Examining Effective Technology Project Leadership Traits and Behaviors

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Computers in
Human Behavior
Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx
www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh
Examining effective technology project

leadership traits and behaviors
Kenneth David Strang
44 Sunset Drive, Fredericton, NB, Canada, E3A 9H7
Abstract
Effective project team leadership theory is explored from the perspective of leader traits,
skills, roles, and behaviors. Existing leadership traits and behaviors are examined from orga-
nization science empirical studies, they are differentiated from management functions, and the
gap between extant theory and the project management domain is highlighted through this
research. Leadership principles are examined from actual organizational work settings, specif-
ically dynamic projects, with a view to discovering what actually happens as compared with
espoused theory. The underlying research question is whether these theories hold up and
can be effectively integrated to the project management domain. The significance of leadership
behavior differences at the project and organizational levels is grounded on empirical evidence.
The reflection of integrated organizational science and project leadership theory using quali-
tative and quantitative research methods contributes to the body of knowledge by sharing and
learning in professional and academic communities of practice.
Design/methodology/approach. Contemporary and alternative trait-based leadership theo-
ries are discussed, such as task/relationship orientations, emotionality maturity, Leadership
Virtual Reality, Level 5 Leader Trait Hierarchy, charisma, emotional maturity, and personality
traits are discussed. Multiple theories and typologies such as Managerial Roles, Leadership
Roles Model, and Competing Values Framework, as well as the Meta-Category Leadership Tax-
onomy are explained using models, diagrams, and matrices. Theoretically sampled case studies
are analyzed using several typologies to explore leadership behavior and traits across leaders in
different projects and organizations. Participant assessments and 360° peer reviews are trian-
gulated with qualitative and quantitative statistical measures to test hypotheses and analyze
correlation between leader skills, traits, and behaviors across their projects.
E-mail address: kennethstrang@netscape.net (K.D. Strang).
0747-5632/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.041
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 K.D. Strang / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx
Findings and research value. This research identified a gap between extant organizational
leadership theory and applied leadership behavior in effective projects. The preliminary results
are surprising in a few cases but they generally support the proposition that effective leadership
behaviors in any context are partly explained by leader traits, skills, and personality. The most
unusual finding was these projects actually show that leadership principles from management
science are not universally applicable (observable) in effective and efficient projects – instead
the project leaders exhibited self-management theory and applied specific leader behaviors
according to the situation. These findings, albeit on a small statistical scale of global signifi-
cance, are a catalyst for continued and broader reflective leadership research using case study
methods and hypotheses replication with these constructs.
Ó 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Technology project leadership; Leader traits; Technology manager roles
1. Introduction
The paper begins with a brief theoretical review of relevant contemporary leader-
ship traits, skills, and behaviors principles, including interesting emergent views, and
ending with relevant typologies for assessing leader behavior, traits, and skills in or-
der to test the hypotheses. It is posited the gap between extant theory and leadership
in technology projects lacks practitioner reflection-in-action, in that existing litera-
ture does not prove what effective global project managers actually do within the dy-
namic situational context of multiple competing demands. To examine this,
technology case studies are analyzed quantitatively (using ANOVA-2), then qualita-
tively (using various leadership roles model typologies), to test the hypotheses. The
paper concludes with a synopsis of the research and results of the hypotheses testing,
followed by cited references.
1.1. Discovering why leadership is valuable at all organizational levels
Managing and leading people and projects to the satisfaction of the sponsor(s),
the team, and the stakeholders, generally requires interpersonal ability, technical
competencies, and cognitive aptitude, along with the capability to understand the sit-
uation and people then dynamically integrate appropriate leadership behaviors
(Strang, 2003a). Leading and managing functions are complimentary yet interdepen-
dent, and both are needed in the same position (Kotter, 1990), at all levels in the
organization. Variations of leadership trait theory emphasizes the social capability
of leadership effectiveness as part of a managers role-set in that ‘‘networking, the
development and maintenance of cooperative organizational relationships, has been
linked to managerial effectiveness’’ (Yukl, 1994 in: Schneider, 2002, p. 213); further-
more, organizational leadership ‘‘has been viewed as an interpersonal managerial
role having to do with motivating subordinates’’ (Mintzberg, 1973 in: Schneider,
2002, p. 213).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.D. Strang / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx 3
Cultivating relationships across the organization, particularly vertical and hori-

zontal, multilevel and multi-domain, impact leadership, and can result in a reputa-
tion for effectiveness by meeting the varying expectations of supervisors,
subordinates, and peers (Pfeffer & Salanick, 1975; Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn,
2003; Tsui, 1984; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991 in: Schneider, 2002, p. 213). Thus there is
a multifaceted dependency between leadership traits, role-sets, relationship building
skills, and stakeholder expectation management, with the key point being that moti-
vational leadership behavior across broad stakeholders increases leader effectiveness
(see Exhibit 1).
Leadership is typically classified as a characteristic or trait (ability to lead), an
object/role set (behavior category required to get work done), adjective (type of man-
agerial or executive quality), the application of power, or as a process (motivating,
influencing, inspiring, coaching, mentoring, facilitating, etc.). Leadership is also clas-
sified by the factors that impact it, which from a meta-level standpoint are: the orga-
nizational context, including the larger macro-environment, the business situation
(task environment), and the internal organizational and/or project characteristics.
The diagram illustrates an abstraction of the leadership epistemologies, shown with-
in the high-level environmental force categories that impact them. The focus of this
paper is exploring effective leadership skills, traits, and behaviors, in terms of theory
and practice, using reflective case studies.
Literature reveals the importance of a combination of skills and traits for effec-
tively managing and leading people in all types of organizations, all sizes, all forms,
ranging from public to private to non-profit sectors, including business units, alli-
ances, divisions, departments, projects, and so on. Effectiveness in this sense gener-
ally means improving productivity, increasing satisfaction, for both individuals and
groups, as well as being promoted to higher levels or growing a small business into a
larger one. On the other hand, scenarios involving self-managed teams, communities
of practice, leadership substitutes (cohesive/mature team, task autonomy, bureau-
Power:
•Expert / Referent
•Formal / Legitimate
•Relations / Networks
•Reward / Coercive
•Influence / Charisma
Traits:
•Cognitive / IQ
•Emotive / EQ
•Knowledge /
Behaviors: Competency Processes:
•Role Sets •Attributes •Practices
•Functions •Maturity •Methodologies
•Boundaries •Contingency Models
•Patterns •Situational Techniques
This Paper
Exhibit 1. Leadership epistemological contexts and disciplines.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
cratic environment, etc.), or just plain good luck, can reduce or eliminate the need
for significant management or leadership (Strang, 2004a). Nevertheless, based upon
research and experience, situations where management and leadership are not needed
are rare, yet even when they exist, alternative forms of self-management and dynamic
informal leadership processes (i.e., influence and persuasion) can improve perfor-
mance and satisfaction (Strang, 2004a).
Repeated behaviors integrated together can improve leader effectiveness, such as
possessing a high degree of self-confidence and stress tolerance were found to in-
crease the capacity of leaders to perform cognitive functions, especially in crises
events (Mumford & Connelly, 1991). To a finite extreme, it is proposed that optimal
leadership behavior means balancing behaviors and functions in complex combina-
tions customized for the situation, in an optimal manner to address the needs of the
stakeholders, as well as to compensate for weaknesses in the leader/manager, as well
as leverage or adapt environmental neutralizers/constraints. This may result in a lea-
der purposefully developing/increasing certain traits to balance off others, as part of
the perceived customized situational behavior, or in an effort to cognitively overcome
weaknesses, or leverage/innovate strengths in the leader (self), in stakeholders (fol-
lowers), or in the context (environment). Some research has investigated this and
found leaders in a team (as well as teams of leaders such as senior management) com-
pensate for, develop and enhance memberÕs behavioral strengths and weaknesses, in
a holistic manner, to increase overall effectiveness and performance (Bradford & Co-
hen, 1984; Schermerhorn et al., 2003).
Exhibit 2 depicts a systemic model showing a process view of a leader balancing
skills, traits, and behavior interactions in a project situation (as a point in time from
an organizational level of analysis) while interacting with various contextual vari-
ables and competing demands, to achieve desirable outcomes, by motivating and
influencing followers and stakeholders. The focus of this research is how leadership
Delay
Primary/direct impact
Secondary/indirect impact
Context variables:
Feedback/learning
Substitutes
y Neutralizers
la
De Turbulence/Stability
Leader Intervening variables:

This Paper
Delay
Power Follower Commitment

Task Structure
Relationships
Leader Traits: Project Leader

Cognitive, Behavior
Emotive,
Knowledge Outcomes:
y
la Production Success
Delay
De Follower Motivation
Delay Stakeholder Satisfaction
Success
Criteria
Exhibit 2. Leadership processes systemic model.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
behavior, traits, and skills interact in different combinations by leaders across differ-
ent projects.
Additionally, as the model implies, leaders are driven to balance behavior and
functions to deal with competing values from the organization (time, events, culture,
and macro-environment), from the team, and from other stakeholders, such as:
focusing on task structure versus interpersonal relationships; democracy versus
bureaucracy; controlling versus empowering; directing versus influencing; contin-
gency planning versus risk taking; stability versus change orientation; just to name
a few leader behavioral continua (Lombardo & McCall, 1978; McCall, Lombardo,
& Morrison, 1988; Quinn, 1988).
2. Methods
Leadership can be studied from the input, output, and cause/effect perspectives
whereby approaches differ depending on the level of analysis, such as intra-individ-
ual (psychology/self), dyadic (leader/follower), leader-team (social-psychology/group
interactions), or organizational versus project domains (and others). Most leadership
theory, whether studied at the organizational or project team level, is approached
from a leader-to-follower performance causality, which is the approach taken in this
paper, but recent studies have also examined leadership from other interesting angles
such as from a follow-to-follower and follower-to-leader impact.
Exhibit 3 illustrates the concept that leader disciplines are analyzed from mainly
four theoretical levels:
1. community, organizational, societal – organizational behavior, transformational

change processes, systemic macro and task views of leadership;
2. team dynamics/group processes – social-psychology, group influences/interac-
tions, group decision-making;
Organization
Business Unit, Firm, Community, Society
This paper
Group
Department, Team, Community of Practice
Levels
of
Analysis Dyadic
Leader-Follower
Intraindividual
Self, Psychoanalytic
Exhibit 3. Leadership levels of analysis.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
3. dyadic (two entities view) – leader–follower and more recently follower-to-leader,

processes/relationships;
4. intrinsic view/self-leadership (intra-individual) – psychological, motivation, time
management, self-management, individual decision making.
Contemporary leadership research has tended to use multiple levels of analysis

(individual, dyad, and group) simultaneously to assess hierarchical boundary do-
mains of one or more leader theories, and these studies found leader behaviors dif-
fered between higher-level (dyad group) and cross-boundary-level (leaders in
boundary spanning positions) within the same study and as compared to assertions
previously documented in the literature (Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984);
thus multiple levels of leadership analysis can reveal unexpected and enriched corre-
lation (Dubin, 1976).
This paper uses mainly the group and intra-individual trait/personality levels to
analyze leader behavior and skills. Furthermore, as the diagram suggests, the var-
ious levels analyzed can and usually do interact with one another, thus complicat-
ing the study of leadership at any point or situation, and across time periods.
This research is primarily focused on effective leadership behavior, traits, skills,
and their interaction with one another as units of analysis. The leaders selected
were considered effective. Since their project deliverables satisfied all sponsors
and most stakeholders.
2.1. Research questions
It is propositioned here that effective project leaders know their own behavior,
trait, skill, strengths, and weaknesses, they improve weak areas and leverage the
strong ones, they balance skills and behaviors according to the situation, taking into
account themselves, the environmental context (organization, etc.), the group/team
(followers), the sponsors, the stakeholders, and of course the priority of each in this
circumstance. Management science advocates that effective leaders are not necessar-
ily born with all the necessary skills and propensities to lead but they will leverage
their innate capability, learn appropriate skills, and act out appropriate behaviors,
and this is applicable to both organizational and project leaders. To explore this,
a theoretical review of leadership trait, skill, behavior principles and taxonomies is
documented. These are then applied to theoretically sampled project case studies
for analysis.
It is propositioned here that effective leaders will differ from ineffective leaders in
their natural leadership propensity, especially in project management contexts which
can be very demanding due to time, cost, schedule, and budget constraints, as com-
pared with business-as-usual, which requires active (not passive), relationship and
change-oriented (not just task focused) behaviors, possibly all in the same project
and situation. Therefore, effective project leaders will display more relationship
and change-oriented behaviors and in turn they will likely have more extrovert
personalities.
The research hypotheses examined are:
ARTICLE IN PRESS
(1) Organizational leadership principles such as contingency, situational, and trait

theories will apply and be observable in the project domain, for project leaders;
therefore, effective project managers typically do not practice alternative theo-
retical leadership trait and skill principles – such as personality-driven charisma
and emotionality maturity, since it is propositioned project managers utilize
core competencies linked to management science theory not emergent leader-
ship epistemology.
(2) Since project leaders are essentially managers, they will adopt more managerial
roles (directing, monitoring, etc.) than leadership roles (facilitating, mentoring,
etc.), and both dimensions in combinations, but they will not apply multiple
managerial and leadership role sets concurrently.
(3) Effective project leaders have little time for training, and by sheer industry
demand, the natural selection process favors those whom have a personal com-
petency and personality combination that is conducive and complimentary to
the dynamic project management role; therefore, effective project managers will
display more relations and change-oriented traits, supported by extrovert and
affective-dominate personality profiles.
2.2. Research methodology
The cases contain six project leaders managing six different projects within four
different organizations in roughly the same multi-year time range. Six leaders are
used since it is recommended that between four and 10 cases be used in this type
of research (Eisenhardt, 1989; Schön, 1983; Yin, 1994). Although that guideline
was recommended for theory-building exercises, by including six leaders, this will in-
crease internal validity and reliability by reducing perception biases, broadening the
standpoint, and triangulating the data sources. Construct validity is achieved by
applying the management science principles and leadership models which have been
used and well-publicized at the individual level of analysis (Yin, 1994), which also
allows for referential integrity comparisons of these basic leadership theoretical prin-
ciples between general management and the project domain. Flowcharts, process
models, categorized/ordered matrices and other graphics are used to enrich theory
discourse (Miles & Huberman, 1984).
The direct and direct-participant observation techniques were used, supplemented
by project documents and direct verification of some facts (by interviewing the leader
for some variables), along with confirmation of certain facts using 360° interviews
(talking with team members, peers), for data and method triangulation. The person-
ality profile tests were conducted by human resource personnel and/or external
service providers and confirmed by the subject along with at least other peer and/
or co-worker (to ensure the ratings were representative). Leader behavior observa-
tions were triangulated from the different sources to establish a consensus. Observa-
tion recordings were made using positive integer scales (Likert fashion), and the later
decision was to include only the purposeful, obvious, ‘‘high-probability’’ observa-
tions in this analysis. This means that only ‘‘high’’ observations of particular leader
ARTICLE IN PRESS
behaviors were included in these taxonomies, such as a 5–7 on a Likert scale of 1–7
(where 7 is always and/or high) for a particular variable.
This paper is part of a series of academic research studies involving 21 interna-
tional project cases across multiple industries. The project cases were organized into
a research database for this research, thus a system key index is listed which can col-
late cases across the research papers, and all personal/company identifying informa-
tion is removed to protect confidentiality and competitive advantages. Although the
direct and direct-participant observation techniques were used, the author was not a
subject for the unit of analysis in these particular cases. The case data is a point-in-
time representation, observed on or about the duration of the project (and in some
cases including data gathering/observations conducted shortly afterwards, but no
more than three months beyond project completion). Senior students and profes-
sionals assisted with the research on either a volunteer or paid basis. Ethical human
resource selection procedures were applied, involving criteria such as high marks in
social science research methods courses, as well as grade confirmation and reference
checking.
3. Effective leadership as traits, skills or behaviors?
Many writers have argued for and against whether leadership is an inborn trait or
that it can be developed. In general, the consensus is that leadership can be devel-
oped and is a combination of qualities, knowledge, and processes (Adair, 1997; Col-
lins, 2001; Yukl, 1998). Leaders need more than pure ability, skill, and innate
attributes – as pointed out in early management science research based upon 124
trait studies, ‘‘a person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession of some
combination of traits. . . the pattern of personal characteristics [and behavior] of the
leader must bear some relevant relationship to the characteristics, activities, and
goals of the followers’’ (Stogdill, 1948, p. 64). Later research reviews of 163 trait
studies covering 1949–1970 by the same author confirmed traits and skills were
related (increases the likelihood that a leader would be successful) to leader effective-
ness (Stogdill, 1974).
Traits are considered to be patterns of individual attributes, such as skills, values,
needs, and behaviors, which are relatively stable in the sense that they tend to repeat
over time. Skills are abilities to do things, satisfy needs, and make decisions, in an
effective manner. The Exhibit 4 portrays a model of the leadership skill, trait, and
behavior interaction process as a systemic model.
The consensus from literature is that there are patterns of specific leadership skills,
activities, and behaviors which are related to leader effectiveness, namely: acquiring
status through demonstrating group facilitation and performance, intelligence, task
understanding, initiative, persistence, self-confidence, sensitive to others needs, will-
ingness to accept responsibility, ability to exert dominance and control as necessary
(Stogdill, 1948). The four basic traits which seem to be shared by most successful
leaders are (Hellriegel, Slocum, & Woodman, 1992): intelligence, maturity/broad
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Technical Task
skills activities
Situational Social Relations Leader

demands skills activities behavior
Cognitive Change
skills activities
Traits:stable, repeating behavior patterns
Exhibit 4. Leadership skill–trait–behavior process model.
interests, strong inner motivation/drives (self-confidence and self-efficacy), and con-

sideration of others needs/values (emotive sensitivity).
Most writers typically discuss several broad meta-categories of effective leader
traits, such as: cognitive ability, intelligence, emotive, affective ability, and technical
knowledge, and functional capability. It is proposed here from research and experi-
ence that knowledge and capacity to act are in the cognitive category, but they could
just as easily be treated as a separate group as they are often approached in knowl-
edge management (Strang, 2003b).
In the organizational and project domains, a leadership skill is considered an
ability to translate knowledge into action that results in a desired performance
(Schermerhorn et al., 2003). Competency is typically viewed as a cumulative term
in leadership theory to encompass knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors,
while an applied project management action science definition transforms this
to three dimensions of project management knowledge, performance, and per-
sonal competence (Boyatzis, 1982; Parry, 1993; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). Per-
sonal competency is most relevant to this research, which generally includes the
following factored elements: achievement and action, helping others and human
service, impact and influence, managerial, cognitive, and personal effectiveness
(PMI, 2002, 2003).
The table in Exhibit 5 summarizes the common traditional and emerging leader
traits and skills (contents adapted from: Katz & Kahn, 1978; Stogdill, 1974; Yukl,
1971, 1998, pp. 243–258). The project management personal competency factors
tend to be already captured in the more refined elements defined from management
science leadership theory as described in the table, and are thus not further segre-
gated – defining more detailed leadership elements (root definitions) will improve
the quantitative and qualitative behavioral analysis applied in this research.
What is interesting about effective leadership traits from emergent research is the
lack of a specific skill namely intelligence, which according to the literature means a
leader does not have to be highly intelligent to be effective (and in fact studies show
that high intelligence could be a weakness if applied incorrectly at higher manage-
ment levels), but instead a leader must be able to function at a moderately high
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Exhibit 5
Synopsis of effective leader traits and skills from management science studies
Traditional effective Traditional effective Emergent effective
leadership traits leadership skills leadership traits
Organized (also an administrative ability) Ambitious, achievement oriented Moderately high
achievement orientation
Clever (intelligent) Assertive
Conceptually skilled Decisive
Knowledgeable about the work Dominant (power motivation) Internal locus of control
Energetic (high activity levels) High energy level
Socially skilled Alert to social environment Emotional maturity
Fluent in speaking Cooperative Socialized power
(could also be a technical skill) motivation
Diplomatic Dependable Personal integrity
Tactful Self-confident Self-confidence
Adaptable to situations
Creative Tolerant of stress Stress tolerance
Persuasive Persistent
Willing to assume responsibility Low need for affiliation
cognitive level to balance skills, contexts, and make decisions (McCall et al., 1988;
Yukl, 1998).
Other research and experience find that part of a leaderÕs task is to manage com-
plexity and this individual trait is therefore related to intelligence. In addition, attain-
ing a leadership position and being effective may be a reflection of an individualÕs
needs or motivations. The search for associations between personal attributes and
effectiveness of leaders has been a major objective of research, but this has led to
inconsistencies in relation to individual differences as an explanation for leadership
effectiveness.
Social skills, such as the ability to perceive stakeholder and follower needs and
responsiveness, and leader flexibility in response, has been linked to effective leader
interpersonal skills. It has been speculated that socially developed leaders have more
experiences, cause–effect process knowledge, perception skills, and understanding of
organizational context (Zaccaro, Gilbert, Thor, & Mumford, 1991).
Cognitive/conceptual ability has been described as a social complexity ability to
think in a multidimensional, abstract manner, while synthesizing information at var-
ious levels of abstraction (Jacobs & Jaques, 1987). This is certainly characteristic of
many managerial and project manager roles.
Contemporary leadership studies segment leader skills into the following meta-
categories (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Yukl, 1971):
social/interpersonal/emotive – understanding and ability to modify human behav-

ior, use communications processes, social and cultural understanding, influence
skills, diplomacy, cooperation, disposition, empathy;
cognitive/conceptual – analytic ability, logical thinking, abstract concept under-
standing and articulation, creativity, problem solving, reasoning, capacity to act;
ARTICLE IN PRESS
technical/knowledge/administrative/process – method knowledge, ability to use

tools, physical capability, linguistic ability, experience, knowledge to apply.
3.1. Alternative theoretical leadership trait and skill typologies
Some research exploring leader personality traits correlate the following with
leadership effectiveness: conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, open to
experience and low on neuroticism (a narcissistic tendency). Other traits linked to
leader effectiveness are humility and humor (mentioned later in the Level 5 Hierar-
chy) and the trait that has attracted the most attention in recent years is charisma –
regarded by many writers as the essence of transformational and organizational
change leadership.
3.1.1. Leadership virtual reality

Several interesting taxonomies have been emerged from the literature for describ-
ing and studying leadership traits. One interesting perception is the five virtual reality
environments which describes an evolutionary leadership maturity paradigm shift
from the industrial age of management science through to a high-quality, high-trust,
and high-morality based (perhaps altruistic) developmental ambition (Fairholm,
1998). The five virtual reality environments are considered streams of ideas, possibly
viewable as a continuum from managerial control to spiritual holism, with some his-
torical chronology (but they are not sequential stages), as summarized below:
1. leadership as management – scientific management principles emphasizing the lea-

der functions and task orientation, such as from writers like Taylor, Fayol,
Mintzberg;
2. leadership as excellent management – transactional approach, total quality man-
agement (Juran), emphasizing integrity, stakeholder expectations management;
3. values leadership – relational view, incorporating group dynamics and cultural
aspects, visioning, from writers such as Hart, Fairholm, and (Walker, Hampson,
& Peters, 2000);
4. trust leadership – transformational approach, applying motivation, behavioral
psychology, group culture, possibly some of the charismatic tendencies;
5. spiritual leadership – the triple bottom line concept (Walker, 2000) combined with
ethics, incorporating morality principles from philosophy and theology, advocat-
ing that ‘‘leadership comes out of the leaderÕs true self, his/her inner spiritual
core’’ (Fairholm, 1998).
3.1.2. Level 5 hierarchy

It was mentioned that early management science theory posited that effective lead-
ership was not based solely on traits. The level 5 hierarchy model is an interesting
description of a leadership taxonomy which somewhat parallels the leader trait/
maturity concepts evident in transformational, charismatic, virtual reality leadership
ARTICLE IN PRESS
theories. In this theory, leadership maturity evolves from level 1, highly capable indi-
vidual with talent, skills, knowledge, to level 2, contributing team member with
group cooperation skills, to level 3 as a competent manager with people organization
skills, to level 4 as an effective leader having transactional and motivational qualities,
finally to level 5 leadership, balancing ‘‘personal humility plus professional will’’
(Collins, 2001, pp. 69–70). The theoretical model is shown in Exhibit 6.
What is significant about the level 5 hierarchy is it applies to managers, non-
managers, informal or formal leaders (even non-leaders and community champions),
and it combines many of the proven principles of other organizational behavioral
theories, such as visioning, positive attitude, work ethic, motivation, cultural appre-
ciation, and so on. It is not a sequential scale (as the diagram indicates, leaders can
jump levels), and it is empirically based, not theoretical, meaning that the theory
summarizes study findings as a type of leadership typology, but it does not describe
applied theory. Its credibility should be noted since it used a 30-year longitudinal and
objective study of 1435 Fortune 500 companies, to determine what senior managers
(CEOÕs etc., such as Iaacocco at Chrysler, Smith at Kimberly-Clark) did (or did not
do) to transform companies.
Two key propositions the authors construct from their research were (Collins,
2001):
1. leadership is not necessarily genetic, as the model suggests, it can be developed if

one has intrinsic attitude (possibly form positive life experiences and quality
parental upbringing), albeit there were only 11 level 5 leaders found;
2. ‘‘abilities’’ in the level 5 hierarchy are not sufficient by themselves to transform a
company into a success – other macro and task environmental factors need to be
supportive or conducive to allowing this change.
LEVEL 5LEADER
Enduring
personal humility,
professional will
LEVEL 4 EFFECTIVE LEADER

Catalyzes commitment,
s
ge
compelling vision, stimulates group

sta
to high performance standards

ip
sk
LEVEL3 COMPETENT MANAGER

an
Organizes people, resources toward effective,

sc
er
efficient pursuit of predetermined objectives

ad
LEVEL2 CONTRIBUTING TEAM MEMBER

Le
Contributes to achievement of group objectives, works

effectively with others in group setting
LEVEL1 HIGHLY CAPABLE INDIVIDUAL

Makes productive contribution through talent,
knowledge, skills and good work habits
Exhibit 6. Level 5 leader trait hierarchy.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
3.1.3. Emotional maturity and personality

An interesting measurement of leadership traits and skills is the theory of emo-
tional maturity (initially developed by Peter Salovey and John Mayer then extended
by Daniel Goleman). Emotional maturity has also been termed as emotional quo-
tient, emotional intelligence, and affective capability/behavior. There are four stages
of emotional maturity: identifying, using, understanding, and managing emotions, in
terms of reactions to external realities and in helping others manage their relation-
ships. Research findings indicate leaders with high emotional intelligence have poten-
tial to be more effective leaders (Goleman, 1998, 2000). Emotional maturity theory
overlaps with the alternative trait views such as the higher stages in the level 5 hier-
archy as well as the values/trust elements of virtual reality leadership theory. Emo-
tional maturity also parallels and integrates several detailed behaviors (such as
concern for team members) in the relationship meta-categories, and it can be viewed
as a social skill.
Emerging research has found empirical support and construct validity for the Big
Five model of personality, which consists of five personality traits associated with
effective leadership: emotional stability, extraversion, openness to experience, agree-
ableness, and conscientiousness (Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991; Viswesvaran &
Deniz, 2000). This construct also overlaps with other trait theories, and although
both interesting and relevant to studying leader trait behaviors, it is less used than
the MBTI (discussed below); furthermore, it has limitations such as a small number
of categories, quantitative measurement of its qualitative psychometric properties
(the same problem as with most other taxonomies), and the lack of field experience
knowledge applying it as compared with other the leader personality constructs.
The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MTBI) is a similar measure of emotional
maturity which originated from the psychology social science field, and it is
grounded upon principles such as: behaviors are not random but have patterns, they
reflect preferences, they are fairly orderly and consistent over time – as developed by
Jung (1971), Katherine Briggs (1926), Myers and McCaulley (1989), and later Con-
sulting Psychologists Press (1975). The MBTI offers a logical model and assessment
construct of human behavior, it identifies and measures the strength of preferences
that comprise various personality types, but it does not assess intelligence, emotional
stability, capacity to learn, maturity, or skills (Myers & McCaulley, 1989). The out-
come variable of an MBTI test is a personality type, which represents a specific align-
ment/combination of preferences compromising a basic orientation toward the outer
or inner world: Extraversion (E) vs Introversion (I); the kind of perception used:
Sensing (S) vs Intuition (N); the type of judgment used: Thinking (T) vs Feeling
(F); and the basic lifestyle adopted for dealing with the environment: Judgment (J)
vs Perception (P). There are dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions,
and they indicate a set of preferences and use, which is the application of MBTI here,
being that the dominant function is the one that is most conscious, well-developed,
and most often used, by the leaders.
The analysis for this paper applies MBTI as substitute measure of emotional
maturity since that construct was documented and available as a common baseline
for all leaders in the case studies, although its limitations are recognized. The MTBI
ARTICLE IN PRESS
is proposed as an excellent complimentary dimension which has been successfully ap-

plied in other leadership studies to correlate detailed applied leader skills and behav-
iors (Charon, 2003). However, caution in applying MBTI has been argued due to its
conceptual and psychometric weaknesses, because the raw scores can be slight for
any personality dimension (Johnson, Mauzey, Johnson, Murphy, & Zimmerman,
2001; Michael, 2003), which means that summary indicators can stereotype and bias
assessment, and most importantly, this tool does not analyze how the organizational
context impacts the behavior and interaction of its constituent elements.
3.1.4. Charisma
Charismatic leadership has been described as an effective leader trait and behav-
ior, while the term itself is based on Greek etymological origins of its meaning as a
special gift (trait) that select individuals possess which gives them the capacity to do
extraordinary things. According to research, charismatic leaders possess specific per-
sonality traits (or their combination), and display unique behavioral patterns; they
become strong role models for the beliefs and values they declare; they appear com-
petent; they focus on ideological and moral goals; they communicate high expecta-
tions for followers; they exhibit confidence in follower ability to meet expectations;
and they have profound and unusual effects on followers (House, 1977). Contempo-
rary theory writers state that charisma is the result of follower perceptions and attri-
butions influenced by actual leader traits and behavior, the situational context, as
well as individual and collective follower needs (Yukl, 1998, pp. 297–298). Charisma
could be associated with another form of leadership epistemology: transformational
contingency processes. Charisma could be considered part of the change-oriented
behaviors meta-category, as well it could be considered related to the traits of a level
5 hierarchy leader. Charisma as a trait or process (depending on the research context
and perspective) is not specifically studied further in this paper.
3.2. Leadership or management behaviors?
Management science, the field of study where traditional leadership theories have
matured in their articulation (mostly during the 20th century: Yukl, 1998), describes
leading as a function within management, with management itself defined as being
variations of planning, organizing, leading, controlling, and staffing (Koontz,
OÕDonnell, & Weihrich, 1980). Management is generally accepted to refer to a broad
supervisory role, usually accountable for human assets, capital budgeting, work
activities, and/or other resources, involving the application of some or all of the func-
tions named above (Mintzberg, 1975; Zalesnik, 1977), while leadership is in compar-
ison more specifically focused on subordinate/follower motivation.
Some research delineates managers and leaders as being at opposite poles, at ex-
treme ends of a spectrum, and provides a dozen examples starting with ‘‘the manager
administers; the leader innovates’’ and ending with ‘‘the manager does things right;
the leader does the right thing’’ (Bennis, 1989, p. 45), and in later studies researchers
confirm that managers solve routine problems, but leaders identify problems to be
solved (Bennis & Nanus, 1997, p. 39).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
An alternative perspective of leading and managing propositions it is necessary to

achieve a balance between management and leadership and as such they are divided
into two separate processes and competencies respectively, which could be applied
(balanced) by a single individual (Kotter, 1998). While it is acknowledged not every-
one can lead and manage effectively, Kotter and other writers argue that companies
should recruit and develop executives with combined leader-manager competencies
(Duffy, 2001; Kotter, 1998).
Although some managers are leaders, and some leaders are managers, according
to accepted theory, leading and managing are not identical (Goleman, 1998; Lom-
bardo & McCall, 1978; Verma & Wideman, 1994; Yukl, 1998; Zalesnik, 1977). While
managing includes leading it also requires significant cognitive and general-purpose
skills necessary for planning, budgeting, controlling, organizing, and so on. Leading
on the other hand involves a high degree of social-psychology aptitude to support
relationship building, communications and change management using influence,
inspirational and motivational techniques. Exhibit 7 suggests a balanced integration
of key management functions with leadership traits and skills.
Leaders tend to focus on effectiveness, do the right things, formulate strategies,
and establish goals, while managers strive towards achieving efficiency, do things
right, organize, plan, and so on (Bennis, 1989). A consequential definition of leader-
ship that differentiates follower behavior from management outcomes, describes it as
an ‘‘influential increment over and above mechanical compliance with routine direc-
tion of the organization’’ (Katz & Kahn, 1966 p. 302 in: Schneider, 2002, p. 210) –
this supports the process view of leadership theory from management science (Yukl,
Organizing
Resolving
Staffing Planning
Recruiting Learn Visioning
Communicate
Innovate
Inspire
Monitoring Leading
Controlling Motivating
Management & Leadership

Balance
Exhibit 7. Integrated leadership skills and management functions.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1998). KotterÕs definition of managing frames it as Ôcoping with complexityÕ, which is

in keeping with his assertion that a key driver in the business environment is the
emergence of large, complex enterprises, and thus the emphasis for strong manage-
ment (Kotter, 1990). Leadership, he explains, is about ‘‘coping with change’’, driven
by competition, technological change, and new workforce demographics.
Despite their uniqueness in terms of process, there seems to be common trait, skill
and behavior elements connecting leading and managing, namely: communicating,
relationship building, people motivating, work promoting, and change making. This
convergence of managing and leading has been depicted as four primary overlapping
leaders skill processes: decision-making, information exchanging, influencing, and
building relationships (Yukl, 1998, pp. 34–35). The difference then between leading
and managing arises through the method and context through in which they are
accomplished; this is the contingency, trait, skill, behavioral, and integrated perspec-
tives of organizational leadership theory.
3.3. Analytical typologies of leader traits, skills, and behaviors
This section will review several appropriate and credible management science
methodologies and constructs for analyzing leadership trait, skills, and behavior.
Most have been used for manager-level analysis in utility and service sectors, but
these taxonomies are very generic and therefore should be suitable for multiple
industries as well as at the project level. So rather than reinvent the wheel, and also
to provide for opportunity to replicate earlier research (and allow for increased
external validity of this paperÕs findings), existing frameworks will be used for this
paper. Many of these are based on job functions and role categories.
Observation of behaviors, such as job function studies, have proven most useful
to reveal the true nature of manager and leader tasks used in actual work practice.
Several well-known studies were completed using the survey/factor analysis method
(Hemphill, 1959; Mahoney, Jerdee, & Carroll, 1965; Page & Tornow, 1987; Tornow
& Pinto, 1976). These studies evolved into two dimensional taxonomies based upon
task-oriented behavior (deliverable focus, utilizing resources efficiently, maintaining
stable and reliable operations, and so on), and also on relations-orientated behavior
(improving teamwork, helping and motivating people, etc.).
Subsequent research using various methods advanced theory into the benchmark
Managerial Position Description Questionnaire (MPDQ) which defined a manage-
ment role as: supervising, planning/organizing, decision making/problem solving,
monitoring indicators, controlling, representing, coordinating, consulting, adminis-
tering and this was again revised to add: clarifying roles/objectives, informing,
delegating, supporting, motivating/inspiring, conflict resolution/team building,
developing/mentoring, praising/recognizing, rewarding (Bass & Stogdill, 1990).
These leader behavior studies append substantial and relevant detail to the broad-
er Exhibit7: Integrated Leadership Skills and Management Functions theoretical
model presented earlier. Several credible measurement frameworks for studying
leadership behavior are already well-documented in the literature (see: Yukl,
Gordon, & Taber, 2002).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
3.3.1. Managerial roles

Other researchers, such as Mintzberg, used direct observation rather than ques-
tionnaires to produce taxonomies of manager/leader roles. One good role observa-
tion study documents a useful and widely applied construct consisting of three
manager function categories with ten roles (explained below from: Mintzberg,
1975). Subsequent researchers have built on this framework.
(1) information processing
(a) disseminator – essentially communications;

(b) monitor – meetings, environmental scanning;
(c) spokesperson – pubic relations, shareholder/owner relations;
(2) decision-making
(a) entrepreneur – innovations, continuous improvement and learning;

(b) disturbance handler – problem analysis and resolution;
(c) resource allocator – planning, staffing;
(d) negotiator – contracts, conflict resolution;
(3) interpersonal
(a) liaison – relationships, networks, alliances;

(b) figurehead – formal authority, role model;
(c) leader – in MintzbergÕs view to integrate subunits and hire, train, direct, praise,
promote, fire.
He noted effective leaders and managers are those whom can be introspective
about their jobs, can find systematic ways to share privileged information, possess
a Ôbig pictureÕ mentality, and make room in (gain control of) their busy schedules
for their own time to think, support subordinates/peers, and organize structure/tasks
(Mintzberg, 1998).
3.3.2. Leadership roles model

QuinnÕs 8 Leadership Roles Model of managerial behavior is also very appro-
priate to assess leadership behavior. This model is proposed to be credible since it
was developed from earlier theoretical models (Quinn, Faerman, Thompson, &
McGrath, 1996; Quinn & Robrbaugh, 1983), namely the 10 Managerial Roles
(Mintzberg, 1975) discussed above. The leader roles construct is designed around
four leader quadrants: open systems (illustrating entrepreneurship, innovativeness
and adaptive leadership), human relations (exhibiting people/relational leader-
ship), internal process (emphasizing stability leadership and possibly basic mana-
gerial functionality), and rational-goal philosophy (suggesting project and task
orientation).
These quadrants are differentiated by two dimensions: a polarization of internal
versus external focus (horizontal axis) and flexibility versus control orientation
ARTICLE IN PRESS
(vertical axis). This is abstracted in the next exhibit, which combines MintzbergÕs and
QuinnÕs ideas.
As the diagram (Exhibit 8) illustrates, each of the four quadrants of the Leader-
ship Roles Model contains two leadership roles (which closely parallel MintzbergÕs
managerial roles discussed earlier), each one respectively closer to a particular
dimension of internal/external focus and flexibility/stability continua. It is suggested
that the way to interpret the Leadership Roles Model is to view each of these roles as
being an approximate continua on the internal/external focus and flexibility/stability
dimensions of leader behavior, for either a brief time, or as a habitual practice. The
subject does not necessarily require a title according to the Leadership Roles Model –
the captions simply refer to anyone practicing the typical leadership functions as de-
scribed. A leader or manager will usually exhibit several of these role behaviors in
their job but perhaps one or a few of them would be dominant at a single point
of time or during a period of a career (or even during a phase of a project).
The purpose of the Leadership Roles Model is to define a set of overlapping roles
that emphasize the need for a leader to have both an internal and external unit/orga-
nizational focus a well as accommodate stability along with the need for adaptation
and growth (Denison, Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995, p. 528). What is also important to
keep in mind is that models such as these typify job roles in an organization, with
employment performance responsibilities, thus they are not representative of individ-
ual behaviors in a family, social or volunteer setting.
Flexibility
Mentor Innovator
er ces
Ad Op
r
ip
ap en
Le sou
sh
tiv Sy Broker
Re
Facilitator
e st
ad
n
Le e
Pe m a
ad ms
le
Hu
er
op
sh
Internal Focus ip External Focus
In
St te
l
oa
ab rna
ip
lG
lP
sh
ilit
na
y
er
Le roc
Ta atio
ad
ad es Producer
Le
Monitor
R
er s
sk
sh
ip
Director
Stability
Coordinator
Exhibit 8. Technology project leadership roles.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
The adaptive leadership quadrant contains the innovator and broker roles that
are linked to open systems theory (cognition focus, decision making, problem solv-
ing, conflict resolution, evolution, knowledge creation/management). An innovator is
creative, inspires and encourages others, while facilitating organizational change. A
broker maintains external relationships/networks, is politically astute, negotiates to
acquire resources, and continuously scans the macro-environment for partnership
opportunities.
The task leadership quadrant comprises the producer and director roles that are
tied to rational goal theory (contingency approaches, mostly focused on performance
and effectiveness). Both roles in this quadrant strive to achieve goals external to the
group. The producer is task-oriented, deliverable-focused, and thus motivates team
members to complete the work as required. A director is more focused on gover-
nance and process in the sense that in this role objectives are communicated,
rules/policies are defined, applied, and expectations are clarified.
The stability leadership quadrant includes the coordinator and monitor roles that
are associated with internal process theory (originating from classical management
science typifying functional and bureaucracy characteristics, along with rules ori-
ented behavior and macro-environmental stability focus). As such, both roles have
a control and internal focus, and as evidenced from the literature, they are obviously
typical of pure managerial behaviors. Coordinators maintain structure, schedule,
coordinate functions, manage crises, as well as apply rules and standards. The mon-
itor collects and distributes information, measures performance and efficiency, while
providing a sense of continuity and stability.
The people leadership quadrant decomposes into the facilitator and mentor roles
that are tied to human relations theory (grounded on organizational behavior princi-
ples which address social behavior and emotional aspects, cultural and group norms,
informal communications, motivation, and employee satisfaction). Both of these
roles advocate internal relationship and team building. The facilitator is group fo-
cused, encourages expression of opinion, seeks consensus, negotiates compromise,
fosters collective effort, and builds a cohesive team. A mentor is individually focused,
used active listening skills, develops people through affective and empathetic behav-
iors, while being considerate, sensitive, caring, and fair.
3.3.3. Integrating leader roles, competing values, and behaviors

Various leadership competing values and behavior models have been successfully
used in the study of ethics, project management, manager/leader effectiveness, orga-
nizational design, and in fact it is purposeful to assess leadership using alternative
methodologies such as observation and/or interviews, as well as applying multiple
methods, but with consistent factor terminology across studies (Avolio, Bass, &
Jung, 1999; Yukl et al., 2002).
As implied earlier, the Leader Roles Model is credible construct and it maps into
the generally-accepted Mintzberg managerial roles model (Mintzberg, 1975), as well
as integrates with the transactional/transformational leadership continua (Bass,
1985). Exhibit 9 illustrates an integrative perception of this. For example, inspira-
tional motivation and intellectual stimulation of transformational leadership can
ARTICLE IN PRESS
map into the open systems quadrant as the role of innovator. In fact, it has been ar-
gued that the type of leadership is contextually sensitive (depends on the situation), is
related to the task or behavior to be performed, and is also subject to characteristics
and priorities of the leader and follower/group (Schein, 1985).
The key principle gained from QuinnÕs Leadership Roles Model and Competing
Values Framework is congruent with KotterÕs (and others) thinking that leaders
and ‘‘master managers’’ must holistically balance between managerial philosophies,
roles, traits, and behaviors without too much emphasis on any one model or aspect
of theory (Quinn, 1988; Quinn et al., 1996).
3.3.4. Leadership behaviors taxonomy

An emergent construct for analyzing leader skills, traits, and behaviors is the
Leadership Behaviors Taxonomy (published 1981 and updated in: Yukl, 1998). This
taxonomy was originally built from earlier leadership studies and models, based on a
combination of leadership analysis approaches including factor analysis, observa-
tion/judgmental classification of leader actions, as well as theoretical deduction
(Yukl, 1987). This model originally contained 19 leader behavior variables and
was further expanded to 30, which supports more detailed analysis since there are
more elements to classify observations. Earlier and alternative research taxonomies
typically contained two meta-categories but this particular one was refined to incor-
porate additional epistemology, namely recognizing a third Ôchange-oriented behav-
iorÕ dimension along with task and relations (Yukl, 1998, pp. 59–62, 495–497),
therefore it is that which makes this framework rational for use in descriptive project
Exhibit 9
Technology manager roles, values, and leadership behavior alignment
Technology manager and Competing values Transformational behaviors
leader roles
1. Innovator (creative problem Open systems, adaptive Inspirational motivation,
solving, change, adaptation) leadership Intellectual stimulation
2. Broker (power, influence, Open systems, adaptive Inspirational motivation,
resource acquisition) leadership Intellectual stimulation
3. Facilitator (conflict Human relations, people Individualized consideration,
management, participative leadership Support of others
decision making)
4. Mentor (human resources Human relations, people Individualized consideration,
development) leadership Support of others
Transactional behaviors
5. Coordinator (task analysis, Internal process, stability Focus on task performance to
coordination, financial control) leadership achieve organizational goals
6. Monitor (information Internal process, stability Focus on task performance to
management, critical thinking) leadership achieve organizational goals
7. Producer (productivity, Rational goal, task Focus on task performance to
efficiency) leadership achieve organizational goals
8. Director (planning, goal Rational goal, task Focus on task performance to
setting) leadership achieve organizational goals
ARTICLE IN PRESS
leadership research. The taxonomy shown in Exhibit 10 segments leader behaviors

into the three functional categories, namely: task orientation, relationship focus,
and change/adaptation management, which relate back to the ‘‘activities’’ shown
in Exhibit 4: Leadership Skill–Trait–Behavior Process Model.
The grouping of leader behaviors into general categories is done to facilitate
descriptive factor analysis; even within the categories each behavior is itself general-
ized, so these taxonomies are guidelines only, as well, individual behaviors overlap
and could be associated with multiple categories. The behaviors in the Ôtask-orientedÕ
category have been associated with transactional leadership, while those in Ôchange-
orientedÕ group are aligned with transformational leadership (Yukl, 1998, pp 60–62).
A further generalization of this might be that the ÔrelationsÕ category includes team
and participative leadership activities. However, Yukl considers participative leader-
ship distinct from task and relationship-oriented behaviors (Yukl, 1998, p. 123) yet
the earlier researchers recorded them into the task category. Experience suggests
participative leadership is often change oriented.
Exhibit 10
YuklÕs leadership behaviors taxonomy
Task focus Relations emphasis Change orientation
Organizes work activities to Actively listens attentively to a Leads by example and models
improve effectiveness. personÕs concerns. exemplary behavior.
Develops milestones and action Actively provides support and Encourages viewing things from
plans for a project. encouragement. multiple perspectives.
Determines what resources are Socializes with team beyond Expresses confidence team can
needed to do a project. work to build relationships. attain objectives.
Clarifies role expectations for Publicly recognizes contributions Creates sense of urgency,
project members. and accomplishments. promotes change.
Clarifies quality standards for Provides individual role and/or Studies other projects to get ideas
task performance. behavior coaching. for improvements.
Facilitates collection and Consults with members on Envisions exciting new
dissemination of information. decisions affecting them. possibilities for the organization.
Actively monitors operations and Helps team members (as a group) Develops strategies linked to
performance. resolve conflicts. organizationÕs vision.
Resolves immediate questions or Keeps team (group) informed Builds coalition of stakeholders
problems from team. about upcoming actions. to get change approved.
Creates task force to guide
implementation of change.
Suggests symbolic changes that
affect the work.
Empowers members to
implement new strategies.
Announces, celebrates progress
supporting changes.
Encourages/facilitates learning
by team members.
Experiments with new
approaches.
22
Exhibit 11
Theory-sampled project case study summaries by context variable
Context variables by Case A #C0001 Case B #E8504 Case C #C9803 Case D #C0109
project, leader Leader #1 Leader #2 Leader #3 Leader #4 Leader #5 Leader #6
Organizational sector American public American public Canadian public Canadian International International
mutual mutual mutual privately held (European, (European,
K.D. Strang / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx

North & South North & South
American) American)
Consortium Consortium
Org Stage in Life Cycle Early/New BU Mature BU Mature Growth Development (some partners)
Structural orientation Bureaucracy Bureaucracy Mechanistic Adhocracy Adhocracy Adhocracy
Organization topology Multidivisional Multidivisional Functional Product Matrix Matrix
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Governance Democratic Democratic Democratic Adhocratic Democratic Democratic
Line of business affecting Individual auto insurance Group health Group life Infrastructure construction
project insurance insurance
Strategic driver Market Core Product Core Project cost, Improved
diversification competency development competency time, quality. technology
to new state maintenance maintenance
Critical environmental Legal: BlileyÕ & SarbOx Legal (same Lack of skilled IT Competition Quality/scope: Distributed field
constraint Acts, NAIC/NCSL as left) & resources at local (time to market) performance staff (lack of
competition prices penalties systems)
Project sponsor title VP CIO Senior Manager Manager Senior Manager Manager
Project leader title BU Manager Project Manager Manager Project Director Project Manager Project Director
Project leader affective Participative, extrovert, Democratic, Laissiez-faire, Autocratic, Autocratic, Autocratic,
profile (with style & female, 40Õs, ESFP, committed, intense, religious, reserved, methodical, creative, male, assertive,
perceived Myers–Briggs feeler male, 30Õs, male, 50s, INTJ, female, 30Õs, 30s, INTP, female, 30Õs,
rating) ISTJ, sensor intuitor. ISTJ, thinker thinker. ISFJ, sensor
Project charter Process and automation Technology Technology Technology Process Database
improvements to (software) (software) (software) improvements analysis to
inbound/ outbound call conversion to development: development: to maintain capture,
center for expansion. improve rules online quote & report writing schedule and analyze, find
handling & setup, claims system, for actuarial increase quality non-
policy admin. policy binder, data mining, (avoid penalty) conformances.
MIB reports policy binder
ARTICLE IN PRESS

Exhibit 12
Sample of observed leadership behaviors across project cases
Count of observed high Case A Case B Case C Case D Case D Case D
leadership behaviors by leader leader Leader leader leader leader
category #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6
across projects (30 work-day
period, concurrent for leaders
in same case)
Task
(1) Organizes work activities to 4 19 3 10 5 9
improve effectiveness.
(2) Develops milestones and 2 3 2 7 2 4
action plans for a project.
(3) Determines what resources 5 1 5 6 3 4
are needed to do a project.
(4) Clarifies role expectations 2 1 0 6 1 2
for project members.
(5) Clarifies quality standards 1 2 0 5 2 1
for task performance.
(6) Facilitates collection and 3 1 1 6 0 0
dissemination of information.
(7) Actively monitors 2 6 4 7 0 4
operations and performance.
(8) Resolves immediate 4 1 0 4 1 1
questions or problems from
team.
(9) Actively listens attentively 29 7 1 2 0 0
to a personÕs concerns.
(10) Actively provides support 2 4 0 0 0 0
and encouragement.
(11) Socializes with team 4 6 0 1 1 0
beyond work to build
relationships.
(12) Publicly recognizes 2 1 0 0 0 0
contributions and
accomplishments.
Relations focus
(13) Provides individual role 2 3 0 10 0 0
and/or behavior coaching.
(14) Consults with members on 6 2 0 1 1 0
decisions affecting them.
(15) Helps team members (as a 2 2 0 2 1 0
group) resolve conflicts.
(16) Keeps team (group) 4 4 3 2 2 1
informed about upcoming
actions.
(17) Leads by example and 3 3 1 1 3 2
models exemplary behavior.
(18) Encourages viewing things 2 1 2 0 0 0
from multiple perspectives.
(19) Expresses confidence team 3 1 0 1 1 0
can attain objectives.
(continued on next page)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Exhibit 12 (continued)
Count of observed high Case A Case B Case C Case D Case D Case D
leadership behaviors by leader leader Leader leader leader leader
category across projects #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6
(30 work-day period,
concurrent for leaders
in same case)
(20) Creates sense of 0 1 0 3 1 3
urgency, promotes change.
(21) Studies other projects to 2 1 2 2 1 0
get ideas for improvements.
(22) Envisions exciting new 3 0 1 0 1 0
possibilities for the
organization.
(23) Develops strategies 2 0 1 0 1 0
linked to organizationÕs
vision.
(24) Builds coalition of 3 1 1 1 1 0
stakeholders to get change
approved.
Change emphasis
(25) Creates task force to 2 1 0 1 0 0
guide implementation of
change.
(26) Suggests symbolic 1 0 1 0 1 0
changes that affect the work.
(27) Empowers members to 2 0 1 0 1 0
implement new strategies.
(28) Announces and 4 2 0 0 1 0
celebrates progress
supporting changes.
(29) Encourages/facilitates 0 2 0 1 0 0
learning by team members.
(30) Experiments with new 2 1 2 0 2 0
approaches.
Exhibit 13. Observed meta-category project leader practices.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Exhibit 14
Observed leader behavior descriptive statistics
Behavior Leaders Sum Average Variance Quantitative Analysis
Task 6 162 27 191.6 Most frequent behavior observed for all leaders,
moderate variance
Relations 6 99 16.5 386.3 Significant relations behavior variance between
leaders but low mean
Change 6 84 14 65.2 Low ÔchangeÕ behavior overall, not much variance
between leaders
3.3.5. Summary of leadership trait and behavior typologies

These leadership trait and behavior taxonomies, like others in the literature, are
not necessarily exhaustive of all possible leader behaviors, since the studies were fo-
cused on managerial level individuals, and thus they will not typically include self-
motivation, team dynamics, organizational context, or other macro-level or project
domain perspectives. Also these leader behavior classification schemes are descrip-
tive in nature, not predictive or prescriptive of what a leader should necessarily do
in a situation. Nevertheless, taxonomies are useful for case study documentation,
as well as comparative and exploratory purposes.
YuklÕs 30 Leadership Behaviors Taxonomy is an excellent typology but QuinnÕs
Leadership Roles Model may possibly be more mature and tested to the extent that
it has been successfully used to explore leadership and organizational culture (Buen-
ger, Daft, Conlon, & Austin, 1996; Denison et al., 1995; Egri & Herman, 2000;
Quinn, 1988; Quinn et al., 1996). Both Yukl and Quinn emphasize that these models
are convenient frameworks for understanding leadership behavior tendencies with
the general idea that effective leaders need to have skills in all the roles, and as men-
tioned earlier, perform several of these behaviors concurrently, not just one at a time.
In fact, the practical principle suggested by the Leadership Roles Model research is
that a leader needs to perform all of these roles simultaneously (to various degrees),
which also corroborates earlier literature (Denison et al., 1995, p. 528).
4. Results and discussions
Previous sections described several alternative methodologies and taxonomies for

analyzing the proposition that effective project leaders cognitively balance and inte-
grate traits, skills and behaviors according to the situation, taking into account
themselves, the environmental context, the group/team, the sponsors, the stakehold-
ers, and of course the priority of each in this circumstance.
A great deal of research was completed but only relevant analysis is included in
this paper. All of these taxonomies discussed herein were used to examine the same
leadership behaviors, traits, and skills in the case studies for each leader, and they
furnished interesting results; however, due to space constraints only the Leadership
Behaviors Taxonomy (which provided the most revealing and comprehensive synthe-
sis in this scenario) will be documented and discussed here.
26
Exhibit 15
Observed leader behavior analysis of variance by meta-categories
Factor Sum of squares Degrees of Mean Critical F value (a 0.01) P value Computed Quantitative analysis
freedom squares F statistic
Behavior categories 571 2 285.5 7.559493 0.231271 1.701092 Accept H0, means same,
leader traits not explained
ARTICLE IN PRESS
by leadership behavior.
Leader traits 1537.167 5 307.4333 5.636366 0.19421 1.831778 Accept H0, means same,
leadership behavior not
explained by leader traits.
Unexplained correlation 1678.333 10 167.8333 Note. The above is not the
hypothesized result of this
research (H0 is merely the
statistical formula constraint),
since the belief is that behavior is
attributed to leader traits.
Additionally, a large portion
(1678 which is > 50%) is
unexplained variance.
Total 3786.5 17
Exhibit 16
Observed leader behavior analysis of variance by detailed factors
Factor Sum of Degrees of Mean Critical F value (a 0.01) P value Computed Quantitative analysis
squares freedom squares F statistic
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Behaviors (detailed) 548.5833 29 18.91667 1.844398 2.67E 05 2.81195 Reject H0, means different,
leader traits variation is
explained by behavior
Leader traits 153.7167 5 30.74333 3.145971 0.00067 4.569976 Reject H0, means different,
behavior variation is attributed
to leader traits
Unexplained 975.45 145 6.727241 Note. This finding supports the
correlation proposition that leadership
behavior is attributed to leader
personality traits, and vice versa,
leader traits are explained through
behavior. A much larger portion
of correlation is now explained by
using detailed observations.
Total 1677.75 179
27
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Exhibit 17
Descriptive statistical summary of leader traits correlated to behaviors
Measure Leader 1 Leader 2 Leader 3 Leader 4 Leader 5 Leader 6
Mean 3.433333333 2.566666667 1.033333333 2.333333333 1.1 1.033333333
Standard 0.914359688 0.656853057 0.242037963 0.499041226 0.205387215 0.366666667
error
Standard 5.00815427 3.597732364 1.32569652 2.733361368 1.124952106 2.008316044
deviation
Sample 25.0816092 12.94367816 1.757471264 7.471264368 1.265517241 4.033333333
variance
Kurtosis 25.50361217 15.36046504 1.804675462 0.687469146 3.899142375 7.875343652
Skewness 4.878060033 3.568140106 1.457333302 1.252332371 1.659860465 2.605763314
Confidence 1.870076559 1.343416076 0.495023486 1.020654466 0.420064249 0.749917945
Level (0.95)
As stated earlier, the case studies were chosen based on theory sampling method-
ology and are shown in Exhibit 11, with key points summarized (rather than taking
space here to describe them in detail narrative form). The construct for the organi-
zational leadership variables used in the table (leftmost column), is similar in concept
to that used by other management science researchers, and in this case the taxonomy
framework was derived from other research (Strang, 2004b).
The table in Exhibit 12 shows a sample of ‘‘high’’ leader behavior observations.
The chart in Exhibit 13 displays a graphical view of the project leader behavior
frequency observation counts grouped by the three meta-leadership categories (plus
the grand total of all three). This emphasizes the high degree of task and relations
behaviors by all leaders, the relatively low use of change oriented practices, as well
as the individual differences between these cases. The exception to this was leader
# 1 who displayed a much more balanced number of task, relations, and change-ori-
ented behavior, and in particular, emphasized her team relations skills. In fact leader
# 1 was the only individual of these research subjects noted for utilizing more rela-
tions behavior (in total) as compared with task and change management. Relations
and change behaviors were infrequent for leaders # 3, # 4, # 5, and # 6.
4.1. Analytical methods results
The two-way upper-tailed analysis of variance (ANOVA-2) test, without replica-

tion, is included in this paper as a statistical test to compare the relationship of leader
traits and leadership behaviors. In this situation the ANOVA-2 statistical test is anal-
ogous to comparing means across samples of populations, which is similar in meth-
odology but exactly opposite in hypothesis testing, to the v2 upper-tailed contingency
distribution to evaluate two qualitative variables for independence. In a two-way
upper-tailed ANOVA-2 test, if the computed value is greater than the F statistic
(at the chosen significance level that in this case was alpha 0.01), it indicates there
is a dependency between the treatment, blocking factor, response variables, in es-
sence the variation is explained by both the treatment and blocking factor variables.
Exhibit 18
Descriptive statistics of leadership behaviors correlated to leader traits sorted by Kurtosis
Behavior Meana Standard Standard Sample Kurtosisa Skewnessa Confidence
Errora deviationa variancea (sort column) level (0.95)a
(26) Suggests symbolic changes that affect the work. 0.500 0.224 0.548 0.300 3.333 0.000 0.575
(18) Encourages viewing things from multiple perspectives. 0.833 0.401 0.983 0.967 2.390 0.456 1.032

(17) Leads by example and models exemplary behavior. 2.167 0.401 0.983 0.967 2.390 0.456 1.032
(15) Helps team members (as a group) resolve conflicts. 1.167 0.401 0.983 0.967 2.390 0.456 1.032
(30) Experiments with new approaches. 1.167 0.401 0.983 0.967 2.390 0.456 1.032
(20) Creates sense of urgency, promotes change. 1.333 0.558 1.366 1.867 1.875 0.523 1.434
(8) Resolves immediate questions or problems from team. 1.833 0.703 1.722 2.967 1.731 0.731 1.808
(16) Keeps team (group) informed about upcoming actions. 2.667 0.494 1.211 1.467 1.550 0.075 1.271
(13) Provides individual role and/or behavior coaching. 1.000 0.516 1.265 1.600 0.781 0.889 1.327
ARTICLE IN PRESS
(7) Actively monitors operations and performance. 3.833 1.046 2.563 6.567 0.571 0.366 2.689
(21) Studies other projects to get ideas for improvements. 1.333 0.333 0.816 0.667 0.300 0.857 0.857
(25) Creates task force to guide implementation of change. 0.667 0.333 0.816 0.667 0.300 0.857 0.857
(23) Develops strategies linked to organizationÕs vision. 0.667 0.333 0.816 0.667 0.300 0.857 0.857
(27) Empowers members to implement new strategies. 0.667 0.333 0.816 0.667 0.300 0.857 0.857
(11) Socializes with team beyond work to build relationships. 2.000 1.000 2.449 6.000 0.300 1.102 2.571
(3) Determines what resources are needed to do a project. 4.000 0.730 1.789 3.200 0.586 0.943 1.877
(28) Announces and celebrates progress supporting changes. 1.167 0.654 1.602 2.567 1.240 1.354 1.681
(12) Publicly recognizes contributions and accomplishments. 0.500 0.342 0.837 0.700 1.429 1.537 0.878
(29) Encourages/facilitates learning by team members. 0.500 0.342 0.837 0.700 1.429 1.537 0.878
(10) Actively provides support and encouragement. 1.000 0.683 1.673 2.800 1.429 1.537 1.756
(6) Facilitates collection and dissemination of information. 1.833 0.946 2.317 5.367 1.693 1.459 2.431
(1) Organizes work activities to improve effectiveness. 8.333 2.418 5.922 35.067 1.855 1.370 6.214
(19) Expresses confidence team can attain objectives. 1.000 0.447 1.095 1.200 2.500 1.369 1.150
(22) Envisions exciting new possibilities for the organization. 0.833 0.477 1.169 1.367 2.552 1.586 1.227
(2) Develops milestones and action plans for a project. 3.333 0.803 1.966 3.867 2.666 1.675 2.064
(5) Clarifies quality standards for task performance. 1.833 0.703 1.722 2.967 2.723 1.435 1.808
(24) Builds coalition of stakeholders to get change approved. 1.167 0.401 0.983 0.967 3.603 1.438 1.032
(4) Clarifies role expectations for project members. 2.000 0.856 2.098 4.400 3.657 1.755 2.201
(14) Consults with members on decisions affecting them. 1.667 0.919 2.251 5.067 3.797 1.882 2.362
(9) Actively listens attentively to a personÕs concerns. 6.500 4.624 11.327 128.300 4.857 2.185 11.887
a
29
Statistics calculated to E 09 level of accuracy and then rounded to three decimal points for display purposes.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
This type of analysis is related to the concept underlying the Within-And-Between-

Analysis (Dansereau et al., 1984; Yammarino & Bass, 1990) being used in contem-
porary leader behavior studies, and it is suitable for the statistical analytic compar-
ison desired in this research.
As mentioned earlier, the case study analysis is supplemented with quantitative
statistical analysis for triangulation of data and method, to strengthen internal valid-
ity and reliability. The goal is to determine if these qualitative observations show
how effective leadership behavior varies across leader personalities. The purpose is
to determine if these qualitative observations show leadership behavior is mostly ex-
plained/impacted by the leader personalities. An additional objective of the method-
ology is to supplement the qualitative case analysis with quantitative analysis at
summary and detailed levels, by challenging the ANOVA-2 null hypothesis to show
that there is variation in leadership behaviors explained by different leader dominant
personality traits.
4.2. Quantitative case study analysis
The following three exhibits show summary level descriptive statistics and ANO-
VA-2 results. The first table Exhibit 7 reveals that for all six leaders, there were more
task-focused behaviors observed (162) at a high level, and the average was almost
double (27), and with moderate variance (meaning most leaders performed similar
behavior amounts in this category), as compared with the other two meta-categories.
As explained earlier, after all ratings of leader behavior were recorded, it was decided
not to include observations less than a definite ‘‘high level’’ in this analysis, to in-
crease precision, enhance statistical credibility, and to reduce author/observer per-
ceptional bias errors (see Exhibit 14).
An interesting and unexpected observation was the significant relations behavior
variance between the leaders (386.3), and combined with the moderate average (16.5)
this might be interpreted to signify that several leaders performed low amounts of
consideration for team members, while others performed very high amount, which
does concur with the actual self-reflected experience. The low ÔchangeÕ behavior over-
all, and little variance between leaders, indicates as expected, that these behaviors
were not commonly observed, either during the recording period, nor for the dura-
tion of these projects (again, self-reflected). The reason for low change behaviors is
self-reflected to be resulting from a stable organizational environment and the nature
of the projects did not involve significant process or role changes. This should not be
interpreted to indicate this is a benchmark of leadership or projects in general, it is
simply the case here.
The table in Exhibit 15 illustrates summary behavior meta-category findings,
which emphasizes the importance of decomposing factor analysis variables to their
lowest possible and practical level. The reason for the statistical lack of dependency
correlation among leader traits and behavior categories is that summary level meta-
data (low number of observation demarcations/classes) will not be sufficient for sta-
tistical significance. Therefore, these results were considered misleading because the
nature of v2 (not shown here) and ANOVA-2 are numerically and probability driven
ARTICLE IN PRESS
therefore larger amounts of observation and sample strata provide more accurate
correlation analysis.
The next table (Exhibit 16) supports the research proposition by illustrating the
ANOVA-2 results using detailed task, relations, and change behaviors (30 classes)
correlated with leader personality traits (skills, abilities, motives), and vice versa.
The statistical findings are credible by standard measures of a low ‘‘P’’ value
(lower than 0.001). Essentially this could be interpreted as the traits of the six
leaders have a variation which is explained by their detailed behaviors. Also, since
the statistical means are different (as measured by the formulas), the detailed
behavior variations are attributed to differences in leader traits. This corroborates
the assertion above, in particular, that different leaders acted with significantly
different amounts of relations behavior (high variance between the leaders). On
a related note, the ANOVA-2 of detailed behaviors shows that a much larger
portion of correlation is now explained by using detailed observations as com-
pared with the three meta-categories.
Also what is not observable in the statistical tabulations and analysis is the di-
rect-participant-observed fact that certain leaders combined these behaviors more
smoothly and somewhat more effectively than others, particularly task with
change, and also relations with change, thus making it difficult in some cases
to differentiate between the category applied, even at the detail level. For exam-
ple, Leader 1 spent a lot of time communicating with people on the team both in
the work context and at other times. She actively listened attentively, spoke of
visions, and encouraged members to try new things, etc., so it was difficult to
determine if this was a high observation of relations or change oriented activity.
Other leaders seemed to do many of the behaviors superficially in all categories,
but it was difficult to consider these behaviors moderate or high so they were not
recorded in this analysis.
The next table (Exhibit 17) shows several descriptive statistical measures of the
leader traits correlated to the detailed behaviors. Of particular interest here at the
descriptive level are the Kurtosis and standard deviation. The Kurtosis (K) factor
was one of a number of statistical distribution measures taken on the comparison
of leader traits with behaviors. A positive high K factor indicates a relatively
peaked as compared to normal distribution, while a negative K suggests a rela-
tively flat distribution. Leader 1 and Leader 2 show a high distribution peak
when their traits are tested against the behaviors, with similar higher values for
their standard deviations, statistical confidence levels, and skewness. The other
leaders all exhibited positive K values but they were typically an order of magni-
tude lower. This is shown in the next exhibit with items of significant interest
highlighted.
The next exhibit (Exhibit 18) lists similar descriptive statistical measures for the
leadership behaviors across the leaders (at the 0.95 confidence level), but this time
it is ordered by K factor, then by the standard deviation. The ‘‘Behavior’’ column
correlates back to the earlier Exhibit 12: Sample of Observed Leadership Behaviors
Across Project Cases, which describes the specific behavior observed, and their meta-
categories. This analysis illustrates certain leadership behaviors that were fairly low
ARTICLE IN PRESS
in distribution peaks (top of table), and those that were highly peaked (bottom por-
tion of the exhibit).
Relations behaviors (# 9–16) from Exhibit 18 (except # 15 ‘‘Helps team mem-
bers. . .’’) tended to have rather moderate K factor observation distributions, while
several of the change orientations were negative, specifically # 26 ‘‘Suggests symbolic
changes that affect the work’’ ( 3.33), # 18 ‘‘Encourages viewing things from multi-
ple perspectives’’ ( 2.39), # 17 ‘‘Leads by example and models exemplary behavior’’
( 2.39), # 15 ‘‘Helps team members (as a group) resolve conflicts’’ ( 2.39), and # 30
‘‘Experiments with new approaches’’ ( 2.39). At the other end of the contingency
spectrum, certain leader behaviors produced high K factors, specifically, # 19 ‘‘Ex-
presses confidence team can attain objectives’’ (2.5), # 22 ‘‘Envisions exciting new
possibilities for the organization’’ Ô(2.55), # 2 ‘‘Develops milestones and action plans
for a project’’, (2.67), # 15 ‘‘Clarifies quality standards for task performance (2.72),
# 24 ‘‘Builds coalition of stakeholders to get change approved’’, (3.6), # 4 ‘‘Clarifies
role expectations for project members’’ (3.66), # 14 ‘‘Consults with members on deci-
sions affecting them’’ (3.8), and # 19 ‘‘Actively listens attentively to a personÕs con-
cerns’’ (4.86). It was interesting to observe that the last item, #9, an important team
relations leadership behavior, had both a high K value, and a high standard devia-
tion (11.33) correlated to leader traits (across leaders).
Overall, this contingency distribution analysis could be interpreted to mean
that project leaders achieved outcomes using different combinations of specific
leader behaviors, with each leader having different dominant personality traits,
yet all accomplished relative successful deliverable production. Some of the corre-
lation was statistically explained, but there was a noted difference in team satis-
faction, and motivation, which was not captured in the observed behaviors or
project outcomes, whereby the higher satisfied team members were those under
leaders 1 and 2, yet some of the leaders did not exhibit trait personalities leaning
toward supporting relationship oriented behaviors. For example, leader # 2 was
less extroverted and less feeling, than leader # 1, yet both exhibited positive
behaviors (but not necessarily correlated/explained by the observed traits). This
suggests that an effective project leader can assess the circumstances, consciously
select a behavior or behaviors to apply in the situation (individual or group), and
perform positive behaviors, without having a natural personality trait pattern/pro-
pensity to behave in this way. Therefore, effective project leadership skills and
behaviors could be learned and applied as a cognitive mental model. Other stud-
ies in the literature concluded that variance in leadership behavior was due to
perceptual interpretations at the individual level (which may not reflect actual
or intended behavior), and leader behavior differs for different subordinates (Avo-
lio, Yammarino, & Bass, 1991; Yammarino & Bass, 1990), which implies that the
leader manages their traits, skills, and personality, to generate appropriate actions
according to the situation, subordinate(s) and the context. Multicultural and mul-
ti-country leadership studies confirm that project leadership success (from the
stakeholder perspective) is evaluated and rated by various factors at the individ-
ual stakeholder mental models or normative group shared normative vision (Dia-
llo & Thuillier, 2004).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4.3. Qualitative case study analysis
The exhibit shows the qualitative assessment of leadership behavior by categoriz-

ing each leader into a dominant role set based on the Leadership Roles Model dis-
cussed earlier.
When this quantitative data above is considered with the qualitative case reflec-
tions, it is obvious that the behaviors and traits of the first two leaders had something
to do with the positive effects on the project outcomes and team satisfaction. These
two projects were judged to be more successful in terms of team satisfaction, cohe-
sive performance than the other leader projects. However, all leaders achieved effec-
tive on time production of deliverables, but, for the other leaders, with lower
relations behaviors, their success in task outcomes was at the cost of less satisfying
relations, a bit more overtime, and less enthusiasm towards their next project.
Change was not a significant factor in these projects. Exhibit 19 shows the qualitative
results of the leader role set analysis (details not included in this paper), thus showing
how quantitative and qualitative measures corroborate leader traits and behaviors.
The most difficult leader to categorize was leader # 3, a creative intuitive type, but
after considerable self-reflection, and peer opinion, it became obvious that this leader
chose to play a monitor behavior role despite the fact that he was an innovator in
other project contexts. Transformational (change oriented) research suggests that
leader and follower motive patterns affect relationships between leadership and
Leader#2 Leader#1 Leader#5

Flexibility
Mentor Innovator
er ces
Ad Op
r
ip
ap en
Le sou
sh
tiv Sy Broker
Re
Facilitator
e st
ad
n
Le e
Pe m a
ad ms
le
Hu
er
op
sh
Internal Focus ip External Focus
In
St te
l
oa
ab rna
ip
lG
lP
sh
ilit
na
y
er
Le roc
Ta atio
ad
ad es Producer
Le
Monitor
R
er s
sk
sh
ip
Director
Stability
Coordinator
Leaders
Leader#3 #4 + #6
Exhibit 19. Leadership roles model analysis.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
outcomes, meaning that traits and behaviors are explained by more than individual
perceptual phenomenon (Wofford, Whittington, & Goodwin, 2001); therefore, moti-
vation may be the source of some variation between the leaders and meta-categories,
which is ratified by the author as a participant self-reflection.
What is also interesting about this analysis is the leader trait/personality does not
necessarily predict the role model that will be used by a leader in a particular project
context. A good case in point of this is that leader # 5 tended to have personality
traits favoring a director or coordinator role, and this was mentioned by other team
members. For example, leader # 5 behaved as an innovator in this project by inspir-
ing and encouraging others toward required quality process changes, yet in other
projects he was more focused on governance and process (director role). Much the
same could be said about leader # 3, who played a monitor role in the observed con-
text, while in other situations he commonly played an innovator role. Other leaders
were also observed to play different roles beyond the project context. Thus the induc-
tive verdict is that leaders play multiple roles in different contexts, which can also dif-
fer (slightly or significantly) depending on the time, the situation, and the context
itself.
These qualitative assessments partly defend similar concepts from other quantita-
tive research that individual, dyadic, and team-based leadership assessments explain
variability in the responses as differences in rater perceptions, and that leadership
behavior is very much individually (trait) driven and not explained at the dyad or
group level of analysis (Avolio & Yammarino, 1990; Avolio et al., 1991; Bass & Avo-
lio, 1994; Yammarino & Bass, 1990)s. However other contextual elements will most
certainly make it difficult for any specific causality variable to be isolated and
explained.
5. Conclusions
This research has shown quantitative and qualitative support for the proposition
that effective project leaders know their own behavior, traits, and skills, they cogni-
tively balance these traits and behaviors according to the situation, taking into ac-
count themselves, the organizational context, the group/team, the stakeholders,
and of course the priority of each of these elements in the circumstance. The leaders
in the case studies demonstrated traits, skills, roles, and behaviors affirming empir-
ical management science studies, and their conduct differed from typical organiza-
tional level and project management functions. The leadership behaviors usually
conformed to typologies such as the Managerial Roles, the Leadership Roles Model,
the Competing Values Framework, as well as the Meta-Category Leadership Taxon-
omy. This concurs in part with the hypothesis that project leaders adopt more man-
agerial roles (directing, monitoring, etc) than leadership roles (facilitating,
mentoring, etc.), in that these leaders practiced different roles in several role sets,
but the interesting finding was that several leaders exhibited multiple role sets
concurrently.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Furthermore, the leaders exhibited some traits found in alternative theories re-
search such as Leadership Virtual Reality, Level 5 Leader Trait Hierarchy, and cha-
risma leadership. Thus, unfortunately the first hypothesis is only partially proven
here, being that organizational leadership principles are applied and observable in
the project domain, but a few project managers did exhibit emergent psychoanalytic
leadership trait and skill principles, primarily emotionality maturity and self-moni-
toring techniques.
The theoretically sampled case project leaders achieved outcomes with high vari-
ances of leader behaviors within the three meta categories of task orientation, rela-
tions focus, and change emphasis. The interesting finding was all leaders exhibited
different behaviors in different combinations with their dominant personality traits
(some of the correlation was explained as noted earlier), yet all accomplished deliv-
erable production. Direct observation of all cases and leaders by the author definitely
concurs with this finding that leader traits and their behaviors applied to project
situations is a conscious, cognitively complex, and contingency procedure, which
is different for each situation faced, and not necessarily a pattern directly associated
with their personality traits (although some leaders tended to be more predictable
than others in terms of their behaviors for many types of project situations). The
main outcome variable for leaders having lower relations behaviors, which statisti-
cally showed some dependency/attribution to personality traits, was less team satis-
faction, and lower future motivation to continue to perform, whereby the higher
satisfied team members were those with leaders exhibiting higher relations behaviors,
but not necessarily having extroverted, sensing, or feeling personality traits.
The research conclusion is that an effective project leader can assess the circum-
stances, consciously select skill(s) to apply in the situation, and act out beneficial pro-
ject leadership behaviors, without necessarily having a contextually-advantageous
personality propensity to behave in a supportive way, which repudiates the hypoth-
esis that effective project leaders need a personal competency and personality com-
bination that is conducive and complimentary to the dynamic project management
role. This research disagrees with some aspects of contemporary management science
theory in that project managers do not require an emphasis on relations behaviors
and change oriented traits, supported by extrovert and affective-dominate personal-
ity profiles. This assertion is supported by psychology theory that argues certain per-
sonality traits and skills associated with leadership style are intrinsic to each person;
therefore, the other capabilities must be developed (Jung, 1971; Collins, 2001).
Therefore, inductively, it is propositioned that effective project leadership behaviors
can be learned and applied. In the same manner, leadership skills, behaviors, and
processes could be proximally learned and improved at any level in the organization
or community. Both of these propositions are posited contingent on the leader hav-
ing at least a moderate level of leadership knowledge, cognitive functioning, emo-
tional stability, and contextual skills.
These findings, albeit on a small statistical scale of significance, are a catalyst for
continued and broader global (cross-industry, inter-cultural) research, from multiple
stakeholder perspectiveÕs of leadership theories using case analysis methods and
hypotheses replication with these constructs and alternative taxonomies. As well,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
it is recommend to supplement this research with empirical studies at the dyadic and
organizational levels of analysis (in addition to individual and group levels used
here).
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Dr. Jerry Hunt (Director, Institute for Leadership Research,
Management Ph.D. Coordinator at Rawls College of Business in Lubbock TX)
and Dr. Dinese Rousseau (Carnegie Mellon University at Pittsburg, PA) for review-
ing several of my papers and providing constructive feedback. I also thank Dr. Ali-
son M. Konrad (Richard Ivey School of Business at London, Ontario) for reviewing
several research papers in this series.
References
Adair, J. (1997, March). Developing leadership skills. In Paper presented at the Human Resource
Development Week.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and
transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441–462.
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Operationalizing charismatic leadership using a level of analysis
framework. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 193–208.
Avolio, B. J., Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Identifying common methods variance with data
collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue. Journal of Management, 17, 571–587.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, USA: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organisational effectiveness through transformational
leadership. London: Sage.
Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Bass & StogdillÕs handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bennis, W. (1989). On becomming a leader. San Francisco: Peresus Publishing.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1997). Leaders strategies for taking charge (3rd ed.). New York: Harper
Business.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York, NY: Wiley.
Bradford, D. L., & Cohen, A. R. (1984). Managing for excellence: The guide to developing high performance
organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Buenger, V., Daft, R. L., Conlon, E. J., & Austin, J. (1996). Competing values in organizations: contextual
influences and structural consequences. Organization Science, 7(5), 557–576.
Charon, L. d. (2003). A transformational leadership development program: Jungian psychological types in
dynamic flux. Organization Development Journal, 21(3), 9–21.
Collins, J. (2001). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard Business Review,
79(1), 66–76.
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1984). Theory testing in organizational behavior: The
variant approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: toward a theory of
behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organizational Science, 6(5), 524–540.
Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2004). The success dimensions of international development projects: The
perceptions of african project coordinators. International Journals of Project Management, 22(1),
19–31.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Dubin, R. (1976). Theory building in applied areas. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Duffy, J. (2001). Maturity models: blueprints for evolution. Strategy & Leadership, 29(6), 19.
Egri, C. P., & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the north american environmental sector: Values,
leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(4), 571–605.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theory from case study research. Acade my of Management Review, 14,
488–511.
Fairholm, G. W. (1998). Leadership as an exercise in virtual reality. Learning & Organizational
Development Journal, 19(4), 187–193.
Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 92–102.
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78–90.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader-
member exchange theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain approach.
Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.
Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J. W., & Woodman, R. W. (1992). Organizational behavior (6th ed.). St. Paul, MN:
West Publishing Company.
Hemphill, J. K. (1959). Job descriptions for executives. Harvard Business Review, 37, 55–67.
House, R. J. (1977). In J. G. a. L. Hunt (Ed.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press.
Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1987). Leadership in complex systems. In J. Zeidner (Ed.), Human productivity
enhancement: Organizations, personnel, and decision making. New York, USA: Praeger.
Johnson, W. L., Mauzey, E., Johnson, A. M., Murphy, S. D., & Zimmerman, K. J. (2001). A higher order
analysis of the factor structure of the Myers–Briggs type indicator. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 34, 96–116.
Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. In R. Hull (Ed.), The basic writings of Jung. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Koontz, H., OÕDonnell, C., & Weihrich, H. (1980). Management (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 68(3).
Kotter, J. P. (1998). What leaders really do. In H. B. Review (Ed.), Harvard business review on leadership
(pp. 37–60). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Lombardo, M. M., & McCall, M. W. J. (1978). Leadership. In M. W. J. McCall & M. M. Lombardo
(Eds.), Leadership: Where else can we go?. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Mahoney, T. A., Jerdee, T. H., & Carroll, S. J. (1965). The jobs of management. Industrial Relations
Journal, 4, 97–110.
McCall, M. W. J., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. (1988). Lessons of experience. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Michael, J. (2003). Using the Myers–Briggs type indicator as a tool for leadership development. Apply
with caution. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(1), 68.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Analyzing qualitative data: A source book for new methods.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mintzberg, H. (1975). The managerÕs job – folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review, 53(4).
Mintzberg, H. (1998). The managerÕs job – folklore and fact. In H. B. Review (Ed.), Harvard business
review on leadership (pp. 1–36). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Mumford, M. D., & Connelly, M. S. (1991). Leaders as creators: leader performance and problem solving
in ill-defined domain. Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 289–315.
Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1989). A guide to the development and use of the Myers–Briggs type
indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Page, R. & Tornow, W. W. (1987). Managerial job analysis: Are we farther along? In Paper presented at
the society for industrial and organizational psychology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Parry, S. B. (1993). Just what is a competency and why should you care?. Training(June), 58–64.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
PMI (2002). Project manager competency development framework. Newton Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
PMI (2003). Organizational project management maturity model. Newton Square, PA: Project Manage-
ment Institute.
Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high
performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, R. E., Faerman, S. R., Thompson, M. P., & McGrath, M. R. (1996). Becoming a master manager:
A competency framework. New York, USA: Wiley.
Quinn, R. E., & Robrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria towards a competing values
approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3).
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organisational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schermerhorn Hunt & Osborn (2003). Organizational behavior (8th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Schneider, M. (2002). A stakeholder model of organizational leadership. Organizational Science, 13(2),
209–220.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner – How professionals think in action. Aldershot, UK:
BasiAshgate ARENA.
Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New York, USA: Free Press.
Strang, K. D. (2003a, September 23). Achieving organizational learning across projects. In Paper presented
at the PMI North America global congress 2003, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Strang, K. D. (2003b). Practical explorations in knowledge management maturity (Essay). Melbourne,
Australia: RMIT.
Strang, K. D. (2004a). Exploring dynamic project leadership processes: A social science perspective. Newton
Square, PA: In-press.
Strang, K. D. (2004b). Examining effective and ineffective transformational project leadership. Team
Performance Management; Emerald Publishing Group; in press.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job
performance: a meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703–742.
Tornow, W. W., & Pinto, P. R. (1976). Development of a managerial taxonomy: A system for describing,
classifying, and evaluating executive positions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 61, 410–418.
Verma, V. K., & Wideman, R. M. (1994). Project manager to project leader? And the rocky road between.
In Paper presented at the proceedings of the 25th annual PMI seminars/symposium on project
management, Upper Darby, PA, USA.
Viswesvaran, C., & Deniz, A. O. (2000). Measurement error in big five factors personality assessment:
Reliability generalization across studies and measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60,
224–236.
Walker, D. H. T. (2000). Client/customer or stakeholder focus. Iso14000 ems as a construction industry
case study. TQM, 12(1), 18–25.
Walker, D. H. T., Hampson, K. D., & Peters, R. J. (2000). Relationship-based procurement strategies for
the 21st century. Canberra, Australia: AusPrint.
Wofford, J. C., Whittington, J. L., & Goodwin, V. L. (2001). Follower motive patterns as situational
moderators for transformational leadership effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(2), 196–212.
Yammarino, F., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human
Relations, 43, 975–995.
Yin R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed., Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications Inc..
Yukl, G. (1971). Toward a behavioral theory of leadership.
Yukl, G. (1987). A new taxonomy for integrating diverse perspectives on managerial behavior. In Paper
presented at the Leadership Developments, New York, NY, USA.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: integrating a
half-century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 15–33.
Zaccaro, S. J., Gilbert, J. A., Thor, K. K., & Mumford, M. D. (1991). Leadership and social intelligence:
linking social perceptiveness and behavioral flexibility to leader effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly,
2(4), 317–342.
Zalesnik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders are they different. Harvard Business Review, 55(3).
Dr. Kenneth David Strang is a professional international project manager with 21 years experience in
various countries, sectors, and industries, especially insurance, financial, academic, construction, tech-
nology, and government. He is also an academic researcher, teaches graduate level at several universities,
and designs courses (face-to-face plus internet-based). His academic research interests are: leadership,
project management, organizational learning, knowledge management, ethics, organizational behavior,
strategy, systemic models, and web-based adult educational psychology.
Kenneth completed his Doctoral in Organizational Project Management (honors) at RMIT University in
Australia. He has a Master of Business Administration (honors), he holds a Fellow Life Management
Institute designation (with distinction), specializing in multi-line Life Insurance Actuary and Pension
Planning Systems, he has a Bachelor of Science (honors), and a Business Technology Diploma (honors).
Kenneth is certified by PMI as a Project Management Professional. He is also an active board director in
several Canadian and international associations, and he often volunteers for non-profit corporations such
as United Way, Insync, Learning Network, School District Education Councils, Project Management
Institutes, IEEE, Unicef, and others.

Examining Effective Technology Project Leadership Traits and Behaviors

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Examining Effective Technology Project Leadership Traits and Behaviors

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Examining eﬀective technology project

E-mail address: kennethstrang@netscape.net (K.D. Strang).

0747-5632/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

2 K.D. Strang / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx

Keywords: Technology project leadership; Leader traits; Technology manager roles

1.1. Discovering why leadership is valuable at all organizational levels

K.D. Strang / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx 3

Cultivating relationships across the organization, particularly vertical and hori-

Exhibit 1. Leadership epistemological contexts and disciplines.

4 K.D. Strang / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx

Leader Intervening variables:

Power Follower Commitment

Leader Traits: Project Leader

Exhibit 2. Leadership processes systemic model.

K.D. Strang / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx 5

1. community, organizational, societal – organizational behavior, transformational

Exhibit 3. Leadership levels of analysis.

6 K.D. Strang / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx

3. dyadic (two entities view) – leader–follower and more recently follower-to-leader,

Contemporary leadership research has tended to use multiple levels of analysis

2.1. Research questions

K.D. Strang / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx 7

(1) Organizational leadership principles such as contingency, situational, and trait

2.2. Research methodology

8 K.D. Strang / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx

3. Eﬀective leadership as traits, skills or behaviors?

K.D. Strang / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx 9

Situational Social Relations Leader

Exhibit 4. Leadership skill–trait–behavior process model.

interests, strong inner motivation/drives (self-conﬁdence and self-eﬃcacy), and con-

10 K.D. Strang / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx

 social/interpersonal/emotive – understanding and ability to modify human behav-

K.D. Strang / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx 11

 technical/knowledge/administrative/process – method knowledge, ability to use

3.1. Alternative theoretical leadership trait and skill typologies

3.1.1. Leadership virtual reality

1. leadership as management – scientiﬁc management principles emphasizing the lea-

3.1.2. Level 5 hierarchy

12 K.D. Strang / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx

1. leadership is not necessarily genetic, as the model suggests, it can be developed if

LEVEL 4 EFFECTIVE LEADER

compelling vision, stimulates group

to high performance standards

LEVEL3 COMPETENT MANAGER

Organizes people, resources toward effective,

efficient pursuit of predetermined objectives

LEVEL2 CONTRIBUTING TEAM MEMBER

Contributes to achievement of group objectives, works

LEVEL1 HIGHLY CAPABLE INDIVIDUAL

Exhibit 6. Level 5 leader trait hierarchy.

K.D. Strang / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx 13

3.1.3. Emotional maturity and personality

14 K.D. Strang / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx

is proposed as an excellent complimentary dimension which has been successfully ap-

3.2. Leadership or management behaviors?

K.D. Strang / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx 15

An alternative perspective of leading and managing propositions it is necessary to

Management & Leadership

Exhibit 7. Integrated leadership skills and management functions.

16 K.D. Strang / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2004) xxx–xxx

1998). KotterÕs deﬁnition of managing frames it as Ôcoping with complexityÕ, which is

3.3. Analytical typologies of leader traits, skills, and behaviors

social/interpersonal/emotive – understanding and ability to modify human behav-

technical/knowledge/administrative/process – method knowledge, ability to use