Asia Pacific Management Review 25 (2020) 38e47

H O S T E D BY Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Asia Pacific Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apmrv

Impact of leadership behavior of a project manager on his/her subordinate's job-

attitudes and job-outcomes
Saif UR Rehman a, *, Mohsin Shahzad b, **, Muhammad Shoaib Farooq c, Muhammad Umair Javaid a
a
Department of Management Sciences, Lahore Garrison University, Pakistan
b
School of Economics and Management, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, PR China
c
Institute of Business and Management, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Purpose: Aim of this research is to investigate people issues in project management that fail projects in
Received 17 December 2016 obtaining desired results, in doing so the author investigated the impact of different leadership behaviors
Received in revised form of project managers on driving job attitudes and job outcomes of project employees.
14 June 2019
Design/methodology approach: Data was obtained from 757 project workers working in 67 groups in 15
Accepted 19 June 2019
Available online 3 February 2020
different projects in Asia mostly from China and Middle East. Data on the respondents' leadership be-
haviors, and how these affect the subordinate's job attitudes, was collected using Northouse's Leadership
Style Assessment, Williams and Anderson's employee's job performance along with Michael Jalbert's Job
Keywords:
Leadership behavior
Retention scale. Subordinate's job satisfaction, measured with the scale developed by Agho, Price and
Job performance Mueller, Job involvement measured using Richardson, H. A., & Vandenberg's job involvement scale and
Job involvement Porter's job commitment scale was used for measuring subordinate's job commitment.
Job retention Findings: The findings lend support to the view that leadership behavior is an antecedent of a project
Job satisfaction employee's job attitudes like job satisfaction, job involvement and job commitment and job outcomes
Project management like job retention and job performance.
Originality/value: The study although conducted in Asian perspective, however the findings have rele-
vance with broader scope of the project management. The outcomes of this research will be helpful for
project managers in maximizing workforce potential by adopting right behavior.
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of College of Management, National Cheng
Kung University.

1. Introduction “soft stuff” related to people management is the most difficult to

Modern day projects are keenly planned, vigorously executed
and closely monitored using the latest management methods and
advanced technological tools; still around 60% of all these projects
fall short of meeting their expectations (Taherdoost &
Keshavarzsaleh, 2016). Among various reasons of this high failure
rate, the biggest one is not shortage but lack of proper management
of the resources as stated by a recent survey published by IBM
(Hennessy, 2008) where project managers were of the view that
* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dr.saif@lgu.edu.pk (S.U. Rehman), mohsin@mail.dlut.edu.cn
(M. Shahzad), sshoaibfarooq2@yahoo.com (M.S. Farooq), umairjav@yahoo.com
(M.U. Javaid).
Peer review under responsibility of College of Management, National Cheng
Kung University.
get right (Gupta et al., 2019). (see Fig. 1)
Today's project managers who usually requested for more
manpower, more financial support and more time to finish
assigned tasks, have been found complaining that the people issues
have been far more difficult to handle than shortage of physical
resources (Kotter, 1995; Phillips, Brantley, & Phillips, 2011). Maxi-
mizing the output from available resources is perhaps the best
strategy in project settings as regarded by Yukl (2010), “the success
of leadership lies in mobilizing the workforce for attaining goals.
Project staff, according to Nordqvist, Hovmark, and Zika-Viktorsson
(2004), being open to the elements like time constraints of highest
degree, showed decreased job satisfaction and contribution for the
project objectives. In project-based activities, employee dissatis-
faction leading to their higher turnover and lower performance can
cause more damage to productivity than in any other form of
business; loss of a single key project member can significantly
impact the success and shatter team's confidence and performance

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2019.06.004
1029-3132/© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of College of Management, National Cheng Kung University.
 S.U. Rehman et al. / Asia Pacific Management Review 25 (2020) 38e47
Fig. 1. Impact of leadership style of project manager on job attitudes and job outcomes of his/her subordinates.
(Shamsuzzoha & Shumon, 2007).
It is obvious from the prior research that a project manager's
role is far more critical for success of a project than any other
stakeholder (Green, 2005). Though, the literature related to the
factors leading to project success is greatly ignorant from this fact
(Turner & Muller, 2005). Researchers have proposed that project
management mainly comprises of two dimensions, the technical
and the human (Cooke-Davies & Arzymanow, 2003). The technical
dimension covers the activities that are crucial for processes of
project, whereas the human dimension covers the people with
necessary skills and expertise to carry out these processes (Brewer
& Strahorn, 2012). Based on these finding this research is an effort
to measure a project manager's ability to manage these dimensions
using task and relations oriented leadership behaviors and further
gauge its impact on an employee's job attitudes and job outcomes
under influence of their personal variables like age, gender, edu-
cation and experience. Leadership role of a project manager will be
further segregated into high and low levels of task and relations to
get a clear idea of which specific style can prove more productive.
Researchers have already explored different aspects of sub-
ordinate's job attitudes like satisfaction, commitment and
involvement along with resulting job outcomes like retention and
performance (Jenkins, 1993; Jia, Song, Li, Cui, & Chen, 2007). Yet, no
study, till to date, has attempted to investigate the impact of various
leadership behaviors of project manager on these in project set-
tings. Only a few researchers have ever focused on the soft issues
like leadership in project settings (Clarke, 2012) and even fewer of
them, are relevant or specific to engineering and construction
projects in Asian countries. This study is meant to fill this gap and
further intends to contribute to the existing knowledge base by
investigating the effect of task and relationship oriented leadership
behaviors of a project manager and look at its impact on his/her
subordinate's job attitudes like satisfaction, commitment and
involvement and job outcomes like retention and performance.
Previous studies in this regard e.g. Howell and Frost (1989) and
Tsai, Chen, and Cheng (2009) found leadership behavior to be
moderately related to employee performance. We expected that
39
both task and relations oriented behaviors of project manager will
be useful in explaining job attitudes and job outcomes of the em-
ployees as the evidence of such relations with respect to project
settings is scarce. We further propose that employee's performance
may fluctuate with respect to the manager's high and low behaviors
of task and relations. Our research will attempt to explore these
relations and elaborate on their implications in the project
management.
2. Literature review
2.1. Leadership behaviors of a project manager
This research is based on the arguments of behavioral and
contingency schools of leadership which stated that there are
certain behaviors displayed by successful leaders, and that these
behaviors are skills which people can learn with practice and not a
trait or a talent held by birth. Among the representatives of this
theory are (Blake & Mouton, 1964) and (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988)
founded the behavioral school of leadership trait. Prominent
scholars from the behavioral school were of the view that these
behaviors can be appropriately practiced in different circum-
stances; the contingency school further explored and explained
this argument in detail (Rad & Yarmohammadian, 2006).
Scholars have observed two dominant sets of behaviors of
leaders in small groups and have used different labels for these
behaviors. For the task-oriented leadership behavior, Ohio state
studies for leadership pronounced it as “Production-Oriented
Behavior”, Bowers and Seashore (1966) named it “Achievement
Oriented”. For Relations oriented Leadership Behavior, Ohio State
studies used “Consideration Behavior”, “Employee-Oriented” and
“People-Oriented” was used by Fleishman (1967) and Blake and
Mouton (1964) whereas “Interaction-Oriented” by Bowers and
Seashore (1966).
Major functions of task-oriented behavior are planning, sched-
uling coordinating activities and providing technical assistance,
whereas in relations oriented leadership behavior, the managers
40 S.U. Rehman et al. / Asia Pacific Management Review 25 (2020) 38e47
are more supportive and helpful towards subordinates, they show
trust, confidence and act friendly and try to understand sub-
ordinates’ problems (Yukl, 2010).
A project manager's role in changing environments is an intri-
cate affair contributing a major role towards achieving objectives
and successful completion. A project manager must accommodate
human dimension of its subordinates to unleash the technical
expertise they hold, which are extremely crucial for project success.
During the execution of a project, a manager has to work with some
percentage of risk and uncertainty (Schwalbe, 2004). Uncertainty
develops situations where a leader has to intervene, he/she has to
exercise his/her authority and take measures, which are novel and
unprecedented. Such measures often include pushing men and
machines, to their optimal limits of performance or beyond. While
dealing with subordinates, a right choice of behavior, according to
the situation, has been proven to carry more value in terms of
employee job attitudes like satisfaction, involvement, commitment
and job outcomes like job retention and performance (Jia et al.,
2007).
It is clear from the previous research about the aforementioned
two behaviors (Jacques, Garger, & Thomas, 2007; Yukl, 2010) “The
subordinates who comply with the initiating structure or in other
words perform well, will be highly supported and rated near a task
oriented leader”, and the relations oriented leader is of the view
that, “if I support and rate a subordinate higher, there's a higher
possibility that he/she will perform better”. Then between these
two extremes there is paradoxical leadership (Alfes & Langner,
2017; Shao, Nijstad, & Ta €uber, 2019) view, where a leader is mak-
ing choices to justify both sides of a coin. The leader stresses tasks
conformity and performance while allowing for exceptions on the
go.
In project settings a manager is required to work effectively and
inclusively with opposite directions and while working on some of
the most important challenges of our time, managing one's Lead-
ership Behavior is a skill that requires personal mastery and one
where a leader can really make a difference.
2.2. Subordinate's job attitudes and leadership behavior in the light
of leadership theories
The previous work by Ma €kilouko (2004) and Jacques et al.
(2007) where leadership behaviors of project managers and func-
tional managers were studied to clear the differences among the
two, led to this research to find important contributions of lead-
ership behavior about the job-satisfaction, job-involvement, job-
commitment and further check its impact on job-retention and
job-performance in project environment. Further solidifying this
research idea from the studies by Barling, Weber, and Kelloway
(1996) and Berson, Shamir, Avolio, and Popper (2001) which
stated that a leader's interaction with its subordinates in project
settings is governed by his/her leadership behavior, which is
considered important to increase subordinates' performance.
In developing hypothesis of this research, findings of previous
studies and related leadership theories were considered and
adopted; The theory of Situational Leadership also known as The
Situational Leadership Model (Hoffman, Hersey, & Blanchard, 1970)
developed by Hersey and Blanchard was previously presented by
the same authors in their publications (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969,
1988), as the life-cycle theory of leadership; was very helpful in this
context which states that different situations require different
leadership styles. “A leader may choose from task oriented to re-
lations oriented styles to manage the activities of his/her workforce
and in doing so he/she influences various job outcomes of his/her
subordinates”. In other words, this research explored the fact that
to be effective in his/her role as a project manager he/she must
show his/her ability to adapt or adjust his/her leadership style ac-
cording to the circumstances and requirement of the situation. The
primary factors that determine how a project manager may vary
his/her behavior accordingly are an assessment of the competence
and commitment of his/her followers. The assessment of these
factors determines if a project manager should use a more directive
(task oriented) or supportive (relations oriented) style to become
more effective.
Leadership substitute theory developed by Kerr and Jermier
(1978), states that different situational factors can enhance,
neutralize, or substitute for leader behaviors (Avolio, Walumbwa, &
Weber, 2009; Gorriti, 2004), it further proposes that a leader has to
undertake an analysis of novel situations where consideration of
the fact is required, weather a change in his/her leadership style is
required for a raised performance and if so, to what extent he/she
has to shift his/her style.
Similarly the contingency theory of leadership states that a
leader's effectiveness is contingent on how well the leader's style
matches a specific setting or situation. A leader can manage his/her
style of leadership in different settings and situations and he/she is
always looking for a right degree of fit between task and relations
oriented styles of managing his/her followers. Based on proposition
of contingency theory, this research hypothesized that a project
manager who is regulating his/her leadership style to provide
maximum motivation to the employees according to varying situ-
ations is able to create better results in different project situations.
From transactional leadership theory presented by Max Weber in
1947 (Weber, 1947) and then by (Bass & Stogdill, 1981) which states
that a leader's job is to create structures that make it abundantly
clear what is expected of his/her followers and also the conse-
quences (i.e. rewards and punishments) for meeting or not meeting
these expectations. For the context of this research when a leader
exhibits his/her urgency and strictness on completion of project
tasks, exhibits the similar structures on what his/her expectations
are at the moment and when the activities are completed, softens
the tone and rewards the followers by treating them with a high
relations oriented leadership style.
Taking lead from the literature mentioned above and theories
that describe how managers exercise leadership behaviors (Task
Oriented & Relations Oriented) at different project situations to
efficiently manage employees’ job attitudes and job outcomes.
Hypothesis of this research are developed upon the same literature
which is further elaborated in subsequent sections of the literature
review in this article.
2.3. Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction as per Stephen and Timothy (2005) is the set of
all the feelings held by an individual towards his/her job that in-
crease with fulfillment of needs and expectations. Decrease in these
feelings may affect a number of other factors of a subordinate's job
like dissatisfaction or low satisfaction, absenteeism or not showing
up for the job, expression of grief related to workplace, burnout and
tardiness, low morale, increased turnover, low participation in
decision making and vice versa (Rad & Yarmohammadian, 2006).
Previous studies have related the influence of a manager's
leadership behavior on subordinate's job satisfaction (Tepret &
Tuna, 2015; Wiratmadja, Govindaraju, & Rahyuda, 2008). Leader-
ship behavior causes direct impact on the supervisor-subordinate
relations, thus influences both the employee's performance, job
satisfaction and commitment and the organization's total coher-
ence (Van den Berg & Wilderom, 2004). Randeree and Ghaffar
Chaudhry (2012) presented that the behavior of a leader if
perceived by subordinates as trustworthy, can produce positive
sentiments for the organization, which can result in job satisfaction
 S.U. Rehman et al. / Asia Pacific Management Review 25 (2020) 38e47
among subordinates and lead to their higher performance.
Tian-Foreman (2009) in his study about Chinese retail workers
described job satisfaction to be the most studied factor explaining
employee's tendency towards turnover. There is an agreement of
researchers about job satisfaction being the strongest among the
factors to describe an employee's feelings about his/her job. Various
studies in this regard like (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000) and
(Kinicki, Mckee-Ryan, Schriesheim, & Carson, 2002) also describe
this relation between job satisfaction and turnover to be negative,
Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino (1979) however suggested the
relation between the two not very significant. Recently the work of
Duraisingam, Pidd, and Roche (2009) and Chen, Chu, Wang, and Lin
(2008) concluded that a well-established negative relationship
exists between employee job satisfaction and turnover.
Job satisfaction is perhaps the most recognized employee job
attitude indicator, considered as a consistent mean to assess the
judgment made by an individual about his/her experiences in the
organization, which is found to have positive impact on commit-
ment, increase in performance and decreases turnover and
absenteeism of the subordinates (Rezvani et al., 2016); (Lambert &
Paoline, 2008). From review of literature presented about and
research work in past we propose following relations between
leadership behavior of a project manager and project worker's job
satisfaction.
H1. Leadership behavior (Task Oriented & Relations Oriented) of a
project manager is positively related to his/her subordinate's job
satisfaction.
H2. Job satisfaction of a project employee is positively related to
his/her job retention.
H3. Job satisfaction of a project employee is positively related to
his/her job performance.
2.4. Job involvement
As defined by Lodahl and Kejnar (1965), “job involvement is the
degree of importance a person attaches to his/her work in his/her
overall self-image. Elloy, Everett, and Flynn (1991) described that
“job-involved individuals are more likely to be satisfied with, and
thus more committed to, their jobs and organizations”.
Carmeli (2005) argued that interaction with organization
(Managers and coworkers) is necessary for job involvement to
exist; he further explained that before their entry into the organi-
zation, individuals may develop a sense of commitment and
satisfaction as part of the self-categorization process. It is less likely,
however, that one will develop involvement in his/her job before
his/her entry. In other words job involvement is purely dependent
on the job itself and in project settings the behavior of the project
manager can become a major candidate for assessing employee's
job involvement.
Paullay, Alliger, and Stone-Romero (1994) in their research
about validation of construct for job involvement suggested that an
essential part of employees' self-portrait is the extent of their
involvement in the job they are performing, higher the job
involvement of an employee, higher is his/her commitment to his/
her organization and more determined he/she will be to exert extra
effort to achieve his/her job objectives (Ineson, Benke, & La
2013) and therefore are less expected to turnover (Kuruüzüm,
Çetin, & Irmak, 2009).
(Keller, 1997) further described that involvement in job is a
better predictor for performance for the employees committed to
an individual profession when compared to those who are attached
to an organization, suggesting it to be especially important for
41
knowledge workers with specialized jobs. Researchers like Lassk,
Marshall, Cravens, and Moncrief (2001) and Diefendorff, Brown,
Kamin, and Lord (2003) argued that the construct of job involve-
ment, by definition, is likely to have an impact on performance.
Rotenberry and Moberg (2007) found a positive correlation be-
tween job involvement and performance.
Concluding upon above mentioned research work we propose
following relations between leadership behavior of a project
manager and his/her employee's job involvement.
H4. Leadership style (Task Oriented & Relations Oriented) of a
project manager is positively related to his/her subordinate's job
involvement.
H5. job involvement of a project employee is positively related to
his/her job retention.
H6. job involvement of a project employee is positively related to
his/her job performance.
2.5. Job commitment
Commitment can be understood to suggest from many of its
definitions that employees are emotionally involved to their orga-
nization and are intended to maintain a long-lasting relationship
with it (Applebaum et al., 2003). Ellemers, De Gilder, and Van Den
Heuvel (1998) described job commitment as motivation of one's
personal advancement in his/her profession.
Researchers like House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, and Gupta
(2004), Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006) and Wu, Tsai, Fey, and
Wu (2006) consider leadership to be, the ability of a manager to
influence, motivate, and enable employees to contribute towards
organizational success and thus leadership behavior of a manager
plays a critical role in employees' job satisfaction and commitment.
The work of (Lok & Crawford, 1999), helped establish the relation
between job commitment and leadership behavior of project
manager. Recently Randeree and Ghaffar Chaudhry (2012) found
that the leadership behavior affecting moderately to strongly upon
the subordinate's commitment in engineering projects. Van den
Berg and Wilderom (2004) described leadership behavior of man-
ager as direct determinant of a subordinate's job commitment and a
true reflection of his/her relationship with his/her manager which
further promotes coherence in the organization.
Researchers have empirically shown that the commitment of a
subordinate to his/her job is a significant predictor of turnover
(Jenkins, 1993). In fact, commitment has been shown to discrimi-
nate between “stayers” and “leavers” better than job satisfaction
(Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). Abelson (1987) found
that less committed subordinates were found being less satisfied as
well, further that job commitment may keep an employee in the
organization, it may however be accompanied by lowered levels of
job satisfaction, which could have negative organizational out-
comes. Meyer and Allen (1997) described achievement of goals
(performance) and commitment as internal representations of
desired states and positively related to each other. With the help of
above literature review we propose following hypothesis.
H7. Leadership behavior (Task Oriented & Relations Oriented) of a
szlo
, project manager is positively related to his/her subordinate's job
commitment.
H8. Job commitment of a project employee is positively related to
his/her job retention.
H9. Job commitment of a project employee is positively related to
his/her job performance.
42 S.U. Rehman et al. / Asia Pacific Management Review 25 (2020) 38e47
2.6. Job retention
It is difficult to find a consensus of researchers on a single
definition of job retention, Job retention however can be explained
as, “the length of time an individual has spent with an organiza-
tion”, or has been attached to the working team. A project being a
one-time activity, subordinate's job retention in these settings
means an employee does not leave the project before his/her ac-
tivities with the project come to an end. The literature suggests that
the term “turnover” is more often used, rather than its converse, job
retention. Most of the time, the biggest concern for a project
manager, is a higher cost of replacing the lost workers (HayGroup,
2001).
Relationship between behavior of a leader and voluntary turn-
over as discussed by Levinson (1965) is rationalized in a way that,
“The behavior of a leader can be perceived by a subordinate as in-
dicator of his/her organizational intentions”. A leadership behavior
which enhances expression and participation, where a manager
encourages subordinates to put across their opinions and concerns,
no matter if the expressions are different from the established
norms, Lines (2004) helps lower the intention of a subordinate to
leave the organization.
Researchers have been vocal about the impact of turnover on job
performance and described that its impact starts growing a long
time before the employee leaves an organization, since the inten-
tion to turnover is found to be responsible for lower job commit-
ment and satisfaction (Biron & Boon, 2013).
Based upon above literature review we propose following links
between leadership behaviors of a project manager and his/her
subordinate's job attitudes.
H10. Leadership behavior (Task Oriented & Relations Oriented) of
a project manager is positively related to his/her subordinate's job
retention.
2.7. Job performance
Performance has many definitions but the most precise defini-
tion came from Schmitt and Borman (1993) who defined perfor-
mance as “the goal relevant actions of an employee”. Performance
comes from doing what someone is hired to do, it increases when
he/she tries and succeeds in doing it sooner, and better than, as per
instructions. Hsiao, Lee, and Chen (2015) recognized the need to
explore various leadership styles and what impact they had in
shaping employees' performance.
Clear from the previous research, leadership behaviors are
measured as important factors to evoke subordinates to perform.
Tsai et al. (2009) observed that leadership behavior of a manager,
directly influenced employee task performance. Ogbonna and
Harris (2000) in their study of UK companies found that leader-
ship behavior had influenced organization culture and further
influenced the performance of subordinates. McColl-Kennedy and
Anderson (2002) suggested leadership behavior to have a stron-
ger and absolute impact on the employee's feelings of dissatisfac-
tion, which further has a stronger impact on job performance.
Barling et al. (1996) proved that leadership behavior results in
changes in subordinate's perception of managers' leadership be-
haviors, his/her commitment to the organization and overall
financial performance ability of the organization. Examining
different leadership behaviors and their impact on subordinate
performance, Howell and Frost (1989), acknowledged the role of
each on task performance, task satisfaction and overall productivity
of a subordinate. Keeping in view the above literature review we
propose following links between leadership behavior of a project
manager and his/her subordinate's job performance.
H11. Leadership behavior (Task Oriented &Relations Oriented) of
a project manager is positively related to his/her subordinate's job
performance.
3. Proposed model
Based on above proposed hypothesis H₁ to H₁₁, we now propose
a model for leadership behaviors of a project manager and various
job attitudes of a subordinate as shown in the figure No. 1.
4. Instruments
Three questionnaires used for data collection were administered
by the researchers and their representatives in various work groups
at different project locations.
(1) A supervisor/team leader questionnaire was handed over to
each team leader/supervisor to assess his/her leadership
behavior.
(2) An employee performance assessment questionnaire was
handed over to supervisor/team leader to rate the perfor-
mance of each member of his/her team individually.
(3) An employee's questionnaire related to his/her job satisfac-
tion, Job commitment, Job involvement and Job retention.
The cover letters for supervisor/team leader and employee
briefly explained the purpose of the study and the mechanism to
maintain confidentiality. A method of coding of each questionnaire
was adopted to keep consistency between all three parts of ques-
tionnaire further care was taken while collection of questionnaire
to keep confidentiality at the highest. Personal variables like
gender, education and experience were collected on the de-
mographic section of questionnaire. An appropriate length of time
was spent to discuss the questionnaire to explain any operational
ambiguity to both the supervisor/team leaders and employees. To
make sure the data is free from any bias, different time and places
were selected to collect data from supervisor/team leaders and
employees.
5. Measures
The method of back translation was used and with the help of
language and psychological experts, a translated version was
created to use for local respondents in China. Scales used in this
study are discussed below.
Leadership behavior was measured with the help of 20 items
questionnaire put forward by (Northouse, 2018). A five-point Lik-
ert-type scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly Agree). It
measures both task and relational behaviors. Odd questions in the
scale represent task oriented behavior and even questions focus on
relational leadership behavior and when summed up, presented
the overall leadership behavior profile.
Job Satisfaction was measured using six items selected by Agho,
Price, and Mueller (1992) who selected these items from the 18-
item index developed by (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951). The scale
included items like “I find real enjoyment in my job” and “I feel
fairly well satisfied with my job".
Job Involvement: Richardson (Richardson & Vandenberg, 2005),
8-items scale was used to measure job involvement. The scale
contained items like, “Employees have enough freedom over how
they do their jobs” and “There is a strong link between how well
employees perform their jobs and the likelihood of their receiving
recognition and praise.”
Job Commitment was measured using the 15-item Organizational
 S.U. Rehman et al. / Asia Pacific Management Review 25 (2020) 38e47 43

Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) (Porter et al., 1974), which has 7. Results

been used with a wide range of job categories. Sample items of this
scale included “I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that Table 2 presents descriptive statistics, inter-correlations, and
normally expected in order to help this project be successful.” and reliabilities of the research variables. All measures displayed good
reverse ordered item like “It would take very little change in my reliabilities and good psychometric properties. Leadership behavior
present circumstances to cause me to leave this company." of a high task project manager was found strongly correlated with
Job Retention: Jenkins (1993) 9-items scale was used to measure Job attitudes and job outcomes of employees, job involvement is
job retention among subordinates the scale included items like, “I found positively correlated (r ¼ . 423, p < 0.01), job commitment
want to make changes to my current job” and “My current job (r ¼ 0.243, p < 0.01) positively correlated, and job satisfaction
supports my career goals”. (r ¼ 0.171, p < 0.01) positively correlated with job retention
Job performance: The scale is based on the studies of Williams (r ¼ 0.012, p < 0.01) and positively correlated with job performance
and Anderson (1991) and Morrison (1994). A seven-item scale (r ¼ 0.342, p < 0.01). Further for low task project managers the job
was completed for each participant by his/her direct supervisor. involvement was found positively correlated (r ¼ 0.311, p < 0.001),
Evaluations were made on a scale from 1 (never or almost never) to job commitment (r ¼ 0.451, p < 0.001) positively correlated, and job
5 (always or almost always). satisfaction (r ¼ 0.184, p < 0.01) positively correlated with job
Personal Variables: Five personal variables were used, a dichot- retention (r ¼ 0.096, p < 0.001) and positively correlated with job
omous variable was gender (0, male; 1, female). Four ordinal vari- performance (r ¼ 0.261, p < 0.01).
ables were Experience, level of education, Age and position, level of On the other side for the employees working under a project
education was measured on a scale from 1 (not finished high school) manager with high relations leadership behavior, job involvement
to 4 (University) and position was measured on scale from 1 (Labor) is found negatively correlated (r ¼ -.215, p < 0.01), job commitment
to 3 (Supervisor/team leader). Two scale variables were time with (r ¼ 0.282, p < 0.01) positively correlated, and job satisfaction
project and project duration (Table 1). (r ¼ 0.562, p < 0.01) positively correlated with job retention
(r ¼ 0.548, p < 0.01) positively correlated and job performance
(r ¼ 0.205, p < 0.01) positively correlated. Whereas for low task
6. Data analysis
oriented project manager job involvement found positively corre-
lated (r ¼ 0.149, p < 0.001), job commitment (r ¼ 0.271, p < 0.001)
Hypothesis proposed after literature review were tested using
positively correlated, and job satisfaction (r ¼ 0.373, p < 0.001)
multiple standard and hierarchical models of regression using
positively correlated with job retention (r ¼ 0.366, p < 0.01) posi-
SPSS-17. Regression of leadership behaviors on job outcomes were
tively correlated and job performance (r ¼ 0.272, p < 0.05) posi-
used to test H1, H4 and H7. Remaining Hypotheses H2, H3, H5, H6
tively correlated.
and H8 to H11 were tested by three multiple hierarchical re-
Table 3 presents results of three multiple regressions. It is clear
gressions. Here, Job attitudes and leadership behaviors were
from these regressions that different leadership behaviors of proj-
regressed on job outcomes (Job retention and Job performance),
ect managers show varying relationships with job attitudes of
and the personal variables. The variables were entered into the
employees. Relation of job involvement is found positive with high
equations in three steps. This was done to examine the individual
and low task and high relations but negative with low relations, the
contribution of each construct in the model for explanation of the
relation is more positive with high relations (b ¼ .494, p < 0.001)
job outcomes.
and least positive with low task (b ¼ 0.049, p < 0.05) the value of
this beta however is very small and the resulted impact with one
Table 1 unit rise of predictor variable will be insignificant and fail to
Respondent profiles. significantly predict the outcome. Job Commitment is found posi-
No. Percent Cumulative Percent tively correlated with high and low relations and low task, and
negative with high task, the relation is stronger (b ¼ 0.711, p < 0.01)
Gender of Respondents (N ¼ 757)
Female 39 5.15 5.15 with low relations and less strong (b ¼ 0.455, p < 0.01) with high
Male 718 94.85 100.00 relations.
Age Job satisfaction is found positively related with high and low
18e25 Years 154 20.34 20.34 relations and low task but negatively related to high task. Further
26e35 Years 346 45.71 66.05
36e45 Years 168 22.19 88.24
the relation is stronger and significant (b ¼ 0.430, p < 0.001) for
46e50 Years 77 10.17 98.41 high relations and weak and significant (b ¼ 0.015, p < 0.05) for low
51 and Above 12 1.59 100.00 task oriented project managers. These findings support hypothesis
Education of Respondents (N ¼ 757) H1, H4 and H7 which argued that leadership behavior of project
Not Finished High School 118 15.59 15.59
manager holds positive relationship with the employee job atti-
High School/Equivalent 209 27.61 43.20
College/Diploma 339 44.78 87.98 tudes of job satisfaction, job commitment and job involvement.
University/Degree 91 12.02 100.00 Job attitudes show weak negative relationship with increase in
Years of Working Experience (N ¼ 757) time with project and age of the respondent. Older respondents are
1e5 Years 530 70.01 70.01 less involved, committed and satisfied in their job in the project.
6e10 Years 187 24.70 94.72
11e20 Years 38 5.02 99.74
Education level and position showed a weak positive relationship
21 and Above 2 0.26 100.00 with job attitudes as the education level of the respondent rise he/
Position Held at this Project(N ¼ 757) she seems to exhibit more involved, committed and satisfied with
Labor 190 25.01 18.36 his/her job in a project. Leadership behaviors of a project manager
Technician 429 56.67 81.68
when measured against job attitudes of his/her employees working
Supervisor/Team Leader 138 18.23 100.00
Time with this Project(N ¼ 757) in projects explained 43.1% of variance in Job Involvement, 42.8%
Less than 1 Year 449 59.31 59.31 variance in Job Commitment and 60.1% of variance in Job Satisfac-
1e3 Years 227 29.99 89.30 tion among employees.
4e6 Years 69 9.11 98.41 Table 4 presents results from two multiple hierarchical re-
7 Years and Above 12 1.59 100.00
gressions. At first the personal variables were entered for each
44 S.U. Rehman et al. / Asia Pacific Management Review 25 (2020) 38e47

Table 2
Descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and intercorrelations among research variables (reliabilities in parentheses).

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Leadership Style of Project Manager

Task Oriented
1 High Task 3.285 0.452 (0.89)
2 Low Task 3.424 0.818 -.327** (0.89)
Relations Oriented
3 High Relations 3.687 0.261 -.344** -.283** (0.89)
4 Low Relations 3.097 0.785 -.388** -.319** -.335** (0.89)
Job Attitudes
5 Job Involvement 3.811 0.412 .423** .311** -.215** .149*** (0.78)
6 Job Commitment 2.911 0.473 .243** .451** .282** .271** .133** (0.80)
7 Job Satisfaction 3.358 0.703 .171** .184* .562** .373* -.165** .791** (0.85)
Job Outcomes
8 Job Retention 3.189 0.758 .012** .096** .548** .366* -.200** .759** .975** (0.84)
9 Job Performance 3.212 0.445 .342** .261** .205*** .272* .581** .116** .154** .159** (0.75)
Control Variables
10 Gender 2.000 0.000 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
11 Age 33.579 5.882 .003 -.005 .010 -.008 -.052 -.062* -.043 -.040 -.035 _ _
_
12 Education 1.875 0.461 -.059* .065* -.054 .050 .068* .055 .039 .037 -.013 -.105** _
13 Position 2.009 0.456 .001 .004 .008 -.012 .011 .006 .005 -.003 .003 _ .016 .360** _
14 Time with Project 1.858 0.864 -.015 .007 -.094** .096** -.009 .017 .016 .025 -.073* _ .065* -.103** .060* _
15 Project Duration 3.751 1.552 -.139** .144** -.181** .180** .089** .175** .155** .159** -.001 _ .046 -.072* -.008 .559** _

Note. Scale anchors: 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). N ¼ 757.

*P  0.05.
**P  0.01.
***P  0.001.

Table 3 Table 4
Findings of multiple regression analysis (standardized coefficients) for the rela- Findings of multiple hierarchical regression analysis (standardized coefficients) for
tionship between leadership styles and job attitudes. the relationship between leadership styles and job attitudes.

Variable Job Involvement Job Commitment Job Satisfaction Variable Job Retention Job Performance

Control Variables Control Variables

1. Gender .028(1.219) .011(.474) .018(.945*) 1. Gender 0.025(-3.875***) 0.049(-3.207***)
2. Age -.042(-1.852) -.065(-2.842**) -.048(-2.518**) 2. Age 0.000(-.003) 0.11(0.703**)
3. Education .045(1.831**) .050(2.003**) .038(1.827) 3. Education 0.007(1.059*) 0.029(-1.748**)
4. Position .006(.238*) .011(-.460) -.006(-.289) 4. Position 0.011(-1.562) 0.008(0.447**)
5. Time with Project -.096(-3.527**) -.052(-1.894*) -.055(-2.385**) 5. Time with Project 0.007(0.859) 0.077(-4.214***)
6. Project Duration .088(3.109*) .209(7.336***) .196(8.248***) 6. Project Duration 0.002(.242) 0.067(3.441***)
Leadership Style Job Attitudes
7. High Task .287(16.198***) -.039(-1.371) -.486(-20.779***) 7. Job Involvement 0.080(-7.477***) 0.776(30.516***)
8. Low Task .049(1.868*) .534(19.915***) .015(.658*) 8. Job Commitment 0.114(-5.952***) 0.083(-1.832)
9. High Relations .494(18.035***) .455(16.408**) .430(18.647***) 9. Job Satisfaction 1.143(49.925***) 0.349(6.439***)
10. Low Relations -.264(-9.817***) .711(12.460**) .231(7.460**) Leadership Style
R2 0.431 0.428 0.605 10. High Task 0.211(5.562**) 0.401(3.254*)
Adjusted R2 0.429 0.424 0.601 11. Low Task 0.010(-0.902) 0.567(-22.171***)
F 283.45*** 92.921*** 198.778*** 12. High Relations 0.143(-7.319***) 0.101(2.181*)
13. Low Relations 0.096(-6.999***) 0.162(-4.977***)
N ¼ 757.
R2 0.356 0.254
*P  0.05.
Adjusted R2 0.31 0.242
**P  0.01.
F 2026.606*** 284.902***
***P  0.001.
N ¼ 757.
*P  0.05.
regression model in first step and next the job attitudes were added **P  0.01.
and in the third step leadership behaviors of project manager were ***P  0.001.
inserted. From the first regression model, job retention was found
negatively related with Job involvement (b ¼ .080, p < 0.001) and
Job commitment (b ¼ 0.114, p < 0.001) and positively related with In the second regression, Job involvement (b ¼ 0.776, p < 0.001)
Job satisfaction (b ¼ 1.143, p < 0.001). However leadership behav- and job satisfaction (b ¼ 0.349, p < 0.001) showed a positive rela-
iors of high and low relations and low task were found negatively tionship with Job performance and negative relationship with Job
(b ¼ .143 p < 0.001)& ðb ¼ 0.096 p < 0.001) related and leader- Commitment (b ¼ .083, p < 0.05). Leadership behavior of high-
ship behavior of high task was observed as positively (b ¼ .211, task and high-relations project manager showed positive re-
p < 0.01) related with job retention and contributed 31.1% towards lations (b ¼ .401 & b ¼ 0.101, p < 0.05) whereas that of low-task and
explaining the total variance involved. low-relations showed negative relations (b ¼ - 0.567 p < 0.001) &
These findings supported hypothesis H2, H3, H5, H6, H8 and H9, ðb ¼ -0.162, p < 0.001) with job performance and contributed 24.1%
which argued that job attitudes of project employees like job to the explained variance in the final equation.
satisfaction, job involvement and job commitment have significant These findings supported hypothesis H3, H6 and H9 which
relationship with job outcome of job retention. Further H10 & H11 argued that job attitudes of job satisfaction, job involvement and
were supported by the above findings where job attitudes were job commitment have significant relationship with job outcomes
found to have significant relationship with job performance. like job performance of a project employee. Further the hypothesis
 S.U. Rehman et al. / Asia Pacific Management Review 25 (2020) 38e47
H11 was also supported where a project manager's leadership
behavior was found significantly related to the job performance of
project employees working under him.
From personal variables, increase in education level of em-
ployees reported an insignificant positive effect on job retention
(b ¼ .007, p < 0.05) and an insignificant negative effect on employee
performance (b ¼ 0.029, p < 0.01) whereas the position in the
project reported insignificant positive effects on both Job retention
(b ¼ 0.011, p < 0.01) and performance (b ¼ 0.008, p < 0.01) among
the project employees.
8. Discussion
Does the leadership behavior have any relationship with the job
attitudes of an employee? How does leadership behavior of a project
manager affect the job attitudes like job satisfaction, job commit-
ment and job involvement of an employee? What is the nature of the
relationship of leadership behavior of a project manager on the job
attitudes of an employee? How do personal variables like gender,
age, education and experience impact job attitudes and job out-
comes of project employees? The purpose of this study was to
explore impact of leadership behavior of a project manager and
answer above questions and while doing this, several very inter-
esting and unique discoveries were made. A leap forward from the
previous studies was the investigations made for impact of leader-
ship behavior of a project manager on two variables which have
received very little if any, consideration in the previous studies.
These variables included job retention and job performance.
The rationale for this study that different leadership styles bring
about different consequences, which have direct or indirect impact on
the job attitudes and job outcomes of the employees. The findings of
this research supported hypothesis based upon literature review, the
findings are consistent with the previous work of Ogilvie (1986);
Bronkhorst, Steijn, and Vermeeren (2015); Newland, Newton, Podlog,
Legg, and Tanner (2015); Kim and Yoon (2015) and Jyoti and Dev
(2015) that leadership styles have positive influence on employee
self-efficacy, motivation, creativity and organizational performance.
Similarly the leadership style is responsible for increased job satis-
faction, job retention and organizational identification (Epitropaki &
Martin, 2005; LePine, Zhang, Crawford, & Rich, 2016).
8.1. Practical implications
Managers in project management organizations require a deep
understanding of behavioral needs of their employees; this in-
cludes information on the impact of their attitudes and behaviors
on various job attitudes and job outcomes. Better awareness of his/
her employees’ behavioral needs, enables a manager to gain
maximum out of their skills and abilities.
As the project setting does not allow a manager enough time to
indulge individually with each employee's attitudes and behaviors,
he/she however can align his/her own behavior with a little effort
to achieve maximum influence on his/her subordinate's perfor-
mance outcomes. Managers employing certain actions and exhib-
iting certain behaviors can become helpful in creating an
environment for employees to become more productive and better
motivated towards completing difficult tasks.
The results obtained from this research suggest that a project
manager employing proper leadership behavior might be able to
increase the level of job involvement, job commitment and job
satisfaction of employees working under him to gain a better rate of
job retention and job performance.
A significant finding of this study as clear from Table 4, is that
while keeping the impact of other job attitudes like involvement,
commitment and satisfaction, out of the context, the high task
45
oriented project managers were able to gain higher performance
from their employees followed by high relations oriented project
managers when compared to those rated low on task or relations.
Job retention was observed to be highest for employees working
under high-task managers followed by low-task, low-relations and
high-relations respectively. This is perhaps from the fact that the
unique nature of activities in a project require constant vigil on part
of project manager to achieve better results as well as the em-
ployees have good knowledge about their job responsibilities and
activities. The better results of performance in the project envi-
ronment as described by data analysis can be reached by a better
focus on completion of work followed by keeping good relations
with the subordinates.
Another important contribution of this study is the elaboration
of relation between job attitudes like job satisfaction, job involve-
ment and job commitment and job outcomes like job retention and
job performance. The results showed that job satisfaction is major
contributor towards job retention with compared to the job
involvement and job commitment. This is perhaps from the fact as
mentioned in the literature that involvement and commitment are
short-term factors whereas job satisfaction is a more comprehen-
sive factor for an employee to consider, while deciding to keep the
job or switch to another.
Special attention should be given to the relatively strong rela-
tionship between job involvement and job performance over job
satisfaction and job commitment, which suggests that in the
project settings where activities are well defined, the decisive fac-
tor for individual performance is how involved an employee is in
his/her job rather than being satisfied from his/her job, another
interpretation of these results can be that since the performance of
individual employee was rated by his/her manager, and manager's
perception of an employee to be more productive may have been
his/her involvement and commitment rather than his/her level of
satisfaction with his/her job.
Personal variables also showed some very interesting relation-
ships with job attitudes and job outcomes. Highly educated em-
ployees showed lower job retention and high performance. A
possible explanation is that such employees are more vulnerable
and sensible to their achievements in the project, hence they are
more careful and involved into their jobs than those with lower
education level, hence they perform well but at the same time these
employees are more ambitious and have higher intentions towards
leaving current job for good. Also the employees at higher positions
showed higher retention but lower performance, this is perhaps
due to the fact that at higher positions employees are ripe in age
and thus less ambitious and make lesser efforts to shine.
A significant outcome is for the Time with Project, which shows
that as an employee spends time with the project, his/her job
retention increases and performance decreases, increase in job
retention with time is perhaps because after certain period of time
an employee attaches himself with the project and it becomes
difficult for him to leave the project before completion. Decrease in
performance with time is perhaps due to loss of thrill with passage
of time and the employee feels stagnant and dullness from the
activities he/she is performing. These aspect of a project job need to
be further studied as what factors can increase the interest of a
project employee in his/her job to enhance his/her performance
after passage of time in a project?
8.2. Limitations
There are some areas where this research limits its outcomes,
firstly from the fact that the research design was based on self-
reported data, with an exception of job performance and leader-
ship behavior. Since the job involvement, commitment and
46 S.U. Rehman et al. / Asia Pacific Management Review 25 (2020) 38e47
satisfaction as well as retention were based on self-reported data
which is prone to the measurement biases such as common
method error. The use of objective measure free from such error is
required in future research. This study paves the way for investi-
gation into other job outcomes like absenteeism, lateness and
burnout to be included into the model with the help of future
research. Further this study as previous studies in this field are all
forced to get results from the single point data, whereas it will
surely be of interest if this model is tested with the help of longi-
tudinal study.
The data is collected from Asia, mainly China, which can be a
limitation as well as an advantage of the study at the same time.
Cultural difference may have played its role in influencing human
attitudes and there is need for a comparative study to clear the
ambiguity of cultural differences that impact the relationship be-
tween leadership behavior of project manager on job attitudes and
outcomes of project employees operating in a different cultural
environment.
8.3. Conclusion
This research has been able to achieve several objectives which
can be taken as significant contributions to the body of knowledge:
Firstly it explored the relation between leadership behavior of a
project manager, job attitudes and job outcomes of employees;
secondly illuminating significance of various leadership behaviors
towards achievement of higher retention and performance of
project employees; thirdly pointing out role of personal factors like
age, education, position etc. towards job attitudes and job out-
comes. The major contribution of this study is the discovery of
some new dimensions of project environment and relationships
between leadership behavior of project manager, employee job
attitudes and job outcomes.
The study has contributed a significant share to the previously
less discovered soft issues related to project management. Lead-
ership behavior of a project manager is found to be a good predictor
of job attitudes and outcomes of a project employee with the help
of these findings project managers will be able to develop their
interactions with their staff to get maximum level of retention and
performance.
References
Abelson, M. A. (1987). Examination of avoidable and unavoidable turnover. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 382.
Agho, A. O., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1992). Discriminant validity of measures of
job satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, 65(3), 185e195. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.2044-8325.1992.tb00496.x.
Alfes, K., & Langner, N. (2017). Paradoxical leadership: Understanding and managing
conflicting tensions to foster volunteer engagement. Organizational Dynamics,
46(2), 96e103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.005.
Applebaum, S. H., Wunderlich, J., Greenstone, E., Grenier, D., Shapiro, B., Leroux, D.,
et al. (2003). Retention strategies in aerospace turnover: A case study. Career
Development International, 8(6), 270e282. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13620430310496080.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories,
research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 421e449.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership
training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81(6), 827e832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.827.
Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. (1981). Handbook of leadership. Theory, research, and
managerial.
Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B. J., & Popper, M. (2001). The relationship between
vision strength, leadership style, and context. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(1),
53e73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00064-9.
Biron, M., & Boon, C. (2013). Performance and turnover intentions: A social ex-
change perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(5), 511e531.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid the key to leadership excellence,
leading people and producing results. Houston: TX Gulf Publishing Company.
Retrieved from https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_73.htm.
Bowers, D. G., & Seashore, S. E. (1966). David G . Bowers and Stanley E . Seashore
predicting organizational effectiveness with a Four-factor theory of leadership.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 11(2), 238e263.
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 35(5), 307e311. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-195402000-
00016.
Brewer, G., & Strahorn, S. (2012). Trust and the ITProject management body of
knowledge/IT. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 19(3),
286e305. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699981211219616.
Bronkhorst, B., Steijn, B., & Vermeeren, B. (2015). Transformational leadership, goal
setting, and work motivation: The case of a Dutch municipality. Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 35(2), 124e145. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734371X13515486.
Carmeli, A. (2005). Exploring determinants of job involvement: An empirical test
among senior executives. International Journal of Manpower, 26(5), 457e472.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720510615143.
Chen, H. C., Chu, C. I., Wang, Y. H., & Lin, L. C. (2008). Turnover factors revisited: A
longitudinal study of Taiwan-based staff nurses. International Journal of Nursing
Studies, 45(2), 277e285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.08.010.
Clarke, N. (2012). Leadership in projects: What we know from the literature and
new insights. Team Performance Management: International Journal, 18(3e4),
128e148. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527591211241042.
Cooke-Davies, T. J., & Arzymanow, A. (2003). The maturity of project management
in different industries: An investigation into variations between project man-
agement models. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 471e478.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00084-4.
Diefendorff, J. M., Brown, D. J., Kamin, A. M., & Lord, R. G. (2003). Examining the
roles of job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citi-
zenship behaviors and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
23(1), 93e108. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.123.
Duraisingam, V., Pidd, K., & Roche, A. M. (2009). The impact of work stress and job
satisfaction on turnover intentions: A study of Australian specialist alcohol and
other drug workers. Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy, 16(3), 217e231.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687630902876171.
Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Van Den Heuvel, H. (1998). Career-oriented versus
team-oriented commitment and behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83(5), 717e730. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.717.
Elloy, D. F., Everett, J. E., & Flynn, W. R. (1991). An examination of the correlates of
job involvement. Group & Organization Management, 16(2), 160e177. https://
doi.org/10.1177/105960119101600204.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). The moderating role of individual differences in
the relation between transformational/transactional leadership perceptions
and organizational identification. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 569e589.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.005.
Fleishman, E. A. (1967). Development of a behavior Taxonomy for describing human
tasks: A correlational-experimental approach. Journal of Applied Psychology,
51(1), 1e10. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024073.
Gorriti, M. (2004). A critical examination of the handbook of industrial, work and
organizational psychology. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
12(4), 368e375.
Green, S. (2005). Strategic project management deeds star project leadership.
Project Management Practice, 4(1), 12e14.
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents
and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research
implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463e488.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2063(00)00043-x.
Gupta, S. K., Gunasekaran, A., Antony, J., Gupta, S., Bag, S., & Roubaud, D. (2019).
Systematic literature review of project failures: Current trends and scope for
future research. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 127(December 2018),
274e285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.12.002.
HayGroup. (2001). Engage employees and boost performance. Philadelphia, USA:
Haygroup Inc. Working Paper.
Hennessy, M. (2008). The enterprise of the future. Research-Technology Manage-
ment, 51(5), 7e8.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training &
Development Journal, 23(5), 26e34.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of organisational behaviour: Uti-
lising human resources (5th ed.). EagleWood Cliff, N.J:Prentice-Hall.
Hoffman, L. R., Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1970). Management of organizational
behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 264. https://doi.org/10.2307/
2391509.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The globe study of 62 Societies. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.molstruc.2010.03.038.
Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(2), 243e269.
Hsiao, C., Lee, Y. H., & Chen, W. J. (2015). The effect of servant leadership on
customer value co-creation: A cross-level analysis of key mediating roles.
Tourism Management, 49, 45e57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.02.012.
Ineson, E. M., Benke, E., & La szlo
, J. (2013). Employee loyalty in Hungarian hotels.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32(1), 31e39. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.04.001.
Jacques, P. H., Garger, J., & Thomas, M. (2007). Article information 1993-2007. Ship
Technology Research, 54(4), 194e200. https://doi.org/10.1179/str.2007.54.4.006.
 S.U. Rehman et al. / Asia Pacific Management Review 25 (2020) 38e47
Jenkins, J. M. (1993). Self-monitoring and turnover: The impact of personality on
intent to leave. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(1), 83e91. https://doi.org/
10.1002/job.4030140108.
Jia, L., Song, J., Li, C., Cui, R., & Chen, Y. (2007). Leadership styles and employees' job-
related attitudes: An empirical study on the mediating effects of reciprocity and
trust. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 1(4), 574e605. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11782-007-0033-9.
Jyoti, J., & Dev, M. (2015). The impact of transformational leadership on employee
creativity: The role of learning orientation. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 9(1),
78e98. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-03-2014-0022.
Keller, R. T. (1997). Job involvement and organizational commitment as longitudinal
predictors of job performance: A study of scientists and engineers. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82(4), 539e545. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.82.4.539.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and
measurement. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 22(3), 375e403.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5.
Kim, S., & Yoon, G. (2015). An innovation-driven culture in local government: Do
senior manager's transformational leadership and the climate for creativity
matter? Public Personnel Management, 44(2), 147e168. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0091026014568896.
Kinicki, A. J., Mckee-Ryan, F. M., Schriesheim, C. A., & Carson, K. P. (2002). Assessing
the construct validity of the job descriptive index: A review and meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 14e32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.87.1.14.
Kotter, John P. (1995). Leading change: Why Transformation efforts fail. Harvard
Business Review, 57e68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2 (March-
April).
Kuruüzüm, A., Çetin, E. I., & Irmak, S. (2009). Path analysis of organizational
commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction in Turkish hospitality in-
dustry. Tourism Review, 64(1), 4e16. https://doi.org/10.1108/
16605370910948821.
Lambert, E. G., & Paoline, E. A. (2008). The influence of individual, job, and orga-
nizational characteristics on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment. Criminal Justice Review, 33(4), 541e564. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0734016808320694.
Lassk, F. G., Marshall, G. W., Cravens, D. W., & Moncrief, W. C. (2001). Salesperson
job involvement: A modern perspective a new scale. Journal of Personal Selling
and Sales Management, 21(4), 291e302. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08853134.2001.10754282.
LePine, M. A., Zhang, Y., Crawford, E. R., & Rich, B. L. (2016). Turning their pain to
gain: Charismatic leader influence on follower stress appraisal and job per-
formance. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 1036e1059. https://doi.org/
10.5465/amj.2013.0778.
Levinson, H. (1965). The relation between man and Organization. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 9(6), 61e685.
Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organi-
zational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Man-
agement, 4(3), 193e215. https://doi.org/10.1080/1469701042000221696.
Lodahl, T. M., & Kejnar, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job
involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(1), 24e33. https://doi.org/
10.1037/h0021692.
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (1999). The relationship between commitment and organi-
zational culture, subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction in organiza-
tional change and development. The Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 20(7), 365e374. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739910302524.
Ma €kilouko, M. (2004). Coping with multicultural projects: The leadership styles of
Finnish project managers. International Journal of Project Management, 22(5),
387e396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2003.08.004.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and
emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5),
545e559. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00143-1.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and
application. Sage.
Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. (1979). Review and
conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin,
86(3), 493.
Morrison, D. E. (1994). Psychological contracts and change. Human Resource Man-
agement, 33(3), 353e372.
Newland, A., Newton, M., Podlog, L., Legg, W. E., & Tanner, P. (2015). Exploring the
nature of transformational leadership in sports: A phenomenological exami-
nation with female athletes. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health,
7(5), 663e687.
Nordqvist, S., Hovmark, S., & Zika-Viktorsson, A. (2004). Perceived time pressure
and social processes in project teams. International Journal of Project Manage-
ment, 22(6), 463e468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2003.11.005.
Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage publications.
Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (2000). Leadership style, organizational culture and
performance: Empirical evidence from UK companies. International Journal of
47
Human Resource Management, 11(4), 766e788. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09585190050075114.
Ogilvie, J. R. (1986). The role of human resource management practices in predicting
organizational commitment. Group & Organization Studies, 11(4), 335e359.
Paullay, I. M., Alliger, G. M., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994). Construct validation of two
instruments designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 224.
Phillips, J. J., Brantley, W., & Phillips, P. P. (2011). Project management issues and
challenges. Project Management ROI, 1e14. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781118122587.ch1.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603.
Rad, A. M. M., & Yarmohammadian, M. H. (2006). A study of relationship between
managers' leadership style and employees' job satisfaction. International Journal
of Health Care Quality Assurance Incorporating Leadership in Health Services,
19(2), 11e28. https://doi.org/10.1108/13660750610665008.
Randeree, K., & Ghaffar Chaudhry, A. (2012). Leadershipestyle, satisfaction and
commitment: An exploration in the United Arab Emirates' construction sector.
Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 19(1), 61e85.
Rezvani, A., Chang, A., Wiewiora, A., Ashkanasy, N. M., Jordan, P. J., & Zolin, R. (2016).
Manager emotional intelligence and project success: The mediating role of job
satisfaction and trust. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7),
1112e1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.012.
Richardson, H. A., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2005). Integrating managerial perceptions
and transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee
involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(5), 561e589. https://doi.org/
10.1002/job.329.
Rotenberry, P. F., & Moberg, P. J. (2007). Assessing the impact of job involvement on
performance. Management Research News, 30(3), 203e215. https://doi.org/
10.1108/01409170710733278.
Schmitt, N., & Borman, W. C. (1993). Personnel selection in organizations (1st ed.).
Jossey Bass Business & Management Series, Wiley.
Schwalbe, K. (2004). Information technology project management (3rd ed.). Infor-
mation Technology Project Management, REVISED Sixth Edition.
Shamsuzzoha, A. H. M., & Shumon, R. H. (2007). Employee turnover-a study of its
causes and effects to different industries in Bangladesh. Manufacturing Engi-
neering Vyrobne Inzinierstvo, 6(3), 64e68.
Shao, Y., Nijstad, B. A., & Ta €uber, S. (2019). Creativity under workload pressure and
integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, (January), 1e13. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.008.
Stephen, P. R., & Timothy, A. J. (2005). Organizational behaviour. Organizational
behaviour. Pearson.
Taherdoost, H., & Keshavarzsaleh, A. (2016). Critical factors that lead to projects'
success/failure in global marketplace. Procedia Technology, 22, 1066e1075.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2016.01.151.
Tepret, N. Y., & Tuna, K. (2015). Effect of management factor on employee job
satisfaction: An application in Telecommunication sector. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 195, 673e679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.264,
2015.
Tian-Foreman, W. (2009). Job satisfaction and turnover in the Chinese retail in-
dustry. Chinese Management Studies, 3(4), 356e378. https://doi.org/10.1108/
17506140911007503.
Tsai, W. C., Chen, H. W., & Cheng, J. W. (2009). Employee positive moods as a
mediator linking transformational leadership and employee work outcomes.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(1), 206e219. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09585190802528714.
Turner, J. R., & Muller, R. (2005). The project manager's leadership style as a success
factor on projects: A literature review. Project Management Journal, 36(1),
49e61.
Van den Berg, P. T., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2004). Defining, measuring, and
comparing organisational cultures. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 570e582.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. Parsons. NY: The
Free Press. https://doi.org/978-1614272571.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors.
Journal of Management, 17(3), 601e617.
Wiratmadja, I. I., Govindaraju, R., & Rahyuda, A. G. (2008). The influence of trans-
formational leadership style and compensation system on the performance of
university lecturer: A case at a state university in Indonesia. In 9th Asia pacific
industrial engineering & management systems conference. Bali-Indonesia: Nusa
Dua.
Wu, T.-F., Tsai, M.-H., Fey, Y.-H., & Wu, R. T. Y. (2006). A study of the relationship
between manager’ s leadership style and organizational commitment in
Taiwan’ s international Tourist hotels. Asian Journal of Management and Hu-
manity Sciences, 1(3), 434e452.
Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Prentice Hall. https://doi.org/
10.1192/bjp.111.479.1009-a. Prentice Hall.