The scientific relevance of this research is to establish a novel model of leadership styles that consider the effect of project types and project life cycle phases on leadership style (vertical leadership versus shared leadership), and how an appropriate balance between the two styles influences the likelihood of project management success. The main research question can therefore be stated:
How does the leadership style influence perceived project management success?
To answer the above over-arching question, Chapter 2 addresses current trends in the literature pertaining to leadership – specifically vertical leadership and shared leadership – and future opportunities for research. Chapter 3 presents a literature- based conceptual model of project-related factors that influence leadership styles (vertical leadership and shared leadership), and the effect of an appropriate balance between the two leadership styles on the likelihood of perceived project management success. In Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 it becomes clear that different project types and project life cycle phases influence the choice of leadership styles in different ways.
Chapters 4 to 6 address the following sub-questions:
Chapter 4 answers sub-question 1 empirically: How do different project types (pace, complexity, novelty and technological uncertainty) influence the balance between vertical and shared leadership?
Chapter 5 answers sub-question 2 empirically: How do different project life- cycle phases (pre-execution, execution and post-execution) influence the balance between vertical and shared leadership?
Chapters 4 and 5 answer sub-question 3 empirically: How does an appropriate balance between vertical and shared leadership influence the likelihood of project management success?
Chapter 6: Combines sub-questions 1, 2 and 3 to put forward a model of how project types and life cycle phases influence the leadership style and perceived project management success.
Section 7.2 of this concluding chapter will provide a theory-based summary of the Leadership Style Model put forward in this study. Section 7.3 will discuss the research methodology used in the empirical studies reported in Chapters 4 to 6.
Section 7.4 deliberates on the data analysis and findings after which a discussion will follow in Section 7.5. Section 7.6 discusses the implications to theory and practice. Lastly, the limitations of this study and recommendations for further research will be discussed in Section 7.7.
7.2. Theoretical framework
An initial conceptual model was developed from nine propositions that were derived from literature (details in Chapter 3). It was decided to narrow the scope of the study by emitting three of these propositions: the propositions relating to the effect of maturity, trust and collaboration on leadership style. Proposition 5 (“During the execution phase, the leadership tends to move towards vertical leadership. During the initial phases, organising and preparing, as well as during close-out and post project assessment of business value, the leadership style tends to be more shared”) was subdivided into three separate propositions. It was also decided to test
‘hypotheses’ instead of the ‘propositions’ suggested in Chapter 3, due to the fact that the data gathered were empirically testable (Neuman, 2014). Thus, the following eight hypotheses were tested in this study:
H1: The higher-paced a project, the more the appropriate balance is towards vertical leadership.
H2: The more complex a project, the more the appropriate balance is towards shared leadership.
H3: The higher the novelty of a project, the more the appropriate balance is towards shared leadership.
H4: The higher the level of technology involved in a project, the more the appropriate balance is towards shared leadership.
H5: During the pre-execution phase, the leadership style tends towards shared leadership.
H6: During the execution phase, which includes much of the monitoring and controlling aspects, the leadership style tends towards vertical leadership.
H7: During the post-execution phase, the leadership style tends towards shared leadership.
H8: The more the appropriate balance between vertical and shared leadership, the higher the likelihood of perceived project management success.
Chapter 2 outlines and discusses leadership theories and definitions as described in relevant and current studies. While conducting the literature study, it became apparent that the above types of leadership style could be contained within the definitions of vertical and shared leadership, as all forms of leadership are shared leadership to a certain extent. Chapters 2 and 3 describe the continuum between vertical leadership on the one end, and shared leadership on the other, and the appropriate balance between the two styles. One style never replaces the other;
they are complementary.
Every project is unique and it became obvious that the influence of different types of projects on the choice of leadership style should be investigated. Hypotheses 1 to 4 (details in Chapter 4) explore the influence of four project types on the appropriate balance of leadership style (i.e. the ‘correct’ direction of leadership style on the continuum between vertical and shared leadership). The chosen project types (pace, complexity, novelty and technological uncertainty) were based on
Shenhar’s (Shenhar, 2003, 2015a, 2015b; Shenhar, A. J. and Dvir, 2007) “Diamond of Innovation” model (details in Chapter 3).
The four project phases listed in the PMBOK® Guide (PMI, 2017), as well as the
“Post-project business value assessment” that is included in PRINCE®2 (Office of Government Commerce, 2009) were rearranged into three phases: pre-execution, execution and post-execution (details in Chapter 5). Hypotheses 5 to 79 address the influence of each project phase on the appropriate balance of leadership style.
Hypothesis 810 was investigated in Chapters 4, 5 and 6. The reason being that project types and project life cycle phases influence the appropriate balance of leadership (vertical leadership versus shared leadership). The appropriate balance in turn influences the likelihood of perceived project management success. A number of papers indicated that the so-called “iron triangle” on its own is inadequate of measuring project management success; other objective and subjective criteria should also be included in determining project management success (Details in Chapter 4). In this study, project management success was therefore self-defined by the respondents.
7.3. Research methodology
A quantitative study, with the aim of verifying theoretical relationships was conducted (details in Chapters 4, 5 and 6). The structured, web-based and self- administered questionnaire was distributed using Qualtrics XM Platform™ (Included in Appendix 2). Prior to the survey, a pilot study was conducted in order to improve the questionnaire in terms of clarity, accuracy and number of complete responses, as well as construct validity (Details in Chapters 4 and 5).
9 It should be noted that Chapter 5 was submitted as a journal paper and therefore Hypotheses 5 to 7 were classified as Hypotheses 1 to 3 in that chapter.
10 Chapters 4 and 5 were submitted as separate journal papers and therefore Hypothesis 8 is