr. 2000. HLM 5: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear
modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Reilly, R.R., G.S. Lynn, and Z.H. Aronson. 2002. The role of personality in new product development team performance.
Journal of Engineering Technology and Management 19: 39–58.
Robie, C., D.J. Brown, and P.R. Bly. 2005. The Big Five in the USA and Japan. The Journal of Management Development
24, nos. 7/8: 720–37.
Rothstein, M.G., and R.D. Goffin. 2006. The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current
research support? Human Resource Management Review 16: 155–80.
Ruben, I.M., and W. Seeling. 1967. Experience as a factor in the selection and performance of project managers. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management 14, no. 3: 131–4.
Salgado, J.F. 1997. The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of
Applied Psychology 82, no. 1: 30–43.
Salgado, J.F. 2003. Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures. Journal of Occupational
and Organisational Psychology 76, no. 3: 323–46.
Sayles, L.R., and M.K. Chandler. 1971. Managing large systems. New York: Harper and Row.
Schmitt, N., R.Z. Gooding, R.A. Noe, and M. Kirsch. 1984. Meta-analysis of validity studies published between 1964
and 1942 and the investigation of study characteristics. Personnel Psychology 37: 407–22.
Scott-Young, C., and D. Samson. 2007. Project success and project management: Evidence from capital projects in the
process industries. Journal of Operations Management 26: 749–66.
Shenhar, A.J. 1998. From theory to practice: toward a typology of project management styles. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management 41, no. 1: 33–48.
Shenhar, A.J., and D. Dvir. 1996. Toward a typological theory of project management. Research Policy 25: 607–32.
Shenhar, A.J., O. Levy, and D. Dvir. 1997. Mapping the dimensions of project success. Project Management Journal 28,
no. 2: 5–13.
Shenhar, A.J., A. Tishler, D. Dvir, S. Lipovetsky and T. Lechler. 2002. Refining the search for project success factors: A
multivariate, typological approach. R&D Management 32, no. 2: 111–26.
Smith, D.B., P.J. Hanges, and M.W. Dickson. 2001. Personnel selection and the five-factor model: Re-examining the
effects of applicant’s frame of reference. Journal of Applied Psychology 86, no. 2: 304–15.
Spencer, L., and S. Spencer. 1993. Competence at work: Model for superior performance. New York: Wiley.
 Successful project managers 259

Tett, R.P., D.N. Jackson, and M. Rothstein. 1991. Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic
review. Personnel Psychology 44, no. 4: 703–42.
Thamhain, H.J. 1991. Developing project management skills. Project Management Journal 22, no. 3: 39–44.
Thamhain, H. 2004. Linkages of project environment to performance: Lessons for team leadership. International Journal
of Project Management 22, no. 7: 533–44.
Thamhain, H., and D. Wilemon. 1977. Leadership effectiveness in project management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management 24, no. 3: 102–8.
Tupes, E.C., and R.E. Christal. 1992. Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality 60, no.
2: 225–51 (originally published 1961).
Turner, J.R., and R. Mueller. 2005. The project manager’s leadership style as a success factor on projects: A literature
review. Project Management Journal 36, no. 1: 49–61.
Valencia, V.V. 2007. A project manager’s personal attributes as predictors for success. Thesis, AFIT/GEM/ENV/07M-16,
Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
Witt, L.A., L.A. Burke, M.R. Barrick, and M.K. Mount. 2002. The interactive effects of conscientiousness and
agreeableness on job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 87, no. 1: 164–9.
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 16:28 07 October 2013