Unleashing Project Success: The Impact of Transformational Leadership and Teambuilding

The article titled "Transformational Leadership and Project Success: The Mediating Role of Teambuilding" explores the relationship between transformational leadership, teambuilding, and project success. The study, based on a field survey of 200 development project managers in the Ethiopian NGO sector, suggests that teambuilding partially mediates the effect of transformational leadership on project success. The findings contribute to a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying this relationship and have implications for project-based organizations.

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299738265
Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating role of team-
building
Article in International Journal of Project Management · July 2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.012
CITATIONS
39
READS
6,168
3 authors:
Deribe Aga
Ethiopian Civil Service University
6 PUBLICATIONS41CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Niels Noorderhaven
Tilburg University
174PUBLICATIONS5,236CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Bertha Vallejo
Maastricht University
18PUBLICATIONS86CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating
role of team-building
D.A. Agaa,b,⁎, N. Noorderhavena, B. Vallejoa
a Tilburg School of Economics and Management (TiSEM), Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
b Ethiopian Civil Service University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Received 4 September 2015; received in revised form 15 December 2015; accepted 23 February 2016
Abstract
Although the effect of transformational leadership on project success is empirically supported, less is known about the me
this effect.To address this issue,we propose the mediating role ofteam-building as a possible explanation ofthe relationship between
transformational leadership and project success. Based on a field survey of 200 development project managers in the Ethiop
Organization (NGO) sector,the results of our study indicate thatteam-building partially mediates the effectof transformationalleadership on
project success. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Project success; Team-building; Transformational leadership
1. Introduction
Criticalsuccess factors (CSFs)are an importanttheme of
research in the project management literature (Ika et al., 2012;
Nauman etal., 2010;Söderlund,2011).This branch ofthe
literature has increased our understanding of factors critically
influencing projectsuccess.One of the CSFs identified is the
leadership style ofthe projectmanager,with specifically a
positive effectof transformationalleadership (Anantatmula,
2010; Lindgren and Packendorff, 2009; Riaz et al., 2013; Yang
et al., 2010).
Although previous research demonstrates that transformational
leadership positively influences project success, there is scant work
explaining the mechanisms underlying the relationship between
transformationalleadership and projectsuccess (Kozlowskiand
Ilgen, 2006; Piccolo and Colquitt,2006; Yang et al., 2010).For
instance,Piccolo and Colquitt(2006)point out that the
underlying processes through which transformationalleader-
ship exerts its influences on projectsuccess have notbeen
adequately addressed in the projectmanagementliterature.
Keegan and Den Hartog (2004) note that the positive effec
transformational leadership behaviors are weaker in a proje
contextthan forline managers,and they callfor studies of
factorsmoderating ormediating therelationship between
transformational leadership and outcomes in order to acqu
better understanding. Similarly, Avolio et al. (2004) empha
that a more concerted effort is required to explore the proc
and boundaryconditionsfor transformationalleadership
leading to beneficial work behaviors.
The present study seeks to contribute to a better unders
ing of the mechanismsthroughwhich transformational
leadership behaviorof projectmanagersinfluencesproject
success.Gundersen etal. (2012)call for more research to
understand the relationship between transformationalleader-
ship and team performancethrough theuse of mediators
representing team processes.Similarly,a meta-analysisby
Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006) identifies transformational lead
ship as a promisingleveragepoint for enhancingteam
processes,such as team-building.Scholars like Scott-Young
⁎ Corresponding author at: Tilburg University, School of Economics and Man-
agement,P.O. Box: 90153,5000 LE Tilburg,The Netherlands.Tel.: +251
911839017.
E-mail address: [e-mail] (D.A. Aga).
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.012
0263-7863/00 © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 806 – 818

and Samson (2008) and Turner et al. (2008) highlight the need
for empirical studies on comprehensive team-building practices
in a project context. Following up on these calls, this research
proposesthat team-buildingplays a significantrole in
mediating the relationship between transformational leadership
and projectsuccess.The study assumes thattransformational
leaderbehaviors facilitate team-building interventions,which
in turn are reflected in project success.
Understanding themechanismsthatcausethe effectof
transformationalleadership on projectsuccesshelpsus to
articulate a better theoretical understanding of this relationship.
Moreover, understanding how the effect comes about can provide
practicalguidance for project-based organizations thatwantto
reap the effectsof transformationalleadership to the fullest
extent.
Using a field survey of200 NGOs implementing diverse
developmentprojectsin Ethiopia,this study analyzesthe
relationshipsbetweenproject managers'transformational
leadership,team-building,and projectsuccess.In the study,
we conceptualize developmentprojects as those interventions
that aim to reduce poverty and improve the well-being of rural
communities (Banks and Hulme, 2012; Khang and Moe, 2008).
2. Theoretical framework
This section presents the theoretical foundations for the three
constructsof the study,namely,projectsuccess,project
leadership, and team-building practices.
2.1. Project success
Traditionally,projectmanagement has been associated with
the fields ofconstruction and engineering,where the project
success criteria are objective,well-accepted,and measurable,
usually by the conventional triangle criteria of time, budget, and
compliance with the client's terms ofreference,or ‘quality’.
Project management, however, has become ubiquitous nowadays
in the service sector, as well as in areas like capacity building and
socialwork projects (Diallo and Thuillier,2005).The Project
Management Institute (PMI) defines project success as balancing
the competing demands for project quality, scope, time, and cost,
as well as meeting the varying concerns and expectations of the
project stakeholders (PMI, 2008, p. 9).
Ika (2015) indicates thatwhile the ‘iron triangle’ (i.e.,cost,
time,and quality)dominated the conceptof projectsuccess
criteria in the 1960s to 1980s,many other criteria were added
more recently. These include benefit to the organization, end user
satisfaction, benefit to stakeholders, benefit to project personnel,
strategic objectives of the organization, and business success.
Though there is no consensus on project success criteria in the
project management literature, the works by Ika et al. (2012) and
Khang and Moe (2008)are comprehensive and relevantfor
developmentprojects.The criteria setforth by these authors
include relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustain-
ability. Relevance refers to the extent to which the project suits
the priorities of the targetgroup,the recipient,and the donor.
Efficiency refers to the extent to which the project uses the least
costly resourcespossibleto achievethe desiredresults.
Effectiveness refers to the extent to which the project me
objectives.Impactrefers to the positive and negative change
produced by the project,directly orindirectly,planned and
unplanned.Sustainability refers to whether the benefits of t
projectare likely to continue afterdonorfunding hasbeen
withdrawn.
2.2. Transformational leadership
Even though the topic of leadership has been under ac
study for several decades, there is a dearth of empirical w
projectmanagementcontexts(Söderlund,2011;Turnerand
Müller, 2005; Tyssen et al., 2013). Full-range leadership t
one of the most widely recognized theories of leadership,
encompassestransformational,transactional,and laissez-faire
styles (Sohmen,2013).For our purpose,we focus on transfor-
mationalleadershipsince studieshave indicatedits high
relevance for project-oriented organizations (Gundersenal.,
2012).
There appearsto be generalagreementin the literature
on four of the dimensionsthatmakeup transformational
leadership:idealized influence,intellectualstimulation,inspi-
rational motivation, and individualized consideration. Ide
influence is behavior that arouses strong follower emotio
identification with the leader. Inspirational motivation is s
when a leader conveys a vision that is appealing and insp
for subordinates and provides them challenging assignme
and increased expectations. Intellectual stimulation is be
that increases followers' awareness of problems and influ
them to develop innovativeand/orcreativeapproachesto
solving them.Individualized consideration includes providin
support,encouragement,and coaching to followers (Avolio et
al., 2004; Lindgren and Packendorff, 2009).
2.3. Team-building
In studieson practicesof human resourcesmanagement
(HRM) in project-based organizations, team-building is se
core aspect of HRM (Huemann et al., 2007; Turner et al.,
We adoptthe team-building definition given by Klein etal.
(2009, p. 3) as ‘the formal and informal team-level interv
that focus on improving social relations and clarifying rol
well as solving task and interpersonal problems that affec
functioning’. In the literature, there is a consensus that th
fourdistinctapproaches,which can also be combined.These
approaches are goal-setting,developing interpersonalrelations,
clarifying roles,and employing problem-solving techniques
(Klein et al., 2009; Salas et al., 1999). Each of the
team-building practices is briefly presented below.
Goal-setting: This approach involves clarifying for the t
membersthe generalgoalsand specificobjectivesof the
project,sometimesby definingsubtasksand establishing
timetables.Team membersexposedto a goal-settingare
expected to become involved in action planning to identi
ways to achieve those goals.Studies show thatgoal-setting
intervention combined with performancemeasurementand
807D.A. Aga et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 806–818

feedback have in many casesbeen successfully applied in
organizations (Salas et al., 1999).
Role-clarification/definition:This intervention entails clari-
fying individualrole expectations,group norms,and shared
responsibilitiesof team members(Klein et al., 2009).It
emphasizes increased communication among team members
regarding their respective roles within the team. Team members
exposed to role-clarification activities are expected to achieve
better understanding of their and others' respective roles and
duties within the team (Salas et al., 1999).
Interpersonalprocesses:This intervention fostersfrank
discussion of relationships and conflicts among team members,
often directed towards clearing up any hidden agendas and
resolving conflicts (Klein et al.,2009).It involves an increase
in team work skills, such as mutual supportiveness, communi-
cation,and sharing offeelings.This approach assumes that
teams operate best with mutual trust, open communication, and
confidence;it attempts to build group cohesion (Mathieu and
Schulze, 2006; Salas et al., 1999).
Problem solving: The fourth team-building practice empha-
sizes the identification of major problems in the team's tasks in
orderto enhance task-related skills.It is an intervention in
which team membersidentifymajor problems,generate
relevantinformation,engage in problem-solving and action
planning, and implement and evaluate action plans (Beebe and
Masterson, 2015).
3. Research model and hypotheses
This section presents the conceptual framework and hypoth-
eses of the study. It also highlights the relationships between the
variables in the study. Fig. 1 depicts the conceptual framework of
the study. The study argues that team-building plays a mediating
role in the relationship between transformational leadership and
project success.
3.1. Transformational leadership and project success
Studies show thattransformationalleadership has a signif-
icant effect on workplace outcomes,including project success
(Anantatmula,2010;Yang etal., 2010).However,work on
leadership in project contexts remains relatively scarce (Turner
and Müller,2005),and transformationalleadership in project
settings may work differently than in the context of permanent
organizations (Keegan and Den Hartog, 2004).
The literature shows thatappropriate behaviors by project
managers play a crucial role in obtaining greater project su
(Scott-Young and Samson, 2008; Zwikael and Unger-Aviram
2010).Transformationalleadersthus inspirefollowersto
perform beyond theirexpectations.They also fosterhealthy
working relationships (Sohmen,2013).Such types of project
managers enhance team cohesion and mutualunderstanding,
facilitate the open exchange of ideas and analytical perspe
acrossprojectteams,and emphasizethe developmentof
followerself-managementor self-leadership skills.This in
turn can create an atmosphere where team membersexert
continued effort to realize project success (Burke et al., 200
Thereby, we propose the following research hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1.Transformational leadership positively influenc
project success.
3.2. Transformational leadership and team-building
McDonough (2000) provides four arguments explaining t
influentialrole of the projectmanager's leadership style on
team-building practices.First,effective projectleadership is
needed to delineate task boundaries for the team and allow
members to perform within those boundaries.Second,project
leaders should exhibittransformationalleadership,in which
team members are given the freedom to explore,discuss,and
make theirown decisionsaboutthe techniquesto employ,
problems to solve,and tasks to perform.Third,an effective
leadership style is vitalto share information and knowledge
within the team and with other groups in the organization,so
thatrealistic decisions can be made.This involves designing
communication mechanismsto share information aboutthe
focus of the project, project changes and developments, an
individualmembers' responsibilities.Fourth,effective project
leadership is required because itenhances the team commit-
ment by instilling a positive attitude and climate that helps
achieve project success.
Sohmen (2013) underlines thatleaders mustcreate a work
environmentthatis conduciveto team membersworking
togetherin cooperativeand goal-orientedefforts.Thus,
effective leadership is clearly imperative in orderto induce
team-building. Even if the project team is high-performing
the right capabilities, it will not be successful in the absenc
effective leadership (Burke et al., 2006).
A projectmanager's transformationalleadership behavior
can thusinspirea projectteam to perform beyond their
expectations through classical team-building interventions
as goal-setting, role-clarification, interpersonal communica
and problem-solving techniques (Klein etal.,2009).The net
result is a continual empowering of motivated team memb
accomplish goals with visible enthusiasm,by creating team
synergy rather than concentrating on individualcontributions
(Burke et al., 2006; Sohmen, 2013). Thus, the above argum
form the bases for the second research hypothesis of this s
which can be stated as follows:
Hypothesis 2.Transformational leadership positively influenc
project team-building.
Project success
Team-building
Transformational
leadership
H1
Mediation: H4
H2 H3
Fig. 1. Conceptualframework ofthe study.Source:Created by the authors
based on Klein etal. (2009),Piccolo and Colquitt(2006),Walumbwa etal.
(2008), and Yang et al. (2010).
808 D.A. Aga et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 806–818

3.3. Team-building and project success
One of the drawbacks of previous studies on team-building
is the tendency to focuson outcome measuresotherthan
performance (Salas etal.,1999).In addition,the conceptual-
ization of(thecomponentsof) team-building isoften not
clearly defined (LePine et al., 2008). According to Salas and his
colleagues,‘Part of the problem lies in the ambiguity of what
precisely is team-building and what studies should be included
in an effort to integratethe effectof team-buildingon
performance’(Salaset al., 1999,p. 313). For example,
recentstudies (Scott-Young and Samson,2008;Zwikaeland
Unger-Aviram,2010)have started to examine the effects of
team-building,but they use broaddimensionsof HRM
functionslike training,pay and rewards,coordination,and
empowerment,withoutfocusing on the fourwell-established
components of team-building (Salas et al., 1999, 2008).
If such flawsin the conceptualization ofteam-building
interventions are avoided, team-building may be found to have
positive effects on project success (Bubshait and Farooq, 1999;
Salas et al., 1999).This implies that the practicesof
team-building components (goal-setting, interpersonal process-
es, role-clarification,and problem-solving)can lead to im-
proved performance through modification of attitudes,values,
problem-solvingtechniques,and interpersonaland group
processes (LePine etal., 2008).According to this argument,
team-building practices have the potentialto lead to greater
projectsuccess(Jacqueset al., 2007;Somech,2006).For
example,a study by Hoegl and Parboteeah (2003) shows that
having specific,clear,and accepted goalshas a positive
correlationwith projectsuccess‘by directingattention,
mobilizingeffort, increasingpersistence,and motivating
strategy development’ (Hoegl and Parboteeah, 2003).
Our expectation is thatteam-building practices do impact
projectsuccess,butthatthis effecthas notbeen identified in
previousresearch because ofunclearconceptualization and
measurement.For example,recentmeta-analysisfindings
indicate thatteam-building has a significanteffecton team
performance (Klein et al., 2009), a finding that likely can also
be extended to projectcontexts.This forms the basis for the
third hypothesis of this paper, which can be stated as follows:
Hypothesis3. Team-building practicespositivelyinfluence
project success.
3.4. The mediating role of team-building
Transformationalleadership helpscreate formalongoing
mechanismsthatpromote two-way communication and the
exchange of information within the projectteam (Piccolo and
Colquitt, 2006). This could obviously influence project success.
Furthermore, Yang et al. (2010) underline that transformational
leadership can achieveprojectsuccessby augmenting the
benefits of team-building practices. Components of team-building
such as goal-setting, role-clarification, interpersonal relations, and
problem-solving practices are implemented to enhance project
team performance and have a positive influence on project success
(Klein etal.,2009).As indicated by Eisenbeiss etal. (2008),
success of a project comes when team members agree o
goals and approaches to goal achievement, and they est
adhere to high quality standardsthrough the dimensionsof
team-building.Similarly,Braun etal. (2013)pointout that
successfulprojectperformance requires trustfulinteraction and
communication between team members.
According to Kissiet al. (2013),the extentto which team
membersperceive theirwork environmentto be supportive
determines their levelof motivation,energy,and efforts in the
courseof projectimplementation.They also remarkthat
leadershipcan influenceprojectsuccessby creatingan
environmentwhere projectteams contribute towards success
Gundersenet al. (2012)also assertthat transformational
leadership providesclarity aboutperformance standardsand
decreases role ambiguity in projects,which engenders success.
More specifically, transformational leaders have a clear v
what the project is going to be and how it can become su
The leader's vision, in turn, should reach the team memb
that they will believein it and becomeexcitedby it.
Team-building interventions thatfocus on projectgoal-setting,
role-clarification, and problem-solving would play a critica
in this communication between the project manager and
Further,transformationalleaderswho take into accountfol-
lowers'needs would promote positive interpersonalrelations
between the leader and the team as wellas among the project
team members (Zhu etal.,2005).Team members would then
appreciate the project environment of transformational le
and feel committed and motivated towards the accompli
of the project goal (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006).
On the basis of the arguments discussed above, we pro
that transformational leadership helps to enhance team-b
practices,which in turn would positively influence project
success. Team-building therefore may play a mediating r
the relationshipbetweentransformationalleadershipand
projectsuccess (Kozlowskiand Ilgen,2006). It is important
toinvestigate this link, as relatively little empirical resear
focused on themediating roleof team processessuch as
team-building in therelationship between transformational
leadership and project success (Chou et al.,2013).Hence,we
offer the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4.Team-building mediates the relationship betw
transformational leadership and project success.
4. Methods
4.1. Research setting and participants
Projects can be classified into different categories,and this
study considers developmentprojects.These projects aim to
improvethe living conditionsof communitiesin termsof
economy,education,or health.The deliverables ofdevelop-
ment projects include intangible outputs (e.g., capacity b
through training and education,and society empowerment) or
tangible targets such as poverty alleviation and living sta
improvement,environmentprotection,and basic physicaland
809D.A. Aga et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 806–818

socialinfrastructures (Goliniet al., 2015;Khang and Moe,
2008).
For this study, the research setting was NGOs that engage in
developmentprojectson a regularbasisand thatrepresent
projectbased-organizations.Data was gathered from project
managers in the Ethiopian NGO sector.
4.2. Sample and data collection procedure
The study's targetinstitutions were NGOs thatundertake
developmentprojects targeting poverty reduction in Ethiopia.
From thedatabaseof the FederalDemocraticRepublicof
Ethiopia Charities and Societies Agency,we compiled a list of
331 NGOs thatdirectly engage in alleviating poverty through
development projects.For a target population that is geograph-
ically dispersed, the literature recommends a multi-stage random
sampling technique design (Babbie, 2010; Saunders et al., 2009).
Accordingly,we applied a two-stage sampling technique in
which we firstrandomly selected 100 NGOsto ensure the
representativeness of the institutions engaging in development
projects (Bartlett et al., 2001). From this, we obtained 300 project
managers who constituted our sampling framework. These were
invited to participate in a questionnaire survey delivered by hand
to each respondent and collected later either by hard copy or by
e-mail.
The data were collected in the period between February
2015 and April 2015, based on the information provided by the
projectmanagers.Each projectmanagerwas informed that,
while filling out the questionnaire, he/she should consider only
one project that had been completed in the last 5 years. Out of
300 distributed questionnaires, 236 participants completed and
returned the survey. After eliminating responses with substan-
tial missingdata,we analyzed200 completedresponses,
representing a usable response rate of 66.7%.This compares
favorably to otherself-administered questionnaires(Baruch,
1999).The demographics ofour sample are summarized in
Table 1.
4.3. Measures
4.3.1. Project success (dependent variable)
There is no well-establishedapproachin the project
managementliteraturefor measuringprojectsuccess,and
there is a debate on whatactually constitutes projectsuccess
(Ika,2009;Joslin and Müller,2015;Ngacho and Das,2014;
Todorović et al.,2015).For example,some scholars (Kissiet
al., 2013; Yang et al., 2010) use composite measures of project
success criteria, whereas other scholars like Diallo and Thuillier
(2004) and Dvir etal. (2003) use disaggregated measures of
project success criteria. This study uses a composite measure of
a multi-dimensionalconstructof projectsuccess,based on
project managers' perception of certain criteria.This approach
is consistentwith previous studies (Bryde,2008;Khang and
Moe, 2008; Mir and Pinnington, 2014; Pinto and Pinto, 1990;
Suprapto et al., 2015). This project success measure consists of
14 items,coveringtime, cost, performance,client use,
satisfaction,and effectiveness.The projectmanagers assessed
each of these items on a Likert scale of 1–5 ranging betwee
‘strongly disagree’ and ‘strongly agree’.
4.3.2. Transformational leadership (the independent variab
In measuring leadership style,the Multi-FactorLeadership
Questionnaire (MLQ) has become a popular and well-valida
instrument in leadership research.The MLQ includes 36 items
measuring three core leadership styles:transformational,trans-
actional,and laissez-faire (Hinkin and Schriesheim,2008).In
order to increase the internal consistency and validity of M
measures, various studies (Doeleman et al., 2012; Tejeda e
2001; Tyssen et al., 2014) recommend an improved version
MLQ. Accordingly,we adapted a transformationalleadership
measure comprising 13 items with higher Cronbach's alpha
the originalinstrumentfrom Arifand Mehmood (2011)and
Vinger and Cilliers (2006). The five-point Likert-type scales
anchored on the extremes of 1 (not at all) to 5 (frequently,
always).
4.3.3. Project team-building
The mediator variable in the model is project team-build
According to studies by Klein et al. (2009) and Salas et al. (
team-buildingis a multi-dimensionalconstructthat entails
interventions promoting interpersonal relations, role-clarific
Table 1
Demographics.
Item Frequency%
Gender
Female 35 17.5
Male 165 82.5
Total 200 100
Level of education
First degree 65 32.5
Master's degree 135 67.5
Total 200 100
Firm category
Local NGO 96 48.0
International NGO 104 52.0
Total 200 100
Project type*
Food security 68 34.0
Water supply, sanitation, and hygiene projects (WASH)36 18.0
Environmental related 10 5.0
Alternative low cost energy 8 4.0
Capacity building 21 10.5
Community/family-based child development 30 15.0
Health care services 27 13.5
Total 200 100
Minimum Maximum Mean
Experience as project manager (years)1.0 30.0 5.6
Firm age (years) 4.0 75.0 23.6
Firm size (number of employees) 3 2000 335
Project duration (months) 4.0 96.0 37.8
Project team size (number of employees)2 291 17
Notes:Sample size (N) = 200 projectmanagers;*From these seven types of
development projects identified from the survey, six dummy variables of p
types were created and used as controlvariables for hypothesis testing.The
values are not presented in the subsequent tables for the purpose of brev
810 D.A. Aga et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 806–818

and the use of problem-solving and goal-setting techniques for the
success of a project. However, a survey of the literature uncovered
no measure of project team-building deemed appropriate for this
study.Consequently,the measurementscales for the listof the
team-building practices have been developed on the basis of the
meta-analysis by Klein etal. (2009).Accordingly,a 17-item
instrumentrepresentingfour broadareasof team-building
practices was developed forthis study:goal-setting (4 items),
interpersonal relations (5 items),role-clarification (3 items),and
problem solving (5 items).Each item was rated on a five-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
The measurement items for each of the constructs contained
in the questionnaire are indicated in Appendix 2.
4.3.4. Covariates
The age and size of the organization performing the project,
the project's duration,the projectteam size,and the project
manager's experience,gender,and educational level have been
demonstrated to influence project success, and so these variables
were included as covariates (Barrick et al., 2007). In addition, we
considered theNGO category and projecttypeas control
variables. The measures for the control variables were as follows:
genderas a binary variable (0 = female,1 = male);levelof
education as a binary variable (0 = firstdegree,1 = master's
degree); experience as a continuous variable measured by years
of experience asa projectmanager;organization ageas a
continuous variable measured by service years ofthe NGO;
organization size asa continuousvariable measured by the
numberof employees;organization category asa dummy
variable (0 = local NGO, 1 = international NGO); type of project
as one of six categorical variables referring to the project types
indicated in Table 1 (health care service project was the reference
category); project duration as a continuous variable measured by
the duration of a project in months; and project team size as a
continuous variable measured by the number of team members.
4.4. Data analysis
We undertook the analysis ofthe data in differentways.
First,we undertook exploratory and confirmatory analyses for
the constructs in the study. Second, we ran hierarchical multiple
regression analyses to testthe proposed hypotheses regarding
the relationshipsamong transformationalleadership,project
team-building, and project success.
Next, we investigated the mediating effect of team-building on
the relationship between transformation leadership and project
success.In testing the mediated relationship,we adopted the
four-step method initially designed by Baron and Kenny (1986)
and encapsulated by Hayes(2013).Firstly,the independent
variable must be related to the dependent variable (i.e.,project
success).Secondly,the independentvariable—in thiscase,
transformationalleadership—mustbe related to the mediator
variable,team-building.Thirdly,the mediator variable—in this
case, team-building—must significantly relate to the dependent
variable. Finally, when the mediator variable is controlled for, the
relationship(i.e., the coefficient)betweenthe independent
variable and the dependent variable should be either no longer
significant(full mediation)or substantially reduced (partial
mediation).In a hierarchicalregression analysis,the lasttwo
steps are performed simultaneously.In addition to these four
stepsof mediation analysis,we furtherundertook a testof
significanceof the indirecteffectof the predictorvariable
following the proceduresexplained by Hayesand Preacher
(2014).
5. Results
The results are described in the order in which the ana
were conducted.First,we presentthe validity and reliability
analyses of the scales. Second, we report the regression
the main effects of transformational leadership and team
Third, we present results of the four-stage mediation ana
5.1. Validity and reliability analyses
For the projectsuccessmeasure,an exploratory principal
components factor analysis (PCFA) was performed to inve
the structureof the data.This analysisresultedin three
components explaining 67.5% oftotalvariance.From the 14
items in the project success measure,one was rejected since it
alone loaded on the third component. After excluding thi
the 13 remaining items loaded on two components,namely,
projectefficiency and stakeholdersatisfaction,with a totalof
63.5% explainedvariance.However,a one-factormodel
accounted for 55.1% of the sample variance and also inc
the only two items that had high loadings on the second
Consequently,these 13 items were averaged to form a sing
index of project success (Cronbach alpha = 0.93).
For the measure of transformational leadership,we used 13
items from a short version of the Multi-level Questionnair
and Mehmood, 2011; Vinger and Cilliers, 2006) as one co
since we did nothave any a prioriexpectation thatindividual
components of transformational leadership would differe
affecteither the practices of team-building or projectsuccess.
Afterdeleting one item with a factorloading below 0.5,the
composite oftransformationalleadership was computed from
scores consisting of12 items (α = .894)measuring idealized
influence behavior (2 items), inspirational motivation (4 i
intellectualstimulation (3 items),and individualized consider-
ation (3 items). This procedure is consistent with empiric
by Avolio et al. (2004), Judge and Piccolo (2004), and Nem
and Keller (2007).
For the measure of team-building, PCFA reduced 17 ite
three components, namely interpersonal relations/role-cl
problem-solving,and goal-setting.One item with high factor
loadings in both the first and the second component was
and a PCFA was run for16 items.In this PCFA,16 items
loaded on three components,namely interpersonalrelations/
role-clarification,problem-solving, and goal-setting,accounting
for 66.6% of total variance. The correlations between the
components were found to be high, with coefficients abo
showing thatthereis convergentvalidity (Martinez-Martin,
2010).
811D.A. Aga et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 806–818

Afterthe exploratory analysis,we undertook confirmatory
analysis to testhow wellthe measured variables representthe
constructs. We followed the procedures recommended by Hair et
al. (2010) to testfor discriminantvalidity.First,we performed
Promax oblique rotation forthe three core variablesof this
study—namely, project success, transformational leadership, and
team-building—on a pair-wise basis.Then,we computed the
average variance extracted (AVE) for each of the factors/constructs
in pairs (in this case,projectsuccesswith transformational
leadership,projectsuccess with team-building,and transforma-
tional leadership with team-building). Based on the discriminant
validity exercise, we dropped two items of team-building since one
item was cross-loaded to the success measure and the other one
was cross-loaded to transformational leadership.
Next,we compared the AVEs with the squared correlations
for each pair of factors. In all cases, the AVE was greater than the
correlation squared, hence discriminate validity was established.
The analyses of internalhomogeneity also showed acceptable
results.Cronbach's alphas for project success,transformational
leadership, and team-building measures were .930, .840, and .931
respectively (see Table 2). Appendix 1 provides factor loadings
for the items retained in each respective construct of the study.
Table 2 shows the revised number of items, the Cronbach's
alphas, and the means and standard deviations for the three core
composite constructs used in this study.
All of the constructs' α values are above 0.8, indicating a high
degree of internal consistency in the responses (Field, 2009; Hair et
al., 2010). Table 3 presents inter-correlations among the variables.
As predicted,significantand positive correlations existamong
transformationalleadership,team-building,and projectsuccess.
Transformational leadership and project success were significantly
correlated (r = 0.437, p b 0.01), and the team-building index was
also significantly correlated with projectsuccess(r = 0.470,
p b 0.01) and transformational leadership (r = 0.522, p b 0.01).
5.2. Hypotheses testing
Hypothesis 1 states that transformational leadership pos
influences project success. Results of the hierarchical regre
analysis are printed in Table 4. In step 1, only the control v
were included in the model.None of the controlvariables was
found to be significant in explaining project success. The re
step 2 indicates that transformational leadership has a sign
and positiverelationshipwith projectsuccess(β = 0.521,
P b 0.001)and uniquely explains19.7% ofthe variance in
project success. Hence, Hypothesis 1 is supported.
Hypothesis 2 proposes thattransformationalleadership is
positively related to team-building.The results in step 1 of
Table 5 indicate thatthe controlvariables had a negligible
effecton team-building.On the otherhand,transformational
leadership uniquely contributed 24.9% ofthe variancein
team-building upon its addition to the modelin step 2.The
results further show a strong and highly significant relation
between transformationalleadership and team-building (β =
0.560, P b 0.001). Hypothesis 2 is therefore supported.
Hypothesis 3 states thatteam-building is positively related
to projectsuccess.The results in step 1 of the regression in
Table 6 indicate thatthe controlvariables had a negligible
effecton projectsuccess.On the otherhand,team-building
uniquelycontributed21.1% of the variancein project
success upon its addition to the modelin step 2.The results
show a strong and highly significantrelationship between
team-buildingand projectsuccess(β = 0.500,P b 0.001).
Hypothesis 3is therefore supported.
The Baron and Kenny (1986) procedure was used to exam
the extentto which the relationship between transformationa
leadership and projectsuccess was mediated by team-building
(Hypothesis4). Accordingly,Table7 shows the seriesof
regression analyses performed to test Hypothesis 4. In mod
the result indicates that transformational leadership has a
significant influence on the dependent variable,project success
(β = .521,P b .001).This shows that the independent variable
(i.e.,transformational leadership) is correlated with the stud
dependentvariable(projectsuccess).Thus, step1 of the
mediation analysis is satisfied.
Step 2 of the mediation analysis entails providing eviden
for a significant relationship between the independent varia
Table 2
Number of items, Cronbach's alpha, means, and SD.
Construct Number of itemsCronbach's
alpha
Mean SD
Project success 13 .930 4.10 .642
Transformational leadership12 .896 3.90 .584
Team-building 14 .931 4.03 .614
Table 3
Correlations of study variables.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Project success 1
2. Transformational leadership.437⁎⁎ 1
3. Team-building .470⁎⁎ .522⁎⁎ 1
4. Gender .085 .095 .024 1
5. Level of education −.026 −.071 .007 .018 1
6. Experience .099 .050 .077 .069 .094 1
7. Firm age −.050 −.072 .029 .063 .126 .069 1
8. Firm size −.040 .043 .143⁎ .046 .229⁎⁎ .031 .531⁎⁎ 1
9. Firm category −.003 .065 .012 .058 .188⁎⁎ −.046 .127 .325⁎⁎ 1
10. Project duration −.153* −.044 −.016 − 0.048 −.070 .100 .169⁎ .114 .079 1
11. Project team size .058 .064 .077 .061 .115 −.004 .099 .058 .139⁎ −.038 1
Notes: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
812 D.A. Aga et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 806–818

and the mediator variable.The resultof model2 in Table 7
indicatesthattransformationalleadership hasa significant
positive relationship with team-building (β = .560,P b .001),
showing that step 2 of the mediation analysis is also satisfied.
Model3 in Table 7 entails performing step 3 and step 4 of
the mediationanalysisconcurrently.Step 3 confirmsthat
team-building,the mediatorvariable,is significantly related to
projectsuccess(β = .341,P b .001).Onceteam-building is
entered into the regression, the effect of transformationa
on project success is reduced from β = .521 to β = .330,
step 4 of the mediation analysis. This represents a 36.6%
Fig. 2 summarizes the results from the mediation analy
Table 7 by taking the raw (unstandardized) regression co
and the corresponding standard errors for paths c, a, b, a
Table 4
Regression analysis oftransformationalleadership as a predictorof project
success.
Variables Project success
Step 1 Step 2
B SE Beta B SE Beta
Gender .110 .122 .065 .014 .110 .008
Level of education−.031 .104 −.023 .051 .094 .037
Experience .019 .011 .126 .013 .010 .091
Firm age −.005 .005 −.092 −.001 .004 −.021
Firm size −.000 .000 −.032 −.000 .000 −.058
Firm category .063 .101 .063 .010 .090 .008
Project duration −.005 .003 −.005 −.007** .002 −.208**
Project team size.001 .002 .001 .001 .002 .002
Transformational
leadership
.521*** .074 .474***
R2 .073 .270
Change in R2 .073 .197
F-change 1.040 49.742***
ANOVA (F) 1.040 4.542***
Notes: ** p b 0.01, ***p b 0.001. Sample size = 200, B: unstandardized beta;
SE: standard error;Beta:standardized beta;only food security from the six
indicators of projecttypes had a positive significantcorrelation with project
success (B = .322, P b 0.05).
Table 5
Regressionanalysisof transformationalleadershipas a predictorof
team-building.
Variables Team-building
Step 1 Step 2
B SE Beta B SE Beta
Gender .051 .117 .032 −.052 .101 −.032
Level of education−.048 .100 −.037 .040 .086 .030
Experience .011 .011 .076 .005 .009 .036
Firm age −.007 .005 −.132 −.003 .004 −.053
Firm size .000 .000 .169 .000 .000 .139
Firm category −.023 .096 −.019 −.079 .083 −.064
Project duration .001 .003 .026 −.001 .002 −.042
Project team size .002 .002 .099 .001 .002 .058
Transformational
leadership .560*** .068 .533***
R2 .078 .327
Change in R2 .078 .249
F-change 1.117 67.974***
ANOVA (F) 1.117 5.952***
Notes: ***p b 0.001. Sample size = 200, B: unstandardized beta; SE: standard
error;Beta:standardized beta;only WASH from the six indicators of project
types had a positive significantcorrelation with projectsuccess (B = .358,
P b 0.05).
Table 6
Regression analysis of team-building as a predictor of project success.
Variables Project success
Step 1 Step 2
B SE Beta B SE Beta
Gender .110 .122 .065 .084 .108 .050
Level of education−.031 .104 −.023 −.007 .092 −.005
Experience .019 .011 .126 .013 .010 .090
Firm age −.005 .005 −.092 −.002 .004 −.028
Firm size −.000 .000 −.032 .000 .000 −.112
Firm category .063 .101 .049 .074 .089 .058
Project duration −.005 .003 −.148 −.006* .002 −.160*
Project team size .001 .002 .039 .000 .002 −.008
Team-building .500*** .068 .479***
R2 .073 .284
Change in R2 .073 .211
F-change 1.040 54.282***
ANOVA (F) 1.040 4.869***
Notes:⁎ p b 0.05,⁎⁎ p b 0.01,⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001;Samplesize = 200,B:
unstandardized beta; SE: standard error; Beta: standardized beta.
Table 7
Regression statistics forthe effectof team-building as a mediatorbetween
transformational leadership and project success.
Model 1
(path c)
Model 2
(path a)
Model 3
(paths b and c′)
Project successTeam-buildingProject success
Transformational leadership0.521⁎⁎⁎ 0.560⁎⁎⁎ 0.330⁎⁎⁎
(0.0738) (0.0679) (0.0823)
Gender 0.0140 − 0.0518 0.0317
(0.110) (0.101) (0.105)
Level of education 0.0508 0.0399 0.0372
(0.0936) (0.0861) (0.0891)
Experience 0.0135 0.00512 0.0117
(0.00989) (0.00910) (0.00943)
Firm age − 0.00113 − 0.00268 − 0.000213
(0.00430) (0.00396) (0.00410)
Firm size − 0.0000781 0.000180 − 0.000139
(0.000109) (0.000100) (0.000105)
Firm category 0.0103 − 0.0790 0.0373
(0.0899) (0.0827) (0.0858)
Project duration − 0.00723⁎⁎ − 0.00140 − 0.00675⁎⁎
(0.00239) (0.00220) (0.00228)
Team size 0.0000638 0.00146 − 0.000434
(0.00173) (0.00160) (0.00165)
Team-building 0.341⁎⁎⁎
(0.0763)
_cons 2.129⁎⁎⁎ 1.734⁎⁎⁎ 1.538⁎⁎⁎
(0.333) (0.306) (0.343)
N 200 200 200
R2 0.270 0.327 0.342
Notes: Standard errors in parentheses;⁎ p b 0.05,⁎⁎ p b 0.01,⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.
813D.A. Aga et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 806–818

A Sobel test was further undertaken to test the significance
of the indirect effect of transformational leadership by taking
the raw (unstandardized)regressioncoefficientsand the
corresponding standard errors for path a and path b. The result
(Sobel's test statistic = 3.93, SE = 0.049, P b 0.001) confirms
the significanceof the indirecteffectof transformational
leadership on project success through its positive relationship
with team-building.Hence,team-building partially mediates
the relationshipbetweentransformationalleadershipand
project success, thereby supporting Hypothesis 4.
6. Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the linkage
between transformational leadership and project success through
the mediating role of team-building.As predicted,we found a
positive association between a project manager's transformational
leadership and project success. This finding shows that the project
manger'sleadership style playsan importantpartin project
success. Essentially, a transformational project manager motivates
and inspires team members towards a holistic conception of project
success, characterized by efficiency, effectiveness, and stakeholder
satisfaction.This finding answers the call by Turner and Müller
(2005),who underlined thatthe projectmanagementliterature
failed to give sufficient attention to the role of project managers'
leadership styles.We also found that team-building is positively
related to project success. This finding confirms the meta-analysis
by Klein et al. (2009). Our study also suggests that the combined
setof team-building interventions such as projectgoal-setting,
role-clarification,interpersonalrelations,and problem-solving
creates a highly empowered and committed project team. Through
these classic team-building practices,organizations and project
managers are more likely to improve team members' knowledge
aboutthe projectgoals,roles and responsibilities,interpersonal
communication, and problem-solving skills, which would in turn
influence project success.
Second,and perhaps more importantly,we demonstrated
that team-building partially mediates the relationship between a
projectmanager'stransformationalleadershipand project
success.This is the firststudy thatexplicitly identifiesthe
mediating role ofteam-building in the relationship between
transformational leadership and project success. Thus, we have
contributed to existing effortstowardsunderstanding how
transformationalleadership influencesprojectsuccess.This
finding suggests thatprojectmanagers exhibiting transforma-
tionalleadership are more likely to create the team-building
practices in a project environment that will help them to re
projectsuccess.These practices include projectgoal-setting,
role-clarification,interpersonalrelations,and problem-solving
techniques,which togethermotivate and empowera project
team towards project success.
6.1. Theoretical and practical implications
The presentstudy contributesto the projectmanagement
literature by integrating leadership theory and a team-build
model.The resultsof our study show thatteam-building
interventionslink the relationship between transformational
leadership and project success. This advances our understa
of transformational leadership and team-building in engend
project success.
As expected,transformationalleadership wasstatistically
significant in explaining project success, both with and with
the mediating role ofteam-building.Our research helpsto
uncover how transformational leadership behaviors can con
ute to projectsuccess,by demonstrating the importantrole of
team-building practices.Transformationalleadership is condu-
cive to the deployment of team-building activities, which in
significantly contribute to positive project outcomes. This im
that the positive effect of transformational leadership on pr
successwill be strongestwhen the organizationalcontext
facilitates team-building activities. Our finding that the med
effect of team-building is only partial indicates that there a
other mechanisms at work in the relationship between tran
mational leadership and project success. Future studies cou
to uncover these.
Our study also adds to project team development theory
developing a comprehensive and internally reliable measur
team-building interventionsfor the firsttime based on the
works by Klein et al. (2009), and Salas et al. (1999). Unlike
operationalization by Wang and Howell(2010),who viewed
team-building as a dimension oftransformationalleadership,
we showed that team-building is an independent construct
entails practices designed to support team performance.
Severalpracticalimplications can also be drawn from the
finding thatthe projectmanager's transformationalleadership
enhances project success through team-building. One impl
highlights the importance of traditional team-building inter
tions thatentailformaland informalteam-levelinterventions
focused on improving social relations and clarifying roles, a
as solving tasks and interpersonalproblems thataffectteam
functioning (Klein et al., 2009). This implies that there is a h
probability for projects to be successful when the compone
team-building are used properly. This finding is consistent w
previous research on the positive relation between team-bu
and team performance (Klein etal., 2009).Anotherpractical
implication is that providing transformational leadership tra
project managers, especially by using action learning (Gun
et al., 2012;Leonard and Lang,2010),can bea way for
project-based organizations to improve theirperformance.This
Path b
Team-building
Transformational
Leadership Project Success
(b= 0.521, SE=.0.0738, p< .001)
(b=.330, SE= .0822, p< .001)
b= .341, SE=.0763
p< .001
Path a
Path c
Path c’
b=.560, SE=.0679,
p< .001
Fig. 2. Unstandardized beta weightsand standard errorsrepresenting the
mediated relationship between transformational leadership and project success
via team-building.
814 D.A. Aga et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 806–818

also implies thattraining and developmenteffortsfor project
leaders should focus on how to apply techniques of team-building
and to maximize the benefits thereofalong with conventional
leadership training programs.
6.2. Limitations and future research directions
Our study has severallimitations thatshould be taken into
accountwhen interpreting the findings,and some ofthese
points are opportunities for future research. First, the results are
based on subjective ratings instead of objective data regarding
projectsuccess.However,we employed multiple scale items
for the measure ofprojectsuccessin orderto capture all
possible information on the construct, just as prior studies had
done (Khang and Moe, 2008; Pinto et al., 2009; Suprapto et al.,
2015).Cognizantof the potentiallimitationsof subjective
measures,we recommend thatfuture studiesfocuson also
including objective measures of projectsuccess from project
documents like budget plans and closing reports. Moreover, we
encourage case studies to assess project success from multiple
sources,such as projectmanagers,team members,beneficia-
ries,sponsors,and otherstakeholders.This approach would
help to documentin-depthknowledgeof emergentand
challenging issues forleadership and teams in development
project contexts (Gundersen et al., 2012).
Second, we applied a cross-sectional research design, which
limits inferences about causal direction. We therefore recommend
that longitudinal studies be conducted on the effects of project
managers'transformationalleadership and team-building on
projectsuccess over the projectlifecycle.Alternatively,future
studiescould benefitfrom experimentaldesigns,which
by manipulating variablesare betterable to identify causal
relationships.
The third limitation concerns our data collection instrument.
Since we employed a single method of data collection (self-report
questionnaires) for different constructs from the same source at
the same time,common method bias could be a concern.This
leads to common method variance, variance that is attributed to
the measurementmethod rather than the constructs of interest,
which may influence some hypothesized relationships between
constructs in the research model (Podsakoff and Organ,1986).
At the time ofthe instrumentdesign,we tried to reduce the
commonmethodbias by followingproceduraltechniques
recommended by Podsakoffet al. (2012).Our conclusion of
these procedures and tests is thatcommon method variance is
unlikely to bias the results.
The fourth limitation ofour study is thatwe used a
self-reported form to measure transformationalleadership that
may be susceptibleto bias and overstatement.However,
self-ratings of managers on their leadership behavior were in
conformity with the ratings of their subordinates in previous
studies,suggesting thatself-reportsof leadership are valid
measures (Doeleman et al., 2012; García-Morales et al., 2012;
Thite,2000). Regardless of this, future research would benefit
from a design thatdirectly targets projectteam members in
measuring project leadership behaviors.
A final limitation to our study is thatwe have focused on
one particulartype ofproject(developmentprojects)in one
country (Ethiopia).Moreover,the heterogeneous nature of the
developmentprojects in our sample in terms of projecttype,
projectduration,and projectteam members could be another
limitation.However,developmentprojectsare importantin
their own right, and there currently is a drive to reach a b
understanding of the factors that lead to their success or
(e.g., Denizer et al., 2013; Ika et al., 2012; Vallejo and We
2016). One outcome of these studies is that although the
significantdifferencesbetweencountries,the variancein
projectsuccessis larger within countriesthan between
countries (Denizer et al., 2013). This implies that our find
can likely be generalized beyond Ethiopia to other (devel
economies.
Since this is the first study that explicitly found a signifi
mediating role ofteam-building in the relationship between
transformationalleadership and projectsuccess,we strongly
encourage researchers to further validate and extend ou
Beyond the validation of our model, we also invite resear
focuses on the relative importance of the team-building d
in the relationship between transformational leadership a
success.
7. Conclusions
Increased knowledge aboutthe factors influencing project
success is of greatimportance to project-based organization
We have demonstrated that within the context of develop
projects,transformationalleadershiphas both direct and
indirect influences on project success.In addition,we showed
thatteam-building as a criticalprojectsuccess factor plays a
mediating role in the relationship between transformation
leadership and projectsuccess.Thus,project-oriented organi-
zationsneed to promote a transformationalleadership style
among project managers, e.g., through selection and lea
developmentprograms,as indicated by previousempirical
studies (Braun et al.,2013; Eisenbeiss et al.,2008; Lee et al.,
2010).This would in turn create a working projectclimate
conducive to team-building practices like projectgoal-setting,
role-clarification,interpersonalrelations,and problem-solving
techniques. We hope that our study will inspire future res
on project team-building and project success.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest
Acknowledgements
This research was financed by the Netherlands Organiz
for InternationalCooperation in HigherEducation (Nuffic),
under grantno.NICHE/ETH/020.The authors also thank the
four anonymous reviewers for their comments, which imp
the final version of this paper. Usual caveats apply.
815D.A. Aga et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 806–818

Appendix 1.Assessmentof factor loadings using oblique
rotation by pattern matrixa
Components
Team-building Project
success
Transformational
leadership
Success 1 .615
Success 2 .664
Success 3 .762
Success 4 .657
Success 5 .830
Success 6 .817
Success 7 .755
Success 8 .744
Success 10 .760
Success 11 .859
Success 12 .699
Success 13 .792
Success 14 .717
V_2_Goalsetting2 .664
V_3_Goalsetting3 .665
V_4_Goalsetting4 .754
V_6_InterpersonalRxns2.601
V_7_InterpersonalRxns3.719
V_9_InterpersonalRxns5.647
V_10_RoleClarification1 .744
V_11_RoleClarification2 .801
V_12_RoleClarification3 .793
V_13_ProblemSolving1 .768
V_14_ProblemSolving2 .796
V_15_ProblemSolving3 .752
V_16_ProblemSolving4 .739
V_17_ProblemSolving5 .737
Inspirational motivation 1 .553
Intellectual stimulation 1 .697
Individual consideration 1 .654
Idealized influence 2 .670
Inspirational motivation 2 .603
Intellectual stimulation 2 .806
Individual consideration 2 .670
Idealized influence 3 .626
Inspirational motivation 3 .779
Intellectual stimulation 3 .754
Individual consideration 3 .650
Inspirational motivation 4 .621
Extraction method:Principalcomponentanalysis;rotation method:Promax
with Kaiser normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Appendix 2: Measurement items
Project success
1. The project was completed on time.
2. The projectwas completed according to thebudget
allocated.
3. The outcomes of the project are used by its intended end
users.
4. The outcomes of the project are likely to be sustained.
5. The outcomes of the projecthave directly benefited the
intended end users,either through increasing efficiency
or effectiveness.
6. Given theproblem forwhich it was developed,the
project seems to do the best job of solving that proble
7. I was satisfied with the process by which the project w
implemented.
8. Project team members were satisfied with the process
which the project was implemented.
9. The project had no or minimal start-up problems beca
it was readily accepted by its end users.
10.The project has directly led to improved performance f
the end users/target beneficiaries.
11.The projecthas made a visible positive impacton the
target beneficiaries.
12.Project specifications were met by the time of handove
to the target beneficiaries.
13.The target beneficiaries were satisfied with the outcom
of the project.
14.Our principal donors were satisfied with the outcomes
the project implementation.
Transformational leadership
1. Team members have complete faith in me.
2. I provide appealing images about the project to my tea
3. I enable team members to think aboutold problems in
new ways.
4. I give personalattention to a team member who seems
neglected.
5. Team members are proud of being associated with me
6. I let my team know thatI am confidentthatthe project
goals will be achieved.
7. I provide team members with new ways oflooking at
puzzling things.
8. I help each memberof the team to develop his/her
strengths.
9. I make the team members feel good to be around me.
10.I help team members find meaning in their work.
11.I get team members to rethink ideas that they had nev
questioned before.
12.I am attentive to the unique concerns of each team m
13.I show my team that I am optimistic about the future o
the project.
Team-building
1. Setting project goals on a participatory basis by the te
2. Involving projectteam members in action planning to
identify ways to achieve project goals.
3. Making the basic goals of the project clear to the proje
team.
4. Letting theprojectteam receivetimely feedback on
performance in relation to goals of the project.
5. Encouraging team membersto meetwith each other
during the project.
6. Discussing relationships among project members frank
816 D.A. Aga et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 806–818

7. Discussing conflicts among project team members frankly.
8. Conducting training programs on communication skills
for the project team.
9. Creating opportunities for sharing of feelings among the
project team.
10.Clarifying role expectations of each team member.
11.Giving information aboutthe shared responsibilities of
team members.
12.Making project norms familiar to each team member.
13.Involving the projectteam(s) in identifying task-related
problems.
14.Involving the project team(s)in generatingideas
concerning the causes of task-related problems.
15.Participation of the projectteam(s)in designing action
plans to solve task-related problems of the project.
16.Engaging the projectteam(s)in the implementation of
action plans to solve task-related problems.
17.Engaging the project team(s) in the evaluation of action
plans to solve task-related problems.
References
Anantatmula, V.S., 2010. Project manager leadership role in improving project
performance. Eng. Manag. J. 22 (1), 13–22.
Arif, M.I., Mehmood,Z., 2011.Leadership and HRM:evaluating new
leadership styles for effective human resource management. Int. J. Volunt.
Nonprofit Org. 2 (15), 236–243.
Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., Bhatia, P., 2004. Transformational leadership
and organizationalcommitment:mediating role of psychologicalempow-
erment and moderating role of structural distance. J. Organ. Behav. 25 (8),
951–968.
Babbie, E., 2010. The Basics of Social Research. 12 ed. Wadsworth, Belmont.
Banks, N., Hulme, D., 2012. The role of NGOs and civil society in development
and poverty reduction. Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper (171).
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction
in social psychologicalresearch:conceptual,strategic,and statistical
considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51 (6), 1173–1182.
Barrick,M.R., Bradley,B.H., Kristof-Brown,A.L., Colbert,A.E., 2007.The
moderating role of top management team interdependence: implications for
real teams and working groups. Acad. Manag. J. 50 (3), 544–557.
Bartlett, J., Kotrlik, J., Higgins, C., 2001. Organizational research: determining
appropriate sample size in survey research. Inf. Technol. Learn. Perform. J.
19 (1), 43–50.
Baruch, Y., 1999. Response rate in academic studies—a comparative analysis.
Hum. Relat. 52 (4), 421–438.
Beebe,S., Masterson,J.T., 2015.Communicating in smallgroups.11 ed.
Longman Publishing Group.
Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler,S., Frey, D., 2013. Transformational
leadership,job satisfaction,and team performance: a multilevel mediation
model of trust. Leadersh. Q. 24 (1), 270–283.
Bryde, D., 2008. Perceptions of the impact of project sponsorship practices on
project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26 (8), 800–809.
Bubshait, A., Farooq, G., 1999. Team building and project success. Cost Eng.
41 (7), 34–38.
Burke,C.S.,Stagl,K.C., Klein,C., Goodwin,G.F., Salas,E., Halpin,S.M.,
2006. What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-
analysis. Leadersh. Q. 17 (3), 288–307.
Chou,H.-W.,Lin, Y.-H., Chang,H.-H.,Chuang,W.-W.,2013.Transforma-
tionalleadership and team performance:the mediating roles of cognitive
trust and collective efficacy. SAGE Open 3 (3), 1–10.
Denizer, C., Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., 2013. Good countries or good projects?
Macro and micro correlates of World Bank projectperformance.J. Dev.
Econ. 105, 288–302.
Diallo, A., Thuillier,D., 2004.The successdimensionsof international
development projects: the perceptions of African project coordinatorInt.
J. Proj. Manag. 22 (1), 19–31.
Diallo, A., Thuillier,D., 2005.The successof internationaldevelopment
projects,trustand communication:an African perspective.Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 23 (3), 237–252.
Doeleman, H., ten Have, S., Ahaus, K., 2012. The moderating role of lea
in the relationship between managementcontroland business excellence.
Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 23 (5–6), 591–611.
Dvir, D., Raz, T., Shenhar, A.J., 2003. An empirical analysis of the relatio
between project planning and project success.Int.J. Proj.Manag.21 (2),
89–95.
Eisenbeiss,S.A., van Knippenberg,D., Boerner,S., 2008.Transformational
leadership and team innovation: integrating team climate principles.
Psychol. 93 (6), 1438–1446.
Field, A., 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage Publications, Lon
García-Morales, V.J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M.M., Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L.,
Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance
organizational learning and innovation. J. Bus. Res. 65 (7), 1040–105.
Golini, R., Kalchschmidt,M., Landoni,P., 2015.Adoptionof project
managementpractices:the impacton internationaldevelopmentprojects
of non-governmental organizations. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (3), 650–66.
Gundersen, G., Hellesøy, B.T., Raeder, S., 2012. Leading international p
teams the effectiveness oftransformationalleadership in dynamic work
environments. J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 19 (1), 46–57.
Hair,J.F., Black,W.C.,Babin,B.J., Anderson,R.E.,2010.Multivariate Data
Analysis. 7 ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Hayes,A.F., 2013.Introduction to mediation,moderation,and conditional
process analysis: a regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Hayes,A.F., Preacher,K.J., 2014.Statisticalmediation analysiswith a
multicategoricalindependentvariable.Br. J. Math.Stat.Psychol.67 (3),
451–470.
Hinkin, T.R., Schriesheim, C.A., 2008. A theoretical and empirical exami
of the transactionaland non-leadership dimensionsof the multifactor
leadership questionnaire (MLQ). Leadersh. Q. 19 (5), 501–513.
Hoegl,M., Parboteeah,K.P., 2003.Goal setting and team performance in
innovative projects:on the moderating role ofteamwork quality.Small
Group Res. 34 (1), 3–19.
Huemann, M., Keegan, A., Turner, J.R., 2007. Human resource managem
the project-oriented company:a review.Int. J. Proj. Manag.25 (3),
315–323.
Ika, L.A., 2009. Project success as a topic in project management journa
Manag. J. 40 (4), 6–19.
Ika, L.A., 2015.Opening the black box of projectmanagement:does World
Bank project supervision influence project impact? Int. J. Proj. Manag
(5), 1111–1123.
Ika, L., Diallo, A., Thuillier, D., 2012. Critical success factors for World Ba
projects: an empirical investigation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30 (1), 105–1.
Jacques,P.H., Garger,J., Thomas,M., 2007.Assessing leaderbehaviors in
project managers. Manag. Res. News 31 (1), 4–11.
Joslin, R., Müller,R., 2015.Relationshipsbetween a projectmanagement
methodology and project success in different project governance con
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (6), 1377–1392.
Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F., 2004. Transformational and transactional leade
a meta-analytic testof theirrelative validity.J. Appl. Psychol.89 (5),
755–768.
Keegan,A.E., Den Hartog,D.N., 2004.Transformationalleadership in a
project-based environment: a comparative study of the leadership st
project managers and line managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22 (8), 609–.
Khang,D.B., Moe,T.L., 2008.Success criteria and factors for international
development projects: a life cycle based framework. Proj. Manag. J. 3
72–84.
Kissi,J., Dainty,A., Tuuli,M., 2013.Examining the role of transformational
leadership of portfolio managers in project performance. Int. J. Proj. M
31 (4), 485–497.
Klein, C., DiazGranados,D., Salas,E., Le, H., Burke,C.S., Lyons, R.,
Goodwin, G.F., 2009. Does team building work? Small Group Res. 40
181–222.
817D.A. Aga et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 806–818

Kozlowski,S.W., Ilgen,D.R., 2006.Enhancing the effectivenessof work
groups and teams. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 7 (3), 77–124.
Lee, P., Gillespie, N., Mann, L., Wearing, A., 2010. Leadership and trust: their
effect on knowledge sharing and team performance. Manag. Learn. 41 (4),
473–491.
Leonard,H.S., Lang,F., 2010.Leadership developmentvia action learning.
Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 12 (2), 225–240.
LePine, J.A., Piccolo, R.F., Jackson, C.L., Mathieu, J.E., Saul, J.R., 2008. A meta
analysisof teamwork processes:testsof a multidimensionalmodeland
relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Pers. Psychol. 61 (2), 273–307.
Lindgren,M., Packendorff,J., 2009.Projectleadership revisited:towards
distributed leadership perspectives in projectresearch.Int.J. Proj.Organ.
Manag. 1 (3), 285–308.
Martinez-Martin,P., 2010.Composite rating scales.J. Neurol.Sci. 289 (1),
7–11.
Mathieu, J.E., Schulze, W., 2006. The influence of team knowledge and formal
plans on episodic team process-performance relationships. Acad. Manag. J.
49 (3), 605–619.
McDonough, E.F., 2000. Investigation of factors contributing to the success of
cross-functional teams. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 17 (3), 221–235.
Mir, F.A., Pinnington, A.H., 2014. Exploring the value of project management:
linking project management performance and project success.Int.J. Proj.
Manag. 32 (2), 202–217.
Nauman,S.,Mansur Khan,A., Ehsan, N., 2010. Patterns of empowerment and
leadership style in project environment. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28 (7), 638–649.
Nemanich,L.A., Keller, R.T., 2007. Transformationalleadershipin an
acquisition: a field study of employees. Leadersh. Q. 18 (1), 49–68.
Ngacho,C., Das, D., 2014. A performanceevaluationframeworkof
developmentprojects:an empiricalstudy ofconstituency development
fund (CDF)construction projects in Kenya.Int. J. Proj. Manag.32 (3),
492–507.
Piccolo, R.F., Colquitt,J.A., 2006.Transformationalleadership and job
behaviors:the mediating role of core job characteristics.Acad.Manag.J.
49 (2), 327–340.
Pinto,J.K., Slevin,D.P., English,B., 2009.Trustin projects:an empirical
assessmentof owner/contractor relationships.Int. J. Proj.Manag.27 (6),
638–648.
Pinto, M.B., Pinto, J.K., 1990.Projectteam communication and cross-
functionalcooperation in new program development.J. Prod. Innov.
Manag. 7 (3), 200–212.
PMI, 2008.A Guide to Project Management Body of Knowledge.4 ed.PMI
Publications, Newtown Square PA.
Podsakoff,P.M., Organ,D.W., 1986.Self-reports in organizationalresearch:
problems and prospects. J. Manag. 12 (4), 531–544.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P., 2012. Sources of method
bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63, 539–569.
Riaz, A., Tahir, M.M., Noor, A., 2013. Leadership is vital for project managers
to achieve project efficacy. Res. J. Recent Sci. 2277, 2502.
Salas, E., DiazGranados, D., Weaver, S.J., King, H., 2008. Does team training
work? Principles for health care. Acad. Emerg. Med. 15 (11), 1002–1009.
Salas,E., Rozell,D., Mullen,B., Driskell,J.E., 1999.The effectof team
building on performance: an integration. Small Group Res. 30 (3), 309–329.
Saunders,M., Lewis,P., Thornhill, A.,2009.Research Methods for Business
Students. 5 ed. Pearson Education, Harlow.
Scott-Young,C., Samson,D., 2008. Projectsuccessand projectteam
management:evidence from capitalprojectsin the processindustries.
J. Oper. Manag. 26 (6), 749–766.
Söderlund,J., 2011. Pluralism in projectmanagement:navigatingthe
crossroads of specialization and fragmentation. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 13 (2
153–176.
Sohmen,V.S., 2013.Leadership and teamwork:two sides of the same coin.
J. IT Econ. Dev. 4 (2), 1–18.
Somech,A., 2006.The effectsof leadership styleand team processon
performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. J. Ma
32 (1), 132–157.
Suprapto,M., Bakker,H.L., Mooi, H.G.,2015.Relationalfactors in owner–
contractor collaboration:the mediating role of teamworking.Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 33 (6), 1347–1363.
Tejeda, M.J., Scandura,T.A., Pillai, R., 2001. The MLQ revisited:
psychometric properties and recommendations. Leadersh. Q. 12 (1), 31.
Thite,M., 2000.Leadership styles in information technology projects.Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 18 (4), 235–241.
Todorović,M.L., Petrović,D.Č., Mihić, M.M., Obradović,V.L., Bushuyev,
S.D., 2015. Projectsuccessanalysisframework:a knowledge-based
approach in project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (4), 772–783.
Turner,Müller,R., 2005.The project manager's leadership style as a success
factor on projects: a literature review. Proj. Manag. J. 36 (1), 49–61.
Turner, R., Huemann, M., Keegan, A., 2008. Human resource management
the project-oriented organization:employee well-being and ethicaltreat-
ment. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26 (5), 577–585.
Tyssen,A.K., Wald,A., Heidenreich,S., 2013.Leadership in the contextof
temporary organizations:a study on theeffectsof transactionaland
transformationalleadershipon followers' commitmentin projects.
J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 20 (10), 1–18.
Tyssen,A.K., Wald,A., Spieth,P., 2014.The challenge of transactionaland
transformational leadership in projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (3), 365–3.
Vallejo, B., Wehn, U., 2016. Capacity development evaluation: the challeng
the results agenda and measuring return on investment in the global so
World Dev. 79, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.044.
Vinger, G., Cilliers, F., 2006. Effective transformational leadership behavio
for managing change. SA J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 4 (2), 1–9.
Walumbwa,F.O., Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., 2008. How transformational
leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance: the role
identification and efficacy beliefs. Pers. Psychol. 61 (4), 793–825.
Wang,X.-H.F., Howell, J.M., 2010.Exploring thedual-leveleffectsof
transformationalleadershipon followers.J. Appl. Psychol.95 (6),
1134–1144.
Yang,L.-R., Huang,C.-F., Wu, K.-S., 2010.The association among project
manager's leadership style,teamwork and projectsuccess.Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 29 (3), 258–267.
Zhu, W., Chew, I.K., Spangler, W.D., 2005. CEO transformational leadershi
and organizationaloutcomes:the mediatingrole of human-capital-
enhancing human resource management. Leadersh. Q. 16 (1), 39–52.
Zwikael,O., Unger-Aviram,E., 2010.HRM in projectgroups:the effectof
project duration on team development effectiveness. Int. J. Proj. Manag
(5), 413–421.
818 D.A. Aga et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 806–818
View publication statsView publication stats