Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 358

THE INFLUENCE OF PROJECT MANAGERS LEADERSHIP STYLES ON PROJECT TEAM PERFORMANCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY by Oluwole Omotayo Oshinubi

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership

University of Phoenix December 2007

UMI Number: 3302623

UMI Microform 3302623 Copyright 2008 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

ii

2007 by Oluwole Omotayo Oshinubi ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

THE INFLUENCE OF PROJECT MANAGERS' LEADERSHIP STYLES ON PROJECT TEAM PERFORMANCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

by Oluwole Omotayo Oshinubi December 2007 Approved: Bruce McEwan, Ph.D., Mentor Leona Lobell, Ph.D., Committee Member Randal Allison, Ph.D., Committee Member

n
Accepted and Signed:

12) 111200%
(Mon

Accepted and Si

Da ,Year)

Accepted and Signed:

I~/II!~OOF
(Month, Date, Year)

Dawn Iwamoto, Ed.D. Dean, School of Advanced Studies University of Phoenix

(~onth Date, Year)

ABSTRACT The purpose of the quantitative, correlational study is to evaluate the relationship between the leadership styles of 17 project managers in 17 project teams consisting of 6-9 members and the team members perception of the project managers leadership styles as the leadership styles relate to project team performance in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. A project managers leadership style is signified through the emergence of nine leadership characteristics: (a) charisma, (b) sharing responsibility, (c) continuous personal and team development, (d) a common vision, (e) mutually influencing relationships, (f) putting the interests of the group ahead of the interests of the individual, (g) risk-taking, (h) team collaboration, and (i) empowering others. The study hypothesized that teams in which the project manager exhibited high level of leadership characteristics would show higher levels of team performance. Seventeen project teams from the construction industry in the southeastern United States participated. The study consisted of three parts: a project leadership survey, a project manager survey, and the collection of team performance data. The results of the study from the 17 teams indicated that four of the leadership characteristics, continuous development, mutual influence relationships, risk taking, and collaboration, were consistently found in the project managers of top-performing teams. Project managers and team members recognize the responsibility for the performance of the team is the responsibility of the entire team rather than of a single individual. Through leadership training focusing on the nine characteristics of project manager leadership styles examined in the study, team performance may be positively affected.

iv DEDICATION I give all the honor and glory to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, without whom; I would not have been able to embark on this journey. I dedicate this work to my best friend and wife, Bose Adetutu, for her unfailing love, encouragement, prayers, and relentless support of my educational pursuit. I also dedicate this work to my parents, Alfred Ayodele and Comfort Abayomi; both have since passed away, for instilling in me the character, discipline, patience, dedication, perseverance, and the relentless pursuit of excellence in everything I embark upon.

v ACKNOWLEDGMENT I gratefully acknowledge the guidance, assistance, support, and encouragement of several people throughout the course of developing and finalizing this project. The doctorate journey has not been an individual endeavor, but has been a combined effort from family, friends, professional colleagues, my doctorate cohort, and especially my dissertation committee. Dr. Bruce McEwan served as my mentor and friend, and his continual support, guidance, and patience helped to keep me on track throughout the process. I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Leona Lobell and Dr. Randal Allison, for their unrelenting support, helpful suggestions, and contributions in making a product of which I can feel proud. I would like to thank Dr. Carolyn Salerno for her initial guidance in focusing the study. I would like to acknowledge my children, Sade Stephanie, Adeola Ivana, and Folabi Emmanuel for their sacrifices, support, absolute faith in my abilities, and prayers. Thank you for your understanding and commitment to seeing me succeed. I will forever be grateful for your love and sacrifices throughout the years and for believing in me. Special thanks go to my family, friends, colleagues, small group and district coaches team at Victory World Church, Norcross, Georgia, and doctorate cohort of 05-04 who were supportive of me. Without the support, encouragement, and prayers I would not have been able to complete this project. Special thanks to all participating organizations and individuals in the study, without the support, the project would not have been completed.

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... xiii LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................xv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1 Background to the Problem .................................................................................................3 Problem Statement ...............................................................................................................5 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................6 Significance of the Study to the Construction Industry .......................................................7 Significance of the Study to Leadership ..............................................................................7 Nature of the Study ..............................................................................................................8 Research Questions..............................................................................................................9 Hypotheses...........................................................................................................................9 Conceptual or Theoretical Framework ..............................................................................10 Definitions..........................................................................................................................12 Scope..................................................................................................................................14 Assumptions.......................................................................................................................14 Limitations .........................................................................................................................15 Delimitations......................................................................................................................16 Summary ............................................................................................................................16 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................18 Leadership Theories and Models .......................................................................................19 Historical Overview .....................................................................................................19 Trait Theory .................................................................................................................19

vii Situational-Contingency Theory..................................................................................20 Path-Goal Theory.........................................................................................................21 Behavioral Theory .......................................................................................................22 Relational Theory.........................................................................................................23 Transactional Theory ...................................................................................................24 Transformational Theory .............................................................................................25 Leadership Characteristics .................................................................................................30 Charisma ......................................................................................................................31 Shared Responsibility ..................................................................................................32 Continuous Development.............................................................................................33 Common Vision ...........................................................................................................34 Mutual Influence Relationships ...................................................................................35 Group Interests.............................................................................................................36 Risk Taking..................................................................................................................38 Collaboration................................................................................................................39 EmpowermentEnabling Others to Act. ....................................................................40 Project Manager and Project Management ........................................................................42 Project Management ....................................................................................................42 Management and Leadership .......................................................................................42 Project Managers Leadership Styles...........................................................................44 Technical Versus Management Skills of Project Managers ........................................45 Selection Criteria for Project Managers in the Construction Industry.........................46 The Uniqueness of Project Managers in the Construction Industry ............................47

viii Teams and Team Performance...........................................................................................47 Team Structure.............................................................................................................48 Team Performance .......................................................................................................49 Perceptions of Team Members and Project Management ...........................................50 High-Performance Teams and Projects .......................................................................51 Team Effectiveness......................................................................................................52 Future Trends of Project Management and Leadership in the Construction Industry.......52 Disparity in the Existing Literature....................................................................................54 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................55 Summary ............................................................................................................................56 CHAPTER 3: METHOD ...................................................................................................58 Research Method ...............................................................................................................58 Appropriateness of Design.................................................................................................63 Research Questions............................................................................................................63 Research Hypotheses .........................................................................................................64 Population Sample .............................................................................................................64 Informed Consent...............................................................................................................66 Sampling ............................................................................................................................67 Confidentiality ...................................................................................................................67 Geographic Location..........................................................................................................67 Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................68 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................68 Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................70

ix Validity and Reliability......................................................................................................71 Validity ........................................................................................................................71 Reliability.....................................................................................................................72 Data Organization ..............................................................................................................72 Summary ............................................................................................................................73 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS...................................................................................................74 Research Procedure............................................................................................................75 Survey Instrument Development .................................................................................76 Data Gathering Process................................................................................................77 Survey ..........................................................................................................................79 Coding Data .................................................................................................................79 Collecting Data ............................................................................................................80 Performance Report .....................................................................................................81 Project Manager Study.................................................................................................83 Team Study ..................................................................................................................84 Report of Data....................................................................................................................85 Pilot Study....................................................................................................................85 Individual Project Team Studies......................................................................................100 Team B.......................................................................................................................101 Team C.......................................................................................................................106 Team D.......................................................................................................................111 Team E .......................................................................................................................116 Team F .......................................................................................................................123

x Team G.......................................................................................................................128 Team H.......................................................................................................................135 Team I ........................................................................................................................141 Team J........................................................................................................................147 Team K.......................................................................................................................152 Team L .......................................................................................................................158 Team M......................................................................................................................163 Team N.......................................................................................................................168 Team O.......................................................................................................................173 Team P .......................................................................................................................179 Team Q.......................................................................................................................184 Team R.......................................................................................................................189 Team Performance ...........................................................................................................194 Summary of Team Performance ......................................................................................195 Research Questions..........................................................................................................198 Independent Variable Correlations ..................................................................................202 Hypotheses.......................................................................................................................203 Multiple Regression Analysis ....................................................................................205 Multiple Regression Equation....................................................................................207 Multiple Analyses of Variance ..................................................................................209 Summary ..........................................................................................................................213 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................215 Problem Statement ...........................................................................................................215

xi Purpose Statement............................................................................................................216 Hypotheses.......................................................................................................................217 Limitations .......................................................................................................................218 Results and Conclusions of the Study..............................................................................219 Conclusions of Research Questions.................................................................................229 Conclusions of Research Hypotheses ..............................................................................230 Implications......................................................................................................................232 Recommendations............................................................................................................234 Significance to Industry ...................................................................................................236 Significance to Leadership...............................................................................................237 Summary ..........................................................................................................................238 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................240 Appendix A: Project Managers Survey ..........................................................................270 Appendix B: Team Members Survey .............................................................................272 Appendix C: Title Search.................................................................................................274 Appendix D: Leadership Characteristics .........................................................................275 Appendix E: Organizational Consent and Confidentiality Agreement............................277 Appendix F: Introduction Letter to Operations Manager ................................................279 Appendix G: Team Performance Measure Matrix...........................................................281 Appendix H: Consent to Act as a Research Subject ........................................................282 Appendix I: Introduction Letter to Project Managers......................................................283 Appendix J: Introduction Letter to Project Team Members ............................................284 Appendix K: Survey Introduction Letter .........................................................................285

xii Appendix L: Demographics.............................................................................................286 Appendix M: Demographic Statistics..............................................................................288 Appendix N: Pilot Team Demographic Statistics............................................................291 Appendix O: Pilot Team Survey Results .........................................................................293 Appendix P: Pilot Team Leadership Characteristics Descriptive Statistics ....................295 Appendix Q: Pilot Team Survey Correlations of Leadership Characteristics .................296 Appendix R: Pilot Team Scatter Plot Matrix of Correlation Coefficient ........................298 Appendix S: Descriptive Statistics Report.......................................................................301 Appendix T: Descriptive Statistics Report ......................................................................306 Appendix U: Correlation Coefficient Matrix Project Manager Survey........................335 Appendix V: Correlation Coefficient Matrix Project Team Survey.............................336

xiii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Independent Variables of Leadership ...................................................................61 Table 2 Team B Leadership Descriptive (n = 7) .............................................................103 Table 3 Team C Leadership Descriptive .........................................................................108 Table 4 Team D Leadership Descriptive .........................................................................113 Table 5 Team E Leadership Descriptive..........................................................................119 Table 6 Team F Leadership Descriptive..........................................................................125 Table 7 Team G Leadership Descriptive .........................................................................131 Table 8 Team H Leadership Descriptive .........................................................................137 Table 9 Team I Leadership Descriptive...........................................................................143 Table 10 Team J Leadership Descriptive ........................................................................149 Table 11 Team K Leadership Descriptive .......................................................................154 Table 12 Team L Leadership Descriptive........................................................................159 Table 13 Team M Leadership Descriptive.......................................................................164 Table 14 Team N Leadership Descriptive .......................................................................170 Table 15 Team O Leadership Descriptive .......................................................................176 Table 16 Team P Leadership Descriptive........................................................................181 Table 17 Team Q Leadership Descriptive .......................................................................186 Table 18 Team R Leadership Descriptive........................................................................191 Table 19 Multiple Regression Summary Project Team Survey ....................................206 Table 20 Multiple Regression Summary Project Manager Survey...............................207 Table 21 Multiple Regression Equation Project Team Survey.....................................208 Table 22 Multiple Regression Equation Project Manager Survey ...............................209

xiv Table 23 Multiple Regression Analyses of Variance Detail Report Project Team Survey211 Table 24 Multiple Regression Analyses of Variance Detail Report Project Manager Survey.........................................................................................................................212

xv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Research design plan. .........................................................................................59 Figure 2. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team members for the charisma survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). .....................87 Figure 3. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team members for the shared responsibility survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). ..89 Figure 4. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team members for continuous development survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). ..90 Figure 5. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team members for common vision development survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). ...............................................................................................................................92 Figure 6. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team members for mutual influence relationships survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). ...............................................................................................................................93 Figure 7. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team members for the group interests survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).............95 Figure 8. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team members for the risk taking survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). ..................96 Figure 9. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team members for the collaboration survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). ..............98 Figure 10. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team members for the empowerment survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11)..............99

xvi Figure 11. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team B (n = 7)...........................................................................................................104 Figure 12. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team B (n = 7).....................................................................................................................105 Figure 13. Comparison of project manager and team member performance survey responses for Team B (n = 7).....................................................................................106 Figure 14. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team C (n = 8)...........................................................................................................109 Figure 15. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team C (n = 8).....................................................................................................................110 Figure 16. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team C (n = 8) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams.. .............................111 Figure 17. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team D (n = 6)...........................................................................................................114 Figure 18. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team D (n = 6).....................................................................................................................115 Figure 19. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team D (n = 6) and the combined mean scores for bottom-performing teams. ..........................116 Figure 20. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team E (n = 6). ..........................................................................................................120 Figure 21. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team E (n = 6). ....................................................................................................................121

xvii Figure 22. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team E (n = 6) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. ..........................122 Figure 23. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team F (n = 7). ..........................................................................................................126 Figure 24. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team F (n = 7). ....................................................................................................................127 Figure 25. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team F (n = 7) and the combined mean scores for bottom-performing teams. ..........................128 Figure 26. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team G (n = 8)...........................................................................................................132 Figure 27. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team G (n = 7).....................................................................................................................133 Figure 28. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team G (n = 8) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. ..............................134 Figure 29. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team H (n = 9)...........................................................................................................138 Figure 30. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team H (n = 9).....................................................................................................................139 Figure 31. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team H (n = 9) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. ..............................140 Figure 32. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team I (n = 6). ...........................................................................................................144

xviii Figure 33. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team I (n = 6). .....................................................................................................................145 Figure 34. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team I (n = 6) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. ..........................146 Figure 35. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team J (n = 9). ...........................................................................................................150 Figure 36. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team J (n = 9). .....................................................................................................................151 Figure 37. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team J (n = 9) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. ..........................152 Figure 38. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team K (n = 8)...........................................................................................................155 Figure 39. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team K (n = 8).....................................................................................................................156 Figure 40. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team K (n = 8) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. ..............................157 Figure 41. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team L (n = 9). ..........................................................................................................160 Figure 42. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team L (n = 9). ....................................................................................................................161 Figure 43. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team L (n = 9) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. ..............................162

xix Figure 44. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team M (n = 7). .........................................................................................................165 Figure 45. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team M (n = 7). ...................................................................................................................166 Figure 46. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team M (n = 7) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. ..........................167 Figure 47. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team N (n = 6)...........................................................................................................171 Figure 48. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team N (n = 6).....................................................................................................................172 Figure 49. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team N (n = 6) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. ..........................173 Figure 50. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team O (n = 6)...........................................................................................................177 Figure 51. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team O (n = 6).....................................................................................................................178 Figure 52. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team O (n = 6) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. ..............................179 Figure 53. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team P (n = 9). ..........................................................................................................182 Figure 54. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team P (n = 9). ....................................................................................................................183

xx Figure 55. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team P (n = 9) and the combined mean scores for bottom-performing teams. ..........................184 Figure 56. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team Q (n = 8)...........................................................................................................187 Figure 57. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team Q (n = 8).....................................................................................................................188 Figure 58. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team Q (n = 8) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. ..........................189 Figure 59. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team R (n = 7)...........................................................................................................192 Figure 60. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team R (n = 7).....................................................................................................................193 Figure 61. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team R (n = 7) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. ..............................194 Figure 62. Dependent variable of team performance comparison for all 17 teams.........195

1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The construction industry represents a significant aspect of the U.S. economy, and the number of construction projects since the mid-1990s has increased by 12% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2006, p. 24). Annually, the construction industry represents approximately 12% of the gross domestic product and approximately 8 million jobs (New Record, 2004, p. 27). The number and complexity of construction projects are increasing the demand for management-level personnel in the construction industry (BLS). According to a report published by the BLS in August 2006, employment of construction project managers is likely to increase approximately as fast as the employment average for all occupations through 2014. The projected increase in construction projects represents 9% to 17% growth in the construction industry (BLS, p. 24). More project managers may be needed in the construction industry as the level of construction activity continues to grow, as the need for greater cost control and financial management of projects continues to increase, and as the need to manage the project team in the construction industry continues to increase. According to Kendra and Taplin (2004), organizations in the construction industry are increasing emphasis on quality control, timely schedules, and execution of projects within the project-specified budget. The construction industry consists of architects, engineers, construction-related trade consultants, project owners, and general contractors (Bender & Septelka, 2002). Construction professionals are often asked by the organizations to take on leadership roles in the industry without formal training. In the construction industry, the project manager is responsible for the successful completion of projects on time and within a specified budget. Project managers need strong leadership skills to complete projects on

2 schedule while maintaining a high-quality product within the specified budget (Augustine, Payne, Sencindiver, & Woodcock, 2005; Bender & Septelka; Dreyfus, 2004; Kendra & Taplin, 2004). The construction industry relies on teams of various professionals to execute construction projects (Bender & Septelka, 2002). There is a need for project managers to manage the projects and teams. Managing and performance of construction projects and teams often depends on the effectiveness of the project manager. Research on the potential influence of the leadership styles of project managers on team performance is needed. However, there is limited published research dedicated to the analysis of the potential influence of leadership styles of project managers on team performance in the construction industry. Most research on project management focuses on behavioral and organizational issues rather than technical difficulties of projects (Thamhain, 2004). Other researchers (Hartman & Ashrafi, 2002; LaRue & Ivany, 2004) concur that research on technical difficulties in project management may be inadequate. Research dedicated to the analysis of the potential influence of leadership styles of project managers on project team performance in the construction industry is needed. The emphasis on the relational aspect of project management has increased (Kouzes & Posner, 2003; Posner & Kouzes, 2002; Scott & Vessey, 2002; Sumner, Bock, & Giamartino, 2006). The increased focus on the relational aspect of project management has contributed to improved performance and effective teamwork in organizations that rely on teams to execute projects (Love & Edwards, 2004). The need for improved performance requires project managers to become mutually dependent on the teams. The intent of the study is to determine if a relationship exists between the leadership styles of

3 project managers and team members perception of the project managers leadership styles on team performance in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. Background to the Problem The need for effective leadership in the construction industry is increasing. The American Society of Civil Engineers in 2002 began a new quarterly publication titled Leadership and Management in Engineering to address the need for effective leadership in the industry. According to Powell (2002), a formal approach to leadership development is needed to complement the technical skills of project managers in the construction industry. Rubin, Powers, Tulacz, Winston, and Krizan (2002) noted there is an interest within the construction industry in preparing professionals in the industry for leadership positions. Individuals with good technical skills are promoted to management positions that require teamwork and people-oriented skills without adequate preparation (Cowie, 2003). Rubin et al. (2002) conducted a survey that indicated only 18% of the construction industry leaders surveyed had any formal project management or leadership training (p. 35). Leadership training is essential to helping project managers improve team performance. Project managers of teams are faced with new challenges, and the project managers may have to manage a wide range of economic, political, social, and regulatory challenges (Dugan, 2006; Thamhain, 2004). Williams (2002) noted organizations are embracing the concept of teamwork to remain competitive in the marketplace. According to Thamhain, teamwork in organizations is not a new idea. Thamhain contended,

4 [The] concept of teamwork could be traced back to the basic concepts of organizing and managing teams back in biblical times. However, in todays more complex, multinational and technologically sophisticated environment, the work group has reemerged as a business concept and its unified team performance is now regarded as crucial to project success. (p. 34) A lack of leadership competency affects the effectiveness of project managers by influencing team performance and project delivery (Love, 2002). For project managers to manage projects effectively, they ought to employ a combination of leadership styles that suit the team they lead. In most instances, the performance of project teams is directly linked to the ability of the project manager to include all members of the team in decision making, especially in the decisions that affect the employees tasks. According to Thompsen (2000), project leaders ought to take the initiative to involve all members in creating and understanding the purpose and vision of the team and project. The lack of good project management skills among project managers in the construction industry may result in an increase in errors and omissions in projects. Errors may lead to rework in building construction projects, and errors and omissions are contributing factors to project delivery and cost (Love, 2002; Love, Irani, & Edwards, 2003). In research on the determinants of rework in building construction projects in the Australian building construction industry, project characteristics, organizational management, and project management practices were found to influence rework (Love & Edwards, 2004). Love and Edwards reported rework typically adds 10% to total project costs (p. 260). The authors also state that the Australian construction industry's turnover

5 was approximately $A57 billion in 2002 and an additional 10% in rework would increase the turnover by $A5.7 billion. Problem Statement The general problem examined in the study, the influence of leadership styles of project managers on team performance in the construction industry in southeastern United States, was presented in a study by Ammeter and Dukerich (2002) on eight highperformance project teams in the construction, manufacturing, and military service industries in Canada and United States. Ammeter and Dukerich reported 67% of respondents indicated team leader behaviors are highly influential to team performance (p. 5). According to Ammeter and Dukerich, a project managers role is to set and communicate the desired goals and values to the team. The result of well-communicated goals and objectives by project managers is improved team performance (Israel & Kasper, 2004; Kuo, 2004; Sumner et al., 2006). The specific problem addressed in the study is the lack of effective leadership and management practices in the construction industry, which may result in time-wasting, unnecessary costs, and increased errors in projects (Love, Irani, & Edwards, 2004). Badger and Kashiwagi (2004) reported on a research effort into U.S. construction projects that found 49% of owners did not want to work with the construction team again, only 56% of construction projects were completed on time, and only 41% of projects were completed within budget (p. 23). Badger and Kashiwagi suggested the construction industry could benefit from improved leadership and project management. Understanding the leadership characteristics that allow project managers to be effective leaders may offer an organization the opportunity for continued improvement. The intent of the study

6 was to evaluate if a relationship exists between the leadership styles of 17 project managers, the independent variable, and team members perception of the project managers leadership styles on team performance, the dependent variable, in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the quantitative, correlational study was to evaluate the relationship between the leadership styles of 17 project managers, the criterion variable, in 17 project teams consisting of 6-9 members and the team members perception of the project managers leadership styles as the leadership styles relate to project team performance, the predictable variables, in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. The methodology used established standards for leadership analysis to evaluate the relative level of leadership styles of project managers in the construction industry. Two self-assessment survey instruments were used. Project managers completed a survey (see Appendix A). The project managers team members completed a similar survey (see Appendix B). Both self-assessment survey instruments were subjected to the Cronbach coefficient alpha test for internal validation. The survey instruments attempted to identify causal influences that might result in differences in project managers leadership styles and team members perception of the project managers leadership styles. The data collected from the leadership surveys were aggregated for each project team, and the aggregated scores for the nine leadership variables of the project team were compared to the aggregated scores for the nine leadership variables of the project managers. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to measure the strength and

7 direction of the linear relationships (Lussier & Sonfield, 2004) between all nine leadership characteristics and the dependent variable of team performance in the project team and the project manager surveys. A statistical analysis system was used to conduct the analysis of the data as well as to find correlations. Significance of the Study to the Construction Industry This study may benefit the construction industry because the industry is highly oriented toward project management and team collaboration; hence, the result may help project managers to improve team performance. The results of this research may help to improve the project management fields awareness of team performance as influenced by the project managers leadership style, adaptability, and effectiveness. Construction companies will tend to benefit the most from an improvement in leadership styles of project managers. By improving team performance, project managers may be more adept at communicating an organizations vision, setting directions, and responding to the needs of employees. When employees feel valued by the project manager, the employees may decide to stay on the job longer, which may lead to a reduction in personnel turnover. The study may also benefit any business environment that relies on project management skills for its operation because the study provides information on how leadership characteristics exhibited by project managers affect the performance of the team the leader leads. Significance of the Study to Leadership The significance of this study to leadership is the study may show the influence of project managers leadership styles on the performance of project teams. The study provides a path forward for improvements in organizational learning when applied to

8 project leadership by suggesting improvements in the leadership styles of project managers as the leadership styles influence the outcomes of project cost, schedule, and performance. The study may benefit the field of organizational systems, of which leadership is a component, by signifying the nature of leadership styles needed by project managers of project teams to enable high team performance in an organizational environment. The study builds on current leadership studies by providing an understanding of the greater role that effective leadership plays in organizations that rely on project teams. Nature of the Study This quantitative, descriptive research study explored the possible causal relationships between project managers leadership styles and performance among project teams. The study was primarily concerned with determining the influence of project managers leadership styles on team performance. The study examined the effect, or influence, of leadership on team performance. The descriptive study approach was used because the study examined the influence of the characteristics of project managers leadership styles on project team performance. The quantitative design method was appropriate for the research because the design relied on postpositivist knowledge claims. The quantitative design method uses inquiry strategies such as surveys and experiments and collects data on predetermined instruments that yield statistical data (Creswell, 2002, p. 18). The reasons for selecting the quantitative research method over other research methods include that it (a) shows relationships between variables, (b) enables rapid turnaround in data collection, and (c) enables the identification of attributes of a population from a small group of individuals

9 (Creswell, 2002; Oppenheim, 1966). The descriptive study approach was used for the research design because the study examined the influence of the project managers leadership styles on project team performance from the data gathered. Multiple regression analysis and a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were used in the determination to accept the directional hypothesis. The quantitative design method is appropriate for testing theory and hypotheses using representative samples of the population. Research Questions The following guiding questions focused the research study: 1. Is there a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project manager and the project managers performance as perceived by the project managers project team members? 2. Is there a relationship between a project managers leadership styles and the project managers effectiveness? Hypotheses The following guiding hypotheses focused the research study: H01: There is no relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project manager and the project managers performance as perceived by the project managers team members. Ha1: There is a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project manager and the project managers performance as perceived by project managers team members.

10 H02: There is no relationship between a project managers leadership styles and project managers effectiveness. Ha2: There is a relationship between a project managers leadership styles and project managers effectiveness. Conceptual or Theoretical Framework The importance of a leaders leadership skills in influencing team performance has been documented in most research studies on leadership (Bass, 1990; Bennis & Nanus, 2003; Brockhoff, 2006; Burns, 1978; D. K. Fisher, Kent, Nottingham, & Field, 2005; Helland & Winston, 2005; Israel & Kasper, 2004; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Kotter, 1990; Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Myers, 2004; Nanus, 1989; Parry, 2004; Rejai & Phillips, 2004). The research on leadership skills emphasizes (a) leaders clear vision, goal, and objective; (b) an individuals ability to shape the future of the organization; (c) leaders ability to generate trust among followers; (d) leaders skills to develop self and motivate and develop followers; and (e) leaders ability to learn from failure and move forward (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Einstein & Humphreys, 2003). A project managers leadership style is evidenced in seven different leadership theories. The seven theories are (a) trait theory, (b) situational-contingency theory, (c) path-goal theory, (d) behavioral theory, (e) relational theory, (f) transaction theory, and (g) transformational theory (Bass, 1990; Bolton, 2005; Bryant, 2003; Butler & Reese, 1991; Burns, 1978; Cowie, 2003; Ellinger & Bostrom, 2002; D. K. Fisher et al., 2005; Grojean, Resick, Dickson, & Smith, 2004; Helland & Winston, 2005; Rejai & Phillips, 2004; Torpman, 2004). The trait theory of leadership advocates that people are endowed with some traits from birth that make them effective leaders. According to Stodgill

11 (1974), traits such as adaptability to situations, attentive to environment, supportive attitude, decision making ability, desire to influence others, and willingness to assume responsibility are essential to effective leadership. A project manager who possesses effective leadership traits may influence the team in a positive way. A common characteristic of situational-contingency theory models is they all prescribe leadership behaviors given different situations that a leader might face (Butler & Reese). The situational-contingency theory is relevant to the study in that project managers face unique situations while executing projects. The ability of project managers to adapt to different situations may affect the success of the project and team performance. The path-goal theory of leadership proposes the most effective leaders are those who motivate followers to achieve team and organizational goals, reward performance, raise followers attitude about the effective leaders abilities to achieve the objectives, and are considerate of followers limitations (Helland & Winston, 2005). The behavioral theory of leadership suggests the effectiveness of a leader depends on how the leaders leadership style relates with the situation (Blanchard & Hersey, 1996). A project manager ought to demonstrate task behaviors that are supportive of followers and the followers work. The behavioral theory centers on the flexibility of the leaders leadership style suitable to the ability level of the follower in a particular situation (Blanchard & Hersey). The relational theory of leadership involves an inclusive process whereby people and diverse opinions are valued and encouraged (Grojean et al., 2004; Kark et al., 2003). In the relational theory of leadership, project team members are empowered by the leader, who is purposeful, ethical, and committed to the goals of the team (Grojean et al.). Transactional theory suggests a leader directs the efforts of followers through tasks,

12 rewards, and work structures (Bass, 1990; Tickle, Brownlee, & Nailon, 2005). The clarification of roles and tasks of team members by the leader is typical of most organizations in the construction industry. Transformational theory posits that the leader work to add value to the follower (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). A project manager who is looking to improve team performance will strive to engage all members of the team in the decision-making process. The leadership theories indicate an organizations success does not result from a single individuals or managers efforts; instead, it comes about as the result of an effective teams efforts (Helland & Winston, 2005; Torpman, 2004). Definitions This research study will expand on leadership theories to continue the development of the study of the project manager as a leader in the construction industry. The research studys title, The Influence of Project Managers Leadership Styles on Project Team Performance in the Construction Industry, includes various key terms used in locating literature. The following terms were chosen to guide the study: leadership, leadership effectiveness, leadership style, transformational leadership, management, project, project management, project manager, teams, and team performance. Leadership: Leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how leadership can be done effectively, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the stated objectives (Yukl, 2002). Leadership effectiveness: Leadership effectiveness is demonstrated by the efforts of the leader to have the organizational group perform in a collaborative manner for success and the attainment of its goals (Deal & Peterson, 2003).

13 Leadership style: A leadership style is the underlying need-structure of an individual that modifies his or her behavior in various leadership situations (Fiedler, 1967). For the purpose of the study, the nine leadership characteristics make up the leadership styles of project managers and the terms leadership characteristics and leadership styles are used synonymously in the study. Management: Management is the process of planning and budgeting, organizing and staffing, and controlling and problem solving necessary to produce a degree of consistency and order in an organization (Kotter, 1990). Project: A project is a combination of organizational resources pulled together to create something that did not previously exist and that will provide performance capability in the design and execution of organizational strategies (Cleveland & Ireland, 2002). Projects have a distinct life cycle, starting with an idea and progressing through design, engineering, construction, and use by a project owner. Project management: Project management is a series of activities embodied in a process of getting things done on a project by working with project team members and other stakeholders to attain project schedule, cost, and technical performance objectives (Cleveland & Ireland, 2002). Project manager: A project manager is the individual charged with the responsibility for planning, organizing, motivating, directing, and controlling the personnel and resources necessary to accomplish a project (Cleveland & Ireland, 2002). Team: A team is a small number of people with complimentary [sic] skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable (Katzenbach & Smith, 2003, p. 45).

14 Team performance: Team performance is the achievement of the metrics that allow the team to manage its progress and fulfill its purpose (K. Fisher & Fisher, 1998). Transformational leaders: Transformational leaders are leaders who exert additional influence by broadening and elevating followers goals and providing them with confidence to perform beyond expectations specified in the implicit or explicit exchange agreement (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002, p. 735). Scope The study focused on evaluating the relationship between the leadership styles of 17 project managers, the criterion variable, in 17 project teams consisting of 6-9 members and the team members perception of the project managers leadership styles as the leadership styles relate to project team performance, the predictable variables, in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. The research study explored possible causal relationships between nine specific leadership characteristics, the independent variables, of project managers and team performance, the dependent variable. A leadership survey was used as a collection tool to analyze the results of the study. The data collected from the leadership survey, the data aggregated for each project team, and the aggregate scores for the nine leadership variables were compared to the project managers aggregate scores. The study used a self-assessment survey instrument to collect data on leadership characteristics from the participants. Assumptions Some assumptions may have affected the validity of the study. An assumption is that the individuals surveyed would understand the concepts of leadership and project management as defined in the study. Another assumption was the language people used

15 would convey the understanding of the survey instrument. It was also assumed the researcher was able to understand as well as accurately convey the meaning of the study to the respondents through the letter of introduction of the survey provided to respondents. Birnbaum (2004) noted the wording of instructions should be carefully thought of before launching an Internet study. It was further assumed the team members selected for the survey would have access to a computer and the Internet. Finally, an assumption was made that an online survey would yield a higher percentage of responses than other methods of data collection because most of the respondents work with computers. Limitations Limitations may have affected the study. The first limitation was that the researcher may not have been able to interpret accurately the data collected from respondents. The possibility that some of the respondents may have lacked reflection or knowledge concerning issues of leadership and the role of project management was also considered. Another limitation was the findings may not be a direct representation of the larger population of project teams in the construction industry. According to Lukawetz (2002), individuals who use the Internet less frequently are less likely to respond to a survey and often respond late when they do eventually respond. Because some of the team members work in remote locations, they may not have had access to the Internet. Another limitation is the interpretation of the data may contain embedded researcher bias because the researcher works in the industry. Finally, there may be problems maintaining security and confidentiality in a Web survey such as this study.

16 The researcher relied on the online survey provider to provide needed security and confidentiality for the study. Delimitations The delimitations for the study included the project managers and project teams who participated and who were selected as a convenience sample of the construction industry. The selection method was expected to ensure a high response rate. The study included individuals from different construction-related organizations rather than a single profession to allow for generalizability of results to the overall industry. The collected data in the survey instrument used only Likert-type scale responses and did not include open-ended response items. Summary Because teams continue to be an important part of an organizations design, understanding how to improve team success should be a primary objective of all project managers (Trent, 2004). A project manager has a unique role to ensure projects are completed on schedule, with high quality, and within a specified budget. This result cannot be achieved without the project manager having strong leadership skills and the ability to motivate the team to perform well (Augustine et al., 2005; Kendra & Taplin, 2004). The purpose of the quantitative study was to determine if a relationship exists between the leadership styles of 17 project managers and team members perception of the project managers leadership styles on team performance in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. The quantitative study attempted to bridge the gap between project managers leadership styles and team performance through the

17 understanding of the effect that leadership styles of project managers may have on project team performance in the construction industry. This chapter has established the basic definitions of leadership, project management, management, and team performance. The definitions have initiated a brief discussion on leadership and management that is further elaborated in the literature review chapter. The research methodology briefly introduced in the purpose of the study section of this chapter is presented in detail in chapter 3, and data analysis and conclusions and recommendations are presented in chapters 4 and 5, respectively.

18 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this chapter is to focus on literature relevant to the influence of leadership styles of project managers on team performance. The quantitative, correlational study method was used to evaluate the relationship between the leadership styles of 17 project managers, the criterion variable, in 17 project teams consisting of 6 9 members and the team members perception of the project managers leadership styles as the leadership styles relate to project team performance, the predictable variables, in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. Appendix C shows the sources of articles used in the literature review. The articles were found through an intensive review of empirical research documents, journal articles, and peer-reviewed articles. The literature review serves several functions. First, the review of literature examines past research in leadership theories related to project management and the significance of the research to the construction industry. Second, the literature review examines whether a relationship exists between project managers leadership styles and team performance. Third, the review examines the foundations and theoretical findings of trait, situational-contingency, path-goal, behavioral, and relational theories as well as transactional and transformational leadership. The literature review is organized in the following manner: leadership theories and models, project manager and project management, discussion of teams and team performance, team structure, team performance, perceptions of team members and project management, high-performance teams and projects, team effectiveness, future trends of project management and leadership in the construction industry, conclusion, and summary.

19 Leadership Theories and Models Historical Overview As early as the 1920s, various leadership theories started to emerge. Prominent among the emerging leadership theories was the trait approach to leadership (Rost, 1991). According to Harrison (1999), by the 1940s, a new approach to understanding leadership called situational theory gained ground. The 1950s saw a continuance of the group theory approach, where many scholars defined leadership as a relationship that develops shared goals. The 1960s brought new ways of viewing leadership. Increasing support was given to a view of leadership as a behavior that influences people toward shared goals. In the 1970s, the focus started to shift away from the group approach to the organizational behavior approach. The 1980s brought about an explosion of books on theories of leadership. During this same period, many definitions emerged and there was no single coherent definition of leadership. According to Rost, scholars in the area of leadership were no surer of what leadership is in 1990 than they were in 1930. Trait Theory The trait theory of leadership emerged from the perception that leaders are different from other people. This notion became the basis for most leadership research beginning in the 1920s. According to Bernard (1926), leadership is viewed by the internal qualities that a person is endowed with at birth. Nanus (1989) presented seven abilities that make an individual an effective leader. The seven abilities were referred to as megaskills. Three of the abilities were said to originate from the trait theory: (a) farsightedness or the ability to operate in the future tense; (b) initiative or the ability to make things happen; and (c) integrity, deemed vital in a leader (Nanus).

20 According to D. K. Fisher et al. (2005), it is apparent in organizations that knowledge and wisdom are not exclusive to certain groups of people; hence, organizational decision-making processes are becoming more inclusive. Inclusiveness in decision making has placed an additional demand on leaders to change leadership styles (Dolan & Garcia, 2002) to adapt to changes in the marketplace. The role of the leader is increasingly seen as that of a coach and facilitator of coordinated efforts while orchestrating worker skills, talents, and motivation toward the facilitation of team performance (D. K. Fisher et al., 2005). A project manager as a coach and facilitator of activities on teams in the construction industry aligns with effective leadership styles characterized by continuous development, collaboration, group focus, and enabling others to act. Situational-Contingency Theory The situational leadership theory became the most popular leadership theory by 1948. The theory presumed a leader is the product of the business environment and its influences and is not a leader by innate right. The situational leadership theory model falls in a class of prescriptive models that describe various contingency approaches to leadership (Butler & Reese, 1991). Butler and Reese noted the four leadership styles as described in the situational leadership theory are called S1 (high task, low relationship), S2 (high task, high relationship), S3 (low task, high relationship), and S4 (low task, low relationship). The decision by a project manager to use a particular leadership style is guided by the followers level of readiness. The project manager may have to adapt the leadership style relevant to the given situation (Augustine et al., 2005; Fiedler, 1967; Turner,

21 Kristoffer, & Thurloway, 2002), while affecting the overall performance of the team at the same time. A project manager as a leader that is charged with adapting the team to changes occurring during the construction process aligns with effective leadership styles characterized by sharing responsibility, group interests, and empowerment. Path-Goal Theory Helland and Winston (2005) noted Houses path-goal theory emphasizes the effects leader behavior has on the followers satisfaction and the rewards available to the followers. A project leader who has the interemaining group at heart will work to provide an environment that fosters creativity while providing a reward for effective performance by the team. Leader behavior would enhance followers motivation to the extent that such a behavior (a) makes satisfaction of subordinates needs and preferences contingent on effective performance, (b) makes subordinates tasks intrinsically satisfying, (c) makes goal attainment intrinsically satisfying, (d) makes rewards contingent on goal accomplishment, and (e) complements the environment of subordinates by providing psychological structure, support, and rewards necessary for effective performance. (Helland & Winston, p. 47) Houses Axiom 3 is related to Vrooms expectancy theory and Lockes goalsetting theory because it makes the leader realize that helping followers see the importance of focusing on completing the organizations goals will result in achieving the goals (Helland & Winston, 2005, p. 48). The path-goal theory relate to the construction industry project managers leadership characteristics of emphasizing the group interests through providing team members with choices on what reward is

22 available to the team for successfully completing the project. Thus, the project manager in the construction industry, through the collaborative efforts of team members, may complete the project on schedule and within specified budget. Behavioral Theory The situational leadership theory generally evolved into the behavioral leadership theory by the 1960s. The behavioral leadership theory is interested in determining what successful leaders have done rather than what they are about to do (Torpman, 2004). Behavioral leadership research studies have attempted to determine the relationship between leadership behaviors and leader effectiveness (Bass, 1990). The behavioral leadership theory posits there are various ways to lead, and leaders who express high concern for both people and production or consideration and structure will be effective in leading. This theory evolved from two major schools of management theory: the scientific management movement founded by Frederick W. Taylor and the human relations theory of Elton Mayo. The primary concept of scientific management was task allocation. According to Sandrone (2005), Task allocation is the concept that breaking a task into smaller and smaller tasks allows the determination of the optimum solution to the task (para. 5). Hoopes (2003) indicated Frederick W. Taylors scientific management theory is an example of how not to manage and that Taylors understanding of the scientific management movement may have deterred managers from learning the important lessons the manager has to teach, especially the importance of top-down power (Ellinger & Bostrom, 2002; Hoopes). The Hawthorne experiment led Mayo and Roethlisberger to an understanding of the internal dynamics of informal groups in organizations (Katz, 2004). Mayo and

23 Roethlisberger discovered the relationships between supervisors and subordinates had a more profound effect on productivity than did either economic benefits or the organization's physical environment. Mayo and Roethlisbergers assertion may be true in some organizations in the construction industry. According to Katz, many organizations, the construction industry included, are designed in ways that increase the chances that competition and politics will take precedence over cooperation and mutual support. Katz cautioned this may lead to a lack of cooperation from team members who possess the necessary knowledge. It is important for project managers in the construction industry to focus attention on effectively understanding organizational goals and objectives and to use interpersonal relations when dealing with the team. The team may respond with increased commitment, which may lead to high performance. The project managers leadership characteristics of mutual relationships, empowerment, and collaboration are evident in the behavioral leadership theory. Relational Theory Many authors have written on the importance of relationships to the leadership process (Bolton, 2005; Cowie, 2003; Kan, 2002; Parry, 2004). Kark et al. (2003) viewed leadership as a relational process of people coming together to accomplish change or to make a difference to benefit the common good. Schrage defined collaboration as the process of shared creation: two or more individuals with complimentary [sic] skills interacting to create a shared understanding that none had previously possessed or could have come to on their own (as cited in McNamara & Watson, 2005, p. 185). The construction industry requires collaboration (Bresnen, Goussevskaia, & Swan, 2005;

24 Hansen, 2002; Orlikowski, 2002) among teams and disciplines involved in a project. Through a collaborative effort, construction projects may be completed on schedule while maintaining a high-quality product within the specified budget. Collaboration with others within an organization allows for team members and leaders to make a difference from any position within the organization (Grojean et al., 2004; Kark et al., 2003). Diversity of opinions is expected on a team of varied professionals as in the construction industry. Nevertheless, the project managers ability to embrace diverse opinions on the team is important. Transactional Theory Transactional leadership indicates an emphasis on maintaining the status quo of the organization and maintaining the organizational practices and resources (Tickle et al., 2005). Transactional leadership theory builds on Basss (1990) view that leaders and followers use each other to fulfill goals and objectives through the exchange of goods and services. Transactional theory is characterized by the leader clarifying the roles of followers and initiating work structure (Tickle et al.). Tickle et al.s observation is typical of most organizations in the construction industry and accounts for the greatest number of leader-follower relationships. Bryant (2003) noted transactional leaders have three primary goals: (a) working with team members to develop clear, specific goals and ensuring workers obtain the reward they are promised for meeting those goals; (b) exchanging rewards and promises of rewards for workers effort; and (c) responding to the immediate self-interests of workers while achieving the task. One major drawback of the transactional approach, according to Bryant, is lack of motivation on the employees part to give anything

25 beyond what is specified. This feature is troubling to an industry such as construction that has difficulty in specifying complete job descriptions well in advance because of the nature of the projects. Project managers in the construction industry may have to adapt to the changes around them to improve team morale. According to Sanders, Hopkins, and Geroy (2005), the essence of leadership should be in both the internal and the external components of leadership. The influence of project managers leadership styles on teams performance is evident in the transactions of communicating effectively, teaching, mentoring younger employees, and caring about people. Transformational Theory Burns (1978) described transformational leadership as occurring when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality (p. 20). An effective project manager works to enable and engage other members of the team while working toward the benefit of the group in much the same way that a transformational leader engages the followers. Kouzes and Posner (2002) described five practices as being fundamental to the art and practice of transformational leadership: (a) challenging the current process, (b) inspiring a shared vision, (c) enabling others to act, (d) modeling the way, and (e) encouraging the heart. Bass (1990) explained that transformational leaders ask followers to transcend their own self-interests for the good of the group, organization, or society; to consider the long-term needs to develop themselves, rather than their needs of the moment; and to become more aware of what is really important (p. 53). Project managers who are

26 effective in managing the knowledge base of the teams will have a considerable advantage over those who are not. According to Helland and Winston (2005), traditional scholars viewed leadership from two perspectives; one focuses on leadership within an organization and the other focuses on leadership as a social influence process that occurs in a social system. According to Rejai and Phillips (2004), Bennis and Nanus presented the most comprehensive study of leadership strategies. Bennis and Nanus identified four components of leadership strategies: 1. Leaders have visions, goals, programs, agendas. 2. Leaders have the skill to communicate the visions, goals, programs, and agendas of the organization and create shared meaning. 3. Leaders have the ability to generate trust among followers. Important in leader-follower interaction are reciprocal reliability, predictability, and constancy. 4. Leaders have the ability to develop the self through two elements: a. having positive self-regard; recognizing ones strengths and weaknesses; nurturing skills and discipline; seeing the fit between ones skills and the tasks to be performed. b. not fearing failure; learning from failure and moving forward; concentrating on winning, not losing. (Rejai & Phillips, p. 189) Conger and Kanungo (1988) presented the following conditions necessary for a leader to be perceived as transformational: (a) the leader ought to be able to see opportunities and develop a vision to address the opportunities; (b) the vision has to be

27 communicated to the followers and those followers be obliged to concur; (c) the leaders personal success, sacrifice, and risk taking should convince the followers to trust the leaders abilities and vision; and (d) the leader has to convince the followers that the vision is both realistic and attainable. A leader capable of looking beyond the present and who understands the needs of the followers may succeed in influencing the followers (Einstein & Humphreys, 2003). Connaughton, Lawrence, and Ruben (2003) added that leadership competencies are best developed over time through a conscious effort of personalized integration of theory and practice. Another important feature of transformational leadership is the ability to relate positively with followers and make followers feel valued, thereby creating new cadres of leaders (Cooper, 2005; Krishnan, 2002, 2005). The relational quality of transformational leadership means leaders and employees tend to engage in more risk taking and higher levels of entrepreneurial activities (Duckett & Macfarlane, 2003). The ability of a project leader to produce other leaders is essential in the construction industry and marketplace. This is important because a project team member may have to assume the role of a project manager at any time during a project. In addition, a transformational leader motivates and inspires followers by appealing to the common good rather than to individual needs and self-interest (Parry, 2004). Five key themes of leadership were extracted from Kouzes and Posners (2002) studies: honesty, forward-looking, inspiring, competent, and credible. Weymes (2003) and Murray (2004) identified a number of key propositions that arise out of the five key themes. First preposition suggested credibility is the foundation of all leadership. It is important for leaders to create an atmosphere conducive to followers trust and

28 confidence in the leader. This is true for a leader who is viewed as a member of the team rather than the person who is better than everyone. Second, leadership is everyones business. Leaders inspire, challenge, motivate, and encourage the team. Everyone on the team, to some degree, should be assigned tasks and given all the information required to accomplish the tasks. Third, challenge is the opportunity for greatness. Effective coaches quickly learn that effectiveness is measured by the productivity of the team. Empowering team members to become leaders increases the overall effectiveness of both the team and the coach. The result is improved performance, leadership development among team members, and enhancement of the coachs position as a respected expert and leader (Weymes, 2003). Fourth, leaders focus on the future. Ambition and drive are linked to leadership and having a clear vision is very important for transformation to take place. Fifth, leaders are team players, and the team spirit is built around trust. The legacy a leader leaves behind is the life he or she leads; this is the foundation for authenticity. Sixth, caring is the heart of leadership. When people work with leaders who care, the people feel better about themselves and recognition of worthy accomplishments is always appropriate (Weymes, 2003). Finally, individuals have to believe they can make a difference. Every goal and objective should have a purpose that is well communicated to the remaining team (Murray, 2004). Making an impact in the organization or community builds a good reputation for the leader. A project manager ought to be an impact-laden leader to make the tasks performed by the team more meaningful, which energizes the team and improves performance.

29 According to Manning (2003), transformational leaders typically nurture personal and group improvement, share inspiring organizational visions, and foster commitment and motivation toward important goals. A transformational leader helps people understand the value in the leaders contribution to the organization by increasing the motivational level of the team (Hautala, 2005). Transformational leadership is believed to bring about positive individual and organizational consequences (Bass, 1990). Two key notions of transformational leadership should be stressed. First, the impact of transformational leadership is not unidirectional; transformational leadership challenges followers to be both creative and innovative (Bossnik, 2004; Halbesleben, Novicevic, Harvey, & Buckley, 2003: Schepers, Wetzels, & Ruyter, 2005; Yin, 2003). Transformational leaders bring the best out of followers while raising the followers effectiveness. This characteristic helps the leader to be effective by viewing followers as individuals capable of making positive and meaningful contributions to the team. Second, Kouzes and Posner (2002) stressed that leadership is an observable and learnable set of practices. Developing team members and showing team members how to conduct tasks in an efficient manner is one of the roles of team leaders in the construction industry. Kuo (2004) and Bolton (2005) reiterated that organizations try to improve team effectiveness by strengthening team performance. To improve team performance, organizations in the construction industry may need to focus on improving team member relationships. Transformational theory supports project managers leadership characteristics through linking group interests and interests of the individual. The brief outlines of key leadership theories have shown the evolution of leadership theory. The outlines have also revealed the effect of leadership styles on

30 developing effective teams. There has been an understanding of the role that leaders play in organizations that are constantly seeking to improve performance and remain competitive in the marketplace. Through the trait, situational-contingency, path-goal, behavioral, relational, transactional, and transformational theories, leadership theories have been continually evolving. The emergence of project management has contributed to the evolutionary process because of the importance of project managers exhibiting leadership skills. Leadership Characteristics To limit the scope of the study, nine leadership characteristics were selected for inclusion in the study. Inclusion criteria were twofold. First, the leadership characteristics ought to affect the team members performance. Second, the leadership characteristics should be reflected in the leadership styles of project managers and the teams perception of the project managers leadership styles. Leadership behaviors are a necessary ingredient to moving a team forward in any organization (Carte, Chidambaram, & Becker, 2006; Tyran, Tyran, & Shepherd, 2003; Zigurs, 2003). Many leadership and management researchers have found the nine leadership characteristics selected to most likely result in high performance and commitment to organizational goals (Cicmil & Marshall, 2005; Christensen & Walker, 2004; Groves, 2005; Kerfoot, 2002; Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Salacuse, 2006). The characteristics are charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision, mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk-taking, collaboration, and empowerment. Appendix D shows the relationship between the nine leadership characteristics used in the study and the seven leadership theories reviewed.

31 Charisma A charismatic leader is distinguished from other types of leaders regarding how the follower perceives the charismatic leader, and the leaders behavior is directly related to how the leader can influence the emotional response of the followers concerning the task effort (Kest, 2006). Influencing the emotional response of the followers viewpoint is reiterated by Robbins and Coulter (2005). Robbins and Coulter explained people in general are able and willing to perform when asked to do so by a leader they trust and admire. Lee and Chang (2006) purported, Leadership is making oneself an example in order to affect others, and the effects of charisma may be far stronger than those that result directly from power (p. 266). Mastrangelo, Eddy, and Lorrenzer (2004) attributed the success of an organization to the quality and effectiveness provided by the leadership. Northouse (2004) described a charismatic leader as one who has profound effects on followers emotions. The transformational style of leadership can be characterized by charisma, consideration for others, fostering intellectual stimulation, and inspiring others to do more than they ordinarily would (Schepers et al., 2005). A charismatic leaders personal needs for attention and affirmation may promote group thinking, which may discourage honest communication and necessary constructive confrontation with disconfirming data (Banutu-Gomez, 2004). A project manager in the construction industry who models charismatic leadership behavior may be able to focus the teams values and actions. Focusing the project teams values may influence the performance of the team because mundane tasks may be eliminated. A project manager may obtain the best results from the team by responding to the needs of the team members (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). To add positive meaning to the

32 identities of project members, a charismatic leader behaves in admirable ways that cause every member of the team to work together in improving organizational goals (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Charismatic leadership demonstrates good examples for followers, and charisma can be achieved through continuous cultivation (Tsai & Weu, 2004). Shared Responsibility Salacuse (2006) observed, Leadership is not a matter of position but of relationships, and one-on-one, personal encounters are vital in building those relationships (p. 4). The need for relationships is evident in organizations with highly talented individuals whose education, skills, and influence are above the average when compared to the remaining workforce Leadership is everyones business. Such is the case in the construction industry. Abraham and Moses exhibited many of the characteristics of leadership discussed in this study. The characteristic of leadership that best fits Abraham and Moses is sharing responsibilities. Each of the two leaders taught his followers how to lead others. Each of the leaders also showed that effective leadership is a joint effort that requires each member of the clan to take on responsibilities. A classic example of sharing responsibility was demonstrated when Moses served as judge over the people after taking advice from his father-in-law, Jethro, to appoint leaders capable of performing the tasks (Exodus 18: 21-22 [New International Version]). Moses appointed men and placed the men in positions of authority over the people. Some were officiating over thousands, some over hundreds, some over fifties, and others over tens of people, according to the mens capabilities (Exodus 18: 25 [New International Version]).

33 Murray (2004) noted leaders build followers by sharing power and assigning critical tasks to the followers. When power is shared, leaders will be successful in increasing the competency of followers. In the construction industry, a project manager looking to complete a project on schedule may have to share responsibilities with team members. Continuous Development Zenger, Ulrich, and Smallwood (2000) estimated 40% of new managers fail in the first 18 months of functioning in the role (p. 25). The finding reinforces Hurt and Homans (2005) position that the continuous development of employees has to be the priority of organizations. Hurt and Holman believed most leadership development occurs on the job. Hence, the most important responsibility of a leader is to personally develop other leaders, a sentiment that has been echoed by other researchers (Hanbury, Sapat, & Washington, 2004; Hartley, 2004; Jensen, 2004; Salopek, 2004; Wellins & Patterson, 2003). Thomas and Cheese (2005) posited the quality of leaders in an organization could make the difference between the organization being good and the organization being successful. For an organization to grow, there ought to be a leadership channel that can foster the continuous development of leaders (Thomas & Cheese). The rapidly changing business environment is another factor that calls for the continuous development of leaders. The expansion of global markets and radically changing distribution systems is making business and developing future leaders difficult (Arena, 2002; Kur & Bunning, 2002). For example, most organizations in the construction industry have offices in different localities and work in conjunction with other professionals to execute projects. Some organizations in the construction industry

34 may be engaging in business outside an organizations home offices, and some may be conducting business globally; hence, organizations should be ready to respond to changes taking place in the environment (LaRue & Ivany, 2004; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). The ability to respond can be improved through the continuous development of project managers and project teams. Common Vision One of the aspects of leadership is the ability of a leader to cast a vision for the organization (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Kest (2006) described a visionary leader as a leader with charisma who is able to articulate a future that may improve upon the present condition. The visionary image of leadership parallels that which a project manager ought to project to the team. Lucas (1998) presented three qualities that allow a visionary leader to be effective: (a) an ability to explain the vision to others, (b) an ability to express the vision not just verbally but through behavior, and (c) an ability to apply the vision to different leadership contexts. The project manager is responsible for painting a clear image of the vision to the team, and the common vision should tie into the goals of the project and organization. The ability of the leader to fulfill the needs of the follower in exchange for the follower meeting basic performance expectations is imperative to a high-performance team (Gardner & Stough, 2002). It is also important for an organization to have well-defined roles for project managers and teams. Project managers in the construction industry usually disseminate information to the team. When employees are given well-defined roles and vision, there tends to be harmony, and performance on projects increases (Christensen & Walker, 2004; Childs, Goldsmith, LaRue, & Larson, 2004).

35 Mutual Influence Relationships Childs et al. (2004) determined the organizational culture and structure that leaders ought to create to best promote distributed intelligence and action learning. The characteristics of an action-learning team leader are as follows: the leader (a) builds on the wisdom and insight of the team, (b) models the change he or she seeks in the organization, (c) develops a high level of trust and respect by and for the team, (d) leverages ambiguity to drive innovation, (e) focuses the group through clarity of intent, (f) adapts leadership style to the situation, and (g) promotes a culture of freedom and accountability. Mutually influencing relationships can be enhanced if a project manager creates an environment that allows team members to provide meaningful feedback to the project manager and the team without negative consequences, which can be achieved in most cases through the performance improvement methods suggested by S. D. Jones and Schilling (2000). S. D. Jones and Schilling made three key points regarding feedback. First, feedback is desirable. Teams need to be reminded that the team participation in identifying measures and setting goals is to help achieve the mission and vision of the organization and to make the organization more competitive in the marketplace. Second, all information is useful. Team leader should make certain the team understands the usefulness of the performance measures and that the process is designed to create an atmosphere for problem solving and process improvement. Third, disciplined learning may lead to improved results. For example, looking for cause-and-effect relationships helps develop a learning orientation.

36 A strict adherence to the three key points may ensure teams create an atmosphere in which feedback is a welcome addition to measures and goals. Research on the effectiveness of leaders displaying different types of leadership among Taiwanese military officers (Lo, Chen, & Chen, 2004) revealed that most followers who displayed independent thinking did not like authoritarian leaders. According to Perry-Smith and Shalley (2003), exemplary followers take initiative without being asked, assume ownership of problems, and contribute in decision making. Individuals who make valuable contributions to the team make everyone on the team and in the organization better (Ferrazzi, 2005; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003), and diversity of opinions and people is essential to team cooperation and team building (Backstrom, 2004; Bender & Septelka, 2002; Mohammed & Angell, 2004). According to Miller, Butler, and Cosentino (2004), relations-oriented followers perform at higher levels in moderately favorable situations than do task-oriented followers who tend to perform at higher levels in unfavorable situations. Project managers in the construction industry would influence others on their team as well as themselves. Group Interests An effective teams success depends on effective communications, cohesion, shared vision, and knowledge sharing among members (Brill, Bishop, & Walker, 2006; Buskens & Raub, 2002; Charoenngam, Ogunlana, Nin-Fu, & Dey, 2004; Johnson & Johnson, 2003; Katz, 2004; McGuire & Kennerly, 2006; Yukl, 2002). A feature of project manager leadership stems from the concept of servant leadership. The real meaning of servant leadership is to serve others (Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004). A project manager in the construction industry working with individuals on a team may

37 focus on the welfare of the project and on the team members. Team members need to respect and believe in a leader who knows how to exercise authority in terms of both the leaders competence and ethical character (Sotiriou & Wittmer, 2001; Storr, 2004). Leaders should be capable of inspiring other people to do things without getting in the way (Bennis & Nanus, 2003; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). Salacuse (2006) presented four lessons a manager can use to effectively lead a team: (a) the ability to lead should come from the project managers will and skills and not from position, resources, or charisma; (b) the basis for leadership is the relationship with the team; (c) communicating effectively with the team is fundamental to building relationships; and (d) leadership development strategies should take into account the intermixing group. Within organizations, an individuals accomplishment is no longer defined in terms of individual performance, but rather as a team effort. To perform well as team members, individuals have to be able to communicate openly and honestly, confront differences and resolve conflicts, and forsake personal goals for the sake of the team (Harland, Harrison, Jones, & Reiter-Palmon, 2005; Pauchant, 2005; Robbins, 2003; Tjosvold, Poon, & Yu, 2005). Project managers ought to be capable of handling the task and the people side of project management (Cicmil, 2006; Graetz, 2002; Sotiriou & Wittmer, 2001). The people side involves having the skills necessary to provide the motivating environment that may induce project team members to work as a team to accomplish the objectives (Stacey, 2003). There are circumstances when a team member may step into the role of leader because of the team members expertise in the construction process. The move to a

38 leadership role calls for the project manager to put aside ego for the overall group. A healthy team translates into high performance. Risk Taking There are many ways a leader can inspire a team to achieve great outcomes. Often teams that are not exceptional produce exceptional results because of the quality of the leaders. According to Schillewaert, Ahearne, Frambach, and Moenaert (2005), effective leadership has been shown to influence followers use of innovations in achieving desired results. Innovative leaders always challenge the team to find creative ways to solve a problem or improve a process. The act of taking risks to achieve desired results is one of the benefits a project manager in the construction industry brings to the team. Salacuse (2006) contended, Any proposed action by a leader entails risk (p. 4). According to Banutu-Gomez (2003), A leader willingly accepts the risk of failure in order to achieve a chance for success (p. 148). The willingness of the leader to make sacrifices out of love for the team should be met with the leaders trust and knowledge that employees are committed and capable of performing to the best of the leaders ability (Banutu-Gomez, 2003). Project teams in the construction industry may consider that following a course of action proposed by a project manager whom the project teams trust is less risky and therefore more acceptable than following the same recommended course of action by a project manager whom the teams do not trust. In the construction industry, the project leader may take calculated risks without fear of jeopardizing team performance.

39 Collaboration According to Macri, Tagliaventi, and Bertolotti (2002), organizations are distinguished by the day-to-day competence of the project manager. The identifier for some organizations is the set of rules, practices, and routines the organizations deploy to achieve organizational goals and to solve problems, while claiming legitimacy from their environment (p. 295). Managing teams of professionals with diverse backgrounds requires collaboration among team leader and team members. Positive relationships are important because positive relationships stimulate trust, and trust in a leader is vital in securing the desired results from the team (Salacuse, 2006). A project manager in the construction industry is responsible for giving guidance to the team when a change takes place in the construction environment. When teams do not follow best practices, it becomes difficult to accomplish the task in an effective manner. When organizational goals are not communicated correctly to everyone in the organization, it may be difficult to embrace change within the confines of the organizational goals. Some managers and employees are better able to lead and cope with change than others (Harland et al., 2005; Woodward & Hendry, 2004). Coping with change in organizations and teams requires good managerial leadership that may alleviate the additional pressure brought about because of the change. Sensitivity to the coping problems of both managers and staff is an important aspect of change management in any organization (Woodward & Hendry). Doorewaard, Hootegem, and Huyss (2002) study involved 172 manufacturing firms and examined the organizational design features the manufacturing firms relied on when pursuing business and supply-chain objectives. Doorewaard et al. revealed 20% of the design features evaluated involved teams (p. 364),

40 and almost half of the most widely used features were team related, which supports the notion that the use of teams remains an important aspect of a growing organization. Enhancing the success of project teams should be of paramount importance to the team leader because teams will continue to be an important part of an organization's design (Doorewaard et al., 2002) and culture (Trent, 2003). Insana (2005) presented seven suggestions about effective leadership as described by Coach Larry Brown, former coach of the Detroit Pistons, a professional basketball team. The principles are maintaining a high ratio of positive to negative comments, showing you care, hiring star players of good character, measuring improvement to gauge success, fearing lack of effort, making decisions and standing by them, and taking responsibility for losses while crediting the team for the wins. Trent (2004) noted one important aspect project managers cannot ignore is the relationship between the effectiveness of a team leader and the team performance. A team leader tends to exert effects that are positive or negative on group effort, collaboration, cohesion, goal selection, performance norms, and goal attainment (Cicmil & Marshall, 2005; Likert, 1961; C. Fisher, 2005). The project manager, through focusing on the group, taking risks, and mutually influencing relationships, creates an atmosphere that may require collaboration among team members. EmpowermentEnabling Others to Act. In day-to-day practices, various hybrid structures of team responsibility exist (Doorewaard et al., 2002). A project manager should be able to charge the team with the responsibility for work preparation, support, and control (Kendra & Taplin, 2004) rather than restrict the functions to a few team members. In an industry based on high

41 technology such as the construction industry, nonmanagerial employees are being asked to take on more leadership roles. As part of a structural or cultural reorientation in the construction organization, team members are expected to share responsibilities and participate in enacting and implementing changes. Employees are being asked to become team players and to take on extra responsibilities (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004). Team members are expected to be innovative and improve current ways of executing projects and processes in the name of ensuring project quality and customer service (Bryde, 2003; E. C. Jones & Chung, 2006). Leaders who empower and reward employees may benefit from innovative and improved ways of executing projects. A leader who trusts in people, who gives leeway to make decisions, and who creates an environment for gaining recognition may produce employees who are productive (Kark et al., 2003; Laschinger & Finegan, 2005; Mazarr, 2002; Pearce et al., 2003; Shiparski, 2005). Organizations that allow employee input on a regular basis are likely to have team members who are familiar with departmental processes and are likely to have members who are familiar with departmental processes and more likely to effectively implement processes in teams (Tata & Prasad, 2004, p. 250). The goal of project managers in the construction industry ought to be to empower the different professionals on the team to take the responsibility for managing project changes. Empowering different professionals may involve teams performing a variety of change roles, on a full- or a part-time basis, for extended or relatively short periods (Bryde, 2003; Doyle, 2002; Eccles, 1996). The strength of project managers in the

42 construction industry lies in the relationships the project managers develop and the relationships ought to be noticeable in the project teams the managers lead. Project Manager and Project Management Project Management According to Martini (1999), the term project management was first coined in the construction industry. Project managements popularity grew from the efforts of Colonel Schriever of the U.S. Air Force. Colonel Schriever helped develop a team to manage the development of the missile program in 1954. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Navy developed the program evaluation and review technique and the term project management emerged. There is much literature that discusses the importance of project manager leadership, leadership roles and functions, various skill sets of project managers, the selection and assignment of project managers to projects, and the uniqueness of project managers to the construction industry. The literature sources are reviewed in this section as the literature sources relates to the influence of leadership styles on overall team performance. According to Cowie (2003), project management essentially allows the right people, with the right skills to come together at the right time to solve issues (p. 258). A project manager in the construction industry is tasked with the responsibility of putting a project team together. The ability of the project manager to assemble the right people on a project team often determines the success of the project. Management and Leadership Leadership and management are different (A. Gordon & Yukl, 2004; Kotter, 1990; Kotterman, 2006; Nebecker & Tatum, 2002; Presswood & Roof, 2004; Yukl, Gordon, & Tabor, 2005; Zaccaro & Horn, 2003). A number of leadership experts have

43 expressed the concepts of leadership and management. Maxwell (1998) posited leadership is about influencing people, whereas management focuses on maintaining the status quo. Ramsey (2005) suggested leaders have followers and some managers with subordinates are therefore managers but not leaders. Kotterman (2006) posited leaders establish directions to influence the behavior of an individual or group, and managers work to maintain order and organize resources with and through individuals and groups to accomplish organizational goals. Spigener (2004) acknowledged that effective leaders are very good at connecting employees and managers to organization goals and objectives. Effective leaders are very good at aligning the practices, behaviors, and activities across the organization (Spigener). Fairholm (2004) noted that while leadership is relational, management is positional. According to leadership definitions, leadership and management are two very different concepts and are not easily interchangeable (Kotter, 1990; Kotterman; Presswood & Roof, 2004). Dawes (2003) stressed that understanding the values of each team member, addressing stress and fear, and encouraging creativity should be the paramount concern of project managers. A common theme within the research literature on project management posited project managers have the difficult role of balancing the various demands of the job (Barczak, McDonough, & Athanassiou, 2006; Cohen & Gibson, 2003; Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004; Lewis, Welsh, Dehler, & Green, 2002; Zigurs, 2003). On a construction project, the project manager is responsible for performing various roles. Some of the tasks performed by a project manager are scheduling the project, assigning tasks to team members, providing directions to the team, clarifying goals and objectives of the project to team members, communicating

44 with clients and team members, and motivating team members. To accomplish all the tasks of a project manager, project managers should have the ability to influence team members. Project Managers Leadership Styles Projects often fall short of achieving the desired results, due not to lack of project management but to a lack of project leadership (Smith, 1999). Smith believed the success of a project is a direct reflection of the project managers ability to manage the details and resources of the project by going beyond the call of duty. Project managers are responsible for the successful delivery of complete projects in most organizations (Bourne & Walker, 2005). In 2004, Bourne and Walker positedthe successful delivery of projects is made possible by the project managers possessing and using various leadership styles. The demand for getting the job done on schedule and within a specified budget by building teams, sharing responsibilities and empowering team members to make decisions requires project managers who are adaptable and trusting (Cleveland & Ireland, 2002; Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Strangs (2005) research on whether effective team performance management requires strong transformational leadership revealed laissez-faire project leadership styles result in lower project efficiency and team satisfaction. Strang concluded project leadership does not always require strong transformational leader behaviors to produce effective organizational outcomes, although applying individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, and inspirational motivation as well as idealized influence toward team members tends to improve follower satisfaction and the leader-follower relationships. The project manager adds value to the team by providing needed leadership

45 (Cleveland & Ireland, 2002). The project manager in the construction industry may add value to the team by providing needed leadership. Technical Versus Management Skills of Project Managers Bennis and Nanus (2003) posited leaders often assume management positions because they have a technical background and not interpersonal abilities. The appointment of leaders without prior managerial experience or training may seem beneficial in certain instances because of the knowledge of the profession the leaders bring to the leadership roles, but technical knowledge may not be enough to enable project managers to perform effectively (Ellis, Wood, & Thorpe, 2004). Burrell (2006) reiterated the importance of some level of advanced leadership training for technical senior leaders because of increasing technology, competition, and workforce diversity. Turner and Muller (2005) contended the Crawford (2003) study on correlating a project managers competence to success as a project manager was the most significant study conducted on the subject. Crawford found that once a project manager has achieved an entry level of knowledge, more knowledge does not make him or her more competent. This finding corresponds to the widespread belief that project managers lack the competence, knowledge, skills, and interpersonal attributes to be effective leaders in the construction industry (Crawford; Turner & Muller). In the debate on whether technical skills or management skills are more important for managing projects, Cowie (2003) and Phillips (2004) proposed the success of projects is not limited to the technical skills of project managers. Rather, the success of a project often depends on people-related and management issues (Cowie, p. 256). Cowie contended project managers trained in interpersonal skills could achieve success in

46 managing project teams. Meredith and Mantel (2002) categorized project management skills into six skills areas: communication, organizational, team building, leadership, coping, and technological. The six skills reflect the broad range of abilities project managers in the construction industry need to possess. Kendra and Taplin (2004) found of all the project management skills, technical skills have the least influence on project managers performance. Therefore, it is important for project managers to have business, interpersonal relationship, and political skills (Leban & Zulauf, 2004) to manage effectively. Selection Criteria for Project Managers in the Construction Industry The importance of selecting project managers with strong leadership skills and competence is prevalent throughout the literature reviewed. Einsiedel (1987) identified five qualities needed for effective project leadership: credibility, creative problem solving, a tolerance for ambiguity, a flexible management style, and effective communication skills. Kerzner (2003) discussed the importance of project managers leadership style in selecting the appropriate project manager for a specific project and identified six critical success factors for excellent project management: corporate understanding of project management, executive commitment to project management, organizational adaptability, the selection criteria for project managers, project managers leadership style, and commitment to planning and control. The six critical success factors may be instrumental in high project team performance and high profitability of projects in the construction industry.

47 The Uniqueness of Project Managers in the Construction Industry In the construction industry, project managers seem to play more significant and vital roles than the project manager counterparts in other industries. According to Dainty, Cheng, and Moore (2005), project managers have to balance decisions to reconcile the needs of all parties affected. Dainty et al. contended that, in certain instances, project managers may bring together a group of different individuals, who may have never worked together on a project, to create a pleasant team environment. Such a challenging managerial environment undoubtedly requires dynamic leadership qualities if successful project outcomes are expected (Dainty et al.). Project managers in the construction industry ensure projects are delivered to the client on schedule and within the specified budget. To achieve this goal, project managers ought to use all available resources. According to Douglas (2004), effective project planning begins and ends with the efforts of the project manager and the project team. A project manager should negotiate commitments from management for all project team members as well as resources and assets to support the effort and the project very early in the planning stage of the project (Douglas). Teams and Team Performance According to Holt, Love, and Nesan (2000), the business environments of construction organizations are continuously evolving and the way such businesses have to be managed has been changing since the 1950s. The sources of the changes that have taken place in the business environment are changes in the global and macroeconomic climate and sector-specific changes. In many cases, the changes in the business environment may have caused the fortunes of some construction organizations to decline,

48 whereas those organizations that are quick to react and adapt to the changes in the business environment may have excelled during the same period. Holt et al. noted, Successful construction businesses demand optimal design (and realignment as necessary) of both the people and processes (p. 47). According to J. Gordon (2002), teams are becoming standard in the workplace and are seen as a way of leveraging organizational strengths to offset new challenges in the marketplace. Researchers have discussed the importance of team and organization structure, team performance, perceptions of team members and project managers, highperformance teams and projects, and team effectiveness in the construction industry. Some of this literature is reviewed in the following section as it relates to the influence of project managers leadership styles to overall team performance. Team Structure Kerzner (2003) contended effectiveness in project management might be reflected in the organizations ability to respond quickly and effectively to changes in the marketplace. This is true in the case of the construction industry, where different products and technologies are constantly introduced. A project team structure that is simple in form and lean in staff provides the most effective means of achieving project goals (Kerzner). Cowie (2003) noted, Project teams could often move more rapidly than a traditional hierarchy structure (p. 256) by allowing organizations to react more rapidly to changes taking place in the marketplace. When pulling together a project, team management has to be clear about the objective and expectation of the team. In addition, staffing a project with a variety of team members with different areas of expertise enables

49 organizations to take advantage of diversity within the business while solving client problems faster, more efficiently, and more effectively (Cowie). Team structure varies in the construction industry. According to Barczak et al. (2006), some industries such as manufacturing, service, and sales often operate on different continents with staff from multiple countries. In some instances, a project team may consist of individuals with diverse cultures, ethnicities, values, beliefs, and professional backgrounds. Successful leadership of diverse project teams demands leaders who are able to develop and leverage networks and build and maintain social capital (Barczak et al., p. 31); the same point was made by Martins, Gilson, and Maynard (2004). It is important that the project leader articulates the goals and objectives of the team and that team members discuss the goals of the project and decide on project priorities collectively (Bacon & Blyton, 2003; Cicmil, 2006; Cohen & Gibson, 2003). By involving team members in setting goals and making decisions on areas that affect the team members work, the leader begins to build the commitment to the project (Barczak et al.), a virtue necessary for project success in the construction industry. Team Performance Bender and Septelka (2002) noted the construction team is often composed of the architect, engineer, and other consultants (design team); owner (owner's representative); and contractor (builder). The design team is responsible for producing the construction documents for the owner. The owner can be a public or private entity that provides the project requirements and funding for design and construction (Pheng & Fang, 2005). In examining team performance, there are two primary components: individual task behaviors and coordinated task-related processes. Individual task behaviors are those

50 behaviors requiring no coordination among team members, whereas coordinated taskrelated processes, functions, and behaviors include all behaviors that promote coordination among individuals, members, and subtasks (Martin, 2006). The leadership styles of common vision, shared responsibilities, group-focused interests, collaboration, and empowerment correspond with individual and coordinated task-related behaviors associated with team performance and effectiveness in the construction industry. Perceptions of Team Members and Project Management Miles and Mangolds (2002) study of upper-level business students from a midsized university in the Midwestern region of the United States focused on team members perceptions of the leaders performance. The variables that underlie those perceptions and the impact of those perceptions on team members' satisfaction were the focus of the study. Miles and Mangold concluded if the team members view the relationship with the team leaders as unsatisfactory, the team members are likely to experience internal tensions, with few alternatives for resolving the situation. To enhance productivity and team development in any organization, an understanding of the team members perception of the project manager is critical. Campion, Papper, and Medskers (1996) study on 357 employees, 93 managers, and archival records for 60 teams in a financial services organization revealed a positive correlation between employee satisfaction and the level of communication and cooperation within the work groups. Campion et al. did not address the individuals preference for group work and did not find a significant correlation between employee satisfaction and the relative size of the group (D. K. Fisher et al., 2005). Team collaboration and employee satisfaction are important to the success of projects

51 (Flyvbjerg, Holm, & Buhl, 2002; Neal & Aysal, 2004; Project Management Institute, 2004; Saad, Cicmil, & Greenwood, 2002) in the construction industry because of the complexity of projects and group dynamics. High-Performance Teams and Projects Bolman and Deal (2003) referred to six characteristics that distinguish a team as high performing: (a) shaping its purpose, (b) translating its purpose into specific tasks, (c) being a manageable size, (d) having the right mixture of members, (e) having a common commitment to its working relationships, and (f) members holding themselves mutually responsible. Teamwork is seen to involve increased amounts of training together with a broader set of work responsibilities (Bacon & Blyton, 2003). Bacon and Blyton posited, People working within such structures are observed to experience a more varied job, have more responsibility and autonomy, and feel they are more skilled because of the broader experience and the training undergone to fulfill the wider range of duties. (p. 14) Staff reductions often slow down the implementation of full training programs, making it difficult to allow individuals to attend training and thereby creating a sense of letdown that expectations over training and skill development had not been met (Bacon & Blyton). According to Taylor and Morris (2005), successfully completed projects need to undergo a lesson-to-be-learned session to improve the performance of subsequent projects. Determining those lessons during and after project completion is important to how project teams work together on future projects. In high-performing work teams, the need for the project manager to have effective leadership skills is evident because without

52 effective leadership skills the team may not achieve high levels of performance and accomplishment (Levin, 2004). Team Effectiveness According to J. Gordon (2002), effective teams have individuals with complementary skills to meet the needs of both internal and external customers. Further, effective teams have goals that are specific to the team tasks that allow mutual accountability (J. Gordon; Murray, 2004). The Pfeiffer Book of Successful Team-Building Tools (Biech, 2001) presented 10 characteristics of successful teams: (a) clear goals, (b) defined roles, (c) open and clear communication, (d) effective decision making, (e) balanced participation, (f) valued diversity, (g) managed conflict, (h) atmosphere, (i) cooperative relationships, and (j) participative leadership. Ways to measure some of the 10 characteristics of successful teams are discussed in chapter 3. Team members cannot fulfill the roles and responsibilities if the information required is not available to the team members (Barczak et al., 2006). The project leader, who in most instances is the project manager, must ensure all relevant project information is shared with all team members who may or may not be directly affected. This culture of knowledge and information sharing will keep teams informed of project progress and any problems that may arise and is critical for maintaining commitment and motivation (Barczak et al.; Furst, Reeves, Rosen, & Blackburn, 2004). Future Trends of Project Management and Leadership in the Construction Industry Given the project leaders multifaceted role in the construction industry, the issue of leadership education is of paramount importance (Clegg & Ross-Smith, 2003). Often, the training available to employees in the construction industry is what they learn on the

53 job in conjunction with periodic leadership seminars offered by the employers (Allio, 2005). The leadership seminars are usually available to only a few selected individuals within the company. There is a need to incorporate leadership education in the undergraduate curricula of schools specializing in construction training to introduce the concept of leadership (Swartz, 2005) to students in the early stages of education. Allio (2005) suggested the most effective leadership programs or training should focus on building self-knowledge and skills in leadership style and critical thinking. Leadership programs ought to focus on the preparation of visionary, moral, and transformational leaders, all of which are important focuses of a project manager in the construction industry. As the business structure changes, so does the need to prepare new leadership to embrace new ideas. Allio (2005) shared Morrison, Rha, and Helfmans (2003) point of view regarding the importance of leadership training. Individuals who encounter real-life situations related to leadership responsibilities before they are introduced to basic leadership principles are better prepared to develop as leaders (Gibber, Carter, & Goldsmith, 2002; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; Morrison et al.). In addition, by taking turns in being a follower and a leader during the learning process, students encounter a meaningful learning experience (Morrison et al.). Rubin et al. (2002) posited hardworking individuals in organizations are promoted to senior positions. The senior positions require people-oriented leadership and management skills, which are often lacking in the same hardworking individuals (Rubin et al.). The promotion of individuals not necessarily trained in management practices to a

54 senior leadership position is prevalent in the construction industry. Project managers in the construction industry play a vital role in coordinating the work of other professionals, scheduling projects, selecting team members, mapping priorities for the team, and defining the scope of the project. As the owners representative on the project, the project manager conducts meetings with all parties interested in the project, selects general contractors, reviews submittals for materials, and is responsible for the successful completion of the project (Hughes, Tippett, & Thomas, 2004; Humphreys, Matthews, & Kumaraswamy, 2003; Yu, Shen, Kelly, & Hunter, 2005). Some individuals in the construction industry become project managers based on tenure at the company or the connections the individuals have with upper management. The tasks and the level of expertise involved in managing a project make leadership training essential (Rosenfeld, 2006) for all professionals in the construction industry. A sound background in leadership education will provide the necessary basis for project leadership development (Clegg & Ross-Smith, 2003). Project leadership development will enable project manager to keep abreast of innovations taking place in the construction industry. Disparity in the Existing Literature The study of leadership in the construction industry has generated little theoretical attention (LaRue & Ivany, 2004). The literature reviewed for this study was dominated by research in the area of leadership, project management, and team performance as the area of leadership features apply to organizations in general. The lack of adequate research study in the construction industry shows the understanding of the relationship

55 between a project managers leadership skills and team performance needs further investigation. Lacking in the leadership research studies conducted in the construction industry to date are empirical studies based on how team members view the effectiveness of current project managers or organization leaders. Hence, the literature review on the influence of the leadership skills of project managers on project team performance in the construction industry indicates research gaps exist within the area of construction leadership. Additional research is needed to establish the relationship between team members performance and the project managers leadership skills in the leadership process. This research contributes to filling the gap. Conclusion The review of the literature in this chapter explored the historical aspect of leadership research and current leadership theories with the intent of arriving at a greater understanding of and appreciation for the nature of leadership and team performance. The difference between leadership and management was explored as well as the influence of a project managers leadership styles on the team he or she leads. While some leadership theorists debated about which leadership style should be used in a specific situation, most leadership theorists acknowledge to some extent that different leadership styles may be needed for different situations. Matching leadership style to different situations may be difficult for project managers in the construction industry because the project managers often manage teams of professionals with diverse backgrounds and changing circumstances (K. Fisher & Fisher, 1998). The complexity of

56 projects and changes during construction projects may require collaboration among team members. The process of leadership required by organizations in the construction industry to succeed in a dynamic business environment will be processes that can take risks, share responsibility, be visionary, be based on mutually influencing relationships, encourage participation, promote group interest, and empower others to act. Hence, the project manager is expected to provide the necessary direction for the team. This research study was grounded in the Kouzes-Posner approach to leadership as outlined in the Purpose Statement section. The following chapter presents the research methodology used in examining the influence of project managers leadership styles in the construction industry and the effect of the leadership styles on team performance. Summary The literature review focused on understanding how the leadership styles of project managers affect the performance of project teams in the construction industry. Mealiea and Baltazar (2005) observed that team building is the most critical characteristic for effective project success. Other characteristics mentioned were communicating effectively, demonstrating trust, and focusing on results. In a knowledge-based economy and during a globalization of industries, a project manager should possess, in addition to technical and managerial skills, good leadership to do the right thing right (Nguyen, Ogunlana, & Lan, 2004, p. 418). The characteristics of a project leader, as discussed in this study, include having or promoting charisma, sharing responsibility, continuous personal and group development, having a common vision, relationships built on mutual trust and influence,

57 creating group interests, risk taking, collaboration, and empowering others. A team leader committed to high performance will realize effective team performance involves gaining an increased understanding of the role of the project manager and of individuals in a team environment. An effective project manager is not simply adapting to change but rather embracing transformation and collaboration within teams he or she leads. Effective project managers are those managers who have charisma, share responsibilities with others on the team, communicate vision well, help others to succeed, put the interests of others before the leaders own, foster an environment for authenticity, and demonstrate courage in all activities (Cleveland & Ireland, 2002; Kouzes & Posner, 2002). It is through the interrelationships of the leadership characteristics that a project manager ensures teams are effective and perform at a high standard (Kerfoot, 2002; Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Salacuse, 2006). Chapter 3 presents a discussion on the research method chosen for the study. Chapter 3 introduced the purpose of the study in detail. The research methods used to evaluate the degree to which project managers leadership styles affect team performance in project teams in the construction industry are discussed in detail in chapter 3. The main research methods used in the quantitative, descriptive study are quantitative selfassessment surveys. The data collected from the self-assessment surveys are analyzed against the dependent variable of team performance in chapter 4.

58 CHAPTER 3: METHOD Chapter 3 presents the research method used to evaluate the relationship between the leadership styles of 17 project managers in 17 project teams consisting of 6 - 9 members and the team perception of the project managers leadership styles as the leadership styles relate to project team performance in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. The research method that was used in this quantitative, descriptive study is a self-assessment survey instrument. This chapter presents the research design, methodology, instrument development, population, data collection procedures, and approach to data analysis that was used in the study. The study was designed to gain insight into the influence of project managers leadership styles on team performance. The study evaluated the leadership characteristics of project managers within project teams in construction organizations in the southeastern United States to examine whether and how the leadership characteristics of project managers affected team performance. Research Method The quantitative, descriptive research study explored the possible causal relationships between leadership and performance among project work teams. The study examined the nine leadership characteristics identified in chapter 2 in relation to the effect of the leadership characteristics on team performance (see Figure 1).

59

Figure 1. Research design plan. The study used a self-assessment survey instrument to collect data on leadership characteristics from the participants. Creswell (2002) described the purpose of survey research as generalizing results from a sample to the population . . . so that inferences can be made drawn from the sample to the population (pp. 400-401). The survey instruments were designed to evaluate whether project managers leading project teams possess the nine characteristics of leadership. Creating the surveys required examining several survey tools, including the Post Heroic Leadership Assessment (Eicher, Jones, & Bearley, 1999), the Learning

60 Organization Assessment (Kline & Saunders, 1993), the Leadership Training and Development Outline Assessment (Clark, 1998), the Prospector Survey (McCall, Spreitzer, & Mahoney, 1998), the Leadership Assessment and Personal Satisfaction Survey (Learning Center, 2005), and the Skillscope Survey (Kaplan, 1997). The six surveys were reviewed to evaluate which, if any, characteristics of leadership related to project management each survey contained. From the review, two survey questionnaires were created and used for the study. The questions used in the survey were taken directly from the six surveys that were reviewed and the questions that relate to team leadership were broken down into the nine specific characteristics of leadership already identified. Table 1 shows which questions correlate with which leadership characteristic for the survey directed at project managers and the survey directed at team members. The data collected from the leadership surveys were aggregated for each project team, and the aggregated scores for the nine leadership variables of the project team were compared to the aggregated scores for the nine leadership variables of the project managers. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to measure the strength and direction of the linear relationships between the independent variable of project manager leadership characteristics and the dependent variable of team performance in the project team and the project manager surveys. The self-assessment tools created (Appendices A and B) were used with a pilot group prior to use with the actual project teams comprised the population of the study. The pilot group consisted of a team in one of the organizations used in the study with similar characteristics as the study group. The letters of introduction (Appendices I and J)

61 were also used in the pilot study. A request was made for both verbal and written feedback from the pilot team with regard to the wording of the survey instructions, the time necessary to take the survey, the wording and clarity of the survey questions, and the clarity of the initial introduction and of the purpose (Oppenheim, 1966). The information was used to refine the survey and the data-gathering process. Table 1 Independent Variables of Leadership Item on leadership survey Variable name Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Common vision Mutual influence relationships Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Questions 16, 17, 18 Questions 19, 20, 21 Questions 22, 23, 24 Questions 25, 26, 27 Questions 6, 15, 24 Questions 7, 16, 25 Questions 8, 17, 26 Questions 9, 18, 27 (Appendix A) Questions 1, 2, 3 Questions 4, 5, 6 Questions 7, 8, 9 Questions 10, 11, 12 Questions 13, 14, 15 Item on performance survey (Appendix B) Questions 1, 10, 19 Questions 2, 11, 20 Questions 3, 12, 21 Questions 4, 13, 22 Questions 5, 14, 23

The procedure involved the following steps: 1. A short introduction of the tool and its purpose, shown in Appendix F, was e-mailed to operations managers of the targeted organizations.

62 2. The operations manager was asked to furnish the names and e-mail addresses of project managers and the project managers respective teams. 3. Letters of introduction were e-mailed or mailed to the project managers, soliciting the project managers participation in the study. 4. Upon receiving confirmation of the project managers willingness to participate in the study, each individual received an e-mail containing the address of the Web site to visit to complete the survey. Each e-mail and letter contained a unique login code to enable the receiver to access the survey Web site. 5. Upon accessing the survey site, each individual completed an informed consent form, demographic information, and the survey. The dependent variable, team performance, was based on quarterly project performance reports obtained from the operations managers of the organizations participating in the study. Appendix G shows the three performance metrics used to assess the performance of the teams: (a) project completed on schedule, (b) project completed within the specified budget, and (c) project completed within the specified profit margin. Each of the variables was assigned either a +1 if teams were meeting the team metric or a 1 if they were not meeting the team metric. The scores were added together to attain a single score for each team (see Appendix G). No individually identifiable information will be disclosed or published, and all results will be presented as aggregate, summary data. The self-assessment survey and the team performance measure were used with the pilot team to assess the initial viability of the survey instrument tools and to make any adjustments needed. The process used for the pilot group was also used with the study

63 groups to gain feedback on the methodology and the process used to collect the data. The data from the self-assessment tools were collected over a 2-month period, making the data cross-sectional. Appropriateness of Design A quantitative, descriptive research survey was the preferred type of data collection tool for the study. The reasons for selecting this research method over other research methods include that (a) the design shows relationships between variables, (b) there is a rapid turnaround in data collection, and (c) the attributes of a population can be identified from a small group of individuals (Creswell, 2002; Oppenheim, 1966). The descriptive study approach was used for the research design because the study examined the influence of the project managers leadership styles on project team performance from the results of the data. The quantitative design method is appropriate for testing theory and hypotheses using representative samples of the population (Lussier & Sonfield, 2004). Research Questions The quantitative, descriptive study sought answers to the following questions: 1. Is there a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project manager and the project managers performance as perceived by the project managers project team members? 2. Is there a relationship between a project managers leadership styles and the project managers effectiveness?

64 Research Hypotheses The quantitative, descriptive study explored the possible causal relationships between leadership characteristics and team performance among project teams. The hypotheses are as follows: H01: There is no relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project manager and the project managers performance as perceived by the project team members. Ha1: There is a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project manager and the project managers performance as perceived by the project team members. H02: There is no relationship between a project managers leadership styles and the project managers effectiveness. Ha2: There is a relationship between a project managers leadership styles and the project managers effectiveness. Population Sample The participants were chosen using a combination of random and convenience sampling methods. In simple random sampling the researcher selects participants . . . for the sample so that any individual has an equal probability of being selected from the population (Creswell, 2005, p. 147). The intention behind using simple random sampling method was to choose individuals who were representative of the population. A requirement of sound empirical research involves obtaining results from the study sample that are generalizable to the background population (Reynolds, Tarter, & Kirisci, 2004).

65 The sample examined consisted of project teams of professional knowledge workers in the construction industry with combined population of over 3000 employees in the southeastern United States. The project teams consisted of professionals from different construction organizations with a changing composition and variation in the project teams work (K. Fisher & Fisher, 1998). The population came from different fields of specialty, including architecture, interior design, engineering, planning, construction management, program management, general contracting, financial services, administrative support staffs, and other consultants in the construction industry. The following formula was used to determine sample size: X = Z(c/100)2r(100-r): n = N x/((N-1)E2 + x): E = Sqrt[(N - n)x/n(N-1) where N is the population size, r is the fraction of responses, and Z(c/100) is the critical value for the confidence level c. The minimum sample size for the quantitative, descriptive study was determined to be 21 teams consisting of a minimum of 1 project manager and 5 project team members, generating a minimum of 125 individual responses (Raosoft, 2006). The name of every team member received from project managers who responded and completed the consent to act as a research subject form had an equal opportunity to be chosen for the study. In teams with more than the minimum number of participants, every second participant was chosen to be included in the study. In teams with only 6 participant respondents, all fully completed surveys were included in the study. However, some teams had more than 5 individuals that participated in the study, which resulted in 17 teams with 6 - 9 team members. The research design was based on a sample population of 220 individuals consisting of project managers and project team members using a confidence level of 95% with a 5% margin of error, generating a sample

66 size of 139 (Raosoft). Of the 220 survey invitations e-mailed, 173 responded that they were interested in participating in the study. Of the 173 responses, 139 submitted a completed survey online. Five participants chose not to submit the Consent to Act as a Research Subject form prior to taking the survey (see Appendix H); hence the five surveys were removed from the data before analysis. Another eight surveys were removed from the data analysis process because the team was unable to meet the minimum number of team member respondents. Thus, 126 individual responses were included in the final analysis. The 126 usable completed surveys provided a return rate of 68.85%. Informed Consent Letters were sent to targeted organizations in the construction industry via e-mail in the southeastern United States, requesting permission to use the organizations employees in the study. When the request was granted, letters were sent to the operations manager (see Appendix F) at the targeted organizations requesting assistance in collecting information about the project managers and the project managers team performance. The three performance metrics used to assess the performance of the teams were (a) project completed on schedule, (b) project completed within the specified budget, and (c) project completed within the specified profit margin. After the project managers were identified, a letter requesting the project managers participation in the study (Appendix I) was e-mailed to each project manager. Each project manager was also required to submit team members contact information. After receiving the contact information for team members, a letter (Appendix J) was sent via e-mail to each team member requesting the team members participation in

67 the study. After responses were received from participants, a letter was sent via e-mail detailing how to access the survey online. Each participant was required to read the survey introduction letter (Appendix K) and sign electronically a consent to act as a research subject form (Appendix H) prior to taking the survey online. Sampling There were several requirements for participating in the data collection process. All participants were required to work in the construction industry. The project managers were also required to manage teams of five or more individuals. The participating teams in the construction industry must provide performance report. Confidentiality Each project manager and team member was provided with an online link that corresponded to the teams number and organization. The code was used to access and complete the survey. There were no identifiers or codes aside from those described in the study, either on the survey or in the possession of the researcher. To maintain anonymity, the results from the survey had a different code apart from the initial code provided to the participants. Additionally, the instruction sheet directed participants to complete the surveys separately and privately to facilitate confidentiality while minimizing the risk of participants being influenced by others. Geographic Location The organizations chosen for the study were in the construction-related industry in the southeastern United States. The construction-related organizations had between 50 and 1,000 employees. The organizations were required to have work in the southeastern United States to participate in the study.

68 Instrumentation The creation of the surveys required examining several survey tools, including the Post Heroic Leadership Assessment (Eicher et al., 1999), the Learning Organization Assessment (Kline & Saunders, 1993), the Leadership Training and Development Outline Assessment (Clark, 1998), the Prospector Survey (McCall et al., 1998), the Leadership Assessment and Personal Satisfaction Survey (Learning Center, 2005), and the Skillscope Survey (Kaplan, 1997). The surveys were reviewed to evaluate which, if any, characteristics of leadership they contained related to project management. The questionnaire used for the study was created from the review. The questions used in the surveys were taken directly from the six original surveys reviewed, and the questions that related to team leadership were broken down into the nine specific characteristics of leadership identified earlier in this chapter. Data Collection The quantitative, descriptive study was conducted in an online environment. The leadership survey instrument was provided online, and participants were requested to complete a 27-question survey that was expected to take approximately 10 minutes to complete. The survey began with an informed consent form to ensure participants understood the study was voluntary, confidential, and anonymous. Participants completed the informed consent form prior to taking the survey. The surveys presented the data collection instrument and procedures to all participants, along with an explanation that included survey instructions and describing the voluntary nature of the study. A coding methodology for each project team was provided to ensure confidentiality and integrity of the study. The process of coding data

69 occurs during data collection so that you can determine what data to collect next (Creswell, 2005, p. 413). A coding technique was used to create categories for responses (Styron, Ronald, Maulding, & Hull, 2006). Each survey was numerically and alphabetically coded to ensure responses from project managers and the teams were recorded appropriately. The alphabetical code A and numerical code 0 (A0) was assigned to one project manager in a specific organization, and the alphabetical code A and numerical code 1 (A1) was assigned to the first corresponding team member. Each project manager and team member was provided with an online link that corresponded to the teams number and organization. The code was used to access and complete the survey. For example, a link provided to a project manager in Organization A was coded as A0, and the team members for Project Manager A0 received a link coded A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, and so forth; there were as many links as there were team members. Additionally, the instruction sheet directed participants to complete the surveys separately and privately to facilitate confidentiality while minimizing the risk of participants being influenced by others. Once completed, the surveys were compiled electronically and made available for analysis with a different and random code to maintain the anonymity of the teams. Bader, Bloom, and Chang (1994) noted team performance measurement and progress toward business goals should be done in association with each other. Data on team performance were gathered at the time survey data were gathered.

70 Data Analysis Oppenheim (1966) described reliability and validity in the following way: Reliability refers to consistency, to obtaining the same results again. Validity tells us whether the question or item really measures what it is supposed to measure (pp. 69-70). The reliability of the instrument used in the study was established through the repetitive use of the instrument on 17 different project teams. The validity of the survey instrument tools was established through the triangulation with the team performance report provided by the project managers through a MANOVA. The multiple regression analysis and a MANOVA were used in the determination to accept the directional hypotheses. According to McGivern and Tvorik (1998), in MANOVA, the question is asked whether group membership produces significant differences on a combination of variables (p. 254). MANOVA is used to measure relationships between one dependent measure and two or more independent measures (McGivern & Tvorik). Creswell (2005) described t tests or univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and MANOVA as being commonly used in determining the statistical significance of mean score differences among groups. Norusis (1995) described the benefit of using multiple comparison procedures and wrote, Multiple comparison procedures protect you from calling differences significant when they really arent (p. 291). For the quantitative analysis, each variable, in order to be correlated, was coded with a specific designator for analysis using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). SPSS is a computer program used for statistical analysis, data management, and data documentation. The main objective of the study analysis was to provide the reader with images and summaries to help understand the nature of the study, the variables under study, and

71 the descriptive relationships. Measures of association of relationships between variables were used for analyzing data (Creswell, 2005). The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to measure the strength and direction of the linear relationships (Lussier & Sonfield, 2004) between all nine leadership characteristics and the dependent variable of team performance and project managers effectiveness in the project team and the project manager surveys. The survey responses received individual coding for the purposes of correlation, as discussed in the Data Collection section of this chapter. Validity and Reliability Validity The selected research design achieved its intended purpose by evaluating the degree of relationship between the leadership styles of 25 project managers (independent variable) and employee perceptions of the project managers leadership styles and team performance in two ways. First, the data gathered through the self-assessment survey tools were triangulated with the performance measurement scores based on the common measure of team performance gathered from the organization itself (Appendix G). The performance measures provided the internal validity of the tool. Second, the study was externally validated through the selection of questions directly from the self-assessment surveys reviewed. The self-assessment surveys reviewed were the Post Heroic Leadership Assessment (Eicher et al., 1999), the Learning Organization Assessment (Kline & Saunders, 1993), the Leadership Training and Development Outline Assessment (Clark, 1998), the Prospector Survey (McCall et al., 1998), the Leadership Assessment and Personal Satisfaction Survey (Learning Center, 2005), and the Skillscope Survey (Kaplan, 1997).

72 Reliability The reliability of the study was obtained through the participation of 17 different teams with an average of 6-9 members each, totaling 126 participants. Consistent scores from each of the teams provided the reliability of the tool. The project performance scores were provided by operations managers and department heads from the organizations participating in the study, further providing reliability for the study. Data Organization The data were managed by collecting and maintaining the coded survey online for each team. Each participant received a code and a link that allowed access to the online survey. This measure ensured there was not any cross-pollinating of surveys from one team to another. The survey data were electronically transferred into a database tool, allowing for easier and more accurate analysis of the data. The data, once entered, were reevaluated to ensure no errors occurred during the process. The effect of nonresponses on survey estimates, or response bias (Creswell, 2002), was reduced by conducting the study online and collecting the survey instruments as they were completed. This procedure reduced response bias in the study. The measure of team performance used as the dependent variable is a single score based on a standard performance report supplied by the project managers in the online survey. The dependent variable of team performance was based on a quarterly performance report of the project team by operations managers of participating organizations. Three performance metrics were used to assess the performance of the teams: (a) project schedule, (b) project in budget, and (c) project profitability. Each of the variables was assigned either a +1 if data met the metric or a 1 if data did not meet the

73 metric. The scores for each of the three measures were added together to attain a single score for each team. The range of scores for each team ranged from +3 if they were meeting every one of their objectives to 1 if they were not meeting at least two of their objectives. The score acted as the dependent variable in the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Summary Chapter 3 has presented the methods used to evaluate the degree to which project managers leadership styles affect team performance in project teams in the construction industry. The main research method used in the quantitative, descriptive study was a quantitative self-assessment survey. The self-assessment survey data were analyzed against the dependent variable of team performance that was calculated through an analysis of common project success determinants. The population under study consisted of project teams of professional knowledge workers in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. This chapter has presented the research design, methodology, instrument development, population, data collection procedures, and approach to data analysis. The chapter also identified the basic research framework and ground rules that were carried through to chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 4 analyzes the data gathered through the study. Chapters 4 and 5 demonstrate the execution of the methodology and design presented in chapter 3. Chapter 4 includes a complete description and analysis of the results of the data collection and provides a detailed analysis of the survey data.

74 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS Chapter 4 presents the analyses of the data collected to evaluate the relationship between the leadership styles of 17 project managers in 17 project teams consisting of 6-9 team members, and the team perception of the project managers leadership styles as the leadership styles relate to project team performance in construction industry in the southeastern United States. Yukl (2002) expressed leadership as the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how it can be done effectively. Leadership is the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the stated objectives (Yukl, 2002). Leadership effectiveness is demonstrated by the efforts of the leader in having the organizational group perform in a collaborative manner for success and the attainment of the groups goals (Deal & Peterson, 2003). Leadership style is the underlying need-structure of the individual who motivates behavior in various leadership situations (Fiedler, 1967). Team performance is the achievement of the metrics that allow the team to manage its progress and fulfill its purpose (K. Fisher & Fisher, 1998). The organization of chapter 4 is as follows: (a) research procedures, (b) demographics, (c) report of data, (d) pilot study report, (e) individual team studies, (f) research questions, (g) independent variable correlations, (h) hypotheses, and (i) summary of results. The following research questions and hypotheses that guided this research study are analyzed. 1. Is there a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project manager and the project managers performance as perceived by the project managers project team members?

75 2. Is there a relationship between a project managers leadership styles and the project managers effectiveness? The hypotheses are as follows: H01: There is no relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project manager and the project managers performance as perceived by the project managers team members. Ha1: There is a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project manager and the project managers performance as perceived by project managers team members. H02: There is no relationship between a project managers leadership styles and project managers effectiveness. Ha2: There is a relationship between a project managers leadership styles and project managers effectiveness. The study examined the relationship between the leadership styles of project managers within organizations in the construction industry and the performance of the project managers teams. Research Procedure The possible connecting relationships between the nine independent variables that define project managers leadership characteristics and the dependent variable, team performance, were examined. Two research questions were answered to determine the influence of the leadership styles of project managers and team members perception of the project managers leadership styles on team performance in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. The data gathered through the self-assessment survey

76 tools (Appendices A and B) were triangulated with the performance measurement scores based on the common measure of team performance gathered for all participating teams (see Appendix G). The data collected from the leadership surveys were analyzed and the mean responses for each of the independent variables were calculated. The mean response for each of the independent variables from each set of leadership surveys was compared to a quantitative score for each team based on the teams performance report (see Appendix G). Survey Instrument Development The survey instruments were developed to determine if the leadership styles of project managers influence the project team performance in the construction industry in southeastern United States. The survey instruments were created based on a review of several survey tools. The creation of the surveys required examining several survey tools, including the Post Heroic Leadership Assessment (Eicher et al., 1999), the Learning Organization Assessment (Kline & Saunders, 1993), the Leadership Training and Development Outline Assessment (Clark, 1998), the Prospector Survey (McCall et al., 1998), the Leadership Assessment and Personal Satisfaction Survey (Learning Center, 2005), and the Skillscope Survey (Kaplan, 1997). The six surveys were reviewed to evaluate which, if any, characteristics of leadership related to project management they contain. From this review, the questionnaire used for this study was created. The questions used in the survey were taken directly from the original six surveys reviewed, and the questions that relate to team leadership were broken down into the nine specific characteristics of leadership. The survey consisted of 27 questions and the survey was used with a pilot team that was a representative of the project team. This initial survey

77 instrument tools were evaluated to refine the questions down to the 3 questions that most closely related to one of the nine leadership characteristics being evaluated (Appendices A and B). Data Gathering Process The data gathering process included eight activities: (a) contacting the operation managers for each targeted organizations, (b) contacting the program managers for each of the potential teams, (c) communicating via e-mail and personal meetings with project managers and the team members, as necessary, to discuss the research goals and execution of the research plan, (d) setting up the online survey, (e) coding the project teams, (f) conducting the online survey, (g) collecting the performance measure reports, and (h) coding, compiling, and documenting the data. Initial contact was made with 35 operations managers who were responsible for the organizations that were the initial candidates for the study via an e-mail message that was sent between June 2, 2007, and June 12, 2007 (Appendix D). The e-mail message served the following functions: (a) introduced the researcher to the operation managers, (b) described the basic details of the research, (c) requested the project managers be allowed to participate in the study, (d) requested a list of the project managers who may be interested in participating in the study, and (e) requested a copy of the teams most recent performance measure report. Subsequent contact was made with 30 project managers who were responsible for the teams that were the initial candidates for the study via an e-mail message sent between June 8, 2007, and June 16, 2007 (Appendix E). The e-mail message served the following functions: (a) introduced the researcher to the potential participants, (b) described the basic details of the research, (c) requested a list of the project team

78 members that would be participating in the study, (d) conducted a brief survey, and (e) requested a copy of the teams most recent performance report. The introductory letters (Appendices E and F), indicated to the participants that the research had been approved by the administration of the organization. After the list of team members was received from project managers, an e-mail was sent to each team member. The e-mail message served the following functions: (a) introduced the researcher to the potential participants, (b) described the basic details of the research, and (c) requested each participant to read and sign electronically the consent to act as a research subject. Upon receiving the signed consent form, each participant was sent a unique code to access the survey and a link to the survey directly from the survey Web site. Each survey participant was required to read and agree to the survey introduction letter shown in Appendix I prior to taking the survey online. From the initial e-mail contact, 14 teams volunteered to participate in the study. The initial correspondence was followed up with telephone calls and e-mails to each of the project managers as a reminder. The follow-up telephone calls and e-mails to each of the project managers resulted in three more teams volunteering to participate in the study. Eight of the project managers contacted initially stated the project teams were not available and the current size did not meet the 5-10 team members required by the study. Therefore, the 8 teams were excluded from the study. The remaining nine project managers were contacted three additional times by telephone and e-mail without response.

79 Survey The next step in the data collection process was the implementation of the two survey assessment tools (Appendices A and B). Many online survey Web sites were visited for conducting the study. Upon selecting and procuring an online survey provider, the introduction letter and consent to participate in the study were transposed onto the online database. The questionnaires for project managers and team members were also transposed onto the online database. The information included in the online questionnaire followed steps for conducting a study: (a) included an introduction letter to project managers and project teams (Appendices I and J) and (b) electronically signed Consent to Act as a Research Subject form (Appendix H), (c) a demographic information questionnaire (Appendix L), and (d) two survey assessment tools (Appendices A and B). The next step in the process involved retrieving data from the online survey Web site. The data were retrieved from the online survey Web site in a spreadsheet format, including any surveys that were not fully completed. Upon reaching the number of expected respondents, the data were recorded. The team data were recorded and maintained together at all times. From the total surveys that were completed, five participants chose not to accept the Consent to Act as a Research Subject form statement (Appendix H); hence, the five surveys were removed from the data before analysis. Another eight surveys were removed from the data analysis process because the team was unable to meet the minimum 5-10 team member respondents. All teams used in the analysis produced performance measure reports. Coding Data Each survey was numerically and alphabetically coded to ensure responses from

80 project managers and the teams were recorded appropriately. For example, the letter A was assigned to a project manager in a specific organization, and the number 1 was assigned to the first corresponding team member. Each project manager and team member was provided with an online link that corresponded to the teams number and organization. The code was used by the survey participants in accessing and completing the survey. The next step was for the each of the surveys, consent forms, and demographic information to be logged into a survey journal. The consent forms and demographic information were recorded with the same code used in accessing the online survey questionnaires. After the survey questionnaires were retrieved, the questionnaires were separated by teams. The team data were then assigned a team code different from the initial team code used by respondents when taking the online survey. The different team code was necessary to maintain the anonymity of respondents. The data were then entered into a computer-based statistical system for the analysis of the data, called SPSS Student Version 15. The data for each team were maintained separately and were coded with the team-specific code. The data were logged into an Excel file that contained all information for each team for the final analysis. Collecting Data The data gathered through the self-assessment survey tools were triangulated with the performance measurement scores based on the common measure of team performance gathered for all participating teams. The operation managers of the participating project managers and organizations forwarded the team performance reports through e-mail. Several of the operation managers were contacted via telephone and

81 e-mail to ensure the performance measure reports were received on all participating teams. Performance Report The operation manager in the organizations that participated in the study provided the performance report used for the project teams (Appendix G). The three performance metrics, (a) project completed on schedule, (b) project completed within the specified budget, and (c) project completed within the specified profit margin, on the performance reports were not weighted during the analysis. Each team was given a score of +1 if the team was meeting or exceeding the project team objectives or a 1 if the team was not meeting the team objectives. The scores were totaled to obtain the team performance measure shown in Appendix G. The range of scores for each team ranged from +3 if the team was meeting every one of the team objectives to 1 if the team was not meeting at least two of the team objectives. The study used a ratio scale derived from the three measures for evaluating team performance. According to Jobson (1999), a ratio scale is the most adaptable scale of measurement in a multivariate data analysis (p.97). Ratio scale, said Jobson, allow for any two values along the scale to be expressed meaningfully as a ratio, ensure distance between items on the scale is meaningful, and the elements along the scale can be ordered from low to high (p. 97). The elements in the study are performance metrics which were ordered from a value of -1 (low value) if the team was not meeting the objectives, and a value of +1 (high value) if the team is meeting the team objective, thus fulfilling the expectation of the study. The performance metrics used to assess the

82 performance of teams may need to be expanded to include other performance metrics thus improving the limitation of the three performance metrics used in the study. Demographics The demographics of the participants were examined through six aspects: (a) age, (b) gender, (c) race, (d) years in service, (e) company size, and (f) profession. Appendix M displays demographic statistics for the study. The sample consisted of 17 project managers (n = 17) and 109 project team members (n = 109) from construction-related organizations in the southeast United States. The sample included 19 architects or interior designers (18.10%), 29 engineers (27.62%), 6 construction managers (5.71%), 8 program managers (7.62%), 9 general contractors (8.57%), 11 administrative support staff (10.48%), 1 information technology/computer-aided design (CAD) support (1.00%), 2 financial services personnel (1.90%), and 20 other consultants (19.05%) in the construction industry with each team based in the southeastern United States. 20 respondents did not disclose profession (Appendix M). The study did not collect raw data from participants for the variable age and years of service. Therefore, for the purpose of the study analysis, the mean respondent age and years of service were estimated by using the midpoint of the frequency distribution between the ranges to estimate the mean and standard deviation for each team that participated in the study (Johnson, 2004). The midpoint used in estimating the mean and standard deviation for age range 20-29 years is 24.5 years, 30-39 years is 34.5, 40-49 years is 44.5 years, 50-59 years is 54.5 years, 60-69 years is 64.5 years and for age 70 and above, the lower age of 70 is used in the data analysis. The midpoint used in estimating the mean and standard deviation for years of service range 0-9 years is 4.5, 10-

83 19 years is 14.5, 20-29 years is 24.5, 30-39 years is 34.5, and for 40 and above, the lower years of service of 40 is used in the data analysis. The mean and standard deviation were calculated using statistical data analysis. Project Manager Study The mean reported age range of the project manager participants was 40-49 years (x = 47.00), with a standard deviation of 7.75 (s = 7.745; Appendix M). The largest portion of the sample population of project managers fell into the 50-59 years age range (41.18%). There were 16 valid responses (n = 16) to the demographic age question, with one individual not reporting age. The age of the respondents ranged from a low of 30-39 years to a maximum reported age of 50-59 years (Appendix M). The majority of the respondents were male (64.71%), followed by female (29.41%) and 1 nonrespondent (5.88%) to the gender question. The race of the participants was primarily Caucasian (64.71%), followed by African American (29.41%) and 1 project manager (5.88%) not reporting race. The majority of the respondents were from organizations with more than 1,000 people (47.06%), followed by organizations with 500-1,000 people (17.65%), 200-299 people (11.76%), 1-99 people (5.88%), 100199 people (5.88%), and 300-399 people (5.88%). One project manager (5.88%) did not report company size (Appendix M). The mean range of years of service of the project manager participants was 20-29 years (x = 19.50) with a standard deviation of 10.95 (s = 10.954; Appendix M). The largest portion of the sample population was in the 20-29 years of service range (37.50%), followed by 0-9 years of service (25.00%), 10-19 years of service (18.75%), and 30-39 years of service (18.75%). There were 16 valid responses (n = 16) to the

84 demographic age question. The minimum range of years of service of the respondents was 0-9 years, with a maximum reported range amount of years of service of 30-39 years (Appendix M). Team Study The mean reported age range of the team study participants was 40-49 years (x = 44.28) with a standard deviation of 12.20 (s = 12.20; Appendix M). The largest portion of the sample population of project team members fell into the 40-49 age range (32.11%). There were 95 valid responses (n = 95) to the demographic age question, with 14 respondents (12.48%) not responding. The ages of the respondents ranged from a low of 20-29 years to a maximum reported age of 70 years and above. The majority of the respondents were males (55.46%), followed by female (33.94%) and 17 nonrespondents (15.60%). The race of the participants was primarily Caucasian (62.39%), followed by African American (15.60%), others (5.50%), Hispanic (2.75%), Asian (1.83%), and 13 nonrespondents (11.93%). The majority of the respondents were from organizations with more than 1,000 people (34.44%), followed by organizations with 5001,000 people (24.44%) and 0-99 people (17.78%). Individuals from organizations with 300-399 people represented 8.89% of respondents, followed by organizations with 100-199 people (7.78%), 400-499 people (5.56%), and 200-299 people (1.11%; Appendix M). The mean range of years of service of the team participants that reported was 10 19 years (x = 17.34) with a standard deviation of 12.60 (s = 12.604; Appendix M). The largest portion of the sample population was in the 0-9 years of service range (29.36%), followed closely by 10-19 years of service (27.52%), which was followed by 20-29 years

85 of service (12.84%), 30-39 years of service (11.01%), 40 years and above (6.42%), and 14 nonrespondents (12.84%). There were 95 valid responses (n = 95) to the demographic years of service question. The minimum range amount of years in service of the respondents was 0-9 years with a maximum reported range amount of 40 years and above. Report of Data This section presents the data obtained during the course of the study. The section is broken into eight parts: (a) the pilot study, (b) the individual project team studies, (c) research questions, (d) independent variables correlations, (e) hypotheses, (f) multiple regression analysis, (g) multiple regression equation, and (h) MANOVAs. Descriptive statistical analysis was completed using Student Version 15 of SPSS. Pilot Study The self-assessment tools created, shown in Appendices A and B, were used with a pilot group that was representative of the population of the study prior to being used with the actual project teams. The pilot study with a representative project team was necessary to validate the survey instruments and the data collection process. The pilot group, Team A, consisted of a team in one of the organizations used in the study with similar characteristics as the study group. Team A was used as a means of validating the readability and ease of use of the survey instruments. There were 11 participants in the Team A pilot study group (n = 11). The pilot team consisted of a project manager and 10 team members. The team had a mean number of years of service of 11 years (x = 10.5) with a standard deviation of 7 years (s = 6.99). The years of service ranged from 0 years to 29 years. The mean age of the team members was 47 years (x = 46.5) with a standard

86 deviation of 11 years (s = 11.35). The age of the team ranged from 30 to 69 years old, with 1 member not disclosing age. The pilot team demographic statistics that shows the respondent profile from the surveys of Pilot Team A are presented in Appendix N. The standard error of the mean for the team responses to the survey questions ranged from 0.16 to 0.46. The standard deviation of the mean responses ranged from 0.52 to 1.45 (s = 0.52 minimum, s = 1.45 maximum). The responses to the survey questions had a variance ranging from 0.27 to 2.10 (s = 0.25 minimum, s = 2.10 maximum). The pilot team survey results and pilot team leadership characteristics descriptive statistics from the surveys of Pilot Team A are presented in Appendices O and P respectively. Charisma. Survey Questions 1, 2, and 3 were designed to collect data on the independent variable of charisma (Figure 2). The team members mean responses to Survey Questions 1, 2, and 3 range from a high of 4.50 to 4.20 to a low of 4.20 for Questions 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The project managers responses to Survey Questions 1, 2, and 3 range from a high of 5.00 to 4.00 to a low of 4.00 for Questions 1, 3, and 2, respectively(Appendix O). The standard deviations of the means for the pilot team ranged from a high of 1.32 to 1.15 to a low of 1.03 for Questions 3, 1, and 2, respectively. The probability that the standard deviations would fall below the high standard deviation (s = 1.32) was 76.5% based on the probabilities for the standard normal distribution. Based on the pilot team survey data, the mean responses to the three questions that formed the independent variable of charisma differed by a score of less than 1. The difference in score of less than 1 for Questions 1, 2, and 3 lends support to the validation of Questions 1, 2, and 3 as a means of collecting data on charisma.

87

Charisma

5.00

4.20

4.20

4.00 3.00

4.00

5.00

4.50

5.00

6.00

Q01 Q02 Q03 1.145 1.033 1.317

2.00 1.00 0.00 Mean - Team Score - PM

SD-Team

Figure 2. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team members for the charisma survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). Pilot team survey correlations of leadership characteristics are shown in Appendix Q. Appendix Q displays the Pearson correlation coefficient matrix between leadership characteristic questions for the pilot team survey. The statistical significant level was set at p< .05. The Pearson correlation measured the linear relationship between leadership characteristic questions for the pilot survey. Questions 1 and 2 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.86, Questions 1 and 3 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.87, and Questions 2 and 3 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.84 (Appendix Q). Pilot team scatter plot matrix of correlation coefficient is shown in Appendix R. The scatter plot shows the line of best fit and the 95% confidence level intervals. Based on the examination of the means, standard deviations, and correlations for Questions 1, 2, and 3 and the analysis of the similarities between

88 responses and correlations, the use of Questions 1, 2, and 3 in the collection of data on the independent variable of charisma appeared to be supported. Shared responsibility. Survey Questions 4, 5, and 6 were designed to collect data on the independent variable of shared responsibility (Figure 3). The team members mean responses to Survey Questions 4, 5, and 6 range from a high of 4.30 to 4.20 to a low of 3.60 for Questions 4, 5, and 6, respectively. The project managers responses to Survey Questions 4, 5, and 6 is 4.00 for Questions 4, 5, and 6. The standard deviations of the means for the pilot team ranged from a high of 1.63 to 1.17 to a low of 0.92 for Questions 4, 6, and 5, respectively. The probability that the standard deviations would fall below the high standard deviation (s = 1.63) was 94.5% based on the probabilities for the standard normal distribution. Based on the pilot team survey data, the mean responses to the three questions that formed the independent variable of shared responsibility differed by a score of less than 1. The difference in score of less than 1 for Questions 4, 5, and 6 lends support to the validation of Questions 4, 5, and 6 as a means of collecting data on shared responsibility.

89

Shared Responsibility 5.00 4.00 3.00 1.174 2.00 1.00 0.00 Mean - Team Score - PM SD-Team 1.630

4.30

4.20

4.00

4.00

3.60

4.00

Q04 Q05 Q06 0.919

Figure 3. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team members for the shared responsibility survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). Questions 4 and 5 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.91, Questions 4 and 6 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.68, and Questions 5 and 6 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.59 (Appendix Q). A scatter plot matrix of the correlation coefficients is shown in Appendix R. The scatter plot shows the line of best fit and the 95% confidence level intervals. Based on the examination of the means, standard deviations, and correlations for Questions 4, 5, and 6 and the analysis of the similarities between responses and correlations, the use of Questions 4, 5, and 6 in the collection of data on the independent variable of shared responsibility appeared to be supported. Continuous development. Survey Questions 7, 8, and 9 were designed to collect data on the independent variable of continuous development (Figure 4). The team

90 members mean responses to Survey Questions 7, 8, and 9 range from a high of 4.50 to 4.00 to a low of 3.90 for Questions 8, 7, and 9, respectively. The project managers responses to Survey Questions 7, 8, and 9 range from a high of 5.00 to 4.00 to a low of 4.00 for Questions 8, 7, and 9, respectively. The standard deviations of the means for the pilot team ranged from a high of 1.20 to 0.82 to a low of 0.71 for Questions 9, 7, and 8, respectively. The probability that the standard deviations would fall below the high standard deviation (s = 1.20) was 69.6% based on the probabilities for the standard normal distribution. Based on the pilot team survey data, the mean responses to the three questions that formed the independent variable of continuous development differed by a score of less than 1. The difference in score of less than 1 for the three questions lends support to the validation of Questions 7, 8, and 9 as a means of collecting data on continuous development.
Continuous Development

4.00

4.00

3.90

4.00

5.00 4.00 3.00

4.50

5.00

6.00

Q07 Q08 Q09 1.138 0.707 1.197

2.00 1.00 0.00 Mean - Team Score - PM

SD-Team

Figure 4. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team members for continuous development survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).

91 Questions 7 and 8 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.56, Questions 7 and 9 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.57, and Questions 8 and 9 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.84 (Appendix Q). A scatter plot matrix of the correlation coefficients is shown in Appendix R. The scatter plot shows the line of best fit and the 95% confidence level intervals. Based on the examination of the means, standard deviations, and correlations for Questions 7, 8, and 9 and the analysis of the similarities between responses and correlations, Questions 7, 8, and 9 appeared to support the questions use in the collection of data on the independent variable of continuous development. Common vision. Survey Questions 10, 11, and 12 were designed to collect data on the independent variable of common vision (Figure 5). The team members mean responses to Survey Questions 10, 11, and 12 range from a high of 4.60 to 4.20 to a low of 4.10 for Questions 11, 12, and 10 respectively. The project managers responses to Survey Questions 10, 11, and 12 range from a high of 5.00 to 4.00 to a low of 4.00 for Questions 12, 11, and 10, respectively. The standard deviations of the means for the pilot team ranged from a high of 1.71 to 0.92 to a low of 0.70 for Questions 10, 12, and 11, respectively. The probability that the standard deviations would fall below the high standard deviation (s = 1.71) was 98.6% based on the probabilities for the standard normal distribution. Based on the pilot team survey data, the mean responses to Questions 10, 11, and 12 that formed the independent variable of common vision differed by a score of less than 1. The difference in score of less than 1 for the three questions lends support to the validation of Questions 10, 11, and 12 as a means of collecting data on common vision.

92

Common Vision 6.00 4.10 4.20 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Mean - Team Score - PM SD-Team 4.60

5.00

Q10 Q11 1.714 Q12 0.699 0.919

Figure 5. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team members for common vision development survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). Questions 10 and 11 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.79, Questions 10 and 12 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.30, and Questions 11 and 12 showed a neutral positive correlation coefficient r = 0.81 (Appendix Q). A scatter plot matrix of the correlation coefficients is shown in Appendix R. The scatter plot shows the line of best fit and the 95% confidence level intervals. Based on the examination of the means, standard deviations and the correlations for Questions 10, 11, and 12, and the analysis of the similarities between responses and correlations, the use of Questions 10, 11, and 12 appeared to be supported in the collection of data on the independent variable of common vision. Mutual influence relationships. Survey Questions 13, 14, and 15 were designed to collect data on the independent variable of mutual influence relationships (Figure 6). The

93 team members mean responses to Survey Questions 13, 14, and 15 range from a high of 4.10 to 4.00 to a low of 4.00 for Questions 14, 15, and 13, respectively. The project managers responses to Survey Questions 13, 14, and 15 range from a high of 4.00 to 3.00 to a low of 3.00 for Questions 14, 13, and 15, respectively. The standard deviations of the means for the pilot team ranged from a high of 1.47 to 1.41 to a low of 1.10 for Questions 14, 13, and 15, respectively. The probability that the standard deviations would fall below the high standard deviation (s = 1.47) was 85.2% based on the probabilities for the standard normal distribution. Based on the pilot team survey data, the mean responses to Questions 13, 14, and 15 that formed the independent variable of mutual influence relationships differed by a score of less than 1. The difference in score of less than 1 for Questions 13, 14, and 15 lends support to the validation of Questions 13, 14, and 15 as a means of collecting data on mutual influence relationships.
Mutual Influence Relationships

4.10

4.00

4.10

5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

3.00

4.00 3.00

Q13 Q14 Q15 1.101

1.472 Mean - Team Score - PM

SD-Team

Figure 6. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team members for mutual influence relationships survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).

1.449

94 Questions 13 and 14 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.90, Questions 13 and 15 showed a slightly strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.73, and Questions 14 and 15 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.60 (Appendix Q). A scatter plot matrix of the correlation coefficients is shown in Appendix R. The scatter plot shows the line of best fit and the 95% confidence level intervals. Based on the examination of the means, standard deviations, and correlations for Questions 13, 14, and 15 and the analysis of the similarities between responses and correlations, the use of Questions 13, 14, and 15 in the collection of data on the independent variable of mutual influence relationships appeared to be supported. Group interests. Survey Questions 16, 17, and 18 were designed to collect data on the independent variable of group interests (Figure 7). The team members mean responses to Survey Questions 16, 17, and 18 range from a high of 4.20 to 4.00 to a low of 4.00 for Questions 18, 16, and 17, respectively. The standard deviations of the means for the pilot team ranged from a high of 1.25 to 1.06 to a low of 0.79 for Questions 17, 16, and 18, respectively. The probability that the standard deviations would fall below the high standard deviation (s = 1.25) was 72.5% based on the probabilities for the standard normal distribution. Based on the pilot team survey data, the mean responses to Questions 16, 17, and 18 that formed the independent variable of group interests differed by a score of less than 1. The difference in score of less than 1 for the three questions lends support to the validation of Questions 16, 17, and 18 as a means of collecting data on group interests.

95

Group Interests

4.00

4.00

4.20

5.00 4.00 3.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

Q16 Q17 Q18 1.058 2.00 1.00 0.00 Mean - Team Score - PM SD-Team 1.247 0.789

Figure 7. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team members for the group interests survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). Questions 16 and 17 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.28, Questions 16 and 18 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.60, and Questions 17 and 18 showed a slightly strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.68 (Appendix Q). A scatter plot matrix of the correlation coefficients is shown in Appendix R. The scatter plot shows the line of best fit and the 95% confidence level intervals. Based on the examination of the means, standard deviations, and correlations for Questions 16, 17, and 18, and the analysis of the similarities between responses and correlations, the use of Questions 16, 17, and 18 in the collection of data on the independent variable of group interests appeared to be supported. Risk taking. Survey Questions 19, 20, and 21 were designed to collect data on the independent variable of risk taking (Figure 8). The team members mean responses to

96 Survey Questions 19, 20, and 21 range from a high of 4.60 to 4.30 to a low of 4.10 for Questions 19, 20, and 21, respectively. The standard deviations of the means for the pilot team ranged from a high of 1.70 to 0.95 to a low of 0.52 for Questions 19, 21, and 20, respectively. The probability that the standard deviations would fall below the high standard deviation (s = 1.70) was 98% based on the probabilities for the standard normal distribution. Based on the pilot team survey data, the mean responses to the three questions that formed the independent variable of risk taking differed by a score of less than 1. The difference in scores of less than 1 for Questions 19, 20, and 21 lends support to the validation of Questions 19, 20, and 21 as a means of collecting data on risk taking.
Risk Taking 4.60

4.10

4.30

5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

Q19 1.701 Q20 Q21 0.516 Mean - Team Score - PM 0.949

SD-Team

Figure 8. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team members for the risk taking survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). Questions 19 and 20 showed a negative neutral correlation coefficient r = -0.08, Questions 19 and 21 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.30, and Questions 20

97 and 21 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.71 (Appendix Q). A scatter plot matrix of the correlation coefficients is shown in Appendix R. The scatter plot shows the line of best fit and the 95% confidence level intervals. Based on the examination of the means, standard deviations, and correlations for Questions 19, 20, and 21, and the analysis of the similarities between responses and correlations, the use of Questions 19, 20, and 21 in the collection of data on the independent variable of risk taking appeared to be supported. Collaboration. Survey Questions 22, 23, and 24 were designed to collect data on the independent variable of collaboration (Figure 9). The team members mean responses to Survey Questions 22, 23, and 24 range from a high of 4.70 to 4.40 to a low of 3.90 for Questions 23, 22, and 24, respectively. The project managers responses to Survey Questions 22, 23, and 24 range from a high of 5.00 to 4.00 to a low of 4.00 for Questions 24, 22, and 23, respectively. The standard deviations of the means for the pilot team ranged from a high of 1.45 to 1.37 to a low of 0.68 for Questions 24, 22, and 23, respectively. The probability that the standard deviations would fall below the high standard deviation (s = 1.45) was 84.1% based on the probabilities for the standard normal distribution. Based on the pilot team survey data, the mean responses to Questions 22, 23, and 24 that formed the independent variable of collaboration differed by a score of less than 1. The difference in score of less than 1 for Questions 22, 23, and 24 lend support to the validation of Questions 22, 23, and 24 as a means of collecting data on collaboration.

98

Collaboration

4.00

3.90

4.00

5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

4.40

4.70

5.00

6.00

Q22 Q23 Q24 1.370 0.675 1.449

Mean - Team

Score - PM

SD-Team

Figure 9. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team members for the collaboration survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11). Questions 22 and 23 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.88, Questions 23 and 24 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.76, and Questions 23 and 24 also showed a slightly strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.73 (Appendix Q). A scatter plot matrix of the correlation coefficients is shown in Appendix R. The scatter plot shows the line of best fit and the 95% confidence level intervals. Based on the examination of the means, standard deviations, and correlations for Questions 22, 23, and 24, as well as the analysis of the similarities between responses and correlations, the use of Questions 22, 23, and 24 in the collection of data on the independent variable of collaboration appeared to be supported. Empowerment. Survey Questions 25, 26, and 27 were designed to collect data on the independent variable of empowerment (Figure 10). The team members mean

99 responses to Survey Questions 25, 26, and 27 range from a high of 4.40 to 4.20 to a low of 3.90 for Questions 27, 25, and 26, respectively. The standard deviations of the means for the pilot team ranged from a high of 1.17 to 0.99 to a low of 0.70 for Questions 25, 26, and 27, respectively. The probability that the standard deviations would fall below the high standard deviation (s = 1.17) was 67.8% based on the probabilities for the standard normal distribution. Based on the pilot team survey data, the mean responses to the three questions that formed the independent variable of empowerment differed by a score of less than 1. The difference in score of less than 1 for Questions 25, 26, and 27 lends support to the validation of Questions 25, 26, and 27 as a means of collecting data on empowerment.
Empowerment

4.20

4.40

5.00 4.00 3.00

4.00

4.00

3.90

4.00

Q25 Q26 Q27 1.171 0.994 2.00 1.00 0.00 Mean - Team Score - PM SD-Team 0.699

Figure 10. Mean and standard deviation comparisons for project manager and team members for the empowerment survey questions for Pilot Team A (n = 11).

100 Questions 25 and 26 showed a strong positive correlation coefficient r = 0.87, Questions 25 and 27 showed a positive correlation coefficient r = 0.39, and Questions 26 and 27 showed a slightly higher positive correlation coefficient r = 0.53 (Appendix Q). A scatter plot matrix of the correlation coefficients is shown in Appendix R. The scatter plot shows the line of best fit and the 95% confidence level intervals. Based on the examination of the means, standard deviations, and correlations for Questions 25, 26, and 27, and the analysis of the similarities between responses and correlations, the use of Questions 25, 26, and 27 in the collection of data on the independent variable of empowerment appeared to be supported. The triangulation of the responses using three separate questions for each variable lessened the effect of any variation in the correlations between the variables. The scatter plots for all characteristics show the line of best fit and the 95% confidence level intervals (Appendix R). The correlations between all questions that make up the various leadership characteristics in the study indicated that a change in one question might affect a change in the other question. Individual Project Team Studies The teams that participated in the study consisted of employees and project managers from organizations in the construction industry in the southeastern United States whose functions include architecture and interior design, engineering, construction management, program management, facility management, general contracting, administrative support, information technology/CAD support, financial services, and other consultants in the construction industry. This section summarizes three components of the data collected from each individual team: (a) basic demographic information of the

101 team, (b) a summary of the project manager and team member survey, and (c) a summary of the survey responses describing means and standard deviations for each of the nine leadership characteristics. For the purposes of the study analysis, a difference in mean score in the project manager and team surveys of 0.00 to 0.19 is characterized as no difference, a difference in mean score of 0.20 to 0.49 is characterized as slightly lower or higher difference, a difference in mean score of 0.50 to 0.99 is characterized as lower or higher difference, and a difference in mean score of 1.00 or greater is characterized as significantly lower or higher difference. Team B Team B consisted of 7 participants (n = 7), with 1 member not disclosing demographic information. The team had a range of number of years in service of 10-19 years (x = 12.83), with a standard deviation of 7.53 (s = 7.527). The years of service ranged from 0 years to 29 years, with 1 member not disclosing years of service. The mean range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x = 46.17) with a standard deviation of 9.83 (s = 9.832). The team participants were comprised of 6 females (86%) and 1 respondent (14%) not disclosing gender. The team participants were comprised of 3 Caucasians (43%) and 3 African Americans (43%), with 1 respondent (14%) not disclosing race. The participants reported their professions as administrative support staff (86%), with 1 respondent (14%) not disclosing profession. Four participants (57.14%) reported company size range from 500 to 1,000 people, 1 participant (14.29%) reported company size range from 400 to 499 people, 1 participant (14.29%) reported company size range 1,000 and above, with 1 respondent not disclosing company size.

102 Table 2 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team B survey question responses. Mean, standard error of the mean, standard deviation, variance, kurtosis, and skewness are shown in the descriptive table. Note that the closer the values of kurtosis and skewness are, the closer the responses are to a normal distribution (Creswell, 2005). Positive kurtosis values indicate a pointy distribution, and negative values indicate a flat distribution. Positive skewness values indicate the mode is on the right side of the distribution, and negative skewness values indicate the mode is on the left side of the distribution. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members, mutual influence relationships, and group interests appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics while risk taking and empowerment appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics for the project manager (see Table 2).

103 Table 2 Team B Leadership Descriptive (n = 7) Mean Mean Independent variables Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Common vision Mutual influence relationships Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Note. PM = project manager.
a

SE Team 0.30 0.33 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.30 0.30 0.34

SE PM 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.67 0.67 0.58 0.67

SD Team 1.27 1.41 1.29 1.35 1.38 1.46 1.28 1.28 1.43

SD PM 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.58 1.16 1.16 1.00 1.16

Variance Variance Kurtosis Team 1.69 1.99 1.67 1.82 1.90 2.13 1.65 1.65 2.03 PM 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.33 Team 1.68 -0.05 -1.01 1.09 -0.61 -0.50 1.70 1.70 0.60

Skew Team -1.65 -1.06 -0.32 -1.41 -0.72 -0.88 -1.50 -1.50 -1.32

Skew PMa * -1.73 * * 1.73 -1.73 -1.73 0.00 -1.73

Team 4.22 3.89 3.56 4.06 3.61 3.61 4.00 4.00 3.83

PM 4.00 3.67 4.00 4.00 3.33 4.33 3.33 4.00 3.33

The * is printed if a value cannot be computed.

104 The results reported in Table 2 for team members correspond with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean score for all characteristics were the same as the combined mean score for all characteristics in the team survey. The mean scores for common vision, risk taking, and empowerment for Team Bs project manager were lower than the combined project manager mean scores by 0.63, 0.71, and 0.69 respectively. The remaining mean scores for Team Bs project manager were similar to the combined project manager mean scores, with the exception of group interests, which is slightly higher for the same characteristic (Figure 11).
Team B - Leadership Survey 4.40 4.20 3.89 4.00 3.80 3.61 3.60 3.40 3.20 3.56 3.61 4.22

4.06

4.00

4.00

Mutual Influence Relationships

Shared Responsibility

Common Vision

Risk Taking

Figure 11. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team B (n = 7). In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team B, the mean score for group interests for Team Bs project manager was slightly higher than the mean score for the project team for Team B for the same characteristic by 0.28. The remaining mean scores for Team Bs project manager were lower than the mean scores

Group Interests

Empowerment

Continuous Development

Collaboration

Charisma

3.83

105 for the project team members for Team B, with the exception of risk taking and empowerment, which were higher for the project team than project manager for Team B for the same characteristics by 0.67 and 0.50 respectively (Figure 12).
Team B - Team Survey Team B - PM Survey

4.22

4.50

4.00

4.00

4.06

4.00

4.33 4.00

4.00

3.89

4.00

3.67

3.61

3.56

3.33

3.61

3.33

3.83 Empowerment 3.33

3.50

Mutual Influence Relationships

Shared Responsibility

Common Vision

Continuous Development

Risk Taking

Figure 12. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team B (n = 7). The team performance score for Team B was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks among the highest team performance scores. Figure 13 presents a comparison of the project manager and team member responses to the performance surveys. The two characteristics that are significantly higher in the project manager survey than in the team member survey were collaboration and charisma. In other teams with high performance scores, the leadership characteristics of mutual influence relationships, group interest, risk-taking, collaboration, and enabling were all greater than the mean score for the same characteristics in project manager and in the team member results. The results indicated

Group Interests

Collaboration

2.50 Charisma

106 that Team Bs project manager might be more interested in the interteam relationships than performance.
Team B - Performance Survey
Mean - Team
5.00

Combined Mean - High-Performing Teams Combined Mean - High-Performing PM

Mean - PM

4.50

4.22 4.16 4.00 4.29

3.89 4.03 3.67 4.08

3.80 4.00 4.08

4.06 4.15 4.00 4.00

4.33 4.17

4.08

4.00 4.04 4.00

4.00 4.02

4.46

4.00

4.00

3.61

3.56

3.33

3.61

3.33

3.83 3.99
Empowerment

3.89

3.96

3.50

3.00

Common Vision

Shared Responsibility

Continuous Development

Mutual Influence Relationships

Group Interests

Risk Taking

2.50

Charisma

Figure 13. Comparison of project manager and team member performance survey responses for Team B (n = 7). Team C Team C consisted of 8 participants (n = 8), with 1 individual not disclosing demographic information. The team had a mean range number of years of service of 0-9 years (x = 6.17), with a standard deviation of 4.08 (s = 4.082). The years of service ranged from 0 years to 29 years, with 1 member not disclosing years of service. The mean range of age of the team members was 30-39 years (x = 39.5) with a standard deviation of 5.48 (s = 5.477). The team participants consisted of 4 males (50.00%) and 3 females (37.50%), with 1 member not disclosing gender (12.50%). The team participants

Collaboration

3.33

4.00

107 were comprised of 7 African Americans (87.50%), with 1 member not disclosing race (12.50%). The participants reported profession as general contractors (50.00%), administrative support staff (12.50%), and others (25.00%), with 1 member not disclosing profession (12.50%). Two participants (25.00%) reported company size range from 1 to 99 people, 2 individuals (25.00%) reported company size from 100 to 199 people, and 1 individual (12.50%) reported company size range from 200 to 299 people. One individual (12.50%) reported company size range from 500 to 1,000 people and 1 individual (12.50%) reported company size range 1,000 people and above people, with 1 individual (12.50%) not disclosing company size information. Table 3 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team C survey question responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for the team survey, risk taking and continuous development appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics while common vision appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics for the project manager. The results reported in Table 3 for team members correspond with the combined results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean score for charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision, mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment for Team C were higher than the combined mean scores. The mean score for charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision, mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment for Team C were also slightly higher than the combined mean score for the project managers (Figure 14).

108 Table 3 Team C Leadership Descriptive Mean Mean Independent variables Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Common vision Mutual influence relationships Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Note. PM = project manager.
a

SE Team 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.18

SE PM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33

SD Team 0.51 0.51 0.60 0.50 0.81 0.75 0.66 0.81 0.81

SD PM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.58

Variance Variance Kurtosis Team 0.26 0.26 0.36 0.25 0.66 0.56 0.43 0.66 0.65 PM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 Team -2.12 -2.12 -0.39 -1.91 3.22 4.38 -0.55 2.82 2.54

Skew Team 0.31 0.31 -0.66 -0.53 -1.76 -1.73 -0.47 -1.61 -1.48

Skew PMa * * * -1.73 * * -1.73 -1.73 -1.73

Team 4.43 4.43 4.48 4.62 4.47 4.43 4.33 4.43 4.38

PM 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.67 5.00 5.00 4.67 4.67 4.67

A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.

109

Team C - Leadership Survey 4.62


4.80

4.48

4.43

4.43

4.48

4.43

4.40 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20

Mutual Influence Relationships

Shared Responsibility

Common Vision

Continuous Development

Risk Taking

Figure 14. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team C (n = 8). In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team C, the mean scores for charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision, and group interests for Team C project manager were higher than the mean scores for the project team for Team C for the same characteristics by 0.57, 0.57, 0.52, 0.53, and 0.57 respectively. The mean scores for risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment for Team C project manager were slightly higher than the mean scores for the project team members for the same characteristics by 0.24 (Figure 15).

Group Interests

Empowerment

Collaboration

3.00

Charisma

4.33

4.38

4.60

4.43

110

Mean - Team 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.20 5.00 4.80 4.48 4.43 4.43 4.60 4.40 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Mutual Influence Relationships Shared Responsibility Common Vision Continuous Development

Mean - PM 5.00

4.67

4.67

4.67

4.62

4.48

4.43

4.43

Risk Taking

Figure 15. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team C (n = 8). The team performance score for Team C was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks among the high-performing team scores. Figure 16 presents a comparison of the project manager and team members mean scores for Team C and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager and team member surveys and the performance report, mean scores for all characteristics were higher in the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all highperforming teams with the exception of mutual influence relationship which is significantly higher by 1.00. The characteristic of collaboration has similar mean score as the combined mean score for the same characteristics in the project manager surveys. Continuous development, and mutual influence had higher mean scores in the project

Group Interests

Empowerment

Collaboration

3.00 Charisma

4.33

4.38

4.67

111 team survey than the combined mean scores for the same characteristics in highperforming teams (Figure 16). The results indicate that Team C members perception of the project managers leadership style may be less favorable than the project managers perception of leadership style.
Team C - Performance Survey
Mean - Team Mean - PM
5.50

Combined Mean - High-Performing Teams Combined Mean - High-Performing PM

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

4.67

4.67

4.67 4.46

4.48

4.62

4.43

4.43

4.47

4.43

4.43

4.16

4.08

4.08

4.15

4.17

4.50

4.29

4.33

4.08

4.03

4.00

4.00

4.02

4.04

4.38
Empowerment

4.00

3.50

Shared Responsibility

Common Vision

Mutual Influence Relationships

Continuous Development

Group Interests

Risk Taking

3.00

Charisma

3.80

3.89

3.96

Figure 16. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team C (n = 8) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams.. Team D Team D consisted of 6 participants (n = 6), with 2 individuals not disclosing demographic information. The team had a mean range number of years of service of 10 19 years (x = 14.50), with a standard deviation of 8.17 (s = 8.165). The years of service ranged from 0 to 29 years, with 2 individuals not disclosing years of service. The mean range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x = 44.50) with a standard deviation

Collaboration

3.99

4.00

4.67

5.00

5.00

112 of 14.14 (s = 14.142). The team participants consisted of 4 males (66.67%), with 2 individuals (33.33%) not disclosing gender. The team participants consisted of 4 Caucasians (66.67%), with 2 individuals (33.33%) not disclosing race. Four participants (66.67%) reported profession as engineer, with 2 individuals (33.33%) not disclosing profession. Two individuals (33.33%) reported company size range as 1,000 and above, 1 individual (16.67%) reported company size range from 400 to 499 people, with 3 individuals (50.00%) not disclosing company size. Table 4 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team D survey question responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members, common vision appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics (Table 4). The results reported in Table 4 for team members correspond with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean scores for group interests, and empowerment were similar to the combined mean score for the same characteristics. The mean scores for the remaining characteristics for Team D project team were lower than the combined mean scores for the same characteristics (Figure 17). The mean scores for charisma and shared responsibility for Team Ds project manager were significantly lower than the combined mean scores for the same characteristics by 1.55 and 1.88 respectively. The mean scores for, common vision, risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment for Team Ds project manager were lower than the combined mean scores for the same characteristics by 0.63, 0.71, 0.85, and 0.69. The mean scores for continuous development, mutual influence relationships, and group interests for Team Ds project manager were similar to the combined mean scores for the same characteristics (Figure 17).

113 Table 4 Team D Leadership Descriptive Mean Mean Independent variables Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Common vision Mutual influence relationships Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Note. PM = project manager.
a

SE Team 0.21 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.18 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.16

SE PM 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.67 0.67 1.20

SD Team 0.83 0.70 0.80 0.92 0.68 0.86 0.74 0.74 0.62

SD PM 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.16 0.00 1.16 1.16 2.08

Variance Variance Kurtosis Team 0.69 0.50 0.64 0.84 0.46 0.74 0.55 0.54 0.38 PM 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 1.33 1.33 4.33 Team -0.22 -0.67 -1.13 -0.61 -0.51 1.80 0.18 -0.47 -0.40

Skew Team 0.07 -0.09 0.56 -0.53 -0.26 1.21 -0.13 -0.84 0.31

Skew PMa 1.73 * * * -1.73 * -1.73 -1.73 -1.29

Team 3.60 3.07 2.73 3.47 3.20 3.80 3.53 3.40 3.67

PM 2.67 2.00 4.00 4.00 3.33 4.00 3.33 3.33 3.33

A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.

114

Team D - Leadership Survey 4.80 4.48 4.43 4.43 4.60 4.40 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Shared Responsibility Mutual Influence Relationships Continuous Development Risk Taking Empowerment Collaboration 3.00 Charisma Common Vision Group Interests 4.62

4.48

4.43

4.43

Figure 17. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team D (n = 6). In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team D, the mean score for continuous development for Team Ds project manager was significantly higher than the mean score for the project team for Team D for the same characteristic by 1.27. The mean score for mutual influence for Team Ds project manager was higher than the mean score for the project team for Team D for the same characteristic by 0.53. The remaining mean scores for Team Ds project manager were similar to the mean scores for project team members for Team D, with the exception of charisma, and shared responsibility, which were significantly lower than the mean scores for project team members for Team D for the same characteristics by 0.93, and 1.07 (Figure 18).

4.33

4.38

115

Mean - Team 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.20 5.00 4.80 4.48 4.43 4.43 4.60 4.40 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Shared Responsibility Mutual Influence Relationships Common Vision Continuous Development

Mean - PM

4.67

4.67

4.67

4.62

4.48

4.43

4.43

Risk Taking

Figure 18. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team D (n = 6). The team performance score for Team D was -1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks among the bottom-performing teams. Figure 19 presents a comparison of the project manager and team members mean scores for Team D and the combined mean scores for bottom-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager, team member surveys and the performance report, mean scores for mutual influence relationships, risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment characteristics were lower in the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all bottom-performing teams. The characteristics of charisma, and shared responsibility were significantly lower by 1.22 and 1.33 respectively. The characteristics of continuous development, common vision, and group interests had similar mean scores as the combined mean scores for the

Group Interests

Empowerment

Collaboration

3.00 Charisma

4.33

4.38

4.67

116 same characteristics in the project manager surveys. Continuous development and mutual influence had higher mean scores in the project team survey than the combined mean scores for the same characteristics in high-performing teams. The results indicated Team D members perception of the project managers leadership style might be less favorable than the project managers perception of leadership style.
Team D - Performance Survey
Mean - Team Mean - PM Combined Mean - Bottom-Performing Teams Combined Mean - Bottom-Performing PM

3.85 4.00 4.22

4.00

4.00 3.89

4.00

4.11

4.50

3.80 3.73 4.00 4.22

3.89

3.89

3.60

3.65

3.53 3.58 3.33

3.55

3.47

3.33

3.33

3.40

3.33

3.67 3.66
Empowerment

3.66

4.00

3.75

3.07

2.50

2.67

3.00

2.00

Shared Responsibility

Common Vision

Mutual Influence Relationships

Continuous Development

Group Interests

Risk Taking

1.50

Charisma

2.00

2.73

3.20

3.50

Figure 19. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team D (n = 6) and the combined mean scores for bottom-performing teams. Team E Team E consisted of 6 participants (n = 6), with 1 individual not disclosing demographics. The team had a mean range number of years of service of 30-39 years (x = 38.50), with a standard deviation of 13.42 (s = 13.416). The years of service ranged from 0 to 29 years, with 1 individual not disclosing years of service. The mean range of

Collaboration

3.33

4.00

117 age of the team members was 10-19 years (x = 10.50) with a standard deviation of 8.94 (s = 8.944). The team participants were comprised of 1 male (16.67%) and 4 females (66.67%), with 1 individual (16.67%) not disclosing gender. The team participants consisted of 4 Caucasians (66.67%) and 1 African American (16.67%), with 1 individual 16.67% not disclosing race. Three participants reported profession as architect/interior designer (50.00%), 1 individual reported profession as construction manager (16.67%), and 1 individual (16.675%) reported professional as other consultant, with one individual (16.67%) not disclosing profession. One participant (16.67%) reported company size range from 300 to 399 people, 2 individuals (33.33%) reported company size range from 500 to 1,000 people, 2 individuals (33.33%) reported company size range 1,000 people and above, with 1 individual (16.67%) not disclosing company size. Table 5 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team E survey question responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members, risk taking, group interests, and empowerment appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics while shared responsibility, continuous development, and mutual influence relationships appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics for the project manager (Table 5). The results reported in Table 5 for team members correspond with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean scores for shared responsibility, continuous development, and risk taking were slightly higher in the combined results than Team E results for the same characteristics by 0.34, 0.21, and 0.22 respectively. The mean scores for the remaining characteristics for Team E were similar to the combined mean scores for the same characteristics The mean scores for charisma, common vision, risk taking, and

118 empowerment for Team E project manager were higher than the combined mean scores for the same characteristics by 0.45, 0.71, 0.63 and 0.65 respectively. The remaining mean scores for Team E project manager were lower than the combined mean scores for the same characteristics with the exception of shared responsibility, which is similar (Figure 21).

119 Table 5 Team E Leadership Descriptive Mean Mean Independent variables Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Common vision Mutual influence relationships Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Note. PM = project manager. Team 4.07 3.53 3.47 3.87 3.67 3.80 3.67 3.93 3.67 PM 4.67 4.00 3.33 3.67 4.67 3.67 4.67 4.33 4.67 SE Team 0.27 0.25 0.27 0.24 0.29 0.26 0.27 0.18 0.21 SE PM 0.33 0.58 1.20 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 SD Team 1.03 0.83 1.06 0.92 1.11 1.01 1.05 0.70 0.82 SD PM 0.578 1.00 2.08 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 Variance Variance Kurtosis Team 1.07 0.70 1.12 0.84 1.24 1.03 1.10 0.50 0.67 PM 0.33 1.00 4.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Team 0.32 -0.04 -1.07 0.89 -1.16 -0.60 -0.74 -0.67 -0.03 Skew Team -1.05 -0.55 0.10 -1.00 -0.31 -0.49 -0.51 0.09 -0.17 Skew PM -1.73 0.00 -1.29 -1.73 -1.73 -1.73 -1.73 1.73 -1.73

120

Team E - Leadership Survey 4.07 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.47 3.60 3.40 3.20 3.00 Charisma 3.53

3.87

3.67

3.80

3.67

3.93

Shared Responsibility

Mutual Influence Relationships

Continuous Development

Risk Taking

Figure 20. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team E (n = 6). In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team E, the mean scores for mutual influence relationships, risk taking, and empowerment for Team Es project manager were significantly higher than the mean scores for the project team for Team E for the same characteristics by 1.00,. The remaining mean scores for Team Es project manager were similar to the mean scores for project team members for Team E, with the exception of charisma, shared responsibility, and collaboration, which were slightly higher than the mean scores for project team members for Team E for the same characteristics by 0.60, 0.47 and 0.40 (Figure 21).

Group Interests

Empowerment

Collaboration

Common Vision

3.67

121

Mean - Team 4.67 4.67 4.80 4.60 4.40 4.07 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.47 3.60 3.40 3.20 3.00 Charisma 3.53

Mean - PM 4.67 4.67 3.93 4.33 3.67 Risk Taking Empowerment Collaboration

4.00

3.87

3.67

3.67

3.80 3.67 Group Interests

3.33

Shared Responsibility

Figure 21. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team E (n = 6). The team performance score for Team E was 1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks among the middle-performing teams. Figure 22 presents a comparison of the project managers and team members mean scores for Team E and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager, team member surveys and the performance report for Team E, the mean scores for mutual influence relationships, risk taking, and empowerment were higher in the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all middle-performing teams for the same characteristics by 0.84, 0.50 and 0.50 respectively. The characteristics of charisma, and collaboration were slightly higher by 0.39 and 0.33 respectively. The characteristics of

Mutual Influence Relationships

Common Vision

Continuous Development

3.67

122 continuous development, and common vision had slightly lower mean scores when compared to the combined mean scores for the same characteristics in the project manager surveys. Shared responsibility and group interests had similar mean scores in both the project manager and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. The mean scores for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team E had similar scores with the combined mean scores for all middle-performing teams with the exception of shared responsibility, which is slightly lower in Team Es survey by 0.25 The results indicate that Team E members perception of the project managers leadership style may be less favorable than the project managers perception of leadership style.
Team E - Performance Survey
Mean - Team Mean - PM
5.00

Combined Mean - Middle-Performing Teams Combined Mean - Middle-Performing PM

4.67

4.67

4.67

4.17

4.07 4.16

3.78 4.00 4.00

3.87 3.86 3.67 3.89

3.67 3.87

3.80 3.86 3.67 3.72

3.83

3.93 3.88

4.00

3.50

3.00

Shared Responsibility

Common Vision

Mutual Influence Relationships

Continuous Development

Group Interests

Risk Taking

2.50

Charisma

3.53

3.67 3.64

4.00

3.47 3.59 3.33 3.78

Figure 22. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team E (n = 6) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams.

Empowerment

Collaboration

3.67 3.78

4.17

4.50

4.28

4.33

4.67

123 Team F Team F consisted of 7 participants (n = 7). The team had a mean range number of years of service of 10-19 years (x = 17.36), with a standard deviation of 14.96 (s = 14.960). The years of service ranged from 0 to 40 years and above. The mean range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x = 43.07), with a standard deviation of 12.15 (s = 12.149). The age of Team F ranged from 20 years to 69 years. The team participants consisted of 6 males (85.71%) and 1 female (14.29%). The team participants consisted of 6 Caucasians (85.71%) and 1 African American (14.29%). Five participants (71.43%) reported profession as engineer, 1 participant (14.29%) reported profession as architect/interior designer, and 1 participant (14.29%) reported profession as other consultant. Three participants (42.86%) reported company size range from 500 to 1,000 people, and 4 participants (57.14%) reported company size range as 1,000 people and above. Table 6 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team F survey question responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members, empowerment, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision, and group interests appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics. Shared responsibility, continuous development, mutual influence relationships, and empowerment appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics for Team Fs project manager (Table 6). The results reported in Table 6 for team members correspond with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean score for empowerment, risk taking, and group interests for Team F was lower than the combined mean score for

124 the same characteristics by 0.80, 0.78, and 0.58, respectively. The remaining mean scores for Team F were slightly lower than the total mean scores, with the exception of continuous development, which is similar to the combined mean score for the same characteristic. The mean score for all characteristics for Team Fs project manager was slightly lower than or equal to the combined project manager mean score with the exception of continuous development, which is lower than the combined project manager mean score by 0.96 (Figure 23).

125 Table 6 Team F Leadership Descriptive Mean Mean Independent variables Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Common vision Mutual influence relationships Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Note. PM = project manager.
a

SE Team 0.18 0.27 0.21 0.24 0.25 0.28 0.21 0.32 0.26

SE PM 0.33 0.33 1.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33

SD Team 0.76 1.15 0.90 1.04 1.04 1.18 0.90 1.34 1.11

SD PM 0.58 0.58 1.73 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.58

Variance Variance Kurtosis Team 0.58 1.31 0.80 1.08 1.09 1.39 0.81 1.79 1.23 PM 0.33 0.33 3.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 Team -1.12 -0.45 -0.12 -0.81 -1.07 -0.19 0.06 0.20 -0.38

Skew Team 0.20 -0.36 -0.49 -0.51 0.01 -0.61 -0.78 -1.05 -0.41

Skew PMa 1.73 -1.73 -1.73 * -1.73 * -1.73 1.73 -1.73

Team 3.89 3.39 3.72 3.61 3.56 3.28 3.11 3.56 3.06

PM 4.33 3.67 3.00 4.00 3.67 4.00 3.67 4.33 3.67

A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.

126

Mean - Team 4.33 4.40

Mean - PM 4.33

4.20 4.00 4.00 3.67

3.89

4.00

3.67

3.67

3.61

3.56

3.60 3.39

3.28

3.40

3.20 Continuous Development 3.00

3.11

3.56

Shared Responsibility

Mutual Influence Relationships

Common Vision

Risk Taking

Figure 23. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team F (n = 7). In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team F, the mean scores for all characteristics for Team Fs project manager were higher than the mean scores for the project team for Team F for the same characteristics, with the exception of continuous development, which is lower than the mean score for project team members for Team F by 0.72 for the same characteristics (Figure 24).

Group Interests

Empowerment

Collaboration

3.00 Charisma

3.06

3.67

3.80

3.72

127

Mean - Team 4.60 4.33 4.40 4.20 4.00 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.39 3.40 3.20 3.00 2.80 Shared Responsibility Mutual Influence Relationships Common Vision Continuous Development 3.00 3.89 4.00

Mean - PM

3.67

3.72

3.67

3.67

4.33

3.61

3.56

3.28

3.11

3.56

Risk Taking

Figure 24. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team F (n = 7). The team performance score for Team F was -1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks among the bottom-performing teams. Figure 25 presents a comparison of the project manager and team member mean scores for Team F and the combined mean scores for bottom-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager, team member surveys and the performance report for Team F, the mean scores for common vision, mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk taking, and empowerment were slightly lower in the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all bottom-performing teams for the same characteristics. The characteristics of charisma, shared responsibility, and collaboration were slightly higher by 0.44, 0.34, and 0.22

Group Interests

Empowerment

Collaboration

2.60 Charisma

3.06

3.67

128 respectively. The characteristic of continuous development had a lower mean score when compared to the combined mean scores for the same characteristic in the project manager surveys. The mean scores for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team F were lower when compared to the combined mean scores for all bottom-performing teams. The results indicated Team F members perception of the project managers leadership style and team performance slightly corresponds to the project managers leadership style perception.
Team F - Performance Survey
Mean - Team Mean - PM Combined Mean - Bottom-Performing Teams Combined Mean - Bottom-Performing PM

4.22

4.22

4.50

4.33 4.11

4.33

3.89 4.00

3.85 4.00

4.00

3.89

3.89

4.00

3.72 3.55

3.56 3.75

3.56 3.65 3.67

3.73

4.00

3.58 3.67 3.89

3.39

3.28

3.50

3.33

3.61

3.11

3.00

Shared Responsibility

Common Vision

Mutual Influence Relationships

Continuous Development

Group Interests

Risk Taking

2.50

Charisma

3.00

3.06
Empowerment Collaboration

Figure 25. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team F (n = 7) and the combined mean scores for bottom-performing teams. Team G Team G consisted of 8 participants (n = 8), with 2 individuals not disclosing demographic information. The team had a mean range number of years of service of 20-

3.66 3.67

3.66 3.67

4.00

129 29 years (x = 19.50), with a standard deviation of 10.49 (s = 10.488). The years of service ranged from 0 years to 39 years, with 2 individuals (25.00%) not disclosing years of service. The mean range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x = 46.17), with a standard deviation of 7.53 (s = 7.527). The age ranged from 30 to 59 years, with 2 individuals (25.00%) not disclosing age. The team participants consisted of 6 males (75.00%), with two individuals not disclosing gender. The team participants consisted of 5 Caucasians (62.50%) and 1 Asian (12.50%), with 2 individuals (25.00%) not disclosing age. Four participants (50.00%) reported profession as architect/interior designer and 2 participants (25.00%) reported profession as engineer, with 2 participants (25.00%) not disclosing profession. One participant (12.50%) reported company size range from 200 to 299 people, 2 participants (25.00%) reported company size range from 300 to 399 people, 2 participants (25.00%) reported company size range from 500 to 1000 people, and 1 participant (12.50%) reported company size range from 1,000 people and above, with 2 participants (25.00%) not disclosing company size. Table 7 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team Gs survey question responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members, risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics while charisma, common vision, mutual influence relationships, and empowerment appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics for the project manager (Table 7). The results reported in Table 7 for team members correspond with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean scores for all characteristics for Team G project team survey were lower than the combined mean scores for the same characteristics with the exception of continuous

130 development, mutual influence relationships, and common vision, which were similar to the combined mean scores for project team for the same characteristics. The mean score for all characteristics for Team Gs project manager was higher than the combined mean score for the same characteristics with the exception of mutual influence relationships which is similar to the mean score for combined project manager for the same characteristic (Figure 26).

131 Table 7 Team G Leadership Descriptive Mean Mean Independent variables Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Common vision Mutual influence relationships Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Note. PM = project manager.
a

SE Team 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.14 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19

SE PM 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.33

SD Team 0.92 1.01 0.94 0.63 0.77 0.86 0.89 0.87 0.87

SD PM 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.58

Variance Variance Kurtosis Team 0.85 1.01 0.89 0.39 0.59 0.73 0.79 0.78 0.78 PM 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.33 Team 0.56 -0.82 2.42 -0.11 -1.21 -0.72 -0.22 -0.27 -0.27

Skew Team -0.95 0.33 -1.05 0.06 0.17 0.22 -0.43 -0.49 -0.50

Skew PMa -1.73 1.73 1.73 -1.73 -1.73 1.73 1.73 * -1.73

Team 4.05 3.29 3.76 3.91 3.91 3.67 3.76 3.57 3.57

PM 4.67 4.33 4.33 4.00 4.67 4.33 4.33 5.00 4.67

A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.

132

Team G - Leadership Survey 4.05 4.20 4.00 3.76 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 3.00 2.80 Shared Responsibility Common Vision Mutual Influence Relationships Risk Taking Group Interests Empowerment Continuous Development Collaboration 2.60 Charisma 3.29

3.90

3.90

3.67

3.76

3.57

Figure 26. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team G (n = 8). In a comparison of the project manager and team member responses for Team G, the mean scores for all characteristics were higher for Team Gs project manager than the mean scores for the project team for the same characteristics. The characteristics of shared responsibility, and empowerment were significantly higher by 1.04, and 1.01, respectively (Figure 27).

3.57

133

Mean - Team 5.20 5.00 4.67 4.67 4.80 4.60 4.33 4.33 4.33 4.40 4.05 4.20 4.00 3.76 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Shared Responsibility Mutual Influence Relationships Common Vision Continuous Development 3.29

Mean - PM 5.00

3.90

4.00

3.90

3.67

3.76

4.33

3.57

Risk Taking

Figure 27. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team G (n = 7). The team performance score for Team G was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks among the high-performing teams. Figure 28 presents a comparison of the project manager and team member mean scores for Team G and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager, team member surveys and the performance report for Team G, the mean scores for mutual influence relationships, collaboration, and empowerment were higher in the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all high-performing teams for the same characteristics by 0.67, 0.54, and 0.67 respectively. The characteristics of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, and risk taking were slightly higher by

Group Interests

Empowerment

Collaboration

3.00 Charisma

3.57

4.67

134 0.38, 0.25, 0.25, and 0.25 respectively. The characteristics of common vision, and group interests had similar mean scores as the combined mean scores for the same characteristics in the project manager surveys. The mean scores for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team G were lower when compared to the combined mean scores for all high-performing teams with the exception of mutual influence relationships, which had similar mean scores. The results indicate the project manager for Team G might not be interested in promoting interteam relationships, which may be affecting team performance. The results indicated that Team G members perception of the project managers leadership style and team performance might be less favorable than the project managers perception of the project managers leadership style and team performance.
Team G - Performance Survey
Mean - Team Mean - PM
5.50

Combined Mean - High-Performing Teams Combined Mean - High-Performing PM

4.67

4.67

4.33 4.08

4.33 4.08

4.33 4.17

4.05 4.16

4.50

3.91 4.15 4.00 4.00

4.33 4.08

4.29

4.03

4.00

4.02

4.04

4.46

4.67 3.57
Empowerment

5.00

5.00

3.76 3.80

3.91 3.89

3.96

3.67

4.00

3.76

3.50

Shared Responsibility

Common Vision

Mutual Influence Relationships

Continuous Development

Group Interests

Risk Taking

3.00

Charisma

3.29

3.57

Figure 28. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team G (n = 8) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams.

Collaboration

3.99

4.00

135 Team H Team H consisted of 9 participants (n = 9). The team had a mean range number of years of service of 20-29 years (x = 24.50), with a standard deviation of 11.18 (s = 11.180). The years of service ranged from 0 to 39 years. The mean range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x = 46.72), with a standard deviation of 10.93 (s = 10.929). The age ranged from 20 to 69 years. The team participants consisted of 7 males (77.78%) and 2 females (22.22%). The team participants were consisted of 8 Caucasians (88.89%) and 1 Asian (11.11%). Two participants (22.22%) reported profession as architect/interior designer, 4 participants (44.44%) reported profession as engineer, and 1 participant (11.11%) reported other consultant, with 2 participants (22.22%) not disclosing profession. One participant (11.11%) reported company size range from 200 to 299 people, 4 participants (44.44%) reported company size range from 500 to 1,000 people, and 4 participants (44.44%) reported company size range from 1,000 people and above. Table 8 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team Hs survey question responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members, charisma, continuous development, common vision, mutual influence relationships, and collaboration appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics while continuous development and common vision appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics for the project manager (Table 8). The results reported in Table 8 for team members correspond with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean score for all characteristics for Team H were higher than the combined mean score, with the exception of empowerment, which is

136 similar to the combined mean score for the same characteristic. The mean score for continuous development for Team Hs project manager was slightly lower than the combined mean score for same characteristic. The remaining mean scores for Team Hs project manager were higher than the combined mean scores for the same characteristics (Figure 29).

137 Table 8 Team H Leadership Descriptive Mean Mean Independent variables Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Common vision Mutual influence relationships Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Note. PM = project manager.
a

SE Team 0.18 0.15 0.21 0.14 0.14 0.20 0.16 0.12 0.14

SE PM 0.33 0.00 0.88 0.33 0.33 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.33

SD Team 0.88 0.72 1.02 0.69 0.69 1.00 0.78 0.61 0.68

SD PM 0.58 0.00 1.53 0.58 0.58 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.58

Variance Variance Kurtosis Team 0.78 0.52 1.04 0.48 0.48 1.00 0.61 0.37 0.46 PM 0.33 0.00 2.33 0.33 0.33 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 Team -0.04 4.52 -0.56 -0.71 -0.71 0.08 1.41 -0.35 1.73

Skew Team -0.86 -1.74 -0.62 -0.46 -0.05 -0.95 -1.00 -0.16 -0.75

Skew PMa 1.73 * -0.94 -1.73 1.73 -1.73 * * -1.73

Team 4.21 4.46 3.79 4.29 4.04 4.04 4.21 4.25 3.88

PM 4.33 5.00 3.67 4.67 4.33 4.33 5.00 5.00 4.67

A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.

138

Team H - Leadership Survey


5.00 4.80 4.60 4.21 4.40 4.20 3.79 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Mutual Influence Relationships Shared Responsibility Common Vision Continuous Development Risk Taking Group Interests Empowerment Collaboration 3.00 Charisma 4.46 4.29 4.25

4.04

4.04

4.21

Figure 29. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team H (n = 9). In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team H, the mean scores for charisma, and continuous development for Team Hs project manager were similar to the mean scores for the project team for Team H for the same characteristics. The remaining mean scores for Team H project manager were higher than the mean scores for project team members for Team H (Figure 30).

3.88

139

Mean - Team 5.00 5.00 5.20 5.00 4.80 4.60 4.33 4.21 4.40 4.20 3.79 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Shared Responsibility Mutual Influence Relationships Common Vision Continuous Development Risk Taking Group Interests 4.46

Mean - PM 5.00

4.67

4.33

4.29

4.33

4.04

4.04

4.21

4.25

Figure 30. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team H (n = 9). The team performance score for Team H was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks among the high-performing teams. Figure 31 presents a comparison of the project manager and team member mean scores for Team H and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey, team member survey, and performance report for Team H, the mean scores for shared responsibility, common vision, mutual influence relationships, risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment were higher in the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all high-performing teams by 0.92, 0.67, 0.33, 0.92, 0.54, and 0.67 respectively. The characteristic of continuous development was lower by 0.41. The

Empowerment

Collaboration

3.00 Charisma

3.67

3.88

4.67

140 characteristics of charisma, and group interests had similar mean scores as the combined mean scores for the same characteristics in the project manager surveys. The mean scores for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team H were similar to the combined mean scores for all high-performing teams with the exception of shared responsibility, which had a slightly higher mean. The results indicated the project manager for Team H might not be interested in promoting interteam relationships, which may affect team performance. The results indicated Team H members perception of the project managers leadership style and team performance might be less favorable than the project managers perception of the project managers leadership style and team performance.
Team H - Performance Survey
Mean - Team Mean - PM Combined Mean - High-Performing Teams Combined Mean - High-Performing PM

5.00

5.00

5.00

4.67

5.00

4.46

4.21 4.16 4.33 4.29

4.33

4.21 4.02

4.04 3.89

4.04 3.96

4.03

4.25 4.04

4.50

4.08

4.08

4.29 4.15

4.33 4.17

4.08

4.46

4.67
Empowerment

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.50

Shared Responsibility

Common Vision

Mutual Influence Relationships

Continuous Development

Group Interests

Risk Taking

3.00

Charisma

3.79 3.80 3.67

Figure 31. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team H (n = 9) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams.

Collaboration

3.88 3.99

4.00

141 Team I Team I consisted of 6 participants (n = 6). The team had a mean range number of years in service of 20-29 years (x = 19.50), with a standard deviation of 10.49 (s = 10.49). The years of service ranged from 0 to 39 years. The mean range of age of the team members was 40 to 49 years (x = 47.83) with a standard deviation of 8.16 (s = 8.164). The team participants consisted of 4 males (66.67%) and 2 females (33.33%). The team participants consisted of 6 Caucasians (100%). The participants reported profession as administrative support staff (100%). Four participants (66.67%) reported company size range from 500 to 1000 people, 1 individual (16.67%) reported company size range from 400 to 499 people, and 1 individual (16.67%) reported company size range from 1,000 people and above. Table 9 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team Is survey question responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members, mutual influence relationships and group interests appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics, while risk taking and empowerment appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics for the project manager (Table 9). The results reported in Table 9 for team members correspond with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean score for common vision, group interests, risk taking, and collaboration for Team I was slightly higher than the combined mean score. The remaining mean scores for Team I were lower than or equal to the total mean scores, but not significantly. The mean score for group interests for Team Is project manager was slightly higher than the combined mean score. The remaining mean scores for Team Is project manager were lower than or equal to the total

142 mean scores, with the exception of mutual influence relationships and empowerment, which were significantly higher than the combined means for the same characteristics (Figure 32).

143 Table 9 Team I Leadership Descriptive Mean Mean Independent variables Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Common vision Mutual influence relationships Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Note. PM = project manager.
a

SE Team 0.18 0.23 0.36 0.21 0.20 0.31 0.14 0.16 0.17

SE PM 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.58 0.00 0.00

SD Team 0.70 0.88 1.41 0.80 0.76 1.18 0.54 0.63 0.64

SD PM 0.00 0.00 1.16 0.00 0.58 0.58 1.00 0.00 0.00

Variance Variance Kurtosis Team 0.50 0.78 1.98 0.64 0.57 1.40 0.29 0.40 0.41 PM 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 0.00 0.00 Team -0.67 -1.78 -0.62 2.32 -1.08 0.06 1.62 -0.39 -0.13

Skew Team -0.43 0.14 -0.79 -1.10 0.00 -0.57 0.00 0.55 -0.10

Skew PMa * * -1.73 * 1.73 -1.73 0.00 * *

Team 4.27 3.93 3.53 4.07 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.60 4.13

PM 4.00 4.00 3.33 4.00 3.33 3.67 4.00 4.00 4.00

A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.

144

Team I - Leadership Survey


4.60 4.40 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Shared Responsibility Mutual Influence Relationships Continuous Development Risk Taking Empowerment Collaboration 3.00 Charisma Common Vision Group Interests 3.53 3.93 4.27 4.13 3.60

4.07

4.00

4.00

Figure 32. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team I (n = 6). In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team I, the mean scores for charisma, continuous development, mutual influence relationships, group interests, and empowerment for Team Is project manager were slightly lower than the mean scores for the project team for Team I for the same characteristics. The remaining mean scores for Team Is project manager were slightly higher or equal to the mean scores for project team members for Team I with the exception of mutual influence relationships, and group interests which are higher in the project team by 0.67, and 0.33 respectively (Figure 33).

4.00

145

Mean - Team 4.60 4.27 4.40 4.20 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Mutual Influence Relationships 3.00 Charisma 3.53 3.93

Mean - PM

4.07

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.13 3.67 Common Vision 3.33 Risk Taking 3.60 Group Interests Empowerment Collaboration 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Shared Responsibility

Figure 33. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team I (n = 6). The team performance score for Team I was 1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks among the middle-performing teams. Figure 34 presents a comparison of the project manager and team member mean scores for Team I and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey, team member survey, and performance report for Team I, the mean scores for charisma, continuous development, and mutual influence relationships were slightly lower in the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all middle-performing teams for the same characteristics by 0.28, 0.45, and 0.50 respectively. The remaining characteristics had similar mean scores as the combined mean scores for the same characteristics in the project manager surveys. The mean scores for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team I were similar to the combined mean scores for all

Continuous Development

3.33

146 middle-performing teams with the exception of mutual influence relationships, which had slightly higher mean score in the project team survey for Team I. The results correspond with the score and team performance report in two ways. First, the results indicated Team Is project manager might be interested in promoting interteam relationships and high performance. Second, the results indicated Team I members perception of the project managers leadership style corresponds to the perception of the project managers leadership style even though the team may not be performing at a higher level than other teams.
Team I - Performance Survey
Mean - Team Mean - PM
5.00

Combined Mean - Middle-Performing Teams Combined Mean - Middle-Performing PM

4.00 3.87 4.00 4.17

4.00

3.53 3.59 3.33 3.78

3.64

4.00 3.86 3.67 3.72

3.50

3.00

Shared Responsibility

Common Vision

Mutual Influence Relationships

Continuous Development

Group Interests

Risk Taking

2.50

Charisma

3.33

3.60

Figure 34. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team I (n = 6) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams.

Empowerment

Collaboration

4.13 3.78 4.00 4.17

4.50

4.27 4.16 4.00 4.28

3.93 3.78 4.00 4.00

4.07 3.86 4.00 3.89

3.83

3.88 4.00 4.00

4.00

147 Team J Team J consisted of 9 participants (n = 9). The team had a mean range number of years in service of 20-29 years (x = 20.06), with a standard deviation of 14.24 (s = 14.240). The years of service ranged from 0 to 39 years. The mean range of age of the team members was 40 to 49 years (x = 48.94), with a standard deviation of 11.30 (s = 11.303). The team participants consisted of 8 females (88.89%) and 1 male (11.11%). The team participants consisted of 9 Caucasians (100%). Three participants reported profession as architect/interior designer (33.33%), 5 participants (55.56%) reported profession as engineer, and 1 participant (11.11%) reported profession as general contractor. Four participants (44.44%) reported company size range from 500 to 1,000 people, 3 individuals (33.33%) reported company size range from 1,000 people and above, 1 individual (11.11%) reported company size range from 300 to 399 people and 1 individual (11.11%) reported company size range from 1 to 99 people. Table 10 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team Js survey question responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members, mutual influence relationships and group interests appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics, while risk taking and empowerment appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics for the project manager (Table 10). The results reported in Table 10 for team members correspond with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The project manager mean score for shared responsibility, common vision, and empowerment for Team J were slightly higher than the combined mean score for the same characteristics by 0.45, 0.37, and 0.31 respectively. The remaining project manager mean scores for Team J were

148 lower than or equal to the combined mean scores for project manager surveys. The mean scores for all characteristics for Team Js team survey were lower than the combined mean scores project team surveys (Figure 35).

149 Table 10 Team J Leadership Descriptive Mean Mean Independent variables Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Common vision Mutual influence relationships Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Note. PM = project manager. Team 3.33 3.08 3.08 3.17 2.67 3.13 3.17 3.25 3.29 PM 4.33 4.33 4.00 4.00 4.33 3.67 3.67 4.33 4.33 SE Team 0.16 0.20 0.16 0.17 0.13 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.14 SE PM 0.33 0.33 0.58 0.58 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 SD Team 0.76 0.97 0.78 0.82 0.64 0.80 0.87 0.79 0.69 SD PM 0.58 0.58 1.00 1.00 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 Variance Variance Kurtosis Team 0.58 0.95 0.60 0.67 0.41 0.64 0.75 0.63 0.48 PM 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Team -0.90 -0.29 -1.26 -1.41 -0.54 -1.36 -0.82 -0.35 -0.71 Skew Team -0.67 -0.79 -0.15 -0.33 0.41 -0.24 0.09 0.07 -0.46 Skew PM 1.73 1.73 0.00 0.00 1.73 -1.73 -1.73 1.73 1.73

150

Team J - Leadership Survey 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.39 3.60 3.40 3.20 3.00 2.80 Shared Responsibility Mutual Influence Relationships Continuous Development Risk Taking Group Interests Empowerment Collaboration 2.60 Charisma Common Vision 3.89 3.72

3.61

3.56

3.28

3.11

3.56

Figure 35. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team J (n = 9). In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team J, the mean scores for charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision, collaboration, and empowerment for Team Js project manager were significantly higher than the mean scores for the project team for Team J for the same characteristics by 1.00, 1.25, 1.08, 1.66, 1.08, and 1.04 respectively. The mean score for the characteristics of mutual influence relationships, common vision, and risk taking were higher than the mean scores for project team members for Team J for the same characteristics by 0.83, 0.54, and 0.50 respectively (Figure 36).

3.06

151

Mean - Team 4.60 4.33 4.40 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.39 3.60 3.40 3.20 3.00 2.80 Shared Responsibility Mutual Influence Relationships Common Vision 3.89

Mean - PM

4.00

3.67

3.72

3.67

4.00

3.67

4.33

3.61

3.56

3.28

3.11

3.56

Risk Taking

Figure 36. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team J (n = 9). The team performance score for Team J was 1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks among the middle-performing teams. Figure 37 presents a comparison of the project manager and team member mean scores for Team J and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey, team member survey, and performance report for Team J, the mean scores for shared responsibility, mutual influence relationships, and collaboration were slightly higher in the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all middle-performing teams for the same characteristics by 0.33, 0.50, and 0.50 respectively. The remaining characteristics had similar mean scores as the combined mean scores for the same characteristics in the project manager surveys with the exception of risk taking which had

Group Interests

Empowerment

Continuous Development

Collaboration

Charisma

2.60

3.00

3.06

3.67

152 a slightly lower mean score. The mean scores for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team J were lower than the combined mean scores for all middle-performing teams. The results indicate Team J members perception of the project managers leadership style may be less favorable than the project managers perception of the project managers leadership style.
Team J - Performance Survey
Mean - Team Mean - PM
5.00

Combined Mean - Middle-Performing Teams Combined Mean - Middle-Performing PM

4.16 4.33 4.28

4.33

4.33

4.33

3.87 3.67 4.17

4.50

4.00

4.00 3.78

3.86 4.00 3.89

3.86 3.67 3.72

3.78

3.83

3.88

4.00

3.33

3.59

3.64

4.00

3.17

3.08

2.50

Shared Responsibility

Common Vision

Mutual Influence Relationships

Continuous Development

Group Interests

Risk Taking

2.00

Charisma

2.67

3.00

3.08

3.13

3.17

3.50

3.25

3.29
Empowerment Collaboration

Figure 37. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team J (n = 9) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. Team K Team K consisted of 7 participants (n = 7), with 1 member not disclosing demographic information. The team had a mean range number of years in service of 10 19 years (x = 11.17), with a standard deviation of 10.33 (s = 10.327). The years of service ranged from 0 to 29 years, with 2 participants not disclosing years of service. The

3.78

4.33 4.17

153 mean range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x = 39.50), with a standard deviation of 5.48 (s = 5.477). The team participants consisted of 4 males (40%) and 3 females (37.50%), with 1 participant (12.50%) not disclosing gender. The team participants consisted of 6 Caucasians (75%), 1 Asian (12.50%), and 1 participant (12.50%) not disclosing race. One participant (12.50%) reported profession as administrative support staff, 5 participants (62.50%) reported program manager, and 2 participants (25.00%) did not disclose profession. One participant (12.50%) reported company size range from 500 to 1,000 people, 6 participants (75.00%) reported company size range from 1,000 people and above, and 1 participant (12.50%) did not disclose company size. Table 11 presents the descriptive statistics from Team K survey question responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members, charisma, continuous development, common vision, mutual influence relationships, and collaboration appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics and mutual influence relationship and common vision appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics for the project manager (Table 11). The results reported in Table 11 for team members correspond with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean score for all characteristics for project Team K were slightly higher than the combined mean score for the same characteristics. The mean score for continuous development for Team Ks project manager was slightly higher than the combined mean score by 0.37. The remaining mean scores for Team Ks project manager were lower than or equal to the combined mean scores (Figure 38).

154 Table 11 Team K Leadership Descriptive Mean Mean Independent variables Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Common vision Mutual influence relationships Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Note. PM = project manager.
a

SE Team 0.13 0.17 0.23 0.14 0.18 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.16

SE PM 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33

SD Team 0.58 0.79 1.03 0.64 0.83 0.56 0.57 0.60 0.73

SD PM 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58

Variance Variance Kurtosis Team 0.33 0.63 1.06 0.41 0.69 0.31 0.33 0.36 0.53 PM 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 Team -0.54 1.33 -0.76 -0.51 -0.15 -0.34 0.32 -0.10 3.98

Skew Team -0.13 -0.94 -0.49 -0.33 -0.39 0.04 0.04 -0.07 -1.48

Skew PMa 1.73 * 1.73 -1.73 -1.73 * * * -1.73

Team 4.33 4.14 3.81 4.29 3.91 4.29 4.14 4.19 4.33

PM 4.33 4.00 4.33 3.67 3.67 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.67

A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.

155

TeamK - Leadership Survey

4.33

4.29

4.14

4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20

Shared Responsibility

Mutual Influence Relationships

Risk Taking

Figure 38. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team K (n = 8). In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team K, the mean score for the characteristic of continuous development for Team Ks project manager were higher than the mean score for project team for the same characteristics by 0.54. The remaining mean scores for Team Ks project team had similar mean scores as the project manager for the same characteristics with the exception of mutual influence relationships, common vision, group interests, and empowerment, which had a higher mean score for the same characteristics (Figure 39).

Empowerment

Continuous Development

Collaboration

Charisma

Common Vision

3.00

3.81

3.90

Group Interests

4.14

4.19

4.40

4.29

4.33

4.60

156

Mean - Team 4.60 4.33 4.33 4.33 4.29 4.40 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Mutual Influence Relationships Shared Responsibility Common Vision Risk Taking 3.00 4.29

Mean - PM

4.14

4.00

4.00

4.14

4.00

4.19

3.81

3.67

3.90

3.67

4.00

4.33 Group Interests Empowerment Collaboration 3.67

Figure 39. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team K (n = 8). The team performance score for Team K was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks among the high-performing teams. Figure 40 presents a comparison of the project manager and team member mean scores for Team K and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey, team member survey, and performance report for Team K, the mean scores for common vision, mutual influence relationships, collaboration, and empowerment were slightly lower in the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all highperforming teams for the same characteristics by 0.33, 0.33, 0.46, and 0.33 respectively. The remaining characteristics had similar mean scores as the combined mean scores for the same characteristics in the project manager surveys with the exception of continuous

Continuous Development

Charisma

157 development, which had a slightly higher mean score. The mean score for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team K were similar to the combined mean scores for all high-performing teams with the exception of group interests, and empowerment, which had slightly higher mean score. The results indicated the project manager for Team K might be interested in communicating the vision to the team and empowering the team to perform higher. The results also indicated that Team K members perception of the project managers leadership style corresponds to the project managers leadership style in most instances.
Team K - Performance Survey
Mean - Team Mean - PM
5.00

Combined Mean - High-Performing Teams Combined Mean - High-Performing PM

4.33 4.16 4.33 4.29

4.33

4.46 4.19 4.04 4.00 4.14 4.02 4.00 4.08

4.29 4.15

4.29 3.96 4.00 4.17

4.50

4.14 4.03 4.00 4.08

4.08

4.00

4.00

4.33
Empowerment

4.00

3.81 3.80

3.67

3.67

3.91 3.89

3.50

Shared Responsibility

Common Vision

Mutual Influence Relationships

Continuous Development

Group Interests

Risk Taking

3.00

Charisma

Figure 40. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team K (n = 8) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams.

Collaboration

3.67

3.99

4.00

158 Team L Team L consisted of 0 participants (n = 9), with 3 participants not disclosing demographic information. The team had a range number of years of service of 10-19 years (x = 19.50), with a standard deviation of 8.37 (s = 8.367). The years of service ranged from 0 to 29 years, with 3 participants not disclosing years of service. The mean range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x = 47.83), with a standard deviation of 12.11 (s = 12.111). The team participants consisted of 4 males (44.44%) and 2 females (22.22%), with 3 participants (33.33%) not disclosing gender. The team participants were comprised of 5 Caucasians (55.56%) and 1 Hispanic (11.11%), with 3 participants (33.33%) not disclosing race. Two participants (22.22%) reported profession as architect/interior designer, 3 participants (33.33%) reported profession as construction manager, and 1 participant (11.11%) reported profession as administrative support staff, with 3 participants (33.33%) not disclosing profession. Four participants (66.67%) reported company size range from 500 to 1,000 people, 1 individual (11.11%) reported company size range from 400 to 499 people, and 1 individual (16.67%) reported company size from 1,000 people and above. Table 12 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team L survey question responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision, risk taking, and collaboration appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics. Shared responsibility, common vision, and collaboration appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics for the project manager (see Table 12).

159 Table 12 Team L Leadership Descriptive Mean Mean Independent variables Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Common vision Mutual influence relationships Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Note. PM = project manager.
a

SE Team 0.17 0.12 0.21 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.16 0.15

SE PM 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33

SD Team 0.81 0.58 1.01 0.72 0.81 0.83 0.65 0.78 0.72

SD PM 0.58 0.58 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.58

Variance Variance Kurtosis Team 0.65 0.33 1.01 0.51 0.65 0.69 0.42 0.61 0.52 PM 0.33 0.33 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 Team 0.30 -0.68 -1.17 -0.91 0.30 1.81 -0.52 -1.20 2.64

Skew Team -0.62 -0.21 -0.20 -0.13 -0.62 -1.16 -0.54 -0.40 -1.10

Skew PMa 1.73 -1.73 * 0.00 * * 1.73 -1.73 -1.73

Team 4.04 4.38 3.83 4.08 4.04 4.08 4.38 4.21 4.21

PM 4.33 3.67 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.33 4.67 3.67

A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.

160 The results reported in Table 12 for team members correspond with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean scores for shared responsibility, risk taking, and empowerment for Team L were slightly higher than the combined mean score by 0.51, 0.45, and 0.35 respectively. The remaining mean scores for Team L were similar to the total mean scores. The mean score for collaboration for Team Ls project manager was slightly higher than the combined mean score by 0.49. The remaining mean scores for Team Ls project manager were lower than or equal to the combined mean scores (Figure 41).
TeamL - Leadership Survey

4.38

4.21

4.08

4.04

4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20

Shared Responsibility

Mutual Influence Relationships

Risk Taking

Figure 41. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team L (n = 9). In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team L, the mean scores for charisma, and collaboration for Team Ls project manager were slightly higher than the mean scores for the project team for Team L for the same characteristics by 0.29 and 0.46 respectively. The remaining mean scores for Team Ls project manager

Empowerment

Continuous Development

Collaboration

Charisma

Common Vision

3.00

3.83

4.04

Group Interests

4.08

4.21

4.40

4.38

4.60

161 were similar to the mean scores for project team members for Team L, with the exception of shared responsibility, and empowerment, which were lower than the mean scores for project team members for Team L for the same characteristics by 0.71, and 0.54 respectively (Figure 42).
Mean - Team 4.80 4.60 4.38 4.33 4.38 4.21 4.21 Empowerment Collaboration 3.67 Mutual Influence Relationships Common Vision Continuous Development Group Interests Risk Taking 4.40 4.04 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Shared Responsibility 3.00 3.67 4.33 Mean - PM 4.67 4.08 4.00 4.00 4.04 4.00 4.08

Figure 42. Comparison of project manager and team members survey responses for Team L (n = 9). The team performance score for Team L was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks among the high-performing teams. Figure 43 presents a comparison of the project manager and team member mean scores for Team L and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey, team member survey, and performance report for Team L, the mean scores for shared responsibility, and empowerment were slightly lower in the project manager survey than

Charisma

3.83

4.00

162 the combined mean scores for all high-performing teams for the same characteristics by 0.41 and 0.33 respectively. The remaining characteristics had similar mean scores as the combined mean scores for the same characteristics in the project manager surveys. The mean score for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team L were similar to the combined mean scores for all high-performing teams with the exception of shared responsibility, risk taking, and empowerment, which had slightly higher mean score. The results indicated the project manager for Team L might be interested in interteam relationships and high performance. The results also indicate that Team L members perception of the project managers leadership style corresponds to the project managers leadership style in most instances, even though the mean scores were similar.
Team L - Performance Survey
Mean - Team Mean - PM
5.00

Combined Mean - High-Performing Teams Combined Mean - High-Performing PM

4.67 4.38 4.04 4.16 4.33 4.29 4.38


4.50

4.33

4.21 4.04

4.46 4.21
Empowerment

3.83 3.80 4.00 4.08

4.08 3.96 4.00 4.17

4.08 4.15 4.00 4.00

4.08

4.04 3.89 4.00 4.00

4.03

4.02

4.08

4.00

3.67

3.50

Shared Responsibility

Common Vision

Mutual Influence Relationships

Continuous Development

Group Interests

Risk Taking

3.00

Charisma

Figure 43. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team L (n = 9) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams.

Collaboration

3.67

3.99

4.00

163 Team M Team M consisted of 7 participants (n = 7), with 3 participants not disclosing demographic information. The team had a range number of years in service of 0-9 years (x = 7.00), with a standard deviation of 5.00 (s = 5.00). The years of service ranged from 0 to 19 years. The mean range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x = 42.00), with a standard deviation of 9.57 (s = 9.574). The team participants consisted of 3 males (42.86%) and 1 female (14.29%), with 3 participants (42.86%) not disclosing age. The team participants consisted of 4 Caucasians (57.14%), with 3 participants (42.86%) not disclosing race. Two participants (28.58%) reported profession as architect, 3 participants (42.86%) reported profession as construction manager, and 1 participant (14.29%) reported profession as administrative support, with 3 participants (42.86%) not disclosing profession. One participant (14.29%) reported company size range from 400 to 499 people, 1 participant (14.29%) reported company size range from 500 to 1,000 people, and 4 participants (57.14%) reported company size range from 1,000 people and above, with 3 participants (42.86%) not disclosing company size. Table 13 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team M survey question responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members, all leadership characteristics except risk taking appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics, while charisma appears to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristic for the project manager (Table 13).

164 Table 13 Team M Leadership Descriptive Mean Mean Independent variables Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Common vision Mutual influence relationships Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Note. PM = project manager.
a

SE Team 0.11 0.15 0.18 0.12 0.17 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.19

SE PM 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SD Team 0.49 0.62 0.75 0.51 0.71 0.46 0.50 0.50 0.81

SD PM 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Variance Variance Kurtosis Team 0.24 0.38 0.57 0.26 0.50 0.21 0.25 0.25 0.65 PM 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Team -1.59 -0.10 -0.93 -2.20 -0.25 -0.94 -1.99 -1.99 -1.28

Skew Team -0.77 -0.84 -0.53 -0.24 -0.92 -1.09 0.50 -0.50 -0.45

Skew PMa -1.73 * 1.73 * 1.73 * * * *

Team 4.67 4.50 4.28 4.56 4.44 4.72 4.39 4.61 4.22

PM 4.67 4.00 4.33 4.00 4.33 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.

165 The results reported in Table 13 for team members correspond with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean scores for all leadership characteristics for Team M were higher than the combined mean scores for the same leadership characteristics. The mean scores for charisma, continuous development, and common vision for Team Ms project manager were slightly higher than the combined project managers mean scores for the same leadership characteristics by 0.45, 0.37, and 0.37 respectively. The remaining leadership characteristics mean scores for Team Ms project manager were lower or equal to the combined mean scores (Figure 44).
TeamM - Leadership Survey 5.00 4.67 4.50 4.56 4.80 4.60 4.40 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Shared Responsibility Mutual Influence Relationships Risk Taking Empowerment Continuous Development Collaboration Charisma Common Vision 3.00 Group Interests 4.44

4.72

4.28

4.39

4.61

Figure 44. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team M (n = 7). In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team M, the mean scores for all leadership characteristics for Team Ms project team were higher than the mean scores for the same leadership characteristics for Team Ms project manager with the exception of charisma, continuous development, common vision, and

4.22

166 empowerment, which were similar to the mean scores for project team members for Team M for the same characteristics (Figure 45).
Mean - Team 5.00 4.67 4.61 4.39 4.80 4.60 4.40 4.00 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Shared Responsibility Mutual Influence Relationships Common Vision Risk Taking Group Interests Empowerment Continuous Development Collaboration Charisma 3.00 4.67 4.72 4.50 4.56 4.33 4.44 4.28 4.33 Mean - PM

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.22 4.00

Figure 45. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team M (n = 7). The team performance score for Team M was 1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks among the middle-performing teams. Figure 46 presents a comparison of the project manager and team member mean scores for Team M and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey, team member survey, and performance report for Team M, the mean scores for charisma, continuous development, and mutual influence relationships were slightly higher in the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all middle-performing teams for the same characteristics by 0.39, 0.55, and 0.50 respectively. The remaining

167 characteristics had similar mean scores as the combined mean scores for the same characteristics in the project manager surveys with the exception of risk taking, and empowerment, which had slightly lower mean scores. The mean scores for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team M were lower than the combined mean scores for all middle-performing teams. The results indicated Team M members perception of the project managers leadership style might be more favorable than the project managers perception of the project managers leadership style even though the performance of the team might be marginal.
Team M - Performance Survey
Mean - Team Mean - PM
5.00

Combined Mean - Middle-Performing Teams Combined Mean - Middle-Performing PM

4.67

4.67

4.72

4.50

4.56

4.44

4.33

4.28

4.28

4.50

4.33

4.39

4.61

3.87 4.00 4.17

4.22 3.88 4.00 4.00


Collaboration

3.86 4.00 3.89

3.78

3.78

3.50

Shared Responsibility

Common Vision

Mutual Influence Relationships

Continuous Development

Group Interests

Risk Taking

3.00

Charisma

3.59

3.64

Figure 46. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team M (n = 7) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams.

Empowerment

3.78

4.00

3.86 4.00 3.72

3.83

4.00 4.17

4.16

4.00 4.00

168 Team N Team N consisted of 6 participants (n = 6), with 1 participant not disclosing demographic information. The team had a mean range number of years of service of 30 39 years (x = 34.50), with a standard deviation of 0 (s = 0). The years of service ranged from 30 to 39 years, with 1 member not disclosing years of service. The mean range of age of the team members was 30-39 years (x = 32.50), with a standard deviation of 8.37 (s = 8.366). The team participants were two males (33.33%), 3 females (50.00%), with 1 participant (16.67%) not disclosing gender. The team participants consisted of 4 Caucasians (66.67%) and 2 participants (33.33%) not disclosing race. One participant (16.67%) reported profession as general contractor, 1 participant (16.67%) reported profession as administrative support, and 3 participants (50.00%) reported profession as other consultant, with 1 participant not disclosing profession. Three participants (50.00%) reported company size range from 1 to 99 people, 1 participant (16.67%) reported company size range from 100 to 199 people, 1 participant (16.67%) reported company size range from 200 to 299 people, with 1 participant (16.67%) not disclosing company size. Table 14 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team N survey question responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members, leadership characteristics appear to be normally distributed with the exception of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision, and collaboration (Table 14). The results reported in Table 14 for team members correspond with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean score for all leadership characteristics for Team N were lower than or equal to the combined mean

169 scores. The mean scores for risk taking and empowerment for Team Ns project manager were slightly higher than the combined mean score for the same characteristics by 0.29 and 0.31 respectively. The remaining mean scores for Team Ns project manager were lower than or equal to the combined mean scores (Figure 47).

170 Table 14 Team N Leadership Descriptive Mean Mean Independent variables Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Common vision Mutual influence relationships Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Note. PM = project manager.
a

SE Team 0.22 0.32 0.27 0.37 0.41 0.31 0.23 0.30 0.32

SE PM 0.00 0.33 0.88 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33

SD Team 0.83 1.23 1.06 1.44 1.58 1.18 0.88 1.18 1.24

SD PM 0.00 0.58 1.53 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.58

Variance Variance Kurtosis Team 0.70 1.52 1.12 2.07 2.50 1.40 0.78 1.38 1.54 PM 0.00 0.33 2.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 Team 1.96 -0.03 -1.07 -1.26 -1.63 -1.42 -0.49 -1.25 -1.65

Skew Team -1.13 -0.84 -0.10 -0.21 -0.25 -0.28 -0.12 -0.46 0.13

Skew PMa * -1.73 -0.94 -1.73 1.73 * 1.73 -1.73 1.73

Team 4.13 3.67 3.53 3.27 3.07 3.60 3.73 3.67 3.40

PM 4.00 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.33 4.00 4.33 3.67 4.33

A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.

171

TeamN - Leadership Survey

4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 3.00 2.80 2.60

4.13

4.40

3.67

3.73

3.53

3.60

3.67

3.27

Shared Responsibility

3.07

Mutual Influence Relationships

Risk Taking

Figure 47. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team N (n = 6). In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team N, the mean scores for mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk taking, and empowerment for Team Ns project manager were higher than the mean scores for the project team for Team N for the same characteristics by 0.40, 0.40, 0.60, and 0.90, respectively. The remaining mean scores for Team Ns project manager were similar to the mean scores for project team members for Team N (Figure 48).

Empowerment

Continuous Development

Collaboration

Charisma

Common Vision

Group Interests

3.40

172

Mean - Team 4.60 4.33 4.40 4.00 4.00 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 3.00 2.80 Shared Responsibility Mutual Influence Relationships Common Vision Risk Taking Group Interests 4.13

Mean - PM 4.33 3.67 3.67 3.40 Empowerment Collaboration

3.67

3.67

3.67

3.67

3.53

3.27

Figure 48. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team N (n = 6). The team performance score for Team N was 1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks among the middle-performing teams. Figure 49 presents a comparison of the project manager and team member mean scores for Team N and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey, team member survey, and performance report for Team N, the mean scores for charisma, shared responsibility, mutual influence relationships, and collaboration were lower in the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all middle-performing teams for the same characteristics by 0.28, 0.33, 0.50, and 0.33 respectively. The remaining characteristics had similar mean scores as the combined mean scores for the same characteristics in the project manager surveys with the exception of group interests,

Continuous Development

Charisma

2.60

3.07

3.33

3.60

3.73

173 which had slightly higher mean score. The mean scores for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team N were lower than the combined mean scores for all middle-performing teams. The results corresponded to the combined mean scores for moderate performing teams. The results suggested that Team N members perception of the project managers leadership style might be more in line with the project managers perception of the project managers leadership style even though the performance of the team might be marginal.
Team N - Performance Survey
Mean - Team Mean - PM
5.00

Combined Mean - Middle-Performing Teams Combined Mean - Middle-Performing PM

4.33 4.17

4.50

4.13 4.16 4.00 4.28

3.67 3.78 3.67 4.00

3.86 4.00 3.72

3.67 3.88 3.67 4.00

3.86 3.67 3.89

3.73 3.87

3.83

4.00

3.53 3.59 3.67 3.78

3.64

3.60

3.50

3.27

3.00

Shared Responsibility

Common Vision

Mutual Influence Relationships

Continuous Development

Group Interests

Risk Taking

2.50

Charisma

3.07

3.33

3.40
Empowerment Collaboration

Figure 49. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team N (n = 6) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. Team O Team O consisted of 6 participants (n = 6), with 1 participant not disclosing demographic information. The team had a mean range number of years of service of 20-

3.78

4.33 4.17

174 29 years (x = 22.50), with a standard deviation of 8.37 (s = 8.366). The years of service ranged from 10 to 39 years, with 1 member not disclosing years of service. The mean range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x = 48.50), with a standard deviation of 8.94 (s = 8.944). The team participants consisted of 3 males (50.00%) and 2 females (33.33%), with 1 participant (16.67%) not disclosing gender. The team participants consisted of 4 Caucasians (66.67%), 1 African American (16.67%), with 1 participant (16.67%) not disclosing race. One participant (16.67%) reported profession as construction manager, 3 participants (50.00%) reported profession as program manager, and 1 participant (16.67%) reported profession as general contractor, with 1 participant (16.67%) not disclosing profession. One participant (16.67%) reported company size range from 100 to 199 people, 2 participants (33.33%) reported company size range from 300 to 399 people, 2 participants (33.33%) reported company size range from 1,000 people and above, with 1 participant (16.67%) not disclosing company size. Table 15 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team O survey question responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members, continuous development, common vision, mutual influence relationships, and risk taking appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics, while mutual influence relationships appears to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristic for the project manager (Table 15). The results reported in Table 15 for team members correspond with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean score for all characteristics for Team O were similar to the combined mean score. The mean scores for charisma, continuous development, collaboration, and empowerment for Team Os project manager

175 were slightly higher than the combined mean scores by 0.45, 0.37, 0.49, and 0.31 respectively. The remaining mean scores for Team Os project manager were similar to the combined mean scores, with the exception of common vision, which was lower than the combined mean score for the same characteristics by 0.29 (Figure 50).

176 Table 15 Team O Leadership Descriptive Mean Mean Independent variables Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Common vision Mutual influence relationships Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Note. PM = project manager.
a

SE Team 0.15 0.20 0.24 0.18 0.27 0.23 0.24 0.17 0.23

SE PM 0.33 0.58 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.58 0.33 0.33

SD Team 0.56 0.76 0.92 0.68 1.05 0.88 0.93 0.66 0.88

SD PM 0.58 1.00 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.00 1.00 0.58 0.58

Variance Variance Kurtosis Team 0.31 0.57 0.84 0.46 1.10 0.78 0.86 0.43 0.78 PM 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 Team 0.38 -1.08 -0.48 -0.51 -1.10 -1.78 -0.18 -0.18 0.67

Skew Team 0.11 0.00 -0.35 -0.26 -0.08 0.14 -0.62 0.00 -0.86

Skew PMa -1.73 0.00 1.73 * -1.73 * 0.00 -1.73 1.73

Team 4.20 4.00 3.87 4.20 3.67 3.93 4.00 4.00 4.07

PM 4.67 4.00 4.33 4.00 3.67 4.00 4.00 4.67 4.33

A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.

177

TeamO - Leadership Survey

4.60 4.20 4.20 4.40 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Shared Responsibility Mutual Influence Relationships Risk Taking Empowerment Continuous Development Collaboration Charisma Common Vision 3.00 Group Interests 4.07

4.00

4.00

3.87

Figure 50. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team O (n = 6). In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team O, the mean scores for charisma, continuous development, and collaboration for Team Os project manager were higher than the mean scores for the project team for Team O for the same characteristics by 0.47, 0.46, and 0.67. The remaining mean scores for Team Os project manager were similar to the mean scores for project team members (Figure 51).

3.67

3.93

4.00

178

Mean - Team

Mean - PM

5.00 4.67 4.80 4.60 4.33 4.20 4.20 4.40 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Shared Responsibility Mutual Influence Relationships Common Vision Risk Taking Group Interests Empowerment Continuous Development Collaboration Charisma 3.00 4.33 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.67 3.67 3.93 4.00 4.07 4.67 4.00 4.00 3.87

Figure 51. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team O (n = 6). The team performance score for Team O was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks among the high-performing teams. Figure 52 presents a comparison of the project manager and team member mean scores for Team O and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey, team member survey, and performance report for Team O, the mean scores for all characteristics were higher in the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all high-performing teams for the same characteristics. The mean scores for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team O were similar to the combined mean scores for all high-performing teams. The results indicate the project manager for Team O might be interested in communicating the vision to the team and empowering the team

179 to perform better. The results also indicate that Team O members perception of the project managers leadership style is less favorable.
Team O - Performance Survey
Mean - Team Mean - PM
5.50

Combined Mean - High-Performing Teams Combined Mean - High-Performing PM

5.00

4.67

4.67

4.67

4.67

4.67

4.20 4.15

4.20 4.16

4.08

4.17

4.50

4.33 4.08

4.29

4.08

4.67 4.46

5.00

4.07 3.99
Empowerment

4.00 4.03

4.00 4.04

4.00 4.02

4.00

4.00

5.00 3.93 3.96


Group Interests Risk Taking Collaboration

4.00

3.50

Shared Responsibility

Common Vision

3.00

Figure 52. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team O (n = 6) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. Team P Team P consisted of 9 participants (n = 9), with 1 participant not disclosing demographic information. The team had a mean range number of years of service of 10 19 years (x = 17.00), with a standard deviation of 10.35 (s = 10.351). The years of service ranged from 0 to 39 years, with 1 member not disclosing years of service. The mean range of age of the team members was 30-39 years (x = 34.50), with a standard deviation of 5.35 (s = 5.345). The team participants were 2 males (22.22%) and 6 females (66.67%), with 1 participant (11.11%) not disclosing gender. The team participants

Mutual Influence Relationships

Continuous Development

Charisma

3.67 3.89

3.87 3.80

4.00

180 consisted of 8 Caucasians (88.89%), with 1 participant (11.11%) not disclosing race. One participant (11.11%) reported profession as administrative support staff and 7 participants (77.78%) reported profession as other consultant, with 1 participant (11.11%) not disclosing profession. Two participants (22.22%) reported company size range from 1 to 99 people, 3 participants (33.33%) reported company size range from 100 to 199 people, and 3 participants (33.33%) reported company size range from 1,000 people and above, with 1 participant (11.11%) not disclosing company size. Table 16 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team P survey question responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members and project manager, charisma appears to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics (see Table 16). The results reported in Table 16 for team members correspond with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean scores for all leadership characteristics for Team Ps project team were slightly higher than the combined mean score for the same leadership characteristics. The mean scores for all leadership characteristics for Team Ps project manager were also slightly higher than the combined mean score for the same leadership characteristics (Figure 53).

181 Table 16 Team P Leadership Descriptive Mean Mean Independent variables Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Common vision Mutual influence relationships Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Note. PM = project manager.
a

SE Team 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.18 0.15 0.20 0.17

SE PM 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00

SD Team 0.60 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.51 0.83 0.70 0.90 0.77

SD PM 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.00

Variance Variance Kurtosis Team 0.36 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.26 0.69 0.49 0.81 0.59 PM 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 Team -0.10 5.43 2.49 4.82 0.60 2.52 3.25 8.61 2.34

Skew Team -0.86 -2.06 -1.12 -1.88 0.36 -1.35 -1.10 -2.44 -1.18

Skew PMa -1.73 1.73 -1.73 -1.73 * -1.73 -1.73 -1.73 *

Team 4.52 4.52 4.19 4.48 4.19 4.10 4.10 4.29 4.24

PM 4.67 4.33 4.67 4.67 5.00 4.67 4.67 4.67 5.00

A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.

182

TeamP - Leadership Survey 4.54 4.80 4.60 4.40 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Shared Responsibility Mutual Influence Relationships Risk Taking Empowerment Continuous Development Collaboration Charisma Common Vision 3.00 Group Interests

4.50

4.46

4.21

4.21

4.29

Figure 53. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team P (n = 9). In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team P, the mean scores for all leadership characteristics for Team Ps project manager were higher than the mean scores for the project team for Team P for the same characteristics, with the exception of shared responsibility, which is lower for the project manager by 0.29 (Figure 54).

4.08

4.13

4.21

183

Mean - Team 5.00 4.67 4.67

Mean - PM 5.00 5.00 4.67 4.67 4.29 4.67 4.21 Empowerment Collaboration 4.08 4.13 Group Interests Risk Taking

4.80 4.54 4.60 4.40 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20

4.50

4.33

4.21

4.46

4.67 4.21 Mutual Influence Relationships Common Vision

Shared Responsibility

Figure 54. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team P (n = 9). The team performance score for Team P was -1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks among the bottom-performing teams. Figure 55 presents a comparison of the project manager and team member mean scores for Team P and the combined mean scores for bottom-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey, team member survey, and performance report for Team P, the mean scores for all leadership characteristics were higher in the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all bottom-performing teams for the same characteristics. The mean scores for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team P were higher than the combined mean scores for all bottom-performing teams. The results indicate Team P

Continuous Development

Charisma

3.00

184 members perception of the project managers leadership style might be moderately more favorable than the project managers perception of the project managers leadership style.
Team P - Performance Survey
Mean - Team Mean - PM Combined Mean - Bottom-Performing Teams Combined Mean - Bottom-Performing PM

5.00

5.00

4.67

4.67

4.67

4.67

4.67

4.52

4.52

4.33

4.48

4.22

4.19

4.19

4.22

4.10

4.00

4.10

4.11

4.24
Empowerment

4.50

4.29

4.67

5.00 4.00 3.89 3.73 3.75


Group Interests Risk Taking

3.89

3.89

4.00

3.66

3.85

3.65

3.50

Shared Responsibility

3.00

3.33

Continuous Development

3.55

Mutual Influence Relationships

Charisma

Common Vision

3.58

Figure 55. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team P (n = 9) and the combined mean scores for bottom-performing teams. Team Q Team Q consisted of 8 participants (n = 8). The team had a mean range number of years of service of 10-19 years (x = 17.00), with a standard deviation of 10.35 (s = 10.351). The years of service ranged from 0 to 39 years. The mean range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x = 44.50), with a standard deviation of 11.95 (s = 11.952). The team participants were 4 males (50.00%) and 4 females (50.00%). The team participants were comprised of 8 Caucasians (100.00%). One participant (12.50%) reported profession as architect/interior designer, 5 participants (62.50%) reported

Collaboration

3.66

4.00

185 profession as engineer, 1 participant (12.50%) reported profession as information technology/CAD support staff, and 1 participant (12.50%) reported profession as other consultant. Four participants (50.00%) reported company size range from 1 to 99 people, and 4 participants (50.00%) reported company size range from 1,000 people and above. Table 17 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team Q survey question responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members, common vision, charisma, mutual influence relationships, group interests, and collaboration appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics, while mutual influence, group interests, and collaboration appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics for the project manager (Table 17). The results reported in Table 17 for team members correspond with the overall results of the data collected with some exceptions. The mean score for all leadership characteristics for the project team Q were slightly higher than the combined mean score with the exception of shared responsibility, continuous development, mutual influence relationships, risk taking, and empowerment, which were similar to the combined mean score for the same characteristics. The mean scores of group interests, risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment for Team Qs project manager were lower than the combined mean score for the same leadership characteristics by 0.96, 0.66, 0.51, and 0.35 respectively. The remaining mean scores for Team Qs project manager were similar to the combined mean scores for the leadership characteristics (Figure 56).

186 Table 17 Team Q Leadership Descriptive Mean Mean Independent variables Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Common vision Mutual influence relationships Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Note. PM = project manager.
a

SE Team 0.11 0.13 0.24 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.11

SE PM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.33

SD Team 0.51 0.59 1.12 0.68 0.63 0.63 0.54 0.68 0.50

SD PM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.16 0.58 0.58 0.58

Variance Variance Kurtosis Team 0.26 0.35 1.25 0.46 0.40 0.39 0.29 0.46 0.25 PM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Team -2.21 0.35 0.09 -0.65 -0.13 -0.11 0.03 -0.65 1.86

Skew Team 0.10 -0.00 -0.81 -0.25 0.00 0.06 0.20 -0.25 -0.13

Skew PMa * * * * 0.00 -1.73 1.73 -1.73 -1.73

Team 4.48 3.95 3.62 4.19 4.00 3.91 4.24 4.19 3.95

PM 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.33 4.33 3.67 3.67

A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.

187

TeamQ - Leadership Survey 4.60 4.40 3.95 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Shared Responsibility Mutual Influence Relationships Risk Taking Empowerment Continuous Development Collaboration Charisma Common Vision 3.00 Group Interests 4.48

4.19

4.24

4.00

4.19

Figure 56. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team Q (n = 8). In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team Q, the mean scores for charisma, common vision, group interests, collaboration, and empowerment for Team Qs project manager were lower than the mean scores for the project team for Team Q for the same characteristics by 0.48, 1.00, 0.58, 0.52, and 0.28 respectively. The remaining mean scores for Team Qs project manager were slightly higher than the mean scores for project team members for Team Q for the same leadership characteristics, with the exception of continuous development which was lower in the project manager survey by 0.38 (Figure 57).

3.62

3.90

3.95

188

Mean - Team 4.60 4.40 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.00 3.20 3.00 2.80 Shared Responsibility Mutual Influence Relationships Common Vision Risk Taking Group Interests 3.33 4.48 4.33

Mean - PM

4.19

4.24

4.00

3.95

4.00

4.19

3.90

3.67

3.95 Empowerment Collaboration 3.67

Figure 57. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team Q (n = 8). The team performance score for Team Q was 1.00 (Appendix G), which ranks among the middle-performing teams. Figure 58 presents a comparison of the project manager and team member mean scores for Team Q and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey, team member survey, and performance report for Team Q, the mean scores for all leadership characteristics for the project manager survey were similar to the combined mean scores for all middle-performing teams, with some exceptions. The mean score for the characteristics of charisma, mutual influence relationships, group interests, collaboration, and empowerment, were lower to the combined mean scores for all middle-performing teams by 0.28, 0.83, 0.39, 0.33, and 0.50 respectively. The mean

Continuous Development

Charisma

2.60

3.62

189 scores for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team Q were higher than or equal to the combined mean scores for all middle-performing teams. The results correspond to the combined mean scores for moderate performing teams. The results suggested that Team Q members perception of the project managers leadership style might be more in line with the project managers perception of the project managers leadership style even though the performance of the team might be marginal.
Team Q - Performance Survey
Mean - Team Mean - PM
5.00

Combined Mean - Middle-Performing Teams Combined Mean - Middle-Performing PM

4.48 4.16 4.00 4.28

4.19 3.86 4.00 3.89

4.24

4.19 3.88 3.67 4.00


Collaboration

3.62 3.59

3.64

3.50

3.00

Shared Responsibility

Common Vision

Mutual Influence Relationships

Continuous Development

Group Interests

Risk Taking

2.50

Charisma

3.00

3.33

3.72

4.00

Figure 58. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team Q (n = 8) and the combined mean scores for middle-performing teams. Team R Team R consisted of 7 participants (n = 7). The team had a mean range number of years in service of 10-19 years (x = 17.83), with a standard deviation of 10.33 (s = 10.327). The years of service ranged from 0 to 39 years, with 1 member not disclosing

Empowerment

3.95 3.78 3.67 4.17

4.50

3.95 3.78 4.00 4.00

4.00 3.78

4.00

3.91 3.86

3.83

3.87

4.33 4.17

190 years of service. The mean range of age of the team members was 40-49 years (x = 46.50), with a standard deviation of 8.37 (s = 8.367). The team participants consisted of 4 males (57.14%) and 2 females (28.57%), with 1 participant (14.29%) not disclosing gender. The team participants consisted of 4 Caucasians (57.14%), 1 Hispanic (14.29%), and 1 African American (14.29%), with 1 participant (14.29%) not disclosing race. One participant (14.29%) reported profession as architect/interior designer, 2 participants (28.58%) reported profession as engineer, 2 participants (28.58%) reported profession as general contractor, and 1 participant (14.29%) reported profession as other consultant, with 1 participant (14.29%) not disclosing profession. One participant (14.29%) reported company size range from 300 to 399 people, 2 participants (28.58%) reported company size from 400 to 499 people, 1 participant (14.29%) reported company size range from 500 to 1,000 people, and 1 individual (14.29%) reported company size range from 1,000 people and above, with 2 participants (28.58%) not disclosing company size. Table 18 exhibits the descriptive statistics from Team R survey question responses. Based on the information on the kurtosis and skewness values for team members, charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision, group interests, collaboration, and empowerment appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics. The leadership characteristics of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision, group interests, collaboration and empowerment appear to be the most normally distributed leadership characteristics for the project manager (Table 18).

191 Table 18 Team R Leadership Descriptive Mean Mean Independent variables Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Common vision Mutual influence relationships Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Note. PM = project manager.
a

SE Team 0.25 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.26 0.24 0.21 0.24

SE PM 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.58

SD Team 1.06 0.50 1.03 1.02 0.98 1.10 1.03 0.91 1.03

SD PM 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.16 1.16 0.00 0.58 1.00

Variance Variance Kurtosis Team 1.12 0.25 1.06 1.04 0.97 1.20 1.06 0.82 1.06 PM 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.33 1.33 0.00 0.33 1.00 Team -0.81 -1.99 -1.17 -0.65 1.11 -1.11 0.03 -0.40 -0.57

Skew Team -0.50 -0.498 -0.04 -0.50 -0.66 -0.32 -0.77 -0.30 -0.69

Skew PMa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.73 -1.73 * -1.73 0.00

Team 3.78 3.61 3.33 3.72 3.44 3.61 3.33 3.67 3.67

PM 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.33 3.33 3.00 3.67 3.00

A* is printed if a value cannot be computed.

192 The results reported in Table 18 for team members correspond with the overall results of the data collected, with some exceptions. The mean score for all leadership characteristics for the project team R were lower than the combined mean scores for the same leadership characteristics. The mean scores for all leadership characteristics for Team Rs project manager were significantly lower than the combined leadership characteristics mean scores (Figure 59).
TeamR - Leadership Survey 4.00 3.78 3.80 3.72

3.67

3.61

3.33

3.44

3.60 3.40

3.61

3.20 3.00

Shared Responsibility

Mutual Influence Relationships

Risk Taking

3.33

Figure 59. Cumulative number of leadership characteristics from survey responses for Team R (n = 7). In a comparison of project manager and team member responses for Team R, the mean score for all leadership characteristics for Team Rs project manager were lower than the mean scores for the project team for Team R for the same characteristics. The leadership characteristic of collaboration is the exception, which has the same mean score for the project team and project manager surveys (Figure 60).

Empowerment

Continuous Development

Collaboration

Charisma

Common Vision

Group Interests

3.67

193

Mean - Team 4.00 3.78 3.72

Mean - PM

3.67

3.67

3.61

3.33

3.44

3.60

3.33

3.61

3.33

3.40

3.20 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Empowerment Collaboration

3.00

2.80

Shared Responsibility

Mutual Influence Relationships

Common Vision

Continuous Development

Figure 60. Comparison of project manager and team member survey responses for Team R (n = 7). The team performance score for Team R was 3.00 (Appendix G), which ranks among the high-performing teams. Figure 61 presents a comparison of the project manager and team member mean scores for Team R and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. Based on the data collected from the project manager survey, team member survey, and performance report for Team R, the mean scores for all leadership characteristics were significantly lower in the project manager survey than the combined mean scores for all high-performing teams for the same characteristics. The mean scores for all characteristics in the project team survey for Team R were lower than the combined mean scores for all high-performing teams. The results indicated Team R

Group Interests

Risk Taking

Charisma

2.60

3.33

3.67

3.80

194 members perception of the project managers leadership style is more favorable than the project managers leadership style in most instances.
Team R - Performance Survey
Mean - Team Mean - PM Combined Mean - High-Performing Teams Combined Mean - High-Performing PM

4.16

4.08

4.08

4.15

4.17

4.50

4.29

4.08

4.03

4.00

4.00

4.02

4.04

4.46

3.72

3.67

3.67

3.61

3.33

3.44

3.33

3.61

3.33

3.50

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.33

3.00

3.67
Empowerment

4.00

3.78

3.80

3.89

3.96

3.00

2.50

Shared Responsibility

Continuous Development

Mutual Influence Relationships

Group Interests

Risk Taking

2.00

Charisma

Common Vision

Figure 61. Comparison of project manager and team member mean scores for Team R (n = 7) and the combined mean scores for high-performing teams. Team Performance The results of the team performance variable calculation are shown in Appendix G. The performance scores were calculated based on the results of an analysis of one of three different team performance-scoring reports for participating organizations. The three variables were common industry standards for evaluating project performance; therefore, the use of the three variables in the study is justified. The team performance scores were calculated based on individual scores for project completion (a) on time, (b) within specified budget, and (c) within specified profit margin. The three variables were

Collaboration

3.00

3.99

4.00

195 examined based on whether a team was meeting its goal and given either a positive 1 (+1) or a negative 1 (-1) for each aspect of the variable. The scores were totaled to obtain the team performance variable shown in Appendix G. Fourteen of the 17 teams had positive scores, with 6 teams scoring in the middle range. For the purposes of the study analysis, teams that scored 3.00 were considered high-performing teams. Teams that had a score of +1.00 were considered middleperforming teams. Teams that scored a -1.00 were considered bottom-performing teams (see Figure 62).
Dependent Variable - TeamPerform ance 4.0 3 3.0 2.0 1 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1 -2.0 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 TeamB TeamC TeamD TeamE TeamF TeamG TeamH TeamI TeamJ TeamK TeamL TeamM TeamN TeamO TeamP TeamQ TeamR

Figure 62. Dependent variable of team performance comparison for all 17 teams. Summary of Team Performance Based on the project team performance report (Appendix G), the 17 teams were separated into three categories: (a) high-performing teams, (b) middle-performing teams, and (c) bottom-performing teams. Eight teams were categorized as high-performing teams, six teams were categorized as middle-performing teams, and three teams were

196 categorized as bottom-performing teams based on the aggregate score from the team performance report. Appendix S shows the comparison of project manager and team survey results of the three bottom-performing teams, six middle-performing teams, and eight high-performing teams. The comparison was based on the dependent variable of team performance. For the purposes of the study analysis, a difference in mean score in the project manager and team surveys of 0.00 to 0.19 is characterized as no difference, a difference in mean score of 0.20 to 0.49 is characterized as slightly lower or higher difference, a difference in mean score of 0.50 to 0.99 is characterized as lower or higher difference, and a difference in mean score of 1.00 or greater is characterized as significantly lower or higher difference. Among the 8 teams in the high-performing category, when combined, the leadership characteristics of collaboration and charisma had a higher mean score in the project managers survey results than in the project teams survey results. Additionally, the characteristics of charisma, continuous development, common vision, and collaboration had slightly higher mean scores in 4 of the 8 project managers survey results for high-performing teams than in the team survey results. Interestingly, the characteristics of continuous development had a slightly higher mean score consistently on the project managers survey results than in the team survey results for the 8 teams (Appendix S). Among the six teams in the middle-performing category, all characteristics when combined had a slightly higher mean score in the project managers survey results than in the project teams survey results, with the exception of group interests, which had the same mean score in both surveys. Additionally, the characteristics of shared

197 responsibility, continuous development, risk taking and empowerment had slightly higher mean scores in five of the six project managers survey results than in the team survey results for the middle-performing teams. Interestingly, the characteristic of charisma had a slightly higher mean score in four of the six project managers survey results than in the team survey results for the six teams (Appendix S). Based on the project managers survey results and team performance data, the performance of the middle-performing teams may be due to the project manager promoting interteam relationships, group interests, and empowering the team to get the job done. The lower mean scores for the team in all characteristics indicated the middleperforming teams might be less likely to take risks than the high-performing teams. Additionally, the focus of the project managers appeared to be toward individual efforts or on the interests of the group as a whole (Appendix S). Among the three teams in the bottom-performing category based on the performance report, all characteristics had a slightly higher mean score in the project managers survey results than in the project teams survey results, with the exception of charisma, which had a slightly lower mean score in the project managers survey. Additionally, the characteristics of common vision and group interests had slightly higher mean scores in the project managers survey results for all three middle-performing teams than in the team survey results. Interestingly, Team Ps mean scores for all characteristics were higher than the other two teams (Appendix S). The results indicate the project managers for Team D and Team F may not be effective in promoting interteam relationships, which may be affecting the performance of the team. However, Team Ps survey results for both project manager and project team indicate the team is satisfied

198 with the performance of the project manager. The survey results did not indicate why Team P might be performing poorly (Appendix S). Based on the comparisons of the project team survey results and project manager survey results when compiled into the three categories of high-, middle-, and bottomperforming teams, it appeared that in all cases the leadership characteristic of charisma consistently scored relatively the same. Additionally, in the high-performing teams, the characteristics of mutual influence relationships, risk taking, and collaboration were consistent among the three teams. The leadership characteristics of continuous development, group interests, and collaboration in the project managers survey also scored consistently below the team survey results (Appendix S). Research Questions The following guiding questions focused the research study: 1. Is there a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project manager and the project managers performance as perceived by the project managers project team members? 2. Is there a relationship between a project managers leadership styles and the project managers effectiveness? Each of the two research questions was examined to understand the relationship between each of the independent variables of leadership characteristics and the dependent variable of team performance. The research questions were examined to determine whether the independent variables of leadership characteristics individually correlated with team performance through an examination of the correlation coefficients for the project manager and project team surveys (Appendices U and V).

199 Appendices U and V displays the correlation coefficient matrixes between team performance and leadership characteristics for combined project manager (Appendix U) and project team (Appendix V) surveys. The statistical significant level was set at p< .05. The correlation measured the linear relationship between leadership characteristics and team performance for combined project manager and project team surveys. The normality of the survey responses was studied by measuring the skewness, the frequency distribution, and the kurtosis of a curve (Creswell, 2005). A normal curve is one that is symmetrical or has no skewness. A positively skewed curve is one in which the mean is greater than the median or mode. A negatively skewed curve is one in which the mean is the smallest of the mean, median and mode (Creswell, 2005). The closer the values of kurtosis and skewness are, the closer the responses are to a normal distribution (Creswell, 2005). Positive kurtosis values indicate a pointy distribution, while negative kurtosis values indicate a flat distribution. The descriptive statistics for the dependent variable and each of the independent variables are shown in Appendix T. The descriptive statistics include a summary of the means, standard deviations, standard error, kurtosis, skewness, minimum and maximum scores. To address the first research question, it is important to examine the effect of each of the nine leadership characteristics of project managers on team performance from the combined project team survey. The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated no significant correlation between the independent variable of charisma and team performance, r = 0.16 and a probability p = 0.00 (Appendix V). The dispersion for charisma was negatively skewed with a value of -0.91 and a kurtosis test showed a value of 0.81 (Appendix T).

200 The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated a low degree of positive correlation between the independent variable of shared responsibility and team performance, r = 0.30 and a probability p = 0.01 (Appendix V). The dispersion for shared responsibility was negatively skewed with a value of -0.60 and a kurtosis test showed a value of 0.08 (Appendix T). The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated a low degree of positive correlation between the independent variable of continuous development and team performance, r = 0.26 and a probability p = 0.02 (Appendix V). The dispersion for continuous development was negatively skewed with a value of -0.42 and a kurtosis test showed a negative value of -0.27 (Appendix T). The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated a low degree of positive correlation between the independent variable of mutual influence relationships and team performance, r = 0.23 and a probability p = 0.01 (Appendix V). The dispersion for mutual influence relationships was negatively skewed with a value of -0.78 and a kurtosis test showed a positive value of 0.63 (Appendix T). The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated a low degree of positive correlation between the independent variable of common vision and team performance, r = 0.31 and a probability p = 0.01 (Appendix V). The dispersion for common vision was negatively skewed with a value of -0.71 and a kurtosis test showed a positive value of 0.64 (Appendix T). The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated there appeared to be a low degree of positive correlation between the independent variable of group interests and team performance, r = 0.24 and a probability p = 0.01 (Appendix V). The dispersion for group interests was negatively skewed with a value of -0.70 and a kurtosis test showed a positive value of 0.78 (Appendix T). The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated a low

201 degree of positive correlation between the independent variable of risk taking and team performance, r = 0.24 and a probability p = 0.01 (Appendix V). The dispersion for risk taking was negatively skewed with a value of -0.75 and a kurtosis test showed a positive value of 0.46 (Appendix T). The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated a low degree of positive correlation between the independent variable of collaboration and team performance, r = 0.30 and a probability p = 0.01 (Appendix V). The dispersion for collaboration was negatively skewed with a value of -0.79 and a kurtosis test showed a positive value of 1.56 (Appendix T). The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated a low degree of positive correlation between the independent variable of empowerment and team performance, r = 0.35 and a probability p = 0.01 (Appendix V). The dispersion for empowerment was negatively skewed with a value of -1.01 and a kurtosis test showed a positive value of 1.82 (Appendix T). Based on the information on skewness from the data in Appendix T, none of the leadership characteristics was normally distributed. To address the second research question, it is important to look at the effect of the nine leadership characteristics of project managers and project managers effectiveness from the combined project manager survey. The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated there appeared to be a low degree of positive correlation among the independent variables of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, collaboration, and team performance, r = 0.21, 0.33, 0.22, and 0.26, respectively, and a probability p = 0.00, 0.01, 0.01, and 0.00, respectively (Appendix U). The dispersion for charisma was negatively skewed with a value of -1.51, shared responsibility was negatively skewed with a value of -1.11, continuous development was negatively skewed

202 with a value of -0.24, collaboration was negatively skewed with a value of -0.07, and the kurtosis test showed a value of 2.33, 3.14, -0.42, and -0.95, respectively (Appendix T). Independent Variable Correlations Three of the nine independent variables examined in the project manager survey showed a low degree of positive correlation with the dependent variable of team performance. The correlation coefficient for the three independent variables varied from a low degree of correlation of r = 0.33 between team performance and shared responsibility to a slightly lower degree of correlation of r = 0.21 between team performance and charisma (Appendix U). Eight of the nine independent variables examined in the team survey showed some correlation with the dependent variable of team performance; the exception was charisma. The correlation coefficient for the eight independent variables in the team survey varied from a low degree of correlation of r = 0.39 between team performance and risk taking to a lower degree of correlation of r = 0.23 between team performance and mutual influence relationships (Appendix V). Additionally, the independent variables appeared to be correlated with each other in both the project manager and the team surveys. The correlation coefficient in the project manager survey varied from a very high degree of positive correlation of r = 0.86 between shared responsibility and charisma to a low degree of positive correlation of r = 0.40 between group interests and charisma (Appendix U). The correlation coefficient in the team survey varied from a very high degree of positive correlation of r = 0.94 between mutual influence relationships and common vision to a high degree of positive correlation of r = 0.61 between empowerment and continuous development (Appendix V).

203 The proportion of variance explained by shared responsibility and charisma showed an r2 value of 0.51 and a significance of p = 0.00, indicating that 50.83% of the variance in shared responsibility can be accounted for by a change in charisma in the project manager. The proportion of variance explained by group interests and charisma showed an r2 value of 0.42, indicating that 41.61% of the variance in group interests could be accounted for by a change in charisma, and a significance of p = 0.001. A significance of p = 0.001 indicates a correlation of the magnitude would be expected to be found less than one time in a thousand (Appendix U). Hypotheses The main problem the study evaluated is the relationship between the leadership styles of 17 project managers in 17 project teams consisting of 6-9 members and the team perception of the project managers leadership styles as the leadership styles of the project managers relate to project team performance. The answer to the question is determined through the examination of each of the two research questions, as well as through a multiple regression analysis and a MANOVA. The multiple regression analysis and the MANOVA were used in the determination to accept the directional hypothesis (Beck, 2003). The first null hypothesis, H01: R = 0, p [ .01, was that the combined project manager leadership characteristics of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision, mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment did not influence team performance as perceived by the project team members. The alternative hypothesis, Ha1: R <> 0, p [ .01, was that the combined project manager leadership characteristics of charisma, shared responsibility,

204 continuous development, common vision, mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment influence, either positively or negatively, team performance as perceived by the project team members. The second null hypothesis, H02: R = 0, p [ .01, for the study was that the combined project manager leadership characteristics of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision, mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment did not influence project manager effectiveness. The alternative hypothesis, Ha2: R <> 0, p [ .01, was that the combined project manager leadership characteristics of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, common vision, mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment influence, either positively or negatively, project manager effectiveness. The correlation coefficients for the r-squared and adjusted r-squared for the multiple regressions served as the test statistic for the hypotheses. The contribution of each independent variable was based on a stepwise multiple regression analysis in which only significant independent variables appeared. Examining the correlation coefficients through the regression analysis assessed the importance of significant independent variables to the study. Stepwise multiple regression analysis was used because it allows each variable to be entered in sequence and the value of each variable assessed for significance to the study (Dallal, 2001). If a variable contributes to the model, it is retained and variables that are no longer contributing to the success of the model are removed (Dallal, 2001). There may be limitations in using multiple regression analysis for the project manager study because of small number of samples. Minor variations in the data may

205 occur due to sampling which may affect the order in which variables are entered into the model, thus affecting the variable retention. However, the stepwise multiple regression analysis ensures the smallest possible sets of variables are included in the model (Dallal, 2001; Garson, 2007). Multiple Regression Analysis The multivariate regression analysis indicated there appeared to be a small correlation between the combined independent variable of leadership characteristics and the dependent variable of team performance, r = 0.19. From the coefficient of determination, r, approximately 3.42% of the variance can be attributed to the independent variables of leadership styles, r2 = 0.03 (Beck, 2003; Creswell, 2005). The adjusted r2 value (r2 = 0.03) indicated the variance in the dependent variables did not appear to be greatly affected by a change in the independent variables in the population (Table 19).

206 Table 19 Multiple Regression Summary Project Team Survey Parameter Dependent variable Number independent variables Weight variable R2 Adjusted R2 Coefficient of variation Mean square error Value Parameter Value 109 0 0

Performance Rows processed 9 None 0.04 0.03 0.13 1.49 Rows filtered out Rows with Xs missing

Rows with weight missing 0 Rows with Ys missing Rows used in estimation Sum of weights Completion status 0 109 109.00 Normal completion

Square root of mean square error 1.22

The multivariate regression analysis indicated there appeared to be a small correlation between the combined independent variable of leadership characteristics and the dependent variable of project manager effectiveness, r = 0.17. From the coefficient of determination, r, approximately 2.99% of the variance can be contributed to the independent variables of project manager effectiveness, r2 = 0.03 (Beck, 2003; Creswell, 2005). The adjusted r2 value indicated the variance in the dependent variables, leadership characteristics, did not appear to be affected by a change in the independent variables in the population, adjusted r2 = -0.04 (Table 20). The adjusted r-squared value estimated the value of r2 in the population rather than in the sample for the study.

207 Table 20 Multiple Regression Summary Project Manager Survey Parameter Dependent variable Number independent variables Weight variable R2 Adjusted R2 Coefficient of variation Mean square error Value Parameter Value 17 0 0

Performance Rows processed 9 None 0.03 -0.04 0.19 1.57 Rows filtered out Rows with Xs missing

Rows with weight missing 0 Rows with Ys missing Rows used in estimation Sum of weights Completion status 0 17 17.00 Normal completion

Square root of mean square error 1.25

Multiple Regression Equation The contribution of each dependent variable was based on a stepwise multiple regression in which only significant independent variables appeared. The multiple regression analysis was based on the following model: DV = 1*IV1 + 2*IV2 + 3*IV3+ 4*IV4 + 5*IV5 + 6*IV6+ + 7*IV7 + 8*IV8+ 9*IV9. DV was the outcome variable, 1 was the coefficient of the first predictor (IV1). Significant independent variables were determined by examining the contribution of the coefficients (1, 2, 3, etc.). Using the model, the data shown in Table 21 were used to approximate the model for predicting the dependent variables, team performance, based on the independent variables used in this study:

208 DV = 0.49 + 0.96*CHAR + 0 .15*SHAR + 0.97*CON + 0 .08*INFL + 0.62*VIS + 0.45*GRP - 0.06*RISK - 0.40*COLL + 0.34*EMP Table 21 Multiple Regression Equation Project Team Survey Regression Standard T-value to coefficient Independent variable Intercept Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Mutual influence relationships Common vision Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment 0.62 0.45 -0.06 0.40 0.34 0.67 0.74 0.78 0.79 0.75 0.93 0.60 -0.07 0.51 0.46 0.36 0.55 0.94 0.61 0.65 No No No No No 0.12 0.10 0.03 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.79 0.10 0.92 No 0.05 (i) 0.49 0.96 0.15 0.97 error Sb(i) 0.90 0.87 0.72 0.74 test H01:B(i)=0 1.95 1.10 0.21 1.30 Reject Power Probability H01 at of test level 0.93 0.28 0.84 0.19 5% No No No No at 5% 0.05 0.43 0.04 0.36

Using the model, the data shown in Table 22 were used to approximate the model for predicting the dependent variables, project manager effectiveness, based on the independent variables used in this study:

209 DV = -0.76 + 0.55*CHAR + 0 .80*SHAR + 0.68*CON - 0 .13*INFL + 0.09*VIS 0.08*GRP + 0.25*RISK + 1.09*COLL - 0.11*EMP Table 22 Multiple Regression Equation Project Manager Survey Regression Standard T-value to coefficient Independent variable Intercept Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Mutual influence relationships Common vision Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment 0.09 -0.08 0.25 1.09 -0.11 0.62 0.88 0.73 0.75 0.67 0.51 0.55 0.18 -0.95 0.72 0.62 0.59 0.86 0.36 0.48 No No No No No 0.62 0.59 0.86 0.36 0.48 -0.13 0.91 0.57 0.58 No 0.58 (i) -0.76 0.55 0.80 0.68 error Sb(i) 0.95 0.65 0.54 0.68 test H02:B(i)=0 -0.22 0.85 1.48 -0.41 Reject Power Probability H02 at of test level 0.83 0.41 0.16 0.69 5% No No No No at 5% 0.28 0.41 0.16 0.69

Multiple Analyses of Variance Analyses of variance of the multiple regression models are shown in Tables 25 and 26. The analysis indicated that the probability of getting a value of r2 = 0.03 as high as it is if the actual value in the population was zero is 92.76% for the independent

210 variable of team performance. The probability of getting a value of r2 = 0.03 as high as it is if the actual value in the population was zero is 82.98% for the independent variable of project manager effectiveness. The multiple regression analyses of variance (Tables 23 and 24) reported the degrees of freedom for each model, the coefficient of determination, and the sum of squares (Beck, 2003; Creswell, 2005). The mean square was calculated for each model by dividing the sum of squares by the degrees of freedom. The F-ratio was calculated by dividing the mean square of the model by the average difference between the model and the mean square of the error (Beck, 2003; Creswell, 2005). Finally, if the improvement due to fitting the regression model were much greater than the inaccuracy within the model, the value of F would be greater than 1.00. The Fratio value for the independent variables of shared responsibility (4.49), mutual influence relationships (4.06), common vision (2.40), group interests (2.69), risk taking (4.89), collaboration (2.52), and empowerment (3.14) were above 1.00. The probability that the variables were better at predicting the outcome than using the mean for the dependent variable of team performance ranged from 35.54% to 92.00%. The remaining independent variables of charisma and continuous development were below 1.00; therefore, it did not appear that the independent variables of charisma and continuous development might improve the ability to predict the dependent variable over the model (Table 23). Based on the data from the multiple regression analysis shown in Tables 23 and 24, the null hypotheses were not rejected for any of the independent variables used in this study.

211 Table 23 Multiple Regression Analyses of Variance Detail Report Project Team Survey Sum of Model term Intercept Model Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Mutual influence relationships Common vision Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Error Total (Adjusted) 1 1 1 1 1 90 109 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.73 1.00 0.62 0.59 0.86 0.36 0.4812 245.08 247.05 0.62 0.59 0.86 0.36 0.48 2.23 2.23 2.40 2.69 4.89 2.52 3.14 0.36 0.55 0.94 0.61 0.65 0.12 0.10 0.03 0.12 0.08 1 0.04 0.58 0.58 4.06 0.92 0.05 1 0.01 0.69 0.69 0.85 0.20 0.36 df 1 9 1 1 0.03 0.06 0.04 R2 squares 238.59 5.68 0.41 0.16 Mean square 238.59 2.26 0.41 0.16 3.79 0.63 4.49 0.93 0.28 0.84 0.05 0.43 0.04 F-ratio Probability Power level 5%

The F-ratio value for the independent variables of shared responsibility (2.20), continuous development (1.00), and collaboration (2.12) were above 1.00, the probability the variables were better at predicting the outcome than using the mean was 15.68%,

212 68.98%, and 35.74% respectively for the dependent variable of project manager effectiveness. The remaining independent variables had an F-ratio below 1.00; therefore, it did not appear that the remaining independent variable might improve the ability to predict the dependent variable over the model (Table 24). Table 24 Multiple Regression Analyses of Variance Detail Report Project Manager Survey Sum of Model term Intercept Model Charisma Shared responsibility Continuous development Mutual influence relationships Common vision Group interests Risk taking Collaboration Empowerment Error Total (Adjusted) 1 1 1 1 1 -2 17 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.60 1.00 0.62 0.59 0.86 0.36 0.48 33.30 38.12 0.62 0.59 0.86 0.36 0.48 2.47 2.47 0.02 0.01 0.12 2.12 0.03 0.62 0.59 0.86 0.36 0.48 0.62 0.59 0.86 0.36 0.48 df 1 9 1 1 1 1 0.03 0.05 0.13 0.06 0.00 R2 squares 35.73 2.47 0.41 0.16 0.69 0.58 Mean square F-ratio 36.98 2.47 0.41 0.16 0.69 0.58 0.46 0.72 2.20 1.00 0.02 0.83 0.41 0.16 0.69 0.58 0.28 0.41 0.16 0.69 0.58 Probability Power level - 5%

213 Summary The quantitative, descriptive study evaluated the relationship between the leadership styles of 17 project managers in 17 project teams consisting of 6-9 members and the team members perception of the project managers leadership styles as the leadership styles relate to project team performance in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. Additionally, the effects of the individual independent variables on the dependent variable of team performance and project manager effectiveness were examined. The quantitative, descriptive study examined two research questions. Based on the survey data gathered through the study, the correlation between the project managers leadership styles and team performance among the teams participating was small. Additionally, there only appeared to be a correlation between the independent variables of charisma, shared responsibility, and collaboration and the dependent variable of team performance, and the research question that asked if there is a relationship between a project managers leadership styles and project managers effectiveness did not appear to have a strong correlation through the survey data alone. The results of the multiple regressions and multiple analyses of variance support the conclusion that there is not a strong correlation between project managers leadership styles and team performance among the teams in the study. However, there appeared to be a small correlation between the project managers leadership styles and project manager effectiveness. Based on the project manager survey, the characteristics of collaboration and shared responsibility received higher scores more than any of the remaining seven leadership characteristics across all teams and appeared, individually, as

214 the second and first variables, respectively, in the multiple regression analyses. Finally, there appeared to be a high degree of positive correlation between the independent variables collaboration and shared responsibility, r = 0.79. Chapter 4 presented a complete description and analyses of the results of the data collection and provided detail analyses of the survey data. Chapter 5 follows with a conclusion of the study and clarifies the data analyses of chapter 4. Chapter 5 also includes inferred results and provides necessary recommendations based on the findings.

215 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The intent of chapter 5 is to identify and interpret the important results of the data and summarize and make recommendations for future research. The data analyzed in chapter 4 will be discussed, highlighting the importance, significance, and potential meaning of the research results. Chapter 5 is organized into 12 discussion sections: (a) problem statement, (b) purpose statement, (c) hypotheses, (d) limitations, (e) results and conclusions of the study, (f) conclusions of research questions, (g) conclusions of research hypotheses, (h) implications, (i) recommendations, (j) significance to industry, (k) significance to leadership, and (l) summary. Problem Statement The general problem examined, the influence that leadership styles of project managers have on team performance in the construction industry in southeastern United States, was presented in a study by Ammeter and Dukerich (2002) on eight highperformance project teams in the construction, manufacturing, and military service industries in Canada and United States. Ammeter and Dukerich found 67% of respondents indicated that team leader behaviors are highly influential to team performance (p. 5). According to Ammeter and Dukerich, a project managers role is to set and communicate the desired goals and values to the team. The result of wellcommunicated goals and objectives by project managers is improved team performance (Israel & Kasper, 2004; Kuo, 2004; Sumner et al., 2006). The specific problem addressed was the lack of effective leadership and management practices in the construction industry, which may result in time-wasting, unnecessary costs, and increased errors in projects (Love et al., 2004). Badger and

216 Kashiwagi (2004) reported on a research effort into U.S. construction projects that found 49% of owners did not want to work with the construction team again, only 56% of construction projects were completed on time, and only 41% of projects were completed within budget (p. 23). Badger and Kashiwagi suggested the construction industry could benefit from improved leadership and project management. Understanding the leadership characteristics that allow project managers to be effective leaders may offer an organization the opportunity for continued improvement. The intent of the study was to evaluate if a relationship exists between the leadership styles of 17 project managers, the independent variable, and team members perception of the project managers leadership styles on team performance, the dependent variable, in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. Purpose Statement The purpose of the quantitative, correlational study was to evaluate the relationship between the leadership styles of 17 project managers, the criterion variable, in 17 project teams consisting of 6-9 members and the team members perception of the project managers leadership styles as the leadership styles relate to project team performance, the predictable variables, in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. The methodology used established standards for leadership analysis to evaluate the relative level of leadership styles of project managers in the construction industry. The research tools used in data collection answered the following questions: 1. Is there a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project manager and the project managers performance as perceived by the project managers project team members?

217 2. Is there a relationship between a project managers leadership styles and the project managers effectiveness? Two self-assessment survey instruments were used. Project managers of teams completed a survey developed by the researcher. The project managers team members completed a similar survey. The participants completed an online survey, which was subjected to Cronbachs coefficient alpha test for internal validation; the survey attempted to identify causal influences that may result in differences in project managers leadership styles and team members perception of the project managers leadership styles. A statistical analysis system was used to conduct the analysis of the data and to find correlations. The survey data were cross-referenced with the team performance evaluation from quarterly project performance reports obtained from the operation managers of the organizations that participated in the study and the completion of the self-assessment survey tools (Appendices A and B). The responses to the self-assessment surveys were aligned with the teams performance scores. Hypotheses The hypotheses for the research study were used to evaluate the relationship between the leadership styles of 17 project managers in 17 project teams consisting of 6-9 members and the team perception of the project managers leadership styles as the leadership styles relate to project team performance. The hypotheses were answered through the analysis of the statistical survey data in comparison to the performance of the individual teams. The hypotheses included two null hypotheses and two directional hypotheses:

218 H01: There is no relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project manager and the project managers performance as perceived by the project managers team members. Ha1: There is a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project manager and the project managers performance as perceived by project managers team members. H02: There is no relationship between a project managers leadership styles and project managers effectiveness. Ha2: There is a relationship between a project managers leadership styles and project managers effectiveness. Limitations There are limitations that may have affected the study. The first limitation is that the researcher may not have been able to interpret accurately the data collected from respondents. The possibility that some of the respondents may have lacked reflection or knowledge concerning issues of leadership and the role of project management is also to be considered. Another limitation is the study may not be a direct representation of the larger population of project teams in the construction industry. According to Lukawetz (2002), individuals who use the Internet less frequently are less likely to respond to a survey and often respond late when they do eventually respond. Because some of the team members work in remote locations, they may not have had access to the Internet. Another limitation is the interpretation of the data may have researcher bias embedded in it because the researcher works in the construction industry. Finally, there was a potential for problems to occur in maintaining security and confidentiality in a Web

219 survey such as this study. The researcher relied on the online survey provider to provide needed security and confidentiality for the study. Results and Conclusions of the Study The following discussion of the results of the two research questions draws the conclusions and implications of the findings. The conclusions for the two questions led to the acceptance of the directional study hypotheses. In response to the question of whether there is a relationship between the leadership characteristics of a project manager and the project managers performance as perceived by the project managers team members, it is important to look at the effect of each of the nine leadership characteristics of project managers on team performance from the project team survey. The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated there appeared to be no significant correlation between the independent variable of charisma and team performance, r = 0.16 with a significance of p = 0.00. Among the eight teams ranked as top performing, the characteristic of charisma had a higher mean score in the project managers survey and project team results. The result of the analysis indicated a project managers leadership characteristic of charisma, individually, is not an important factor in influencing team performance as perceived by the project team. The result is consistent with research that indicated a charismatic leaders personal needs for attention and affirmation might promote group thinking, which may discourage honest communication and necessary constructive confrontation with disconfirming data (Banutu-Gomez, 2004). One plausible explanation for the result may be that the leadership characteristic of charisma, individually, may not have a strong effect on team performance, but combining leadership characteristic of charisma with the other eight characteristics may yield a different outcome. Previous

220 research indicated that to add positive meaning to the identities of project members, a charismatic leader behaves in admirable ways that cause every member of the team to work together in improving organizational goals (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Future research may examine how project managers who model charismatic leadership behavior may affect team focus and actions. In response to the question of whether there is a relationship between the leadership characteristics of shared responsibility and a project managers performance as perceived by the project managers team members, the bivariate correlation coefficient indicated there appeared to be a low degree of positive correlation between the independent variable of shared responsibility and team performance, r = 0.30 with a significance of p = 0.00. Among the eight teams ranked as top performing, the characteristic of shared responsibility had the same mean score in the project managers survey and project team results. The result of the analysis indicated a project managers leadership characteristic of shared responsibility, individually, appeared to be an important factor in influencing team performance as perceived by the project team. The result is consistent with research that indicated leaders build followers by sharing power and assigning critical tasks to followers (Murray, 2004). When power sharing is achieved, leaders may be successful in increasing the competency of followers. One plausible explanation for the result may be the leadership characteristic of shared responsibility, individually, may have a slight effect on team performance and when combined with the other eight characteristics may have a stronger effect on team performance. Future research may examine how project

221 managers looking at completing projects on schedule and within a specified budget can share responsibilities with team members. In response to the question of whether there is a relationship between the leadership characteristic of continuous development and a project managers performance as perceived by the project managers team members, the bivariate correlation coefficient indicated there appeared to a low degree to be a positive correlation between the independent variable of continuous development and team performance, r = 0.26 with a significance of p = 0.02. Among the eight teams ranked as top performing, the characteristics of continuous development had a higher mean score consistently on the project managers survey results than in comparison to the team survey results for the eight teams. The result of the analysis indicated a project managers leadership characteristic of continuous development, individually, appeared to be an important factor in influencing team performance as perceived by the project team. The result is consistent with research that posited most leadership development occurs on the job. Hence, the most important responsibility of a leader is to develop other leaders (Hurt & Holman, 2005). When power sharing is achieved, leaders will be successful in increasing the competency of followers. One plausible explanation for the result may be the leadership characteristic of continuous development, individually, may have a slight effect on team performance and when combined with the other eight characteristics the leadership characteristic of continuous development may have a stronger effect on team performance.

222 In response to the question of whether there is a relationship between the leadership characteristic of common vision and a project managers performance as perceived by the project managers team members, the bivariate correlation coefficient indicated there appeared to be a low degree of a positive correlation between the independent variable of common vision and team performance, r = 0.31 with a significance of p = 0.00. Among the eight teams ranked as top performing, the characteristic of common vision had a higher mean score in five of the eight teams on the project teams survey results in comparison to the project managers survey results. The result of the analysis indicated a project managers leadership characteristic of common vision, individually, appeared to be an important factor in influencing team performance as perceived by the project team. The result is consistent with research that indicated the project manager is responsible for painting a clear image of the vision to the team, and the common vision should tie into the goals of the project and organization (Lucas, 1998). When employees are given well-defined roles and vision, there tends to be harmony, and performance on projects increases. One plausible explanation for the result may be that the leadership characteristic of common vision, individually, may have a slight effect on team performance and when combined with the other eight characteristics may have a stronger effect on team performance. In response to the question of whether there is a relationship between the leadership characteristic of mutual influence relationships and the project managers performance as perceived by the project managers team members, the bivariate correlation coefficient indicated there appeared to be a low degree of positive correlation between the independent variable of mutual influence relationships and team

223 performance, r = 0.23 with a significance of p = 0.01. Among the eight teams ranked as top performing, the characteristic of mutual influence relationships had a higher mean score in six of the eight teams on the project teams survey results in comparison to the project managers survey results. The result of the analysis indicated a project managers leadership characteristic of mutual influence relationships, individually, appeared to be an important factor in influencing team performance as perceived by the project team. The result is consistent with research that indicated diversity of opinions and people is essential to team cooperation and team building (Backstrom, 2004). Mutually influencing relationships can be enhanced if the project manager creates an environment that allows team members to provide meaningful feedback to the project manager and the team without negative consequences. One plausible explanation for the result may be that the leadership characteristic of mutual influence relationships, individually, may have a slight effect on team performance and when combined with the other eight characteristics may have a stronger effect on team performance. Future research might examine how team members might influence each other without exercising authority over each other. In response to the question of whether there is a relationship between the leadership characteristic of group interests and a project managers performance as perceived by the project managers team members, the bivariate correlation coefficient indicated there appeared to be a low degree of positive correlation between the independent variable of group interests and team performance, r = 0. 0.24 with a significance of p = 0.01. Among the eight teams ranked as top performing, the

224 characteristics of group interests had a higher mean score in five of the eight teams on the project teams survey results in comparison to the project managers survey results. The result of the analysis indicated that a project managers leadership characteristic of group interests, individually, appeared to be an important factor in influencing team performance as perceived by the project team. The result is consistent with research that indicated project managers ought to be capable of handling the task and the relational aspect of project management (Cicmil, 2006; Graetz, 2002). The relational aspect of project management involves having the skills necessary to provide the motivating environment that may induce project team members to work as a team to accomplish the objectives (Stacey, 2003). One plausible explanation for the result may be that the leadership characteristics of group interests, individually, may have a slight effect on team performance and when combined with the other eight characteristics may have a stronger effect on team performance. In response to the question of whether there is a relationship between the leadership characteristic risk taking and a project managers performance as perceived by the project managers team members, the bivariate correlation coefficient indicated there appeared to a low degree to be a positive correlation between the independent variable of risk taking and team performance, r = 0. 0.24 with a significance of p = 0.01. Among the eight teams ranked as top performing, the characteristic of risk taking had a higher mean score in four of the eight teams on the project teams survey results in comparison to the project managers survey results. The result of the analysis indicated that a project managers leadership characteristic of risk taking, individually, appeared to be an important factor in

225 influencing team performance as perceived by the project team. The result is consistent with research that noted, Any proposed action by a leader entails risk (Salacuse, 2006, p. 4). The act of taking risks to achieve desired results is one of the benefits a project manager in the construction industry brings to the team. One plausible explanation for the result may be the leadership characteristic of risk taking, individually, may have a slight effect on team performance and when combined with the other eight characteristics may have a stronger effect on team performance. Future research might examine a teams willingness and ability to engage in risky decision making in comparison to the performance of the team after the implementation of the decisions. In response to the question of whether there is a relationship between the leadership characteristic of collaboration and a project managers performance as perceived by the project managers team members, the bivariate correlation coefficient indicated there appeared to be a low degree of positive correlation between the independent variable of collaboration and team performance, r = 0. 0.30 with a significance of p = 0.01. Among the eight teams that were ranked as top performing, the characteristics of collaboration had a higher mean score in four of the eight teams on the project teams survey results in comparison to the project managers survey results. The result of the analysis indicated a project managers leadership characteristic of collaboration, individually, appeared to be an important factor in influencing team performance as perceived by the project team. The result is consistent with research that indicated a team leader tends to exert effects that are positive or negative on group effort, collaboration, cohesion, goal selection, performance norms, and goal attainment (Cicmil & Marshall, 2005; C. Fisher, 2005). The project manager, through focusing on the group,

226 creates an atmosphere that may require collaboration among team members. One plausible explanation for the result may be that the leadership characteristics of collaboration, individually, may have a slight effect on team performance and when combined with the other eight characteristics may have a stronger effect on team performance. In response to the question of whether there is a relationship between the leadership characteristic empowerment and a project managers performance as perceived by the project managers team members, the bivariate correlation coefficient indicated there appeared to be a low degree of positive correlation between the independent variable of empowerment and team performance, r = 0. 0.35 with a significance of p = 0.01. Among the eight teams ranked as top performing, the characteristics of collaboration had a higher mean score in four of the eight teams on the project teams survey results in comparison to the project managers survey results. The result of the analysis indicated a project managers leadership characteristic of empowerment, individually, appeared to be an important factor in influencing team performance as perceived by the project team. The result is consistent with research that suggested a project manager ought to be able to charge the team with the responsibility for work preparation, support, and control (Kendra & Taplin, 2004) rather than restrict the functions to a few team members. One plausible explanation for the result may be that the leadership characteristic of empowerment, individually, may have a slight effect on team performance and when combined with the other eight characteristics may have a stronger effect on team performance.

227 In response to the second research question, if there is a relationship between a project managers leadership styles and the project managers effectiveness, it is important to look at the combined effect of the nine leadership characteristics of project managers and project managers effectiveness through the project manager survey. The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated there appeared to be a low degree of positive correlation between the independent variables of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, and collaboration and team performance, r = 0.21, 0.33, 0.22, and 0.26, respectively, and a significance of p = 0.00, 0.01, 0.01, and 0.00, respectively. The bivariate correlation coefficient indicated that there did not appear to be a significant correlation between the independent variables of mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk taking, common vision, and empowerment and team performance, r = 0.06, 0.01, 0.02, -0.13, and -0.11, respectively, and a significance of p = 0.01, 0.01, 0.00, 0.00, and 0.00 respectively. Among the eight teams ranked as top performing, the characteristics of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, and collaboration had a higher mean score in at least five of the eight teams on the project managers survey results in comparison to the project teams survey results. The leadership characteristics of collaboration had a lower mean score in three of the teams on the project managers survey results in comparison to the project teams survey results. The continuous development of team members and showing team members how to conduct tasks in an efficient manner is one of the roles of an effective project manager in the construction industry (Thomas & Cheese, 2005). To improve team performance, organizations in the construction industry may need to focus on improving team member

228 relationships (Bolton, 2005; Kuo, 2004). The result of the analysis indicated project managers leadership style of charisma and empowering the team appeared to be an important factor in influencing project manager effectiveness. For project managers to be effective, it is important for the project manager to empower the different professionals on the team to take the responsibility of managing project changes. Empowering different professionals may involve teams performing a variety of change roles, on a full- or a parttime basis, for extended or relatively short periods (Bryde, 2003). The strength of the project managers in the construction industry lies in the relationships the project managers developed, team collaboration, and continuous development of members, all factors that ought to be noticeable in the project teams the managers lead. The correlation of the nine leadership characteristics is important to future research, project managers, leaders, employees, organizations, and project teams, because the correlation of the nine leadership characteristics indicated a strong relationship between the various leadership characteristics. The leadership characteristics examined in the study may be valuable for future research in the area of project management and for current project managers, leaders, and employees in understanding the project managers leadership characteristics required in project teams in organizations in the construction industry. The survey data indicate project managers need to focus on continuous development of the team. It is evident from the findings of the study that a combination of the leadership characteristics examined in the study would allow project managers of project teams to be effective in managing the team.

229 Conclusions of Research Questions The result of the analysis is that charisma, individually, is not an important leadership characteristic for project managers in performing effectively and influencing team performance. One possible alternative explanation for the result may be that charisma may not have a strong effect on team performance but when combined in a team with the other eight characteristics, the combined effect might influence team performance. Project manager leadership characteristic of collaboration appeared to have the highest mean score for each of the teams in both the project team and the project manager surveys, individually and when the data were combined. Collaboration had the second highest correlation with team performance in the project manager survey, with correlation r = 0.23, closely behind shared responsibility which has correlation r = 0.33 (Appendix U). Additionally, empowerment and common vision showed the least correlation with team performance, r = -0.11 and -0.13, respectively, in the project manager survey results, yet had the second and third highest correlation in the project team survey results (Appendix V). The results indicated although the project team members might perceive the project managers as not influencing the team performance through the project managers leadership styles, the project managers think otherwise. The survey results support the conclusion because, in most of the responses to the surveys, the project manager had higher mean scores than the project team for same leadership characteristics and styles. The leadership characteristic of collaboration showed the greatest potential for being able to affect the dependent variable team performance and the leadership style charisma

230 showed the greatest potential for being able to affect project manager effectiveness yet had a low degree of correlation with team performance in the project manager survey. There appeared to be a strong correlation between the independent variables in the project manager and in the team surveys. The combined study results appeared to support both the relationship between the independent variables and the team perception of the importance of the leadership characteristics of project managers to the team performance in the construction industry within the project teams that participated in the study. Conclusions of Research Hypotheses The results of the relationship between the two research questions and the nine characteristics of project manager leadership styles were used to answer the hypotheses Ha1 and Ha2 and the null hypotheses H01 and H02. A multivariate regression analysis indicated approximately 3.42% of the change in team performance could be attributed to the combined independent variables of leadership styles of project managers in the team survey. Additionally, 2.99% of the change in team performance could be attributed to the independent variables of project manager effectiveness in the project manager survey. The survey results indicated that among the teams that participated in the study, the combined leadership characteristics did not appear to have a strong effect on the teams performance metrics. When the results of the teams surveys, project managers surveys, and team performance data were analyzed through the assessment of each of the research questions, it appeared there is some correlation between project manager leadership characteristics and team performance and project manager effectiveness. From the project managers survey results, charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, and collaboration showed some correlation with team performance. Shared responsibility,

231 continuous development, common vision, mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment also appeared correlated through the crossreferencing of the project team survey and team performance. Based on a comparison of the performance survey results, the teams that had the best team performance scores also have project managers who consistently show higher levels of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, and collaboration in comparison to the project teams survey results. Three high-performing teams also showed a high score in the areas of common vision and risk taking, with a lower score in group interests, mutual influence relationships, and empowerment in both the team and the project manager surveys. The results from the project manager survey of the teams that had the lowest performance were less consistent. While two teams showed higher mean scores on all leadership characteristics, one of the teams showed lower mean scores in the project manager survey of shared responsibility, mutual influence relationships, group interests, risk taking, and empowerment. Based on the findings that eight of the leadership characteristics showed some correlation through the team survey data and team performance scores, the null hypothesis is rejected and project managers leadership characteristics are accepted as influencing team performance. Based on the findings that four of the leadership characteristics showed some correlation through the project managers survey data and team performance scores, the null hypothesis, there is no relationship between a project managers leadership styles and the project managers effectiveness, is rejected and project managers leadership styles are accepted as influencing project manager effectiveness.

232 Implications There are four implications to the study: (a) the identification of the interrelationships between the nine leadership characteristics, (b) the finding that leadership characteristics of project manager affected team performance, (c) the finding that leadership characteristics of project manager affected project manager effectiveness, and (d) the uncovering of the leadership characteristics that appeared to have the greatest affect on team performance and project manager effectiveness. An important outcome of the study is the discovery that some of the project managers perceived themselves as doing a better job when compared to the responses from the respective teams. In the analysis of all teams, it 9 of 17 project managers had a mean score higher than the project team. Interestingly, 2 of 9, which represents 22.22% of the project managers with a higher mean score, also scored lower in the performance report. Among the project managers with lower mean scores than the project team, the project managers appeared to be more focused on individual efforts or on the interests of the group than on performing. Another important outcome of the study is the discovery that even though the leadership styles of project managers and team performance were not strongly correlated among the teams surveyed, the data indicated the independent variables were strongly correlated with each other. The result is accentuated through the coefficients of correlation presented in Appendices T and U. The result of the correlations indicated a change in one variable might effect or cause a change in the other. The effect of each independent variable on the dependent variable is not strongly influenced by the remaining variables in the project managers survey. The findings supported the notion

233 that the combined leadership characteristics of project manager affected team performance. The results indicated while the individual team members perceived the importance and relationship between the independent variables, the research is unable to associate leadership characteristic variables with the performance report of the teams through the statistical analysis. The examination of the project manager survey and the team survey results indicates in the high-performing teams the leadership characteristics of shared responsibility, risk taking, and empowerment received similar scores in both the project manager and the team surveys. The next most important leadership characteristics in the high performing teams appeared to be charisma and common vision, where the project managers received a favorable score from the project teams. One of the influences on the study results could result from the common belief among individuals in the construction industry that technical skills rather than management skills are more important for managing projects (Cowie, 2003). The success of projects is not limited to the technical skills of project managers. Rather, the success of a project often depends on people-related and management issues. Project managers trained in interpersonal skills could achieve success in managing and leading teams. It is rather easy to transition to a learning organization where project managers receive training on teamwork and performance because most organizations in the construction industry use project teams to execute the organizations tasks. Project managers of teams ought to have authority, accountability, and responsibility for the team, projects, and services. The lack of effective leadership training for project managers in some of the

234 participating organizations may have negatively affected the project managers mean scores due to how the teams perceived the project managers leadership styles. Recommendations One recommendation is for future research to examine the leadership characteristics found in high performing teams in the study. The leadership characteristics of collaboration, charisma, continuous development and common vision received higher mean scores in both project manager and project team surveys. Future research might examine the relationships of collaborative efforts on group performance; relationship between leadership characteristics of charisma and the attainment of team goals, and how organizations may respond rapidly to changing business environments by drawing comparisons of continuous team-based developmental activities and organizations developmental activities. Future research might examine how project managers of functional teams can generate and maintain clear vision for the team. Future research may examine leaders in the construction industry who personifies the leadership characteristics of collaboration, continuous personal and team development, and common vision. The study indicated project managers leadership styles might not have a direct relationship on the performance of the teams. Several factors might have influenced the findings of the study: (a) the validation of the tool, (b) the organizational performance metrics, and (c) the team structure of participating organizations. The first recommendation addressing the factors that might have influenced the findings is based on the tools used in the study, which has not been used in prior study. At the time the studies were conducted, there did not appear to be a tool available that examined the nine

235 leadership characteristics to be surveyed in the study. Six different self-assessment surveys were reviewed and survey tools for the study were derived from the surveys. Therefore, the 11-person pilot team served as the validation for the tool developed for the study. While the pilot team was representative of the remaining teams that participated in the study, the validation may have been improved through using several teams from different organizations in the construction industry. Therefore, the first recommendation would be for the survey tool to be further validated based on the outcome of the study and through additional use in different team-oriented organizations. The second recommendation is that the performance metrics used to assess team performance be examined for the strength of the relationship to the performance of the teams that participated in the study. The performance reports used for the study included three variables; all variables may be difficult for the operation managers of participating teams to relate directly to the performance of the teams. The performance metrics used to assess the performance of teams may need to be expanded to include other factors such as scope of project, design, and construction budget, type of project, project management training, team composition, quality assurance, and years of experience of project managers. Such factors may provide a broader perspective on other variables that affect the production level of the team. The third recommendation is based on the influence of the organizational structure on team performance. The structure of the organization is important to ensuring high performance by project managers and project teams. As the business structure changes in the construction industry, the need to prepare new leadership to embrace new ideas also changes. For project managers to manage projects effectively, the project

236 managers should employ a combination of leadership styles that suit the team the project manager leads. In most instances, the performance of project teams is directly linked to the ability of the project manager to include all members of the team in decision making, especially in the decisions that affect the employees tasks. An organization that expresses high concern for both people and production; builds on the insights of the team; focuses the team through clarifying visions and goals; and promotes a culture of freedom, collaboration, and accountability will be effective in obtaining better results from the project managers and project teams. Significance to Industry The study may benefit the construction industry because the industry is highly oriented toward project management and team collaboration; hence, the result may help project managers improve team performance. The results may help improve the project management fields awareness of team performance as influenced by the project managers leadership style, adaptability, and effectiveness. Construction companies will tend to benefit the most from an improvement in leadership styles of project managers. The construction industry relies on teams of various professionals to execute construction projects. The need for project managers to manage projects and teams effectively is increasing. Managing and performance of construction projects and teams often depends on the effectiveness of project managers. By improving team performance, project managers may be more adept at communicating organization vision, setting directions, and responding to the needs of employees. When the project manager values employees efforts, the employees may decide to stay on the job longer. By staying on the job longer, there may be a reduction in

237 personnel turnover. The study may also benefit any business environment that relies on project management skills for its operation because the study will provide information on how leadership characteristics exhibited by project managers affect the performance of the team the leader leads. Significance to Leadership The significance of the study on the influence of project managers on team performance to leadership is that the study shows the influence of project managers leadership styles on the performance of project teams. The study may provide a path forward for improvements in organizational learning when applied to project leadership by suggesting improvements in the leadership styles of project managers as the leadership styles influence the outcomes of project cost, schedule, and performance. Another significant contribution of the study is the potential to influence the culture of an organization through training and educating organizational members in leadership characteristics. Because an organizations culture is created through a shared belief system, it may be possible to enhance and improve the culture of the organization through targeted training programs for project managers and team members. The study may benefit the field of organizational systems, of which leadership is a component, by signifying the nature of leadership styles needed by project managers of project teams to enable high team performance in an organizational environment. The study revealed the leadership characteristic of collaboration is more prominent in highperforming teams than other leadership characteristics in the study. The study builds on current leadership studies by providing an understanding of the greater role that effective leadership play in organizations that rely on project teams.

238 Summary The study used a quantitative method, project manager and project team surveys and performance reports on participating teams, to examine different leadership characteristics, and the relationships among the leadership characteristics were examined to determine if any change in one variable would have an effect on the others. Although the study did not find a strong statistical correlation between project managers leadership styles and the performance of the teams and project manager effectiveness, the study was able to correlate the variables that appeared to form project managers leadership styles. The study found correlation between eight of the project managers leadership characteristics with team performance and four of the project managers leadership styles with project manager effectiveness. The independent and dependent variables were addressed through an extensive review of current literature on leadership theories. As organizational structures continue to evolve into a more team-oriented focus, it will be necessary for organizations to recognize the influence of effective leadership on team performance. Five of the leadership characteristics variables (charisma, shared responsibility, common vision, risk taking, collaboration, and empowerment) were consistently found to have higher mean scores in the project manager and project team surveys in the top-performing teams within the study. The trait theory of leadership believes people are endowed with some traits from birth that make an individual an effective leader. According to Stodgill (1974), traits such as adaptability to situations, attentiveness to the environment, supportive attitude, decision-making ability, desire to influence others, and willingness to assume responsibility are essential to effective leadership. The relational theory of leadership

239 involves an inclusive process whereby people and diverse opinions are valued and encouraged. An examination of all high-performing team scores revealed that in seven of nine participating teams, the leadership characteristics of mutual influence relationships and collaboration were consistent in the project manager survey more than the project team survey results indicated. The result of the analysis of the project manager survey indicated project managers leadership characteristics of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, and collaboration, individually, appeared to be important factors in influencing project manager effectiveness. The leadership characteristics of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, and collaboration consistently received higher scores in five of the eight teams that received high performance scores. Therefore, the project managers leadership characteristics of charisma, shared responsibility, continuous development, and collaboration were all positive contributors to the performance of the participating teams. The findings of the study could identify different areas of focus for future research. For organizations that are project-management driven and team oriented, the findings may provide a better understanding of the relationships between project managers leadership characteristics and styles within the organization and effective leadership and improved team performance. The results of the study may enable project managers to recognize the responsibility for the performance of the teams is the responsibility of the entire team, rather than of a single individual.

240 REFERENCES Allio, R. (2005). Leadership development: Teaching versus learning. Management Decision, 43, 1071-1077. Retrieved November 30, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Ammeter, A., & Dukerich, J. M. (2002). Leadership, team building, and team member characteristics in high performance project teams. Engineering Management Journal, 14(4), 3-11. Retrieved March 30, 2005, from ProQuest database. Arena, M. J. (2002). Changing the way we change. Organizational Development Journal, 20(2), 33-48. Retrieved March 17, 2005, from ProQuest database. Augustine, S., Payne, B., Sencindiver, F., & Woodcock, S. (2005). Agile project management: Steering from the edges. Communication of the ACM, 49(12), 8590. Retrieved December 2, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Avolio, B., J., Zhu, A., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951-968. Retrieved March 7, 2006, from ProQuest database. Backstrom, T. (2004). Collective learning: A way over the ridge to a new organizational attractor. The Learning Organization, 11(6), 466-477. Retrieved August 7, 2006, from ProQuest database. Bacon, N., & Blyton, P. (2003). The impact of teamwork on skills: Employee perceptions of who gains and who loses. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(2), 1329. Retrieved August 7, 2004, from ProQuest database. Bader, G. E., Bloom, A. E., & Chang, R. Y. (1994). Measuring team performance: A

241 practical guide to tracking team success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Badger, B., & Kashiwagi, D. (2004). Leadership principles vs management control. Specialty Conference on Leadership and Management in Construction, Hilton Head, SC: Construction Research Council, American Society of Civil Engineers. Retrieved January 26, 2007, from http://www.caledonian.ac.uk/bne/downloads/ ResearchReview.pdf Banutu-Gomez, M. B. (2003). Leadership in the government of the Gambia: Traditional African leadership practice, shared vision, accountability and willingness and openness to change. Journal of American Academy of Business, 2, 349-359. Retrieved August 17, 2005, from ProQuest database. Banutu-Gomez, M. B. (2004). Great leaders teach exemplary followership and serve as servant leaders. Journal of American Academy of Business, 4, 143-151. Retrieved January 16, 2005, from ProQuest database. Barczak, G., McDonough, E. F., & Athanassiou, N. (2006). So you want to be a global project leader? Research Technology Management, 49(3), 28-35. Retrieved July 27, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Beck, R., A., (2003). Regression analysis: A constructive critique. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bender, W. J., & Septelka, D. M. (2002). Team building in the construction industry. Transactions from the 46th Annual Meeting of AACE. Association for the

242 Advancement of Cost Engineering (PM131-134). Retrieved August 7, 2005, from http://www.cwu.edu/~benderw/Teambuildingbenderseptelka0119.doc Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (2003). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row. Bernard, L. L. (1926). Introduction to social psychology. New York: Holt. Biech, E. (2001). The Pfeiffer book of successful team-building tools: Best of the annuals. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Birnbaum, M., H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the internet, Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 803-832. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from ProQuest database. Blanchard, K. H., & Hersey, P. (1996). Great ideas: Revisiting the life-cycle theory of leadership. Training & Development, 50, 42-47. Retrieved on February 14, 2006, from ProQuest database. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bolton, B. (2005). Your career in todays enterprise. Information Systems Management, 22, 86-86. Retrieved August 23, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Bossnik, B. A. G. (2004). Effectiveness of innovation leadership styles: A managers influence on ecological innovation in construction projects. Construction Innovation, 4(4), 211-228. Retrieved January 18, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2004). Advancing project management in learning organizations. The Learning Organization, 11, 226-243. Retrieved January 16,

243 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2005). The paradox of project control. Team Performance Management, 11(5/6), 157-178. Retrieved January 11, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A., & Swan, J. (2005). Organizational routines, situated learning and processes of change in project-based organizations. Project Management Journal, 36(3), 27-41. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Brill, J. M., Bishop, M. J., & Walker, A. A. (2006). The competencies and characteristics required of an effective project manager: A web-based Delphi study. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 54, 115-140. Retrieved November 25, 2006, from ProQuest database. Brockhoff, K. (2006). On the novelty dimension in project management. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 26-36. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from ProQuest database. Bryant, S. E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing, and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(4), 32-44. Retrieved July 22, 2005, from ProQuest database. Bryde, D. J. (2003). Project management concepts, methods and application. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23, 775-793. Retrieved November 30, 2006, from ProQuest database. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

244 Burrell, D. N. (2006). Emerging options in doctoral study in management for international executives. Journal for Decision Makers, 31(3), 13-17. Retrieved December 18, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Buskens, V., & Raub, W. (2002). Embedded trust: Control and learning. In S. R. Thye & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Group cohesion, trust and solidarity (pp. 167-202). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Retrieved June 19, 2006, from ProQuest database. Butler, J. K., & Reese, R. M. (1991). Leadership style and sales performance: A test of the situational leadership model. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 11(3), 37-47. Retrieved September 3, 2005, from EBSCOhost database. Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. (1996), Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429-452. Retrieved April 2005, from ProQuest database. Carte, T. A., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006). Emergent leadership in selfmanaged virtual teams: A longitudinal study of concentrated and shared leadership behaviors. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 323-343. Retrieved August 26, 2006, from ProQuest database. Charoenngam, C., Ogunlana, S., O., Nin-Fu, K., & Dey, P. K. (2004). Re-engineering construction communication in distance management framework. Business Process Management Journal, 10(6), 645-672. Retrieved December 18, 2007, from EBSCOhost database.

245 Childs, P., Goldsmith, M., LaRue, B., & Larson, K. (2004). Leading organizations, from the inside out: Unleashing the collaborative genius of action-learning teams. New York: Wiley. Christensen, D., & Walker, D. H. T. (2004). Understanding the role of vision in project success. Project Management Journal, 35(3), 39-52. Retrieved February 16, 2007, from ProQuest database. Cicmil, S. (2006). Understanding project management practice through interpretative and critical research perspectives. Project Management Journal, 37(2), 27-37. Retrieved December 8, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Cicmil, S., & Marshall, D. (2005). Insight into collaboration at project level: Complexity, social interaction and procurement mechanisms. Building Research and Information, 33, 523-535. Retrieved December 5, 2006, from ProQuest database. Clark, D. (1998). The leadership training and development outline assessment. Retrieved July 20, 2006, from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/bm_model.html Clegg, S., & Ross-Smith, A. (2003). Revising the boundaries: Management education and learning in postpositivist world. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 85-98. Retrieved December 15, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Cleveland, D. I., & Ireland, L. R. (2002). Project management strategic design and implementation. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cohen, S. G., & Gibson, C. (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

246 Conger, J., A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. The Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647. Retrieved February 13, 2006, from ProQuest database. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Connaughton, S. L., Lawrence, F. L., & Ruben, B. D. (2003). Leadership development as a systematic and multidisciplinary enterprise. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 46-51. Retrieved August 8, 2004, from ProQuest database. Cooper, M. (2005). The transformational leadership of the Apostle Paul: A contextual and Biblical leadership for contemporary ministry. Christian Education Journal, 2, 48-61. Retrieved April 16, 2006, from ProQuest database. Cowie, G. (2003). The importance of people skills for project managers. Industrial and Commercial Training, 35(6/7), 256-258. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from ProQuest database. Crawford, I., II. (2003). Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals. In J. R. Turner (Ed.), People in project management. Aldershot, UK: Gower. Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dainty, A., Cheng, M., & Moore, D. (2005). A comparison of the behavioral competencies of client-focused and production-focused project managers in the

247 construction sector. Project Management Journal, 36(2), 39-48. Retrieved February 15, 2006, from ProQuest database. Dallal, G., E. (2001). The little handbook of statistical practice. Retrieved June 3, 2007, from http://statisticalpractice.com. Dawes, T. (2003). Project management: An integrated approach. British Journal of Administrative Management, 34, 24-25. Retrieved January 28, 2006, from ProQuest database. Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (2003). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dolan, S., L., & Garcia, S. (2002). Managing by values: Cultural redesign for strategic organizational change at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Journal of Management Development, 21(2), 101-117. Retrieved July 12, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Doorewaard, H., Hootegem, G. V., & Huys, R. (2002). Team responsibility structure and team performance. Personnel Review, 31, 356-371. Retrieved May 12, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Douglas, E. E. (2004). Project planning-then scheduling. AACE International Transactions, PS(0.7), 71-75. Retrieved March 7, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Doyle, M. (2002). Selecting managers for transformational change. Human Resource Management Journal, 12, 3-16. Retrieved February 12, 2006, from ProQuest database.

248 Dreyfus, S. (2004). The five-stage model of adult skill acquisition. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 24(3), 177-181. Retrieved December 9, 2006, from ProQuest database. Duckett, H., & Macfarlane, E. (2003). Emotional intelligence and transformational leadership in retail. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24, 309317. Retrieved February 12, 2005, from ProQuest database. Dugan, J. P. (2006). Involvement and leadership: A descriptive analysis of socially responsible leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 335-343. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from ProQuest database. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735-744. Retrieved March 4, 2005, from InfoTrac database. Eccles, T. (1996). Succeeding with change: Implementing action-driven strategies. London: McGraw-Hill. Eicher, J., Jones, J. E., & Bearley, W. L. (1999). Post-heroic leadership: Managing the virtual organization. Amherst, MA: HRD Press. Einsiedel, A. A. (1987). Profile of effective project managers. Project Management Journal, 18(5), 52-56. Retrieved February 26, 2006, from ProQuest database. Einstein, W. O., & Humphreys, J. H. (2003). Nothing new under the sun: Transformational leadership, from a historical perspective. Management Decision, 41, 85-96. Retrieved August 6, 2004, from ProQuest database.

249 Ellinger, A. D., & Bostrom, R. P. (2002). An examination of managers beliefs about their roles as facilitators of learning. Management Learning, 33, 147-179. Retrieved December 16, 2005, from EBSCOhost database. Ellis, C. T., Wood, G. D., & Thorpe, T. (2004). Technology-based learning and the project manager. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11, 358-365. Retrieved July 19, 2006, from ProQuest database. Fairholm, M. R. (2004). A new sciences outline for leadership development. The Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 25, 369-383. Retrieved February 8, 2004, from ProQuest database. Ferrazzi, R. R. (2005). Never eat alone: And other secrets of success, one relationship at a time. New York: Currency/Doubleday. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fisher, C. (2005). Team-building challenge games. RE:view, 37(2), 79-84. Fisher, D. K., Kent, R., Nottingham, L., & Field, J. B. R. (2005). Characteristics of effective leaders in economic development: An exploratory study. Southern Business Review, 31, 13-28. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from ProQuest database. Fisher, K., & Fisher, M. D. (1998). The distributed mind: Achieving high performance through the collective intelligence of knowledge work teams. New York: AMACOM. Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. S., & Buhl, S. (2002). Underestimating costs in public works projects: Error or lie? Journal of American Planning Association, 68, 279-295. Retrieved December 9, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.

250 Furst, S. A., Reeves, M., Rosen, B., & Blackburn, R. S. (2004). Managing the life cycle of virtual teams. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 6-20. Retrieved February 12, 2006, from ProQuest database. Gardner, L., & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 23(2), 68-78. Retrieved December 2, 2006, from ProQuest database. Garson, G., D. (2007). Multiple regression: Overview. Retrieved August 3, 2007, from http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/regress.html Gibber, D., Carter, I., & Goldsmith, M. (2002). Best practices in leadership development handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). The emotional reality of teams. The Journal of Organizational Excellence, 21(2), 55-65. Retrieved December 8, 2006, from ProQuest database. Gordon, A., & Yukl, G. (2004). The future of leadership research: Challenges and opportunities. German Journal of Human Resource Research, 18, 359-365. Retrieved November 26, 2005, from PsychINFO database. Gordon, J. (2002). A perspective on team building. Journal of American Academy of Business, 2, 185-188. Retrieved May 26, 2005, from ProQuest database. Graetz, F. (2002). Strategic thinking versus strategic planning: Towards understanding the complementarities. Management Decision, 40, 456-462. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.

251 Grojean, M. W., Resick, C. J., Dickson, M. W., & Smith, D. B. (2004). Leaders, values, and organizational climate: Examining leadership strategies for establishing an organizational climate regarding ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 55, 223-241. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Groves, K. S. (2005). Gender differences in social and emotional skills and charismatic leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(3), 30-46. Retrieved December 15, 2006, from PsychINFO database. Halbesleben, J. R. B., Novicevic, M. M., Harvey, M. G., & Buckley, M. R. (2003). Awareness of temporal complexity and innovation: A competency-based model. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 433-454. Retrieved January 18, 2006, from ProQuest database. Hanbury, G. L., Sapat, A., & Washington, C. W. (2004). Know yourself and take charge of your own destiny: The fit model of leadership. Public Administration Review, 64, 566-576. Retrieved April 13, 2006, from ProQuest database. Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13, 232-248. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from ProQuest database. Harland, L., Harrison, W., Jones, J. R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2005). Leadership behaviors and subordinate resilience. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(2), 2-14. Retrieved November 28, 2006, from ProQuest database. Harrison, B. (1999). The nature of leadership: Historical perspectives and the future. Journal of California Law Enforcement, 33, 24-35. Retrieved July 15, 2004, from ProQuest database.

252 Hartley, D. E. (2004). Technology kicks up leadership development. Training & Development, 58(3), 23-29. Retrieved May 5, 2005, from EBSCOhost database. Hartman, F., & Ashrafi, R. (2002). Project management in the information systems and technologies industries. Project Management Journal, 33(3), 50-63. Retrieved April 25, 2006, from ProQuest database. Hautala, T. (2005). The effects of subordinates personality on appraisals of transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(4), 84-93. Retrieved February 28, 2005, from ProQuest database. Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the time: Staying alive through the dangers of leading. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Helland, M. R., & Winston, B. E. (2005). Towards a deeper understanding of hope and leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(2), 42-55. Retrieved March 5, 2006, from ProQuest database. Holt, G. D., Love, P. E. D., & Nesan, L. J. (2000). Employee empowerment in construction: An implementation model for process improvement. Team Performance Management, 6(3/4), 47-54. Retrieved April 25, 2006, from ProQuest database. Hoopes, J. (2003). False prophets: The gurus who created modern management and why their ideas are bad for business. Cambridge, MA: Perseus. Hughes, S. W., Tippett, D. D., & Thomas, W. K. (2004). Measuring project success in the construction industry. Engineering Management Journal, 16(3), 31-37. Retrieved September 6, 2005, from ProQuest database. Humphreys, P., Matthews, J., & Kumaraswamy, M. (2003). Pre-construction projection

253 partnering:, from adversarial to collaborative relationships. Supply Chain Management, 8(2), 166-178. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from ProQuest database. Hurt, A. C., & Homan, S. R. (2005). Growing leaders. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37, 120-123. Retrieved June 14, 2005, from EBSCOhost database. Insana, R. (2005). Coach says honey gets better results than vinegar. USA Today, p. 4B. Israel, M. S., & Kasper, B. B. (2004). Reframing leadership to create change. The Educational Forum, 69, 16-26. Retrieved December 15, 2006, from ProQuest database. Jensen, J., A. (2004). An inquiry into the foundations of organizational learning and learning organization. The Learning Organization, 11, 478-486. Retrieved February 21, 2007, from ProQuest database. Jobson, J., D. (1999). Applied Multivariate Data Analysis: Volume I: Regression and experimental design (4th ed.). New York: Springer. Johnson, P. (2004). General research discussion on calculating means from age ranges in a survey question. Marketing Research Roundtable. Retrieved June 3, 2007, from http://forum.research info.com/showthread.php?t=9/4.html Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2003). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. New York: Pearson. Jones, E. C., & Chung, C. A. (2006). A methodology for measuring engineering knowledge worker productivity. Engineering Management Journal, 18, 32-38. Retrieved February 25, 2006, from ProQuest database.

254 Jones, S. D., & Shilling, D. J. (2000). Measuring team performance: A step-by-step, customizable approach for managers, facilitators, and team leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A metal-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768. Retrieved December 2, 2006, from ProQuest database. Kan, M. M. (2002). Reinterpreting the multifactor leadership questionnaire. In K. W. Parry & J. R. Meindl (Eds), Grounding leadership theory and research: Issues, perspectives and methods (pp. 159-173). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Kaplan, R. E. (1997). Skillscope survey. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246-255. Retrieved November 14, 2005, from EBSCOhost database. Katz, R. (2004). The human side of managing technological innovation (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2003). The wisdom of teams: Creating the highperformance organization. New York: Harper Business. Kendra, K., & Taplin, L. J. (2004). Project success: A cultural framework. Project Management Journal, 35, 30-45. Retrieved August 14, 2005, from EBSCOhost database. Kerfoot, K. (2002). Leading the leaders: The challenge of leading an empowered organization. Pediatric Nursing, 28, 301-302. Retrieved November 30, 2004, from ProQuest database.

255 Kerzner, H. (2003). Project management: A system approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (8th ed.). New York: Wiley. Kest, R., T. (2006). Principles of leadership: Leadership management. Futurics, 30, 5271. Retrieved August 9, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academic of Management Journal, 47, 175-192. Retrieved August 1, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Kline, P., & Saunders, B. (1993). Ten steps to a learning organization. Arlington, VA: Great Ocean. Kotter, J. P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs, from management. New York: Free Press. Kotterman, J. (2006). Leadership versus management: Whats the difference? Journal for Quality and Participation, 29(2), 13-17. Retrieved November 29, 2006, from ProQuest database. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). The Leadership Practices Inventory: Leadership development planner (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Krishnan, V. R. (2002). Transformational leadership and value system congruence. International Journal of Value-based Management, 15, 19-33. Retrieved July 15, 2004, from ProQuest database.

256 Krishnan, V. R. (2005). Transformational leaders and outcomes: Role of relationship duration. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 442-457. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from ProQuest database. Kuo, C. (2004). Research on impacts of team leadership on team effectiveness. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5, 266-277. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from ProQuest database. Kur, E., & Bunning, R. (2002). Assuring corporate leadership for the future. Journal of Management Development, 21, 761-779. Retrieved March 12, 2005, from ProQuest database. LaRue, B., & Ivany, R. R. (2004). Transform your culture [Online]. Executive Excellence, 21(12), 2-3. Retrieved May 12, 2006, from http://newsletter.adizesgraduateschool.org/bl-transformculture.pdf Laschinger, H., & Finegan, J. (2005). Using empowerment to build trust and respect in the workplace: A strategy for addressing the nursing shortage. Nursing Economic$, 23, 6-13. Retrieved March 12, 2005, from ProQuest database. Learning Center. (2005). The leadership assessment and personal satisfaction survey. Retrieved June 27, 2006, from http://www.learningcenter.net/library/plmanagement.htm Leban, W., & Zulauf, C. (2004). Linking emotional intelligence abilities and transformational leadership styles. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 25, 554-564. Retrieved June 18, 2006, from ProQuest database.

257 Lee, Y., D., & Chang, Y., F. (2006). A study on the characters of leader and followers of charismatic leadership--The example of employees at a port authority. The Business Review, 5, 263-269. Retrieved July 18, 2006, from ProQuest database. Levin, G. (2004). Leading high-performance projects. Project Management Journal, 35(4), 66. Retrieved February, 13, 2006, from ProQuest database. Lewis, M., L., Welsh, M., A., Dehler, G., E., & Green, S., G. (2002). Product development tensions: Exploring contrasting styles of project management. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 546-564. Retrieved December 15, 2006, from ProQuest database. Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lo, H., Chen, C., & Chen, H. (2004). The relationship among leader types and leadership effectiveness: The members of the military as sample. Journal of National Defense Management, 25(2), 51-60. Retrieved November 24, 2005, from ProQuest database. Love, P. E. D. (2002). Influence of project type and procurement method on rework costs in building construction projects. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128, 18-29. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from ProQuest database. Love, P. E. D., & Edwards, D. J. (2004). Determinants of rework in building construction projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11, 259-274. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from ProQuest database. Love, P. E. D., Irani, Z., & Edwards, D. J. (2003). Learning to reduce rework in projects: Analysis of a firms organizational learning and quality practices. Project Management Journal, 34(3), 13-26. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from ProQuest

258 database. Love, P. E. D., Irani, Z., & Edwards, D. J. (2004). A seamless supply chain management model for construction. Supply Chain Management, 9, 43-56. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from ProQuest database. Lucas, J. R. (1998). Anatomy of a vision statement. Management Review, 87(2), 22-26. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from ProQuest database. Lukawetz, G. (2002). Empirically quantifying unit-nonresponse-errors in online surveys and suggestions for computational correction methods. Online Social Sciences, 50, 403-415. Retrieved on February 24, 2007, from ProQuest database. Lussier, R. N., & Sonfield, M. C. (2004). Family business management activities and characteristics: A correctional Study. Mid-American Journal of Business, 19, 4753. Retrieved May 24, 2007, from ProQuest database. Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241-258). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Macri, D. M., Tagliaventi, M. R., & Bertolotti, F. (2002). A grounded theory for resistance to change in a small organization. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15, 292-311. Retrieved July 22, 2005, from ProQuest database. Manning, T. T. (2003). Gender, managerial level, transformational leadership and work satisfaction. Women in Management Review, 17(5/6), 207-216. Retrieved July 22, 2005, from ProQuest database. Martin, V. (2006). Leading in teams: Part 2. Nursing Management, 13(2), 32-35. Retrieved April 15, 2005, from ProQuest database.

259 Martini, W. J. (1999). An exploratory study of the relationship between leadership style, formal education, managerial experience, and project manager effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, DC. Martins, L, Gilson, L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go, from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805-835. Retrieved April 15, 2005, from ProQuest database. Mastrangelo, A., Eddy, E. R., & Lorrenzer, S. J. (2004). The importance of personal and professional leadership. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 25, 435-451. Retrieved March 24, 2004, from ProQuest database. Maxwell, J. C. (1998). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership: Follow them and people will follow you. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Mazarr, M. J. (2002). Acting like a leader. Survival, 44(4), 107-119. Retrieved June 15, 2006, from ProQuest database. McCall, M. W., Spreitzer, G. M., & Mahoney, J. (1998). Prospector survey. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. McGivern, M. H., & Tvorik, S. J. (1998). Vision driven organizations: Measurement techniques for group classification. Management Decision, 36(4), 241-262. Retrieved March 24, 2004, from ProQuest database. McGuire, E., & Kennerly, S. M. (2006). Nurse managers as transformational and transactional leaders. Nursing Economic$, 24(4), 179-185. Retrieved December 4, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.

260 McNamara, K., & Watson, J. G. (2005). The development of a team-oriented structure in a small business enterprise. Journal of American Academy of Business, 6, 184191. Retrieved April 15, 2005, from ProQuest database. Mealiea, L., & Baltazar, R. (2005). A strategic guide for building effective teams. Public Personnel Management, 34, 141-160. Retrieved February 12, 2006, from ProQuest database. Meredith, R., & Mantel, S. J. (2002). Project management: A managerial approach. New York: Wiley. Miles, S. J., & Mangold, G. (2002). The impact of team leader performance on team member satisfaction: The subordinates perspective. Team Performance Management, 8(5/6), 113-121. Retrieved January 17, 2005, from ProQuest database. Miller, R. L., Butler, J., & Cosentino, C. J. (2004). Followership effectiveness: An extension of Fieldlers contingency model. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 25, 362-368. Retrieved July 22, 2005, from ProQuest database. Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1015-1039. Retrieved February 20, 2005, from ProQuest database. Morrison, J. L., Rha, J., & Helfman A. (2003). Learning awareness, student engagement, and change: A transformation in leadership development. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 11-17. Retrieved June 25, 2004, from EBSCOhost database.

261 Murray, J. P. (2004). Leadership in challenging times. Nursing Education Perspectives, 25(2), 54. Retrieved February 20, 2005, from ProQuest database. Myers, J. (2004). Developing managers: A view, from the non-profit sector. Journal of European Industrial Training, 28, 639-656. Retrieved December 19, 2005, from ProQuest database. Nanus, B. (1989). The leaders edge: The seven keys to leadership in a turbulent world. Chicago: Contemporary Books. Neal, H., S., & Aysal, S. (2004). Owners factor in value-based project management in construction. Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 97-104. Retrieved December 19, 2006, from ProQuest database. Nebecker, D. M., & Tatum, B. C. (2002). Understanding organizational processes and performance. In R. L. Lowman (Ed.), Handbook of organizational consulting psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. New Record Set For 2003. (2004). Engineering News Record (ENR), 252(7), 27. Retrieved March 30, 2007 from http://enr.construction.com/ Nguyen, L. D., Ogunlana, S. O., & Lan, D. T. X. (2004). A study on project success factors in large construction projects in Vietnam. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11, 404-424. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from ProQuest database. Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Norusis, M. J. (1995). SPSS 6.1 guide to data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Oppenheim, A. N. (1966). Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. New York:

262 Basic Books. Orlikowski, W. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13, 249-273. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from ProQuest database. Parry, K. (2004). Comparative modeling of the social processes of leadership in work units. Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, 10(2), 69-80. Retrieved February 20, 2006, from ProQuest database. Pauchant, T. C. (2005). Integral leadership: A research proposal. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18, 211-229. Retrieved February 20, 2006, from ProQuest database. Pearce, C. L., Sims, H. P., Cox, J. F., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K., & Trevino, L. (2003). Transactors, transformers and beyond: A multi-method development of a theoretical typology of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 22(4), 273-307. Retrieved December 3, 2005, from ProQuest database. Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28, 89106. Retrieved June 6, 2005, from ProQuest database. Pheng, L. S., & Fang, T. H. (2005). Modern-day lean construction principles: Some questions on their origin similarities with Sun Tzus Art of War. Management Decision, 43, 523-541. Retrieved February 14, 2006, from ProQuest database. Phillips, E. D. (2004). Managing and leading: 52 lessons learned for engineers. Consulting to Management, 15(4), 59-60.

263 Posner, B., & Kouzes, J. (2002). Development and validation of the leadership practices inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(22), 483-496. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from ProQuest database. Powell, E. A. (2002). Considering the future of the profession. Civil Engineering, 72(11), 220-243. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from EBSCOhost database. Presswood, K., & Roof, J. (2004). Is it leadership or management? College and University, 79(4), 3-7. Retrieved September 10, 2005, from ProQuest database. Project Management Institute. (2004). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (3rd ed.). Newton Square, PA: Author. Retrieved December 5, 2006, from http://egweb.mines.edu/eggn491/InformationandResources/pmbok.pdf Ramsey, R. D. (2005). Lead, follow, or get out of the way: How to be a more effective leader in todays schools (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Raosoft. (2006). Sample size calculator. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html Rejai, M., & Phillips, K. (2004). Leadership theory and human nature. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 32, 185-194. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from ProQuest database. Reynolds, M., Tarter, R., & Kirisci, L. (2004). Characteristics of men with substance use disorder consequent to illicit drug use: Comparison of a random sample of volunteers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 75, 241-251. Retrieved May 15, 2006, from PsychINFO database. Robbins, S. P. (2003). Organisational behavior (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

264 Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2005). Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall. Rosenfeld, E. (2006). Be a learning leader. Teacher Librarian, 34(2), 6-7. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from ProQuest database. Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger. Rubin, D., Powers, M. B., Tulacz, G., Winston, S., & Krizan, W. G. (2002). Leaders come in all shapes and sizes, but the great ones focus on people. Engineering News Record, 249(23), 34-36. Retrieved May 12, 2004, from ProQuest database. Saad, M., Cicmil, S., & Greenwood, M. (2002). Technology transfer projects in developing countries Furthering the project management perspectives. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 617-625. Retrieved December 8, 2006, from PsychINFO database. Salacuse, J. W. (2006). Leading leaders: How to manage the top talent in your organization. Ivey Business Journal (Reprint No. 9B06TC08), 1-5. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Salopek, J. J. (2004). Leading indicators: Leadership development in action. Training & Development, 58(3), 16-18. Retrieved May 5, 2005, from EBSCOhost database. Sanders, J. E., Hopkins, W. E., & Geroy, G. D. (2003). From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(4), 21-31. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from ProQuest database. Sandrone, V. (2005). F. W. Taylor & scientific management. Retrieved February 25, 2006, from http://www.skymark.com/resources/leaders/taylor.asp

265 Schepers, J., Wetzels, M., & Ruyter, K. (2005). Leadership styles in technology acceptance: Do followers practice what leaders preach? Managing Service Quality, 15, 496-520. Retrieved November 29, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Schillewaert, N., Ahearne, M. J., Frambach, R. T., & Moenaert, R. K. (2005). The adoption of information technology in the sales force. Industrial Marketing Management, 34, 323-336. Retrieved December 3, 2006, from ProQuest database. Scott, J., & Vessey, I. (2002). Managing risks in enterprise systems implementations. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 74-81. Retrieved December 19, 2006, from ProQuest database. Shiparski, L. A. (2005). Engaging in shared decision making: Leveraging staff and management expertise. Nurse Leader, 3, 36-41. Retrieved November 29, 2006, from ProQuest database. Smith, G. R. (1999). Project leadership: Why project management alone doesnt work. Hospital Material Management Quarterly, 21, 88-92. Retrieved February 15, 2006, from ProQuest database. Sotiriou, D., & Wittmer, D. (2001). Influence methods of project managers: Perceptions of team members and project managers. Project Management Journal, 32(3), 1221. August 22, 2004, from ProQuest database. Spigener, J. B. (2004). Beyond management: Using leadership to achieve your goals in quality. Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, 58, 229-231. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from ProQuest database. Stacey, R. (2003). Strategic management and organizational dynamics: The challenge of complexity (4th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

266 Stodgill, R., M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature, New York: Free Press. Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. The Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 25, 349-361. Retrieved March 12, 2005, from ProQuest database. Storr, L. (2004). Leading with integrity: A qualitative research study. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 18, 415-434. Retrieved February 23, 2006, from ProQuest database. Strang, K. D. (2005). Examining effective and ineffective transformational project leadership. Team Performance Management, 11(3/4), 68-103. Retrieved May 14, 2006, from ProQuest database. Styron, J., Ronald A., Maulding, W. S., & Hull, P. (2006). Practitioner vs. professorteacher preferences of educational leadership students. College Student Journal, 40, 293-302. Retrieved July 26, 2006, from ProQuest database. Sumner, M., Bock, D., & Giamartino, G. (2006). Exploring the linkage between the characteristics of IT project leaders and project success. Information Systems Management, 23(4), 43-49. Retrieved December 7, 2006, from ProQuest database. Swartz, N. (2005). Employees not receiving critical training, study says. Information Management Journal, 39(2), 7. Retrieved December 15, 2006, from ProQuest database. Tata, J., & Prasad, S. (2004). Team self-management, organizational structure, and

267 judgments of team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 248-266. Retrieved February 22, 2006, from ProQuest database. Taylor, S., & Morris, P. (2005). Implementing best practices for the 21st century. AACE International Transactions, PM181-185. Retrieved April 12, 2006, from ProQuest database. Thamhain, J. H. (2004). Team leadership effectiveness in technology-based project environments. Project Management Journal, 34(4), 35-46. Retrieved October 27, 2004, from ProQuest. Thomas, R. J., & Cheese, P. (2005). Leadership: experience is the best teacher. Strategy & Leadership, 33(3), 24-29. Retrieved February 2, 2006, from ProQuest database. Thompsen, J., A. (2000). Effective leadership of virtual project teams. Futurics, 24(3/4), 85-90. Retrieved on February 23, 2006 from ProQuest database. Tickle, E. L., Brownlee, J., & Nailon, D. (2005). Personal epistemological beliefs and transformational leadership behaviours. Journal of Management Development, 24, 706-719. Retrieved November 29, 2006, from ProQuest database. Tjosvold, D., Poon, M., & Yu, Z. (2005). Team effectiveness in China: Cooperative conflict for relationship building. Human Relations, 58, 341-367. Torpman, J. (2004). The differentiating function of modern forms of leadership. Management Decision, 42, 892-902. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from ProQuest database. Trent, R. J. (2003). Organizational design research project. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University. Trent, R. J. (2004). Team leadership at the 100-foot level. Team Performance

268 Management, 10(5/6), 94-103. Retrieved September 13, 2005, from ProQuest database. Tsai, P., & Weu, W. (2004). Leadership: Theory, practice & research. Kaohsiung City, Taiwan: Liwen Culture. Turner J. R., Kristoffer, V., & Thurloway, L. (2002). The project manager as change agent. London: McGraw-Hill. Turner, J. R., & Muller, R. (2005). The project manager's leadership style as a success factor on projects: A literature review. Project Management Journal, 36(2), 4962. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from ProQuest database. Tyran, K. L., Tyran, C. K., & Shepherd, M. (2003). Exploring emerging leadership in virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. San Francisco: Wiley. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2006). Occupational outlook handbook: Construction managers. Retrieved January 29, 2007, from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos005.htm Wellins, R. S., & Patterson, S. W. (2003). From C-level to see-level leadership. Training & Development, 57(9), 58-65. Retrieved March 10, 2005, from EBSCOhost database. Weymes, E. (2003). Relationships not leadership sustain successful organizations. Journal of Change Management, 3, 319-322. Retrieved August 13, 2004, from EBSCOhost database. Williams, J. (2002). Team development for high-tech project managers. Norwood, MA: Artech House.

269 Woodward, S., & Hendry, C. (2004). Leading and coping with change. Journal of Change Management. 4, 155-183. Retrieved April 15, 2005, from EBSCOhost database. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yu, A. T. W., Shen, Q., Kelly, J., & Hunter, K. (2005). Application of value management in project briefing. Facilities, 23(7/8), 330-342. Retrieved December 9, 2006, from ProQuest database. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall. Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Tabor, T. (2005). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18, 5-29. Retrieved November 29, 2006, from ProQuest database. Zaccaro, S. J., & Horn, Z. N. J. (2003). Leadership theory and practice: Fostering an effective symbiosis. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 769-806. Retrieved August 16, 2005, from PsychINFO database. Zenger, J., Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, N. (2000). The new leadership development. Training & Development, 54(3), 22-28. Retrieved August 15, 2004, from EBSCOhost database. Zigurs, I. (2003). Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity. Organizational Dynamics, 31, 339-351. Retrieved December 12, 2005, from ProQuest database.

270 APPENDIX A: PROJECT MANAGERS SURVEY Project managers: Using the rating scale below, please indicate if the statements apply to your leadership style and to what degree the statements apply. Check one number for each question. 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Uncertain 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree

1. I know how to sell ideas. 2. I take responsibility for my actions and do not blame others. 3. I mentor my teammates when appropriate 4. I communicate a clear vision with recognizable goals for the organization and its people. 5. There are formal and informal structures designed to encourage team members to share what they learn with their peers and the remaining team. 6. I support and facilitate efficient crossfunctional communication that results in few project or production delays. 7. I support asking for forgiveness, not asking for permission. 8. I involve others in planning actions. 9. I remove roadblocks or obstacles to employees solving work problems. 10. I know how to influence people and get support. 11. I delegate in a way that encourages others to have full ownership of a task. 12. My team has challenging goals designed to stretch our capabilities. 13. I translate organizational goals practically and meaningfully for people, from the lowest level to the highest level. 14. I invest personal effort in helping other people succeed. 15. Teams are recognized and rewarded for their innovation and paradigm-breaking solutions to problems. 16. There is willingness to break old patterns in order to experiment with different ways of organizing and managing daily work. 17. I share information about work success and failure. 18. I appropriately provide authority to others to make Decisions 19. I communicate with charisma and effectiveness to groups. 20. The people in my team are committed to our work.

1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5

1 1 1 1

2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

271 21. Functional team members are enabled to become selfdevelopers and learn how to improve their performance. 22. I am able to pull people together around a common vision. 23. In my team, people are willing to help each other. 24. I put the needs of others before my own. 25. There is a general feeling that it is always possible to find a better way to do something. 26. I grant equal weight to the ideas of all employees. 27. I foster independent thought and action on the job.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

272 APPENDIX B: TEAM MEMBERS SURVEY Team member: Using the rating scale below, please indicate if the statements apply to your perception of the leadership style of your project manager and to what degree the statement applies. Check one number for each question. 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Uncertain 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree

My project manager 1. Knows how to sell ideas. 2. Takes responsibility for his/her actions and does not blame others. 3. Mentors his/her teammates when appropriate 4. Communicates a clear vision with recognizable goals for the organization and its people. 5. There are formal and informal structures designed to encourage team members to share what they learn with their peers and the remaining team. 6. Supports and facilitates efficient crossfunctional communication that results in few project or production delays 7. Supports asking for forgiveness, not asking for permission. 8. Involves others in planning actions. 9. Removes roadblocks or obstacles to employees solving work problems 10. Knows how to influence people and get support. 11. Delegates in a way that encourages others to have full ownership. 12. The team has challenging goals designed to stretch Capabilities 13. Translates organizational goals practically and meaningfully for people, from the lowest level to the highest level 14. Invests personal effort in helping other people succeed. 15. Teams are recognized and rewarded for their innovation and paradigm-breaking solutions to problems 16. There is willingness to break old patterns in order to experiment with different ways of organizing and managing daily work 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

273 17. Shares information about work success and failure 18. Appropriately provides authority to others to make Decisions 19. Communicates with charisma and effectiveness to groups. 20. The people in his/her team are committed to their work. 21. Functional team members are enabled to become selfdevelopers and learn how to improve their performance. 22. Is able to pull people together around a common vision. 23. In his/her team, people are willing to help each other. 24. Puts the needs of others before his/her own. 25. There is a general feeling that it is always possible to find a better way to do something. 26. Grants equal weight to the ideas of all employees 27. Fosters independent thought and action on the job. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

274 APPENDIX C: TITLE SEARCH Resource center/ Journals reviewed Academy of Management Journal databases searched ProQuest Digital Dissertations Academy of Management Review EBSCOhost Search phrases Leadership and construction industry Leadership and team performance Advance Management Journal Harvard Business Review Hospital Material Management Quarterly Journal of Leadership Studies Management Review Organizational Dynamics Organizational Studies Project Management Institute Project Management Journal Apollo Library Apollo Library PsychINFO Apollo Library Apollo Library ProQuest Effective leadership Management Leadership Leadership and performance Project management Project management and team performance Team Performance Management ProQuest Teams in construction industry ProQuest ERIC Apollo Library Team and leadership Leadership Project management

275 APPENDIX D: LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS Leadership characteristics of project managers Charisma Leadership authors Judge & Piccolo, 2004 Northouse, 2004 Shared responsibility Cleveland & Ireland, 2002 Harrison, 1999 Parry, 2004 Katz, 2004 Sandrone, 2005 Continuous development Helland & Winston, 2005 Torpman, 2004 Hautala, 2005 Common vision Kouzes & Posner, 2002 Rost, 1991 Weymes, 2003 Mutual influence relationships Rost, 1991 Fisher, Kent, Nottingham, & Field, 2005 Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003 Johnson & Johnson, 2003 Trait Relational Relational Transformational Trait Transformational Transformational Behavioral Leadership theories Transformational

Group interests

Bass, 1990

Relational

276 Bryant, 2003 Bender & Septelka, 2002 Path-goal Transactional Transformational Risk-taking Kouzes & Posner, 2002 Nanus, 1989 Schillewaert, Ahearne, Frambach, & Moenaert, 2005 Collaboration Bass, 1990 Macri, Tagliaventi, & Bertolotti, 2002 McNamara & Watson, 2005 Empowerment Kouzes & Posner, 2002 Kendra & Taplin, 2004 Relational Transformational Relational Transformational Relational Transformational

277 APPENDIX E: ORGANIZATIONAL CONSENT AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT

278

279 APPENDIX F: INTRODUCTION LETTER TO OPERATIONS MANAGER

I am a project architect in the Atlanta office of Heery International, and I need your support in collecting data for my doctoral dissertation in organizational leadership. I am currently putting together my dissertation proposal to be sent to the Institution Review Board (IRB) and the Academic Review Board (ARB) within the next few weeks. The regional manager for the southeast, Greg Pierce approved this study on May 7, 2007. The research study I am conducting is titled The Influence of Project Managers Leadership Styles on Project Team Performance in the Construction Industry. The purpose of this quantitative, descriptive study is to evaluate the degree of relationships between the leadership styles of project managers in project teams of at least 5-10 team members and the project teams perception of the project managers leadership styles as the leadership styles relate to project team performance in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. The results of this study will be made available to you and your team upon request. I am requesting your assistance in collecting some information about your project managers and their teams performance. Each project manager and the teams will be sent a letter of introduction via email requesting their participation in the study. The three performance metrics that was used to assess the performance of the teams are (a) project completed on schedule, (b) project completed within the specified budget, and (c) project completed within the specified profit margin. Instructions: Please provide the names of project managers and indicate Yes if the team met the project targets and No if the team did not meet the project targets on a completed project. Performance Measures Metrics Project Project Project completed on completed completed schedule within the within the specified specified budget profit margin

Project Manager 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

If you or any member of your team chooses not to participate or to withdraw, from the study at any time, you can do so without penalty or loss of benefit to yourself.

280 The results of the research study may be published, but neither your name, your organizations, nor your team's names will be used, and your results will be maintained in confidence. No performance data you have provided on your teams will be published with the exception of a single performance score that will be created by me based on the survey. Please feel free to contact me with any questions and thank you for your help.

281 APPENDIX G: TEAM PERFORMANCE MEASURE MATRIX Dependent Variable: Team Performance Measure Project completed on schedule Team A Team B Team C Team D Team E Team F Team G Team H Team I Team J Team K Team L Team M Team N Team O Team P Team Q Team R 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 Project completed within specified budget -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 Project completed within specified profit margin 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1

Total 1 3 3 -1 1 -1 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 -1 1 3

282 APPENDIX H: CONSENT TO ACT AS A RESEARCH SUBJECT Introduction Oluwole O. Oshinubi, a doctoral learner at the University of Phoenix and an independent researcher, has been given permission by _____________________ to conduct a research study on the __________________________________________at ____________________________. Participant I, ____________________, a representative of ____________________ have volunteered to participate in this research study. My participation in the study is voluntary, and my participation or nonparticipation will not be reported to the supervisory staff. I understand that I may refuse to participate and/or withdraw at any time without consequences to my employment. Research records and list of interviewees was confidential. Personal anonymity was guaranteed. Results of research data will be used for presentation and publications. As the data is presented, I can choose to be identified as the source of that information for group discussion purposes. Oluwole O. Oshinubi (researcher) has explained this study to me and answered my questions. If I have other questions or research-related issues, I can be reached through _____________________________________________. There are no other agreements, written or verbal, related to the study beyond that expressed in this consent and confidentiality form. I, the undersigned, understand the above explanation, and I give consent to my voluntary participation in this research. By signing this form, I acknowledge that I understand the nature of the study, the potential risks to me as a participant, and the means by which my identity will be kept confidential. My signature on this form also indicates that I am 18 years old or older and that I give my permission to voluntarily serve as a participant in the study described. Clicking below indicates that I have read and understood the description of the study and I agree to participate. ________________________________________Date:____________________ Signature of the participant _______________________________________Date:_____________________ Signature of the researcher

283 APPENDIX I: INTRODUCTION LETTER TO PROJECT MANAGERS To: Project managers I am a project architect in the Atlanta office of Heery International, and I need your support in collecting data for my doctoral dissertation in organizational leadership. The University of Phoenix approved this study on May 15, 2007. You were chosen as a candidate for participation in this study based on your role as project manager. The research study I am conducting is titled The Influence of Project Managers Leadership Styles on Project Team Performance in the Construction Industry. The purpose of this quantitative, descriptive study is to discover the degree of relationships between the leadership styles of project managers in project teams of at least 5-10 team members and the project teams perception of the project managers leadership styles as the leadership styles relate to project team performance in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. The results of this study will be made available to you and your team upon request. I am requesting your participation in answering a short online survey, which will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. If you or any member of your team chooses not to participate or to withdraw, from the study at any time, you can do so without penalty or loss of benefit to yourself. The results of the research study may be published but neither your name nor your team's names will be used, and your results will be maintained in confidence. No performance data, from your team will be published with the exception of a single performance score that will be created by me based on the survey. I will be contacting you via email over the next several days to solicit your assistance and provide more information. Please feel free to contact me with any questions and thank you for your help.

Sincerely, Oluwole O. Oshinubi

284 APPENDIX J: INTRODUCTION LETTER TO PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS To: Project team member I am a project architect in the Atlanta office of Heery International, and I need your support in collecting data for my doctoral dissertation in organizational leadership. The University of Phoenix approved this study on May 15, 2007. You were chosen as a candidate for participation in this study based on your role as project team member. The research study I am conducting is titled The Influence of Project Managers Leadership Styles on Project Team Performance in the Construction Industry. The purpose of this quantitative, descriptive study is to discover the degree of relationships between the leadership styles of project managers in project teams of at least 5-10 team members and the project teams perception of the project managers leadership styles as the leadership styles relate to project team performance in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. The results of this study will be made available to you and your team upon request. I am requesting your participation in answering a short online survey which will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. If you or any member of your team chooses not to participate or to withdraw, from the study at any time, you can do so without penalty or loss of benefit to yourself. The results of the research study may be published but neither your name nor your team's names will be used, and your results will be maintained in confidence. No individually identifiable information will be published, and all results will be presented as aggregate summary data. I will be contacting you via email over the next several days to solicit your assistance and provide more information. Please feel free to contact me with any questions and thank you for your help.

Sincerely, Oluwole O. Oshinubi

285 APPENDIX K: SURVEY INTRODUCTION LETTER Dear Participant, The purpose of this research study is to evaluate the degree of relationship between the project managers leadership styles on project teams performance and the teams perceptions of the project managers leadership styles in relation to the project teams performance in the construction industry in the southeastern United States. If you decide to participate in this research, you will be asked to complete an online survey along with the supplied informed consent form. There are no risks to you, the participant. By completing this online survey, you are giving your consent for the researcher to include your responses in his data analysis. Your participation in this research is strictly voluntary, and you may choose not to participate without fear of penalty or any negative consequences. Individual responses will be treated confidentially, and all raw data will be kept in a secured file by the researcher. No individually identifiable information will be disclosed or published, and all results will be presented as aggregate, summary data. You also have the right to review the results of the research if you wish to do so. If you wish, you may request a copy of the results of this research by writing to the researcher at the following address:

Participation will take approximately 15 to 20 minutes of your time. The theoretical and practical benefits to the field of organizational leadership is that the study may help determine if there is a relationship between the leadership styles of project managers and the performance of project teams. Thank you for your participation!

286 APPENDIX L: DEMOGRAPHICS Demographic information: Date: ___________________ Name (Optional): ____________________________________ Age: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Gender: 1. 2. Race: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Caucasian, Hispanic, African American, Asian, American Indian, Other Male Female 20 29 30 39 40 49 50 59 60 69 70 and above

Years of service:

287 1. 2. 3. 4. Company size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Profession: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Architect/Interior Designer Engineer Construction Manager Program Manager Facility Manager General Contractor Administrative Support Information Technology/ CAD Support Financial Services Other Consultants 1 - 99 100 - 200 200 - 399 400 - 499 500 - 1000 1000 - above 09 10 19 20 29 30 39

288 APPENDIX M: DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS Respondent Profile - PMs - n = 17, Team members - n = 109 Team Freq. Age 20 29 30 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 - Above Total Gender Male Female Total Race Caucasian Hispanic 68 3 73.91% 3.26% 18.48% 2.17% 0.00% 2.17% 11 0 5 0 0 0 16* 68.75% 0.00% 31.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 79 3 22 2 0 2 108 73.15% 2.78% 20.37% 1.85% 0.00% 1.85% 100.00% 55 37 92 59.78% 40.22% 100.00% 11 5 16* 68.75% 31.25% 100.00% 66 42 108 61.11% 38.89% 100.00% 10 23 35 17 6 0 91**** 10.99% 25.27% 38.46% 18.68% 6.59% 0.00% 100.00% 0 3 6 7 0 0 16* 0.00% 18.75% 37.50% 43.75% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 10 26 41 24 6 0 107 9.35% 24.30% 38.32% 22.43% 5.61% 0.00% 100.00% Team PM PM Total Total

Percentage Freq. Percentage Freq. Percentage

African American 17 Asian American Indian Other Total 2 0 2

92***** 100.00%

289 Years of service 0-9 10 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - Above Total Company size 0 - 99 100 - 199 200 - 299 300 - 399 400 - 499 500 - 1000 1000 - Above Total Profession Architect/Interior Designer Engineer Construction Manager 5 5.62% 6.74% 0.00% 1 2 0 6.25% 12.50% 0.00% 6 8 0 5.71% 7.62% 0.00% 15 24 16.85% 26.97% 4 5 25.00% 31.25% 19 29 18.10% 27.62% 16 7 1 8 5 22 31 90*** 17.78% 7.78% 1.11% 8.89% 5.56% 24.44% 34.44% 100.00% 1 1 2 1 0 3 8 16* 6.25% 6.25% 12.50% 6.25% 0.00% 18.75% 50.00% 100.00% 17 8 3 9 5 25 39 106 16.04% 7.55% 2.83% 8.49% 4.72% 23.58% 36.79% 100.00% 32 30 14 12 3 91**** 35.16% 32.97% 15.38% 13.19% 3.30% 100.00% 4 3 6 3 0 16* 25.00% 18.75% 37.50% 18.75% 0.00% 100.00% 36 33 20 15 3 107 33.64% 30.84% 18.69% 14.02% 2.80% 100.00%

Program Manager 6 Facility Manager 0

290 General Contractor Administrative Support Information Technology/ CAD Support Financial Services Other Total 2 18 89** 2.25% 20.22% 100.00% 2 16* 0.00% 12.50% 100.00% 2 20 105 1.90% 19.05% 100.00% 1 1.12% 0 0.00% 1 0.95% 10 11.24% 1 6.25% 11 10.48% 8 8.99% 1 6.25% 9 8.57%

* One project manager did not indicate age, gender, race, years of service, company size and profession ** 20 respondents did not indicate profession *** 19 respondents did not indicate company size **** 18 respondents did not indicate years of service and age ***** 17 respondents did not indicate race

291 APPENDIX N: PILOT TEAM DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS Pilot Team Respondent Profile n = 11 Team Age Freq. 20 29 30 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 - Above Total Gender Male Female Total Race Caucasian Hispanic African American Asian American Indian Other Total Years of service 0-9 10 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - Above Total 10* 100% 5 4 1 50% 40% 10% 2 10* 20% 100% 7 70% 1 10% 7 3 10* 70% 30% 100% 10* 100% 3 4 1 2 30% 40% 10% 20% Percentages

292 Company size 0 - 99 100 - 199 200 - 299 300 - 399 400 - 499 500 - 1000 1000 - Above Total Profession Architect/Interior Designer Engineer Construction Manager Program Manager Facility Manager General Contractor Administrative Support Information Financial Services Other Total 5 10* 50% 100% 1 10% 1 1 10% 10% 2 20% 2 1 9** 22% 11% 100% 4 1 1 44% 11% 11%

* One respondent did not indicate age, gender, race, years of service, and profession ** Two respondents did not indicate company size

293 APPENDIX O: PILOT TEAM SURVEY RESULTS Mean Variable Team Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 4.50 4.20 4.20 4.30 4.20 3.60 4.00 4.50 3.90 4.10 4.60 4.20 4.00 4.10 4.10 4.00 4.00 4.20 4.10 4.60 Score S.E. - PM 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Mean 0.31 0.33 0.42 0.40 0.29 0.37 0.26 0.22 0.38 0.46 0.22 0.29 0.45 0.46 0.35 0.30 0.39 0.25 0.46 0.16 Std Dev 0.97 1.03 1.32 1.25 0.92 1.17 0.82 0.71 1.20 1.45 0.70 0.92 1.41 1.45 1.10 0.94 1.25 0.79 1.45 0.52 Variance Min. 0.94 1.07 1.73 1.57 0.84 1.38 0.67 0.50 1.43 2.10 0.49 0.84 2.00 2.10 1.21 0.89 1.56 0.62 2.10 0.27 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 4 NMax. Team 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 NPM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

294 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Q26 Q27 4.30 4.40 4.70 3.90 4.20 3.90 4.40 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.30 0.31 0.21 0.46 0.29 0.31 0.22 0.95 0.97 0.67 1.45 0.92 0.99 0.70 0.90 0.93 0.46 2.10 0.84 0.99 0.49 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

295 APPENDIX P: PILOT TEAM LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS Independent Variable Team PM SD Variance Variance Skewness Skewness PM Team PM

Survey Survey Team D-PM Team

Charisma Shared Responsibility

4.30

4.67

0.17

0.58

0.03

0.33

1.73

-1.73

4.03

4.00

0.38

0.00

0.14

0.00

-1.60

Continuous 4.13 Development Common Vision Mutual Influence Relationships Group Interests 4.07 4.00 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.00 1.73 * 4.07 3.33 0.06 0.58 0.00 0.33 -1.73 1.73 4.33 0.32 0.58 0.10 0.33 1.55 1.73

4.300

4.33

0.27

0.58

0.07

0.33

1.46

1.73

Risk Taking Collaboration

4.33 4.33

4.00 4.33

0.25 0.40

0.00 0.58

0.06 0.16

0.00 0.33

0.59 -0.72

* 1.73

Empowerment 4.17

4.00

0.25

0.00

0.06

0.00

-0.59

* is printed if value cannot be computed.

296 APPENDIX Q: PILOT TEAM SURVEY CORRELATIONS OF LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS Charisma Correlation Coefficient Q01 Q02 Q03 Q01 1.000 0.88561 0.86842 p= p=0.430 p=0.190 n=10 n=10 n=10 Q02 0.88561 1.000 0.86618 p=0.430 p= p=0.240 n=10 n=10 n=10 Q03 0.86842 0.86618 1.000 p=0.190 p=0.240 p= n=10 n=10 n=10 Shared Responsibility Correlation Coefficient Q04 Q05 Q06 Q04 1.000 0.90805 0.69577 p=0.185 p=0.426 n=10 n=10 n=10 Q05 0.90805 1.000 0.59746 p=0.185 p= p=0.239 n=10 n=10 n=10 Q06 0.69577 0.59746 1.000 p=0.426 p=0.239 p= n=10 n=10 n=10

Continuous Development Correlation Coefficient Q07 Q08 Q09 Q07 1.000 0.57735 0.56833 p= p=0.338 p=0.135 n=10 n=10 n=10 Q08 0.57735 1.000 0.85312 p=0.338 p= p=0.066 n=10 n=10 n=10 Q09 0.56833 0.85312 1.000 p=0.135 p=0.066 p= n=10 n=10 n=10

Common Vision Correlation Coefficient Q10 Q11 Q12 Q10 1.000 0.81147 0.31706 p= p=0.020 p=0.095 n=10 n=10 n=10 Q11 0.81147 1.000 0.13834 p=0.020 p= p=0.214 n=10 n=10 n=10 Q12 0.31706 0.13834 1.000 p=0.095 p=0.214 p= n=10 n=10 n=10

Mutual Influence Relationships Correlation Coefficient Q13 Q14 Q15 Q13 1.000 0.92168 0.71392 p= p=0.472 p=0.233 n=10 n=10 n=10 Q14 0.92168 1.000 0.62008 p=0.472 p= p=0.212 n=10 n=10 n=10 Q15 0.71392 0.62008 1.000 p=0.233 p=0.212 p= n=10 n=10 n=10

Group Interests Correlation Coefficient Q16 Q17 Q18 Q16 1.000 0.28347 0.59761 p= p=0.209 p=0.302 n=10 n=10 n=10 Q17 0.28347 1.000 0.67763 p=0.209 p= p=0.094 n=10 n=10 n=10 Q18 0.59761 0.67763 1.000 p=0.302 p=0.094 p= n=10 n=10 n=10

297 Risk Taking Correlation Coefficient Q19 Q19 1.000 p= n=10 Q20 -0.0891 p=0.003 n=10 Q21 0.29904 0.299 n=10 Q20 -0.0891 p=0.003 n=10 1.000 p= n=10 0.72577 p=0.042 n=10 Q21 0.29904 p=0.111 n=10 0.72577 p=0.042 n=10 1.000 p= n=10 Collaboration Correlation Coefficient Q22 Q22 1.000 p= n=10 Q23 0.88608 p=0.150 n=10 Q24 0.8254 p=0.121 n=10 Q23 0.88608 p=0.150 n=10 1.000 p= n=10 0.87472 p=0.016 n=10 Q24 0.8254 p=0.121 n=10 0.87472 p=0.016 n=10 1.000 p= n=10

Empowerment Correlation Coefficient Q25 Q25 1.000 p= n=10 Q26 0.87545 p=0.409 n=10 Q27 0.38044 p=0.214 n=10 Q26 0.87545 p=0.409 n=10 1.000 p= n=10 0.54332 p=0.154 n=10 Q27 0.38044 p=0.214 n=10 0.54332 p=0.154 n=10 1.000 p= n=10

298 APPENDIX R: PILOT TEAM SCATTER PLOT MATRIX OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENT Scatter plot for leadership characteristics questions from Pilot Team A surveys:
Question 10 Question 11 Question 12
Question 4 Question 6
Question 4

Question 5

Question 5

Question 6

Question 10
Question 7

Question 11

Question 12

Question 9

Question 8

Question 7

Question 8

Question 9

__

___

299

Question 13

Question 14

Question 15

Question 18

Question 17

Question 16

Question 13

Question 14

Question 15

__

Question 16

Question 17

Question 18

__
Question 4

Question 5

Question 6

Question 24

Question 23

Question 22

Question 4

Question 5

Question 6

__

Question 22

Question 23

Question 24

300

Question 27

Question 26

Question 25

Question 25

Question 26

Question 27

__

301 APPENDIX S: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS REPORT Table S1 Bottom-Performing Teams Mean Scores Team D Team PM Team F Team PM Team P Team PM

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Charisma Shared Responsibility Continuous Development Common Vision Mutual Influence 3.20 Relationships Group Interests Risk Taking Collaboration Empowerment 3.80 3.53 3.40 3.67 4.00 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.28 3.11 3.56 3.06 4.00 3.67 4.33 3.67 4.10 4.10 4.29 4.24 4.67 4.67 4.67 5.00 3.33 3.56 3.67 4.19 5.00 3.60 3.07 2.73 3.47 2.67 2.00 4.00 4.00 3.89 3.39 3.72 3.61 4.33 3.67 3.00 4.00 4.52 4.52 4.19 4.48 4.67 4.33 4.67 4.67

302 Table S2 Middle-Performing Teams Mean Scores (Teams E, I, and J) Team E Team PM Team I Team PM Team J Team PM

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Charisma Shared Responsibility Continuous Development Common Vision Mutual Influence Relationships Group Interests Risk Taking Collaboration Empowerment 3.80 3.67 3.93 3.67 3.67 4.67 4.33 4.67 4.00 4.00 3.60 4.13 3.67 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.13 3.17 3.25 3.29 3.67 3.67 4.33 4.33 4.07 3.53 3.47 3.87 3.67 4.67 4.00 3.33 3.67 4.67 4.27 3.93 3.53 4.07 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.33 4.00 3.33 3.33 3.08 3.08 3.17 2.67 4.33 4.33 4.00 4.00 4.33

303 Table S3 Middle-Performing Teams Mean Scores (Teams M, N, and Q) Team M Team PM Team N Team PM Team Q Team PM

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Charisma Shared Responsibility Continuous Development Common Vision Mutual Influence Relationships Group Interests Risk Taking Collaboration Empowerment 4.72 4.39 4.61 4.22 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.60 3.73 3.67 3.40 4.00 4.33 3.67 4.33 3.91 4.24 4.19 3.95 3.33 4.33 3.67 3.67 4.67 4.50 4.28 4.56 4.44 4.67 4.00 4.33 4.00 4.33 4.13 3.67 3.53 3.27 3.07 4.00 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.33 4.48 3.95 3.62 4.19 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00

304 Table S4 High-Performing Teams Mean Scores (Teams B, C, G and H) Team B Team Mean Charisma Shared Responsibility Continuous Development Common Vision Mutual Influence Relationships Group Interests Risk Taking Collaboration Empowerment 3.61 4.00 4.00 3.83 4.33 3.33 4.00 3.33 4.43 4.33 4.43 4.38 5.00 4.67 4.67 4.67 3.67 3.76 3.57 3.57 4.33 4.33 5.00 4.67 4.04 4.21 4.25 3.88 4.33 5.00 5.00 4.67 4.06 3.61 4.00 3.33 4.62 4.47 4.67 5.00 3.91 3.91 4.00 4.67 4.29 4.04 4.67 4.33 3.56 4.00 4.48 5.00 3.76 4.33 3.79 3.67 4.22 3.89 PM Mean 4.00 3.67 Team C Team Mean 4.43 4.43 PM Mean 5.00 5.00 Team G Team PM Team H Team PM

Mean Mean Mean Mean 4.05 3.29 4.67 4.33 4.21 4.46 4.33 5.00

305 Table S5 High-Performing Teams Mean Scores (Teams K, L, O and R) Team K Team PM Team L Team PM Team O Team PM Team R Team PM

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Charisma Shared Responsibility Continuous Development Common Vision Mutual Influence Relationships Group Interests Risk Taking Collaboration Empowerment 4.29 4.14 4.19 4.33 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.67 4.08 4.38 4.21 4.21 4.00 4.33 4.67 3.67 3.93 4.00 4.00 4.07 4.00 4.00 4.67 4.33 3.61 3.33 3.67 3.67 3.33 3.00 3.67 3.00 4.29 3.91 3.67 3.67 4.08 4.04 4.00 4.00 4.20 3.67 4.00 3.67 3.72 3.44 3.00 3.33 3.81 4.33 3.83 4.00 3.87 4.33 3.33 3.00 4.33 4.14 4.33 4.00 4.04 4.38 4.33 3.67 4.20 4.00 4.67 4.00 3.78 3.61 3.00 3.00

306 APPENDIX T: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS REPORT Table T1 Summary Section of Team Performance Count Team PM 109 17 Mean 1.64 1.59 SD 1.56 1.54 SE 0.14 0.37 Minimum -1.00 -1.00 Maximum 3.00 3.00 Range 1.00 1.00

Table T2 Counts Section of Team Performance Sum of Distinct Missing Total Sum Rows Sum Freq. Values Values Squares Team 109 109 8 0 358.00 541.00 PM 17 17 8 0 27.00 81.00

Adjusted Sum Squares 284.98 42.67

Table T3 Means Section of Team Performance Geometric Harmonic Parameter Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob. Level Count PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob. Level Count Mean 1.64 0.14 Median 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 109 1.59 0.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 17 14 14 90 1.87 90 1.62 27.00 3.00 Mean 1.93 Mean 1.67 Sum 358.00 Mode 3.00

307 Table T4 Variation Section of Team Performance Unbiased Parameter Variance Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL 2.38 0.37 1.54 1.54 0.37 1.33 1.00 2.29 0.14 SD 1.56 SD 1.56 SE 0.14 Inter-quartile Range 1.33 Range 1.00

Table T5 Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Team Performance Coefficient Parameter Team Value Std Error PM Value Std Error Skewness -0.61 0.14 -0.59 0.37 -0.98 6.61 2.29 Kurtosis 1.00 Fisher's 4.71 of Variation 2.38 Coefficient of Dispersion 0.16

308 Table T6 Summary Section of Charisma Count Team PM 109 17 Mean 4.11 4.22 SD 0.80 0.60 SE 0.05 0.15 Minimum 1.67 2.00 Maximum 5.00 5.00 Range 3.33 2.33

Table T7 Counts Section of Charisma Sum of Distinct Rows Team PM 109 17 Freq. 109 17 Values 8 8 Missing Values 0 0 Sum 448.33 71.67 Total Sum Squares 1896.56 307.89 Adjusted Sum Squares 999.05 162.19

309

Table T8 Means Section of Charisma Geometric Harmonic Parameter Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob Level Count PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob Level Count Mean 4.11 0.05 -0.77 2.69 1.10 0.28 109 4.22 0.15 -6.62 5.15 0.85 0.41 17 14 14 4.33 4.33 4.33 90 4.13 90 4.02 71.67 4.67 4.33 4.33 Median 4.33 Mean 4.01 Mean 3.87 Sum 448.33 Mode 4.33

310

Table T9 Variation Section of Charisma Unbiased Parameter Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL Variance 3.33 0.21 -0.25 0.58 0.36 0.65 -0.83 1.93 2.76 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.15 0.66 2.33 SD 0.80 SD 0.80 SE of Mean 0.05 Inter-quartile Range 0.67 Range 3.33

Table T10 Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Charisma Coefficient Parameter Skewness Team Value Std Error PM Value Std Error -0.91 0.87 -1.51 2.76 2.33 0.72 0.55 Kurtosis 0.81 Fisher's of Variation 0.63 0.17 Coefficient of Dispersion 0.16

311 Table T11 Summary Section of Shared Responsibility Count Team PM 109 17 Mean 3.90 3.92 SD 0.58 0.69 SE 0.05 0.17 Minimum 1.33 2.00 Maximum 5.00 5.00 Range 3.17 3.50

Table T12 Counts Section of Shared Responsibility Adjusted Sum of Distinct Missing Rows Team PM 109 17 Freq. 109 17 Values 8 8 Values 0 0 Sum 424.67 66.67 Total Sum Squares 1722.22 269.11 Sum Squares 907.22 141.76

312

Table T13 Means Section of Shared Responsibility Geometric Harmonic Parameter Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob Level Count PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob Level Count Mean 3.90 0.05 0.02 0.74 2.12 0.84 109 3.92 0.17 -0.35 1.94 1.48 0.16 17 14 14 4.00 4.00 4.00 90 3.82 90 3.70 66.67 4.00 4.00 4.00 Median 4.00 Mean 3.74 Mean 3.52 Sum 424.67 Mode 3.67

Table T14 Variation Section of Shared Responsibility

313 Unbiased Parameter Variance Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL 0.63 0.05 -1.28 1.57 0.36 0.54 -6.10 3.02 0.69 0.69 0.17 1.00 3.50 SD 0.58 SD 0.58 SE 0.05 Inter-quartile Range 1.00 Range 3.17

Table T15 Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Shared Responsibility Coefficient Coefficient Parameter Team Value Std Error PM Value Std Error Skewness -0.60 0.05 -1.11 0.17 3.14 2.20 -1.54 0.80 Kurtosis 0.08 Fisher's 4.49 of Variation 0.15 of Dispersion 0.38

314

Table T16 Summary Section of Continuous Development Count Team PM 109 17 Mean 3.76 3.98 SD 0.78 0.57 SE 0.06 0.14 Minimum 1.67 1.00 Maximum 5.00 5.00 Range 3.33 3.00

Table T17 Counts Section of Continuous Development Adjusted Sum of Rows Team PM 109 17 Freq. 109 17 Distinct Values 8 8 Missing Values 0 0 Sum 409.67 67.67 Total Sum Squares 1600.56 274.56 Sum Squares 843.13 144.63

315

Table T18 Means Section of Continuous Development Geometric Harmonic Parameter Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob. Level Count PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob. Level Count Mean 3.76 0.06 -0.50 2.44 1.30 0.20 109 3.98 0.14 -6.90 4.68 1.00 0.69 17 14 14 4.00 4.00 90 3.80 90 3.51 67.67 4.00 4.00 Median 4.00 Mean 3.59 Mean 3.38 Sum 409.67 Mode 4.00

316 Table T19 Variation Section of Continuous Development Unbiased Parameter Variance SD Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL 2.12 0.56 0.33 0.14 -0.76 0.57 0.57 0.14 0.66 3.00 0.56 0.06 -0.21 0.78 SD 3.76 SE 0.06 Inter-quartile Range 0.66 Range 3.33

Table T20 Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Continuous Development Coefficient Parameter Team Value Std Error PM Value Std Error Skewness -0.42 0.06 -0.24 0.14 -0.42 1.00 -1.11 0.68 Kurtosis -0.27 Fisher's of Variation 0.18 Coefficient of Dispersion 0.97

317

Table T21 Summary Section of Mutual Influence Relationships Count Team PM 109 17 Mean 4.00 4.04 SD 0.64 0.44 SE 0.05 0.11 Minimum 1.33 2.00 Maximum 5.00 5.00 Range 3.17 3.50

Table T22 Counts Section of Mutual Influence Relationships Sum of Distinct Rows Team PM 109 17 Freq. 109 17 Values 10 10 Missing Values 0 0 Sum 436.33 68.67 Total Sum Squares 1805.89 280.44 Adjusted Sum Squares 951.29 147.73

318

Table T23 Means Section of Mutual Influence Relationships Geometric Harmonic Parameter Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob Level Count PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob Level Count Mean 4.00 0.05 0.01 1.64 2.01 0.92 109 4.04 0.11 -2.06 1.81 0.57 0.58 17 14 14 4.00 4.00 90 3.99 90 3.92 68.67 4.00 4.00 Median 4.00 Mean 3.87 Mean 3.67 Sum 436.33 Mode 4.33

319

Table T24 Variation Section of Mutual Influence Relationships Unbiased Parameter Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL Variance 0.55 0.05 -1.48 0.77 0.19 0.11 -5.75 9.95 0.44 0.44 0.11 0.67 3.50 SD 0.64 SD 0.65 SE 0.05 Inter-quartile Range 0.67 Range 3.17

Table T25 Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Mutual Influence Relationships Coefficient Parameter Skewness Kurtosis Team Value Std Error PM Value Std Error -0.78 0.05 -0.24 0.11 0.86 0.02 2.10 -0.13 0.63 Fisher's of Variation 4.06 0.08 Coefficient of Dispersion 0.39

320 Table T26 Summary Section of Common Vision Count Team PM 109 17 Mean 3.76 3.94 SD 0.67 0.65 SE 0.06 0.16 Minimum 1.00 2.00 Maximum 5.00 5.00 Range 3.00 3.50

Table T27 Counts Section of Common Vision Sum of Distinct Rows Team PM 109 17 Freq. 109 17 Values 8 8 Missing Values 0 0 Sum 410.00 67.00 Total Sum Squares 1616.22 270.78 Adjusted Sum Squares 851.38 142.64

321

Table T28 Means Section of Common Vision Geometric Harmonic Parameter Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob Level Count PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob Level Count Mean 3.76 0.06 -1.22 1.40 0.51 0.36 109 3.94 0.16 -0.08 0.62 1.55 0.62 17 14 14 3.67 90 3.84 90 3.73 67.00 3.33 Median 4.00 Mean 3.59 Mean 3.37 Sum 410.00 Mode 4.00

322 Table T29 Variation Section of Common Vision Unbiased Parameter Variance Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL 0.69 0.06 -3.99 6.47 0.42 0.16 -0.71 1.96 0.65 0.65 0.16 1.00 3.50 SD 0.67 SD 0.67 SE 0.06 Inter-quartile Range 1.00 Range 3.00

Table T30 Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Common Vision Coefficient Parameter Skewness Kurtosis Fisher's of Variation Coefficient of Dispersion

Team Value Std Error PM Value Std Error

-0.71 0.06 0.34 0.16

0.64

2.40

1.24

0.09

-1.27

0.02

0.62

0.27

323 Table T31 Summary Section of Group Interests Count Team PM 109 17 Mean 3.88 3.96 SD 0.68 0.45 SE 0.05 0.11 Minimum Maximum 1.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 Range 3.00 3.50

Table T32 Counts Section of Group Interests Sum of Rows Team PM 109 17 Freq. 109 17 Distinct Values 8 8 Missing Values 0.00 0.00 Sum 423.00 67.33 Total Sum Squares 1705.44 270.00 Adjusted Sum Squares 898.38 142.23

324

Table T33 Means Section of Group Interests Geometric Parameter Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob Level Count PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob Level Count Mean 3.88 0.05 -0.06 0.68 1.64 0.55 109 3.96 0.11 -1.95 1.78 0.55 0.59 17 14 14 4.00 90 3.89 90 3.80 67.33 4.00 Median 4.00 Mean 3.72 Harmonic Mean 3.50 Sum 423.00 Mode 3.33

325

Table T34 Variation Section of Group Interests Unbiased Parameter Variance Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL 0.59 0.05 -1.03 1.92 0.21 0.11 -5.53 9.36 0.45 0.46 0.11 0.67 3.50 SD 0.68 SD 0.68 SE 0.05 Inter-quartile Range 0.67 Range 3.00

Table T35 Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Group Interests Coefficient Parameter Team Value Std Error PM Value Std Error Skewness -0.70 0.05 0.57 0.11 0.48 0.01 1.92 -0.10 Kurtosis 0.78 Fisher's 2.69 of Variation 1.90 Coefficient of Dispersion -0.08

326 Table T36 Summary Section of Risk Taking Count Team PM 109 17 Mean 3.91 4.08 SD 0.75 0.55 SE 0.05 0.13 Minimum 1.67 2.00 Maximum 5.00 5.00 Range 3.33 3.50

Table T37 Counts Section of Risk Taking Sum of Distinct Rows Team PM 109 17 Freq. 109 17 Values 10 10 Missing Values 0 0 Sum 426.33 69.33 Total Sum Squares 1724.78 287.56 Adjusted Sum Squares 908.57 151.48

327

Table T38 Means Section of Risk Taking Geometric Harmonic Parameter Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob Level Count PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob Level Count Mean 3.91 0.05 0.05 0.82 2.21 0.94 109 4.08 0.13 -5.81 6.91 0.35 0.86 17 14 14 4.00 4.00 90 4.00 90 3.90 69.33 4.33 4.00 Median 4.00 Mean 3.78 Mean 3.60 Sum 69.33 Mode 4.00

328

Table T39 Variation Section of Risk Taking Unbiased Parameter Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL Variance 0.53 0.05 -1.61 1.49 0.30 0.13 -1.29 1.80 0.55 0.55 0.13 1.00 3.50 SD 0.75 SD 0.55 SE 0.05 Inter-quartile Range 1.00 Range 3.33

Table T40 Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Risk Taking Coefficient Parameter Team Value Std Error PM Value Std Error Skewness -0.75 0.20 -0.33 0.73 -0.48 0.12 0.55 0.25 Kurtosis 0.46 Fisher's 4.89 of Variation -0.06 Coefficient of Dispersion 0.43

329 Table T41 Summary Section of Collaboration Count Team PM 109 17 Mean 3.93 4.24 SD 0.67 0.50 SE 0.05 0.12 Minimum 1.00 2.00 Maximum 5.00 5.00 Range 3.00 3.50

Table T42 Counts Section of Collaboration Sum of Distinct Missing Rows Team PM 109 17 Freq. 109 17 Values 8 8 Values 0 0 Sum 428.67 72.00 Total Sum Squares 1743.11 308.89 Adjusted Sum Squares 918.22 162.71

330

Table T43 Means Section of Collaboration Geometric Harmonic Parameter Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob Level Count PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob Level Count Mean 3.93 0.05 -0.51 2.69 1.45 0.61 109 4.24 0.12 -0.08 0.71 1.59 0.36 17 14 14 4.33 4.33 90 4.17 90 4.10 72.00 4.00 4.00 Median 4.00 Mean 3.80 Mean 3.60 Sum 428.67 Mode 4.00

331 Table T44 Variation Section of Collaboration Unbiased Parameter Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL Variance 0.53 0.05 -9.86 3.78 0.25 0.12 -1.17 1.98 0.50 0.50 0.12 0.67 3.00 SD 0.67 SD 0.67 SE 0.05 Inter-quartile Range 0.67 Range 4.00

Table T45 Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Collaboration Coefficient Parameter Skewness Kurtosis Fisher's of Variation Coefficient of Dispersion

Team

Value Std Error

-0.79 0.05 -0.07 0.12

1.56

2.52

-3.04

1.10

PM

Value Std Error

-0.95

2.12

0.40

0.32

332 Table T46 Summary Section of Empowerment Count Team PM 109 17 Mean 3.88 4.06 SD 0.73 0.58 SE 0.05 0.14 Minimum 1.00 1.00 Maximum 5.00 5.00 Range 3.00 3.00

Table T47 Counts Section of Empowerment Sum of Rows Team PM 109 17 Freq. 109 17 Distinct Values 8 8 Missing Values 0 0 Sum 423.00 69.00 Total Sum Squares 1704.33 285.44 Adjusted Sum Squares 897.80 150.37

333

Table T48 Means Section of Empowerment Geometric Parameter Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob Level Count PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL T-Value Prob Level Count Mean 3.88 0.05 -0.04 0.71 1.77 0.65 109 4.06 0.14 -1.57 1.35 0.72 0.48 17 14 14 4.00 4.00 90 3.93 90 3.73 69.00 4.67 4.00 Median 4.00 Mean 3.74 Harmonic Mean 3.54 Sum 423.00 Mode 4.00

334

Table T49 Variation Section of Empowerment Unbiased Parameter Variance Team Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL PM Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL 0.58 0.05 -1.14 1.82 0.34 0.05 -3.96 8.03 0.58 0.58 0.14 0.66 3.00 SD 0.73 SD 0.73 SE 0.05 Inter-quartile Range 0.66 Range 3.00

Table T50 Skewness and Kurtosis Section of Empowerment Coefficient Parameter Skewness Kurtosis Fisher's of Variation Coefficient of Dispersion

Team

Value Std Error

-1.01 0.05 -0.14 0.14

1.82

3.14

0.34

0.33

PM

Value Std Error

-1.04

0.03

335 APPENDIX U: CORRELATION COEFFICIENT MATRIX PROJECT MANAGER SURVEY


Team Performance 1.000 n=17 P= 1.000 0.214 n=17 P= 0.002 0.325 n=17 P= 0.008 0.225 n=17 P= 0.006 -0.132 n=17 P= 0.005 0.064 n=17 P= 0.0055 0.006 n=17 P= 0.005 0.022 n=17 P= 0.004 0.256 n=17 P= 0.003 -0.111 n=17 P= 0.004 Shared Responsibility Continuous Common Development Vision Mutual Influence Relationship Group Interests Risk Taking

Charisma

Collaboration

Empowerment

Team Performance

Charisma Shared Responsibility Continuous Development Common Vision Mutual Influence Relationships

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

Group Interests

P=

Risk Taking

P=

Collaboration

P=

Empowerment

P=

1.000 n=17 0.000 0.859 n=17 0.001 0.489 n=17 0.000 0.567 n=17 0.000 0.614 n=17 0.000 0.397 n=17 0.000 0.666 n=17 0.000 0.787 n=17 0.000 0.711 n=17 0.000

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

1.000 n=17 0.0000 0.475 n=17 0.000 0.528 n=17 0.000 0.636 n=17 0.000 0.476 n=17 0.000 0.685 n=17 0.000 0.662 n=17 0.000 0.701 n=17 0.000

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

1.000 n=17 0.0000 0.710 n=17 0.000 0.507 n=17 0.000 0.604 n=17 0.000 0.461 n=17 0.000 0.414 n=17 0.000 0.476 n=17 0.000

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

1.000 n=17 0.000 0.588 n=17 0.000 0.685 n=17 0.000 0.546 n=17 0.000 0.631 n=17 0.000 0.639 n=17 0.000

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

1.000 n=17 0.000 0.721 n=17 0.000 0.612 n=17 0.000 0.685 n=17 0.000 0.749 n=17 0.000

P=

P=

P=

P=

1.000 n=17 0.000 0.591 n=17 0.000 0.487 n=17 0.000 0.606 n=17 0.000

P=

P=

P=

1.000 n=17 0.000 0.515 n=17 0.000 0.795 n=17 0.000

P=

P=

1.000 n=17 0.000 0.664 n=17 0.000

P=

1.000 n=17 0.000

336 APPENDIX V: CORRELATION COEFFICIENT MATRIX PROJECT TEAM SURVEY


Team Performanc e 1.000 n=109 0.163 n=109 0.003 0.303 n=109 0.009 0.265 n=109 0.017 0.313 n=109 0.006 0.230 n=109 0.013 0.2412 n=109 0.009 0.390 n=109 0.008 0.296 n=109 0.007 0.354 n=109 0.010 Shared Responsibilit y Continuous Development Common Vision Mutual Influence Relationship Group Interests Risk Taking

Charisma

Collaboration

Empowerment

Team Performance

Charisma Shared Responsibility Continuous Development Common Vision Mutual Influence Relationships Group Interests

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

Risk Taking

P=

Collaboration

P=

Empowerment

P=

1.000 n=10 0.000 0.810 n=10 0.001 0.787 n=10 0.000 0.847 n=10 0.000 0.827 n=10 0.000 0.725 n=10 0.000 0.821 n=10 0.000 0.845 n=10 0.000 0.703 n=10 0.000

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

1.000 n=109 0.000 0.811 n=109 0.0000 0.867 n=109 0.000 0.810 n=109 0.000 0.789 n=109 0.000 0.864 n=109 0.000 0.918 n=109 0.000 0.818 n=109 0.000

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

1.000 n=109 0.000 0.821 n=109 0.000 0.828 n=109 0.000 0.693 n=109 0.000 0.672 n=109 0.000 0.812 n=109 0.000 0.606 n=109 0.000

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

P=

1.000 n=109 0.000 0.943 n=109 0.001 0.829 n=109 0.000 0.838 n=109 0.000 0.894 n=109 0.000 0.859 n=109 0.000

1.000 n=109 0.000 0.797 n=109 0.000 0.805 n=109 0.000 0.833 n=109 0.000 0.770 n=109 0.000

P=

P=

P=

P=

1.00 n=10 0.00 0.83 n=10 0.00 0.89 n=10 0.00 0.83 n=10 0.00

P=

P=

P=

1.00 n=1 0.00 0.86 n=1 0.00 0.87 n=1 0.00

P=

P=

1.000 n=109 0.000 0.779 n=109 0.000

P=

1.000 n=109 0.000

Вам также может понравиться