Research Article

International Journal of Engineering

Business Management
Direct and indirect influence of project Volume 14: 1–15
© The Author(s) 2022
managers’ contingent reward leadership Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/18479790211073443
and empowering leadership on project journals.sagepub.com/home/enb

success

Muhammad K Ahmad , Abu B Abdulhamid, Sazali A Wahab, Ali N Pervaiz, and

Muhammad Imtiaz

Abstract
Leadership is considered to be a viable solution to avoid persistent project failures in an increasingly volatile and uncertain
competitive business environment; however, practitioners and researchers have yet to reach a consensus on the best leadership
style to prevent project failure. Although past studies have examined different leadership models in the project environment,
they have overlooked the importance of emerging leadership styles in managing new business realities. This article thus attempts
to determine whether two leadership styles, that is, contingent reward and empowering, directly and indirectly achieve project
success. Data were collected from 289 project team members in the IT sector and analysed using partial least squares structural
equation modelling. The results demonstrate the positive impact of empowering leadership on employee self-leadership, which
leads to project success. Further, employee self-leadership positively mediates the link between empowering leadership and
project success, while goal clarity moderates the influence of self-leadership on project success. However, contingent reward
leadership neither directly nor indirectly (through self-leadership) showed any significant relationship with project success.

Keywords
Project manager, empowering leadership, contingent reward leadership, project success, self-leadership, goal clarity, soft skill

Date received: 1 March 2021; accepted: 23 December 2021

Introduction understudied IT sector5 is experiencing a higher rate of

project failures both in developing and advanced countries.6
In the increasingly volatile and uncertain business envi- The investigation to unearth the reasons behind the high rate
ronment, both dominant and emerging companies need to of IT project failure has prevailed in the IT project man-
be able to quickly propose innovative changes to cope with agement literature for quite some time, revealing numerous
intensifying competition.1 The new era, especially the post- elements that influence IT project success, including multi-
COVID-19 one, is also driving companies towards radical faceted hard and soft skills.7
change in their hierarchies and operations.1 In the IT sector,
project-based business firms are following suit by adopting
up-to-date project management practices to enhance their Putra Business School, Serdang, Malaysia
performance.2 A project management framework that en-
hances the efficiency and effectiveness of human efforts, in Corresponding author:
Muhammad K Ahmad, Putra Business School, Level 3, Office Building of
particular, can offer these firms competitive advantages.3 the Deputy Vice Chancellor 43400, UPM, 43400 Seri Kembangan, Selangor,
Unfortunately, many projects still fail to be completed within Malaysia.
their scope, schedule and budget constraints.4 Already Email: khalique.721@gmail.com

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/
en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 International Journal of Engineering Business Management

Among the different typologies of soft skills, leadership jointly practised with empowering leadership in the Indian
is essential in managing projects.6 In fact, Muller et al.8 context.25,33 Contingent reward leadership also positively
explained that the most crucial soft-skill factor in project related to leader-member exchange leadership concept.34 A
success is the project manager’s role as a leader instead of a recent study in the project environment further evidences the
manager. Project leadership seeks to influence other indi- positive congruence between empowering leadership and di-
viduals within organisations, such as subordinates and rective leadership like contingent reward leadership.35 Con-
peers, to achieve a project’s objectives and goals.9 However, tingent reward leadership is a common style of leadership
to date, the various dimensions and styles of leadership that which is present in all types of organisations.36 It involves
impact project performance have yet to be fully explored.10 leaders explicitly identifying and providing rewards for self-
Past studies have primarily focused on conventional lead- leadership behaviours in a work environment, which makes
ership styles, which are mostly leader-centric.11,4,12 The IT followers more inclined to lead themselves.37 While empow-
projects are open and flexible in nature compared to other ering leaders create a work environment that supports fol-
projects.13 Current IT projects demonstrate less control14 lowers’ autonomy and work meaningfulness,38 contingent
and uncertainty leading to change in standard processes and reward leaders motivate followers to be more self-determined
adjustment in organisational structures.15 The increasing by supporting and rewarding their self-leadership behaviours.37
formation of empowered teams, coined with the flattening of Leaders who combine both styles reap good results when they
organisational structures, resulted in a shift from conven- enable subordinates to challenge the status quo and reward
tional leadership models.16 The individual-based traditional subordinates’ risk-taking, which in turn enhances the latter’s
heroic-models11,4,12 of leadership may no longer be viable in autonomy.39,40 However, despite numerous studies demon-
the IT context due to the prevailing empowering environ- strating the benefits of contingent reward leadership,41,42 its role
ment.17 In this context, among other leadership theories, in project performance has not received sufficient attention.43,44
leader-member exchange theory18,19,20 emerged as an alter- Moreover, as an outcome of managers’ leadership, the
native, which focuses more on the leader and follower re- self-leadership of employees plays a central role in crises
lationship.19 Although high-quality leader-member exchange times.45 Today, the practice of directing and controlling
influence becomes reciprocal between leader and follower.21 employees under traditional hierarchical structures has
Still, researchers criticise it due to its detrimental outcomes become obsolete; rather, it is time to empower and enable
such as conflict and jealousy22 and consider it as an extended employees.46 Munshi et al.36 agreed with this and stressed
form of transformational leadership (i.e. leader-centric).19 the importance for leadership at all levels in an organisation,
Therefore, project management researchers have called such as when top management empowers a horizontal
for the examination of new leadership styles that facilitate leader.47,48 Employees’ self-leadership at all levels is the
project success in turbulent times.23 For example, though key solution to achieve optimal performance in 21st century
the corporate sector witnessed a significant increase in organisations,49 since self-leaders exert strong efforts, face
directive leadership behaviour during the 2008 financial challenges, pursue self-motivation and continuously update
crisis,24 researchers now recommend leaders’ to delegate their thinking styles.50 Therefore, given scarce empirical testing
during the COVID-19 crisis.25 In this context, empowering of the direct and indirect influences of leadership styles on
leadership has emerged as an essential way to proactively project success,29,51 we propose self-leadership as a possible
advance organisational change by drawing constructive intervening factor in the effects of empowering leadership and
ideas from subordinates.26 Empowering leadership depicts contingent reward leadership on project success.
leaders’ conscious behaviours to share their power with em- Although self-leadership is a useful tool to tackle tem-
ployees and give employees additional responsibility to control poral urgency, unstructured tasks and a fast-developing
their own work.27,28 Unfortunately, most studies on empow- work environment,52 it should be noted that IT projects
ering leadership have been conducted in individualistic are more volatile and fluid in a dynamic setting.53 As such,
Western cultures.26 A detailed review of the empirical literature uncertainty is an inherent issue in IT projects that may cause
also shows that the findings on empowering leadership have frustration about project goals.54 Adding to this, empowering
been mixed and incongruent, which calls for the examination leadership heightens ambiguity.55 In this scenario, goal
of moderators and mediators that underlie its effects.29 clarification and rewards at the supervisory level may fa-
Nonetheless, empowering leadership alone cannot en- cilitate empowered employees’ self-leadership in achieving
sure project success.30 Taking project-based organisations project goals.56 This is in line with Bendell et al.’s57 rec-
into account, Tyssen et al.31 noted the importance of con- ommendation that researchers should account for the or-
tingent rewards in project success. Moreover, contrary to ganisational context in self-leadership studies to avoid
traditional leadership views, supervisors typically employ incorrect conclusions. However, the outcomes and boundary
both leadership and supervision techniques within their conditions pertaining to self-leadership are inconclusive and
units.18 In fact, Gupta and Singh32 suggested that task- ambiguous. Additionally, although goal clarity as a crucial
oriented leadership, which applies contingent rewards, be organisational context has been studied in relation to
Ahmad et al. 3

transformational leadership and transactional leadership,58,41 Empowering leadership. The intense competitive market is
its moderating role in the consequences of employees’ self- shifting the prerogative of authority and power from top
leadership has yet not been explored. management to lower-level employees through the dele-
To fill the literature gaps highlighted above, this study set gation of responsibilities and decision-making power.65
out to answer the following research questions: (1) Do project Self-directed decision-making allows employees to solve
managers’ contingent reward leadership and empowering problems and take actions autonomously, which requires
leadership influence project success? (2) Does employee self- extensive information sharing, coaching and training support.66
leadership mediate the influence of project managers’ con- To this end, empowering leadership enables and encourages
tingent reward leadership and empowering leadership on subordinates to take the initiative to manage and control their
project success? and (3) Does goal clarity moderate the in- own behaviours.67 Empowering leadership focuses on sharing
fluence of self-leadership on project success? power and autonomy68 with followers while affirming the
significance of followers’ work by showing confidence in their
abilities. Empowering leaders also deliberately remove be-
Theoretical background and hypothesis
haviour controls enforced on their subordinates and grant them
Contingent reward leadership. This leadership type is posi- greater independence for self-expression.27 A primary objec-
tively viewed as an exchange where the leader validates tive of empowering leadership is therefore to develop self-
employees’ performance.59 Contingent reward leaders also leadership among employees, both internally and externally.69
give just clear guidance related to followers’ work roles and, Bandura70 presented social cognitive theory, which describes
in turn, fulfil followers’ needs and wants against their ef- that empowered individuals have strong feelings of confidence
fort.60 This motivates subordinates to pursue the promised that their hard work will achieve success.
praise and rewards and work independently.61 Therefore, in The significant aim of all empowering behaviours is to
a typical project, a project manager who practises contin- enhance self-efficiency and higher self-efficacy in their fol-
gent reward leadership would first clarify the roles and lowers, leading to better performance. Self-leading employees
expected outputs of the team members, then outline the thus exhibit self-efficacy and responsibility for tasks and ac-
rewards or incentives to be received, secure the appropriate tions because of their self-confidence, thereby forming the
resources and finally monitor and control the members’ basis of effective ways to fulfil their tasks. Kerzner71 commented
activities to grant rewards accordingly.43 Thus, the leaders that success mainly depends on the project stakeholders’ sat-
support self-initiatives by offering rewards to their fol- isfaction, because they continually struggle for a well-executed
lowers, which ultimately leads to higher performance. project.4,9 Empowering leadership has been associated with
Moreover, contingent reward leadership is recognised as positive outcomes such as enhanced performance, organisa-
an essential determinant of followers’ performance-related tional citizenship behaviours and managerial effectiveness.68,72
behaviours and attitudes in the workplace.62 In adopting a A study on 223 supervisor–employee dyads found that
contingent reward strategy, leaders attract the involvement managers’ empowerment behaviours stimulate subordinates
of followers in a given task31 by setting goals for employees to express their ideas, which improves team and organisa-
or allowing employees to set their own goals. When leaders tional results.73 Ultimately, leaders play an essential role in
explicitly identify and provide rewards for autonomous empowering and motivating individuals to take initiative and
behaviours in the work environment, followers are more contribute proactively towards a project’s success.74 This
inclined to lead themselves.37 On the other hand, poject study aims to extend the current literature by examining the
success generally refers to a team’s completion of a project’s association of empowering leadership and project success in
goals.63 Because subordinates’ rewards are contingent on project environment. Therefore, we hypothesised that:
results, the performance-outcome expectancy of the team is
strengthened under contingent reward leadership.64 A re- H3. Empowering leadership is positively related to self-
cent meta-analysis explained that contingent reward lead- leadership
ership benefits performance through significant positive
contributions to the leader–follower social exchange.51 This H4. Empowering leadership is positively related to project
study aims to extend the current literature by examining the success
association of contingent reward leadership and project
success in project environment. Thus, we hypothesised that: Self-leadership. An individual’s self-perception of his/her
capabilities, also known as self-efficacy, has a positive
H1. Contingent reward leadership is positively related to influence on their beliefs that they can fulfil their role
self-leadership outcomes.75 Self-efficacy gives people the confidence to
overcome self-doubt by imparting the understanding that
H2. Contingent reward leadership is positively related to risk-taking can lead to successful goal achievement.76 This
project success is the fundamental idea behind self-leadership, which refers
4 International Journal of Engineering Business Management

to the behaviours of an initiative-taking and self-motivated they better understand their workflow and strategy.92 The
individual.69 At the individual level, self-leadership has been goals are then successfully interpreted by employees, con-
found to improve career success,77 self-efficacy,78 employee sequently fostering proactive behaviour.91 Moreover, well-
productivity,79 effective self-regulatory processes,80 and in- informed employees tend to put forth novel ideas that align
novative work behaviour.81 Moreover, employees with with organisational goals and potentially grant competitive
higher self-leadership levels show better adaptation and advantages for the company’s future development.93
adjustment in organisations seeking innovative solutions.82 Therefore, team members’ goal clarification, in tandem
Prior research has found positive associations between self- with their self-managing behaviour and information access,
leadership and a variety of individual and organisational tend to engender enhanced outcomes.94 A team can rarely
outcomes.82 As contingent reward leaders offer feedback take a project to success on its own without clear and up-to-
about followers’ tasks and roles, the latter tend to demonstrate date goals at all stages of the project.43 This study aims to
enhanced work-related self-efficacy.83 extend the current literature by examining the moderation
Additionally, contingent reward leadership behaviours role of goal clarity for self-leadership and project success in
eradicate obstacles in the way of performance, thus creating project environment. Thus, we hypothesised that:
a conducive environment for employees’ independent task
performance.84 In reciprocity, the follower senses an inherent H8. Goal clarity moderates the relationship between self-
liability and responsibility to fulfil the leader’s efficiency leadership and project success
and performance objectives by engaging in self-initiated Based on the hypotheses justified above, Figure 1
and proactive performance behaviours.84 Amundsen and presents the conceptual model of this study
Martinsen85 have further proved that empowering leadership
has indirect effects on employee empowerment by way of Instrument. The Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire
employee self-leadership. As a result of empowering leaders, (MLQ) is a popular and well-validated instrument in mea-
self-leading employees are inclined to perceive themselves as suring leadership styles.11 Four items from the MLQ were
capable enough to perform at a greater level.86 Thus, self- adopted to measure contingent reward leadership, an ex-
leadership is a self-influencing process that enhances an ample of which was ‘My project manager expressed satis-
individual’s productivity and efficiency.87 This study aims to faction when I met expectations’. To measure empowering
extend the current literature by examining the mediation of leadership, a seven-item scale was adopted from Tekleab
self-leadership between contingent reward leadership and et al.95 A sample item was ‘My project manager urged me to
project success and empowering leadership and project assume responsibilities on my own’. A six-item scale was
success in project environment. Thus, it was hypothesised adapted from Yun et al.67 to measure self-leadership. A
that: sample item was ‘I assumed responsibilities on my own’.
Three items adopted from Aga et al.58 were employed to
H5. Self-leadership is positively related to project success measure project goal clarity, where a sample item included
‘There were clear and comprehensible goals for this
H6. Self-leadership mediates the relationship between project’. The 10 items to measure project success were
contingent reward leadership and project success derived from the widely used scale of Turner and
Muller.96,97 A sample item was ‘The project met its overall
H7. Self-leadership mediates the relationship between performance objectives’. All items were rated on a five-
empowering leadership and project success point Likert scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to
five (strongly agree).
Goal clarity. One of the first steps in project management
involves clarifying the project’s goals, objectives and
organisation.41,58 The clarity of project targets pertains to Research methodology
followers’ extent of understanding, communication and
Sampling
acceptance of the project’s mission and aims.88 Goal clarity
also refers to the clarity that an employee perceives about The present study investigated the impact of project man-
his/her roles and responsibilities,89 which is a significant agers’ leadership style on project success in Pakistan’s IT
element of good project management.41 As per Hu and sector. In line with similar previous studies, the unit of
Liden,90 goal clarity increases employees’ recognition of analysis in this study was a single project.2 In the past,
their paths and task goals, as well as their connections with various techniques have been used to select a project for
peers and their organisation. Goal-driven leaders should research purposes. For instance, respondents have been
communicate with employees so the latter can self-regulate asked to give feedback on a project that is current, active,
themselves at work to achieve organisational goals.91 Such more than halfway through, near completion or completed
information access increases employees’ creativity because within a specific number of years prior.58,98,99,100 In this
Ahmad et al. 5

Figure 1. Research model.

study, respondents were requested to answer about a project free of common method bias.105 The results also indicated
that was completed not more than 2 years ago. no abnormality in the data, as values ranged within ±3.29,
From the sampling frame of 875 Pakistani IT firms thus establishing data normality.
registered with the Pakistan software house authority (P@
SHA), 56 were chosen to take part in a pilot test while 500
Respondent profile
were selected using the systematic sampling technique for
the main study. Data was collected online by emailing each The general demographic profile of the study respondents is
firm’s representative a link to a Google Form survey. depicted in Table 1. The respondents were generally male,
Prominent researchers have adopted a cross-sectional aged between 26 and 45, qualified with a master’s degree
method in exploring project success101 and typically pre- and held the department head position. A majority did not
fer subordinates’ rating of their managers’ and their own have PMP certifications but had more than 6 years of total
leadership. Aga et al.58 further recommended studying experience and over 5 years of project experience. Most
project team members in assessing project leadership sample projects ranged from six to 18 months, were from
behaviours. Based on these guidelines, in this study, de- the retail/communication sector, had 21 to 50 members and
partmental heads and senior project team members were were rated medium in complexity.
chosen from each firm to respond to the survey. Out of the Measurement modelThe measurement model is a tech-
500 distributed questionnaires, 289 usable questionnaires nique to examine reliability and validity.106 The threshold
were returned. This yielded a response rate of 59%, which value for reliability is generally 0.70 for Cronbach’s alpha
is 20% lower than previous studies, most likely due to the (α) and composite reliability (CR).107 As shown in Table 2,
COVID-19 pandemic at the time. However, the sample the study constructs indicated good reliability based on
size of 289 exceeded the required size of 265 as per Krejcie these values. Validity is examined via the constructs’
and Morgan’s102 formula. convergent validity and discriminant validity.108 The Av-
erage Variance Extracted (AVE) confirms convergent val-
idity when it is 0.5 (50%) or higher.109 Table 2 indicates that
Data analysis all the variables depicted satisfactory convergent validity
The latest version of SMART-PLS v3.3.1 was used to per- based on this threshold.
form partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS- Discriminant validity shows that a construct measures
SEM) analysis. PLS-SEM is pervasive in social science and what it is intended to measure.107 To assess discriminant
management studies for its cause-and-effect examination of validity, the two common methods are the Fornell-Larcker
constructs.103 Upon first checking for multicollinearity criterion and the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) criterion.
among the variables, the variance inflation factor (VIF) Under the Fornell-Larcker approach, discriminant validity is
values less than 5.0 confirmed the non-existence of multi- demonstrated when a construct’s AVE exceeds its correlation
collinearity.103 Next, SPSS v26 was used to perform Har- with other constructs.108 Under the HTMT approach, a value
man’s single factor test to detect common method bias, as less than 0.85 or 0.90 concludes that discriminant validity
suggested by Podsakoff and Organ.104 The highest vari- exists. The results in Table 3 exhibit that the study constructs
ance explained value (43.199%) proved that the data was fulfilled both criteria for discriminant validity.
6 International Journal of Engineering Business Management

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the respondents.

Characteristic Characteristic

Gender % Project-related experiences %

Female 14% Less than 1 year 2%
Male 86% 1–2 years 9%
Age % 3–5 years 25%
Less than 25 years 11% Above 5 years 64%
26–35 36% Average project duration %
36–45 28% Less than 6 months 21%
46–55 19% 6.5 months 1.5 years 44%
Above 55 6% 1.6–2 years 19%
Education % Above 2 years 16%
Diploma 5% Project industry type %
Graduate 23% Construction/installations 12%
Masters 72% Manufacturing 13%
Certification % Production 13%
With PMP certification 12% Retailers/communication 31%
Without PMP certification 88% Services/logistics 30%
Designation % Project team size %
Project director 1% Less than 5 members 8%
Project manager 5% 6–10 members 16%
Department head 63% 11–20 members 16%
Team head 16% 21–50 members 43%
Senior team member 15% Above 50 members 17%
Total experience % Project complexity (relatively) %
Less than 2 years 6% High 31%
3–5 years 13% Medium 45%
6–10 years 46% Low 24%
Above 10 years 35%

Structural model Moving on to the mediation analysis, the results in

Table 4 indicate that self-leadership failed to mediate the
Next, the structural model was analysed to test the linkage relationship between contingent reward leadership and
between the constructs as hypothesised in the research project success (β = 0.–0.013, p = .0.650); thus, H6 was not
framework.107 It was assessed by determining path coef- supported. In contrast, self-leadership showed a significant
ficients among the variables under study,107 followed by mediating effect on the relationship between empowering
additional analyses of moderating and mediating effects.110 leadership and project success (β = 0.324, p = .000);
Table 4 shows the results of the structural model. therefore, H7 was supported.
Contingent reward leadership showed no significant impact With regard to the moderator, H8 was validated as goal
on self-leadership (β = 0.028, p = .061), thus rejecting H1. clarity was revealed to positively moderate the relationship
Contingent reward leadership also demonstrated an insig- between self-leadership and project success (β = 0.160,
nificant relationship with project success (β = 0.089, p = p = .000). Interestingly, the moderation graph in Figure 2
.0.069), rejecting H2 as well. Thus, it appears that leaders’ illustrates that, contrary to expectations, lower levels of goal
contingent reward behaviours do not influence followers’ clarity strengthen the impact of self-leadership on project
self-leadership or project success. success.
Nevertheless, H3 was supported as empowering leader- The model further demonstrated good predictive quality
ship revealed a significant positive effect on self-leadership and accuracy, as proven by its R2 value of 0.423 for the
(β = 0.677, p = .00). However, the results rejected H4 as endogenous construct.108 This indicates that 42.3% of the
empowering leadership did not have a significant rela- variance in project success in this study was explained by
tionship with project success (β = 0.106, p = .159). The contingent reward leadership, empowering leadership and
relationship between self-leadership and project success self-leadership. Regarding effect size (f2), empowering
was found to be positive and significant (β = 0.478, p = leadership showed a large effect on project success, while
.00), supporting H5. self-leadership and contingent reward leadership exhibited
Ahmad et al. 7

Table 2. Reliability and convergent validity.

Item Mean SD* OL** CA*** CR**** AVE*****

11
Contingent reward leadership 0.869 0.897 0.522
My project manager provided me with assistance in exchange for my efforts 3.87 0.735 0.773
My project manager discussed in specific terms who was responsible for achieving 3.88 0.735 0.804
performance targets
My project manager made clear what one could expect to receive when 3.93 0.815 0.780
performance goals were achieved
My project manager expressed satisfaction when I met expectations 3.91 0.847 0.727
Empowering leadership95 0.978 0.982 0.886
My project manager urged me to assume responsibilities on my own 3.44 1.273 0.885
My project manager advised me to solve problems when they pop up without 3.42 1.275 0.930
always getting his/her stamp of approval
My project manager encouraged me to search for solutions to my problems on the 3.43 1.249 0.948
job without his/her supervision
My project manager encouraged me to find solutions to my problems at work 3.39 1.324 0.930
without his/her direct input
My project manager encouraged me to work together with other managers/ 3.49 1.261 0.960
supervisors who report to him/her
My project manager advised me to coordinate my efforts with other managers/ 3.53 1.286 0.969
supervisors who report to him/her
My project manager urged me to work as a team with other managers/supervisors 3.54 1.307 0.966
who report to him/her
Self-leadership67 0.960 0.968 0.836
I solved problems when they pop up without always getting my supervisor’s stamp 3.42 1.176 0.897
of approval
I searched for solutions to my problems on the job without supervision 3.48 1.196 0.934
I found solutions to my problems at work without seeking my supervisor’s direct 3.40 1.238 0.901
input
I assumed responsibilities on my own 3.46 1.296 0.931
I solved my own problems without being dependent on solutions from above 3.51 1.323 0.951
I took initiatives on my own 3.43 1.345 0.868
Goal clarity58 0.954 0.970 0.916
There were clear and comprehensible goals for this project 2.85 1.167 0.938
The goals and requirements of the management were clear for this project 2.97 1.216 0.970
The goals and requirements of the customers were clear for this project 3.00 1.212 0.963
Project success96 0.948 0.957 0.699
End-user was satisfied with the project’s product or service 3.44 1.076 0.931
The project met user requirements 3.49 1.096 0.949
The project met its purpose 3.52 1.112 0.938
Client was satisfied 3.51 1.115 0.945
The project met its overall performance objectives 3.49 1.103 0.935
Suppliers were satisfied 3.29 1.282 0.600
The project team was satisfied 3.29 1.294 0.618
Other stakeholders were satisfied 3.43 1.094 0.935
The project met the respondent’s self-defined success factors 3.47 1.272 0.750
There was a recurring business with the client 2.93 1.110 0.629
Note. *SD = standard deviation; **OL = outer loadings; ***CA = Cronbach’s alpha; ****CR = composite reliability: *****AVE = average variance extracted

medium to small effect sizes as per Cohen’s111 criteria. Discussion

Another indicator is Q,2 which assesses the inner model’s
predictive relevance.107 The Q2 value for the endogenous The current research was carried out to determine the direct
variable, project success, was 0.314, confirming the re- and indirect effects of contingent reward leadership and
search model’s predictive capabilities (see Table 5). empowering leadership on project success via the mediating
8 International Journal of Engineering Business Management

Table 3. Discriminant validity.

Empowering Self-
Variable Contingent reward leadership leadership Goal clarity Project success leadership

Fornell-Larcker criteria
Contingent reward leadership 0.914
Empowering leadership 0.152 0.941
Goal clarity 0.131 0.189 0.957
Project success 0.171 0.485 0.329 0.836
Self-leadership 0.075 0.673 0.147 0.590 0.914
Discriminant validity – heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT)
Contingent reward leadership
Empowering leadership 0.149
Goal clarity 0.127 0.194
Project success 0.171 0.505 0.348
Self-leadership 0.069 0.693 0.151 0.619

contingent rewards may weaken motivation by reducing

followers’ perceived autonomy and shifting their attention
away from non-incentivised duties and responsibilities.113
Further, self-leadership does not mediate the relationship
between contingent reward leadership and project success.
This is plausible as by nature, contingent reward leaders
address the self-interests of those under their influence,67
which has an indirect negative effect on task performance
Figure 2. Moderation effect graph. via diminished competence and autonomy.51 Contingent
reward behaviours also vary between individuals.114 As
such, though contingent reward leadership is a managerial
role of self-leadership and the moderating role of goal behaviour present is all organisations, today’s employees,
clarity. The analysis of data collected from Pakistani IT especially in IT sector, are not influenced or motivated by
industry employees has revealed that contingent reward this leadership behaviour to increase their self-leadership or
leadership has no positive implications for project success. performance. However, instead of Bass’s11 material trans-
The results contradict earlier studies that reported the fa- actional, if LXM social transaction19 strategy is applied in
vourable performance outcomes of contingent rewards.41,58 IT projects, it may give better results.
Moreover, only a handful of studies have explored the Moreover, the results demonstrate an insignificant re-
negative side of contingent rewards, such as its ability to lationship between empowering leadership and project
undermine followers’ autonomy and empowerment.59 This success, despite prior scholars’ agreement on the positive
phenomenon clearly demonstrates that contingent reward outcomes of empowering leadership across different con-
leadership behaviour is context-specific and is a double- texts.115 This insignificance is possibly due to the existence
edge sword.51 Consequently, to increase project success, of a full mediator (i.e. self-leadership) between this rela-
project managers should avoid adopting this strategy in the tionship. In fact, researchers have warned about a reduction
IT context. in core performance due to its adverse effects.18 Thus, other
Contingent reward leadership also demonstrated a aspects like U-shaped or curvilinear effects must be care-
negative beta value and insignificant relationship with self- fully considered. In this regard, given that the relationship
leadership. This implies that contingent rewards do not between empowerment and project success is fully medi-
motivate followers’ self-leadership and may even dis- ated by self-leadership, the direct effect of empowering
courage it. The results are in line with past findings stating leadership on project success becomes insignificant. In
that contingent reward leadership dampens followers’ in- other words, empowering leadership cannot entail project
trinsic motivation and leads to less empowerment.51,112 success without followers’ self-leadership behaviours. This
Pieterse et al.40 highlighted that reward-based leadership result is in line with a study conducted in the banking sector
seems to be influential only in a highly psychologically that revealed a similar full self-leadership mediation.81 Past
empowered environment. By drawing employees’ focus studies have also indicated that employees’ personality and
solely to the aspects of their jobs that offer rewards, characteristics play a vital role in determining the effects of
Ahmad et al. 9

Table 4. Hypothesis testing results.

Hypothesis Relationship β T-value p Decision

Direct
H1 CRL - >SL 0.028 0.471 0.061 Not supported
H2 CRL - > PS 0.089 1.806 0.069 Not supported
H3 EL - > SL 0.677 16.686 0.000 Supported
H4 EL - > PS 0.106 1.498 0.159 Not supported
H5 SL - > PS 0.478 6.799 0.000 Supported
Mediation
H6 CRL->sl- > PS 0.013 0.471 0.638 Not supported
H7 EL->sl- > PS 0.324 6.204 0.000 Supported
Moderation
H8 GC*SL->PS 0.160 4.101 0.000 Supported

Note. CRL = contingent reward leadership; EL = empowering leadership; GC = goal clarity; SL = self-leadership; PS = project success.

Table 5. R2 and Q2 values table. This research adds to the body of knowledge in several
2 2 ways. First, given the limited research on the direct and
Hypothesis SSO Sse Q2 R Adj. R
indirect influences of various leadership styles on project
Self-leadership 1734.000 1083.193 0.375 success, this study has presented a novel research frame-
Project success 2890.000 1983.667 0.314 0.423 0.414 work on leadership to cope with rapidly changing business
realities.15 Apart from conventional leader-centric styles
like transformational leadership, authentic leadership and
empowering leadership.55 Thus, this study’s finding puts servant leadership, this research examined the effect of an
forth that self-leadership is a core mechanism through which emergent leadership style (i.e. empowering leadership) in
empowering leadership impacts project success. In partic- the project environment. In doing so, this study has an-
ular, the empowering leadership behaviour of project swered calls for more empirical work on empowering
managers is more beneficial for employees in terms of their leadership and contingent reward leadership due to in-
self-leadership. When leaders let employees coordinate with clusive findings and insufficient coverage in the Asian
their peers independently, employees jointly search for context.1,19,43,44 Next, this study contributes to the liter-
better solutions and solve problems on their own. They also ature by addressing researchers’ recommendations to
assume responsibilities of tasks on their own and take ini- consider the organisational contexts surrounding self-
tiative without leaders ‘direct input, which is imperative for leadership.81,119 In particular, the present paper incorpo-
project success. Moreover, the descriptive analysis depicts rated goal clarity as an organisational boundary condition
that experienced employees are more inclined towards self- that moderates the relationship between self-leadership
leadership. Empowerment is a fluid phenomenon that and project success. Lastly, this study adds to the litera-
changes over time. With time, as people gain experience and ture by introducing and testing self-leadership as an un-
expertise, they become more independent.116 Additionally, a derlying mechanism that explains the influence of
longer duration of cooperation with a leader meant a higher contingent reward leadership and empowering leadership
degree of autonomy on the followers’ part.117 on project success.51,69,19
Notably, a low level of goal clarity appears to strengthen The findings also have practical implications for prac-
the association between self-leadership and project success, titioners and project management professionals. Based on
meaning that self-leaders are more likely to achieve project the results, one strategy for project managers seeking
success with unclear goals. Though these results align with project success is to avoid contingent reward behaviour,119
the previous results where goal clarity has been found to have as its effectiveness depends singularly upon reward ad-
moderating58 and mediating41 effects in different contexts, ministration.120 The findings thus provide a cautionary note
the direction of the moderation is surprising. Nonetheless, it to those who would wholeheartedly advocate using certain
can be explained as a phenomenon where followers’ crea- contingent reward leadership behaviours to improve per-
tivity increases under conditions of either high or low goal formance. Instead, future developers could design leader-
clarity, which enables them to be more independent in im- ship development programmes that target mechanisms to
proving performance. In contrast, mid-range goal clarity is reduce the potential adverse effects of reward-based lead-
related to fewer novel ideas.118 Overall, the magnitude of ership.51 For example, leaders could administer rewards in a
goal clarity’s effects differs from study to study.118 manner that is less likely to be perceived as controlling and,
10 International Journal of Engineering Business Management

if possible, that provides autonomy to followers in per- This study’s data was collected from the IT sector during
forming their job tasks.51 Organisations should also search the peak of COVID-19, when countless people and orga-
for alternate strategies to contingent reward leadership and nisations were forced to work from home. This crisis has
be meticulous in choosing the best-suited design after a increased the pace of prevailing changes, forced many
thorough validation of its compatibility with the empow- organisations to undergo significant transformation and
ering environment and industry. altered basic organisational structures. Researchers ob-
Moreover, the current study serves as a guideline for served an increase in task-oriented behaviour during the
existing project managers to practice empowering lead- 2008 financial crises14 but expect more delegation behav-
ership. As Srivastava et al.106 advocated, organisations iour following the COVID-19 crisis period.15 Thus, orga-
must hire leaders who believe in sharing power with nisations must be ready for the post-COVID-19 scenario
subordinates rather than retaining it for themselves. Or- and prepare their managers and team members to embrace
ganisations will likely only succeed at facilitating self- emergent leadership behaviours, such as empowering
leadership when they consciously plan to replace hierarchies leadership and employee self-leadership.
and share power among organisational members. How-
ever, empowering and shared forms of leadership may not
a natural response for many leaders because of fear of
Limitations and future research
losing power and authority.7 If managers do not want or As the main methodological limitation in this study is its
know how to delegate authority and power, extensive cross-sectional design, future research can adopt a lon-
brainstorming and training programmes can be de- gitudinal research design to study changes in leadership
signed.121 For instance, Kim and Beehr122 suggested that effects throughout the project life cycle. The general-
the project organisations can motivate supervisors to ex- isability of the results is also a concern, given that data was
ercise empowering behaviours by assigning rewards and gathered from the IT sector in Pakistan, which falls in the
incentives to their subordinates that increase their work South Asian developing nation. Upcoming studies can
meaningfulness and autonomy. More importantly, man- replicate this model in other countries and industries to
agement needs to be extra careful in implementing em- enhance generalisability. Another limitation of the model
powerment efforts in Asian culture because employees is that it did not include all empowering leadership di-
habitually follow management’s rules.123 mensions, which can be considered in future studies. In-
Due to a direct and robust association between self- terested researchers can also replace or add other emergent
leadership and project success, the current study suggests leadership styles to the model. Next, single source data
that managers should be mindful of employees’ self- may be a limitation in this study; thus, prospective research
leadership. Thus, leaders must provide ample authority may employ several sources of data to adequately test the
and resources to enable individuals to be self-leaders.37 mediating effect (self-leadership), moderating effect (goal
Senior management should also play its part in allocating clarity) and project success. It is further possible that the
resources to facilitate self-decision-making and greater peak COVID-19 pandemic at the time of data collection
responsibility at all organisational levels.124 Unfortu- might have affected the results. The present model may
nately, the focus of training funds for project profes- behave differently when tested in a normal working en-
sionals is typically driven by the developmental need for vironment once COVID-19 is over. Future researchers can
technical capabilities instead of soft skills.46 If employees also use the present model to examine its impact on
are to act as leaders, management should prioritise projects executed during crisis times.
training programmes promoting self-leadership among
employees.
Though the effects of project goal clarity are more
Conclusion
complicated, it still has practical implications for project The present study’s outcomes demonstrate that empowering
success.117 Namely, management should exploit goal clarity leadership behaviour can induce self-leadership in employees
to increase self-leadership and mould a culture where and thereby lead to project success. With regard to project-
employees have enough information for decision-making, based IT organisations, the findings recommend that project
leading to improved project performance. The IT sector is managers adopt non-conventional and emerging leadership
adopting agile methodologies; consequently, the goal clarity styles to cope with complex and rapidly changing business
concept needs a fundamental shift. Management should set challenges. In this context, goal clarity, at low and high levels,
goals in a way that assists the project team’s trade-off de- plays a catalyst role and assists self-leaders in achieving project
cisions.88 For example, for complicated or innovative tasks, success. Management and project leaders should emphasise
a do-your-best goal strategy might be the best strategy to proper information flow for self-leaders to ensure the clarity of
enhance task performance.125 project goals in an empowered project environment.
Ahmad et al. 11

Declaration of conflicting interests 11. Bass BM. Two decades of research and development in
transformational leadership. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 1999;
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with re-
8(1): 9–32.
spect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
12. Dulewicz V, Higgs M and Slaski M. Measuring emotional
Funding intelligence: content, construct and criterion-related val-
idity. J Manag Psych 2003; 18(5): 405–420. DOI: 10.1108/
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, au-
02683940310484017.
thorship, and/or publication of this article.
13. Pradhan P, Costa L, Rybski D, et al. A systematic study of
sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions. Earth’s Fu-
ORCID
ture 2017; 5(11): 1169–1179. DOI: 10.1002/2017EF000632.
Muhammad K Ahmad https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5192-7100 14. Augustine S. Managing agile projects. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice
Hall Professional Technical Reference, 2005.
References 15. Lee JC, Chou IC and Chen CY. The effect of process tailoring
1. Chen CC, Nakayama M, Shou Y, et al. Increasing project on software project performance: the role of team absorptive
success in china from the perspectives of project risk, meth- capacity and its knowledge-based enablers. Inf Syst J 2020;
odology, tool use, and organizational support. Int J Inf Technol 31: 120–147. DOI: 10.1111/isj.12303.
Proj Manag 2018; 9(1): 40–58. DOI: 10.4018/IJITPM. 16. Pearce CL and Sims HP Jr. Vertical versus shared leadership
2018010103. as predictors of the effectiveness of change management
2. Haq SU, Gu D, Liang C, et al. Project governance mech- teams: an examination of aversive, directive, transactional,
anisms and the performance of software development transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group
projects: Moderating role of requirements risk. Int J Project Dyn Theor Res Pract 2002; 6(2): 172–197. DOI: 10.1037//
Manag 2019; 37(4): 533–548. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman. 1089-2699.6.2.172.
2019.02.008. 17. Pretorius S, Steyn H and Bond-Barnard TJ. Leadership styles
3. Fernando Y, Walters T, Ismail MN, et al. Managing project in projects: current trends and future opportunities. South Afr
success using project risk and green supply chain manage- J Ind Eng 2018; 29(3): 161–172. DOI: 10.7166/29-3-2057.
ment. Int J Managing Projects Bus 2018; 11(2): 332–365. 18. Dansereau F, Jr, Graen G and Haga WJ. A vertical dyad
DOI: 10.1108/IJMPB-01-2017-0007. linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations.
4. Maqbool R, Sudong Y, Manzoor N, et al. The impact of Organ Behav Hum Perform 1975; 13(1): 46–78. DOI: 10.
emotional intelligence, project managers’ competencies, and 1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7.
transformational leadership on project success: an empirical 19. Graen GB and Uhl-Bien M. Relationship-based approach to
perspective. Project Manag J 2017; 48(3): 58–75. leadership: development of leader-member exchange (LMX)
5. Haq SU, Liang C, Gu D, et al. Project governance, project theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level
performance, and the mediating role of project quality and multi-domain perspective. Leadersh Q 1995; 6(2): 219–247.
project management risk: an agency theory perspective. Eng DOI: 10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5.
Manag J 2018; 30(4): 274–292. DOI: 10.1080/10429247. 20. Schriesheim CA, Castro SL and Cogliser CC. Leader-member
2018.1503038. exchange (LMX) research: a comprehensive review of theory,
6. Ebad SA. Influencing factors for IT software project failures measurement, and data-analytic practices. Leadersh Q 1999;
in developing countries - a critical literature survey. Jsw 2006; 10(1): 63–113. DOI: 10.1016/S1048-9843(99)80009-5.
11(11): 1145–1153. DOI: 10.17706/jsw.11.11.1145-1153. 21. Uhl-Bien M and Graen GB. Impact of leadership. Greensboro,
7. Stevenson D and Starkweather JA. IT project success. Int J NC: Center for Creative Leadership, 1992.An empirical test of
Inf Technol Proj Manag 2017; 8(3): 1–21. DOI: 10.4018/ the leadership making model in professional project teams
IJITPM.2017070101. 22. Hooper DT and Martin R. Beyond personal Leader-Member
8. Muller R, Geraldi J and Turner JR. Relationships between Exchange (LMX) quality: the effects of perceived LMX
leadership and success in different types of project com- variability on employee reactions. Leadersh Q 2008; 19(1):
plexities. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 2012; 59(1): 77–90. DOI: 20–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.002.
10.1109/TEM.2011.2114350. 23. Müller R and Klein G. The COVID-19 pandemic and project
9. Gattiker TF and Carter CR. Understanding project cham- management research. Project Manag J 2020; 51(0):
pions’ ability to gain intra-organizational commitment for 579–581. DOI: 10.1177/8756972820963316.
environmental projects. J Oper Manag 2010; 28(1): 72–85. 24. Stoker JI, Garretsen H and Soudis D. Tightening the leash
DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2009.09.001. after a threat: a multi-level event study on leadership behavior
10. Ali M, Zhang L, Shah SJ, et al. Impact of humble leadership following the financial crisis. Leadersh Q 2019; 30(2):
on project success: the mediating role of psychological 199–214. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.08.004.
empowerment and innovative work behavior. Lodj 2020; 25. Stoker JI, Garretsen H and Lammers J. Leading and working
41(3): 349–367. DOI: 10.1108/LODJ-05-2019-0230. from home in times of COVID-19: on the perceived changes
12 International Journal of Engineering Business Management

in leadership behaviors. J Leadersh Organ Stud 2021; I(II): relationship among CDC employees: a cross-sectional study.
10–11. DOI: 10.1177/15480518211007452. Psychol Res Behav Manag 2019; 12: 437–446. DOI: 10.
26. Kundu SC, Kumar S and Gahlawat N. Empowering lead- 2147/PRBM.S206636.
ership and job performance: mediating role of psychological 40. Pieterse AN, Van Knippenberg D, Schippers M, et al.
empowerment. Manag Res Rev; 2019: 42(5). 605–624. DOI: Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative
10.1108/MRR-04-2018-0183 behavior: the moderating role of psychological empowerment.
27. Ahearne M, Mathieu J and Rapp A. To empower or not to J Organ Behav 2010; 31(4): 609–623. DOI: 10.1002/job.650.
empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the 41. Raziq MM, Borini FM, Malik OF, et al. Leadership styles,
influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer goal clarity, and project success. Leadersh Organ Dev J 2018;
satisfaction and performance. J Appl Psychol 2005; 90(5): 39(2): 309–323. DOI: 10.1108/LODJ-07-2017-0212.
945–955. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.94. 42. Manz CC. Self-leadership: toward an expanded theory of self-
28. Martin SL, Liao H and Campbell EM. Directive versus influence processes in organizations. Amr 1986; 11(3):
empowering leadership: a Field experiment comparing im- 585–600. DOI: 10.5465/amr.1986.4306232.
pacts on task proficiency and proactivity. Amj 2013; 56(5): 43. Hinkin TR and Schriesheim CA. An examination of “non-
1372–1395. leadership”: from laissez-faire leadership to leader reward
29. Cheong M, Yammarino FJ, Dionne SD, et al. A review of the omission and punishment omission. J Appl Psychol 2008;
effectiveness of empowering leadership. Leadersh Q 2019; 93(6): 1234–1248. DOI: 10.1037/a0012875.
30(1): 34–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.08.005. 44. Whittington JL, Coker RH, GoodwinIckes VLW, et al.
30. Faraj S and Sambamurthy V. Leadership of information Transactional leadership revisited: self-other agreement and
systems development projects. IEEE Trans Eng Manage its consequences. J Appl Soc Psychol 2009; 39(8):
2006; 53(2): 238–249. DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2006.872245. 1860–1886. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00507.x.
31. Tyssen AK, Wald A and Spieth P. The challenge of transactional 45. Marques-Quinteiro P, Vargas R, Eifler N, et al. Employee
and transformational leadership in projects. Int J Project Manag adaptive performance and job satisfaction during organiza-
2014; 32(3): 365–375. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.05.010. tional crisis: the role of self-leadership. Eur J Work Organ
32. Gupta V and Singh S. How leaders impact employee crea- Psychol 2019; 28(1): 85–100. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2018.
tivity: a study of Indian R&D laboratories. Manag Res Rev 1551882.
2012; 36(1): 66–88. DOI: 10.1108/01409171311284594. 46. Chen G, Sharma PN, Edinger SK, et al. Motivating and
33. Gupta V and Singh S. How leaders impact employee crea- demotivating forces in teams: cross-level influences of em-
tivity: a study of Indian R&D laboratories. Management Res powering leadership and relationship conflict. J Appl Psychol
Rev 2012; 36(1): 66–88. DOI: 10.1108/01409171311284594. 2011; 96(3): 541–557. DOI: 10.1037/a0021886.
34. Howell JM and Hall-Merenda KE. The ties that bind: the 47. Newton S. Editorial: new directions in leadership. Constr Innov
impact of leader-member exchange, transformational and 2009; 9(2): 129–132. DOI: 10.1108/14714170910950786.
transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower 48. Yu M, Vaagaasar AL., Müller R, et al. Empowerment: the key
performance. J Appl Psychol 1999; 84(5): 680–694. DOI: 10. to horizontal leadership in projects. Int J Project Manag 2018;
1037/0021-9010.84.5.680. 36(7): 992–1006. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.04.003.
35. Kaulio MA. Project leadership in multi-project settings: 49. Alves JC, Lovelace KJ, Manz CC, et al. A cross-cultural
findings from a critical incident study. Int J Project Man- perspective of self-leadership. J Managerial Psych 2006;
agement 2008; 26(4): 338–347. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman. 21(4): 338–359. DOI: 10.1108/02683940610663123.
2007.06.005. 50. Manz CC and Sims HP. Superleadership: Leading others to
36. Oke AN, Stafylarakis M, et al. Leading for innovation: the lead themselves. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
impact of leadership on innovation. AIM executive briefings. 1989.
London, UK: Advance Institute of Management Research 51. Young HR, Glerum DR, Joseph DL, et al. A meta-analysis of
(AIM), 2005. transactional leadership and follower performance: double-
37. Stewart GL, Courtright SH and Manz CC. Self-leadership: a edged effects of LMX and empowerment. J Manag 2020:
paradoxical core of organizational behavior. Annu Rev Organ 1–26. DOI: 10.1177/0149206320908646.
Psychol Organ Behav 2019; 6(1): 47–67. DOI: 10.1146/ 52. Houghton JD and Yoho SK. Toward a contingency model of
annurev-orgpsych-012218-015130. leadership and psychological empowerment: when should
38. Zhang S, Ke X, Frank Wang X-H, et al. Empowering self-leadership be encouraged? J Leadersh Organ Stud 2005;
leadership and employee creativity: a dual-mechanism per- 11(4): 65–83.
spective. J Occup Organ Psychol 2018; 91(4): 896–917. DOI: 53. Collyer S, Warren C, Hemsley B, et al. Aim, fire, aim-project
10.1111/joop.12219. planning styles in dynamic environments. Project Manage-
39. Liu C, Liu S, Yang S, et al. Association between transfor- ment J 2010; 41(4): 108–121. DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20199.
mational leadership and occupational burnout and the me- 54. Patanakul P, Pinto JK and Pinto MB. Motivation to perform in
diating effects of psychological empowerment in this a multiple-project environment: the impact of autonomy,
Ahmad et al. 13

support, goal clarity, and opportunities for learning. J Eng 68. Harris TB, Li N, Boswell WR, et al. Getting what’s new from
Technol Manag 2016; 39: 65–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.jengtecman. newcomers: empowering leadership, creativity, and adjust-
2016.02.001. ment in the socialisation context. Pers Psychol 2014; 67(3):
55. Lee S, Cheong M, Kim M, et al. Never too much? The 567–604, DOI: 10.1111/peps.12053.
curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership and 69. Neck CP and Houghton JD. Two decades of self-leadership
task performance. Group Organ Manag 2017; 42(1): 11–38. theory and research. J Manag Psychol 2006; 21(4): 270–295.
56. Avolio BJ, Zhu W, Koh W, et al. Transformational lead- DOI: 10.1108/02683940610663097.
ership and organizational commitment: mediating role of 70. Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am
psychological empowerment and moderating role of Psychologist 1982; 37(2): 122–147. DOI: 10.1037/0003-
structural distance. J Organ Behav 2004; 25(8): 951–968. 066X.37.2.122.
DOI: 10.1002/job.283. 71. Kerzner H. In search of excellence in project management.
57. Bendell BL, Sullivan DM and Marvel MR. A gender-aware J Syst Manag 1987; 38(2): 30.
study of self-leadership strategies among high-growth en- 72. Lee A, Willis S and Tian AW. Empowering leadership: a
trepreneurs. J Small Bus Manag 2018; 57: 110–130. DOI: 10. meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, me-
1111/jsbm.12490. diation, and moderation. J Organ Behav 2018; 39(3):
58. Aga DA, Noorderhaven N and Vallejo B. Transformational 306–325. DOI: 10.1002/job.2220.
leadership and project success: the mediating role of team- 73. Wang S, De Pater IE, Yi M, et al. Empowering leadership:
building. Int J Project Manag 2016; 34(5): 806–818. DOI: 10. employee-related antecedents and consequences. Asia Pac J
1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.012. Manag 2020: 1–25. DOI: 10.1007/s10490-020-09734-w.
59. Howell JM and Avolio BJ. Transformational leadership, 74. Chen G, Smith TA, Kirkman BL, et al. Multiple team
transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for membership and empowerment spillover effects: can em-
innovation: key predictors of consolidated-business-unit powerment processes cross team boundaries? J Appl Psychol
performance. J Appl Psychol 1993; 78(6): 891–902. DOI: 2019; 104(3): 321–340. DOI: 10.1037/apl0000336.
10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.891. 75. Bandura A. The assessment and predictive generality of self-
60. Bass BM. Two decades of research and development in percepts of efficacy. J Behav Ther Exp Psych 1982; 13(3):
transformational leadership. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 1999; 195–199.
8(1): 9–32. 76. Ross S. A conceptual model for understanding the process of
61. Bass BM and Steidlmeier P. Ethics, character, and authentic self-leadership development and action-steps to promote
transformational leadership behavior. Leadersh Q 1999; personal leadership development. J Manag Dev 2014; 33(4):
10(2): 181–217. 299–323. DOI: 10.1108/JMD-11-2012-0147.
62. Carter MZ, Mossholder KW and Harris JN. Congruence 77. Raabe B, Frese M and Beehr TA. Action regulation theory
effects of contingent reward leadership intended and expe- and career self-management. J Vocat Behav 2007; 70(2):
rienced on team effectiveness: the mediating role of dis- 297–311. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2006.10.005.
tributive justice climate. J Occup Organ Psychol 2018; 91(3): 78. Neck CP and Manz CC. Thought self-leadership: the impact
465–485. DOI: 10.1111/joop.12210. of mental strategies training on employee cognition, behavior,
63. Basten D, Joosten D and Mellis W. Managers’ perceptions of and affect. J Organiz Behav 1996; 17(5): 4452–4467. DOI: 10.
information system project success. J Comput Inf Sys 2011; 1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199609)17:5%3C445::AID-JOB770%
52(2): 12–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.04.007. 3E3.0.
64. Yammarino FJ, Spangler WD and Dubinsky AJ. Transfor- 79. Birdi K, Clegg C, Patterson M, et al. The impact of human
mational and contingent reward leadership: Individual, dyad, resource and operational management practices on company
and group levels of analysis. Leadersh Q 1998; 9(1): 27–54. productivity: a longitudinal study. Pers Psychol 2008; 61(3):
DOI: 10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90041-8. 467–501. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00136.x.
65. Ford RC and Fottler MD. Empowerment: a matter of degree. 80. Bailey SF, Barber LK and Justice LM. Is self-leadership just
Acad Manag Perspect 1995; 9(3): 21–29. DOI: 10.5465/ame. self-regulation? Exploring construct validity with HEXACO
1995.9509210269. and self-regulatory traits. Curr Psychol 2018; 37(1):
66. Van Dierendonck D and Dijkstra M. The role of the follower in 149–161. DOI: 10.1007/s12144-016-9498-z.
the relationship between empowering leadership and em- 81. Kör B. The mediating effects of self-leadership on perceived
powerment: a longitudinal investigation. J Appl Soc Psychol entrepreneurial orientation and innovative work behavior in
2012; 42: E1–E20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01022.x. the banking sector. Springerplus 2016; 5(1): 1829–1915.
67. Yun S, Cox J and Sims HP. The forgotten follower: a DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-3556-8.
contingency model of leadership and follower self-lead- 82. Abid G, Arya B, Arshad A, et al. Positive personality traits
ership. J Manag Psych 2006; 21: 374–388. DOI: 10.1108/ and self-leadership in sustainable organisations: Mediating
02683940610663141. influence of thriving and moderating role of proactive
14 International Journal of Engineering Business Management

personality. Sustain Prod Consum J 2020; 25: 299–311. DOI: 98. Anantatmula VS. Project manager leadership role in im-
10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.005. proving project performance. Eng Manag J 2010; 22(1):
83. Bandura A. The anatomy of stages of change. Am J Health 13–22. DOI: 10.1080/10429247.2010.11431849.
Promot 1997; 12(1): 8–10. DOI: 10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.8. 99. Lechler T and Grace E. Successful management of highly
84. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Paine JB, et al. Organiza- innovative and urgent projects: analysing project manage-
tional citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical ment practices to reveal strategic directions. In: PIC-
and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. MET’07-2007 Portland Int Conference on Manag of
J Manag 2000; 26(3): 513–563. DOI: 10.1016/S0149- Engineering & Technology. Portland, OR, 5 August 2007:
2063(00)00047-7. IEEE; 2007, pp. 2049–2056.
85. Amundsen S and Martinsen ØL. Linking empowering 100. Thite M. Identifying key characteristics of technical project
leadership to job satisfaction, work effort, and creativity. leadership. Leadersh Org Develop J 1999; 20(5): 253–261.
J Leadersh Organ Stud 2015; 22(3): 304–323. DOI: 10.1177/ DOI: 10.1108/01437739910287126.
1548051814565819. 101. Musawir Au, Serra CEM, Zwikael O, et al. Project gover-
86. Houghton JD, Wu J, Godwin JL, et al. Effective stress nance, benefit management, and project success: Towards a
management. J Manag Educ 2012; 36(2): 220–238. DOI: 10. framework for supporting organizational strategy im-
1177/1052562911430205. plementation. Int J Project Manag 2017; 35(8): 1658–1672.
87. Furtner MR, Rauthmann JF and Sachse P. Unique self- DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.07.007.
leadership: a bifactor model approach. Leadership 2015; 102. Krejcie RV and Morgan DW. Determining sample size for
11(1): 105–125. DOI: 10.1177/1742715013511484. research activities. Educ Psychol Meas 1970; 30(3): 607–610.
88. Hong P, Nahm AYand Doll WJ. The role of project target clarity 103. Hair JF, Ringle CM and Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM: indeed a
in an uncertain project environment. Int Jrnl Op Prod Manag silver bullet. J Marketing Theor Pract 2011; 19(2): 139–152.
2004; 24(12): 1269–1291. DOI: 10.1108/01443570410569047. DOI: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.
89. Sawyer JE. Goal and process clarity: specification of multiple 104. Podsakoff PM and Organ DW. Self-reports in organisational
constructs of role ambiguity and a structural equation model research: problems and prospects. J Manag 1982; 12(4):
of their antecedents and consequences. J Appl Psychol 1992; 531–544.
77(2): 130–142. 105. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB and Podsakoff NP. Sources of
90. Hu J and Liden RC. Antecedents of team potency and team method bias in social science research and recommendations
effectiveness: an examination of goal and process clarity and on how to control it. Annu Rev Psychol 2012; 63: 539–569.
servant leadership. J Appl Psychol 2011; 96(4): 851–862. 106. Hair JF Jr, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, et al. Partial least squares
DOI: 10.1037/a0022465. structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Eur Bus Rev 2014;
91. Steinmann B, Klug HJP and Maier GW. The path is the goal: 26(2): 106–121. DOI: 10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128.
how transformational leaders enhance followers’ job attitudes 107. Srivastava A, Bartol KM and Locke EA. Empowering leadership
and proactive behavior. Front Psychol 2018; 9: 2338–2415. in management teams: effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy,
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02338. and performance. Acad Manag J 2006; 49(6): 1239–1251.
92. Spreitzer GM. Social structural characteristics of psycho- 108. Hair JF Jr, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, et al. A Primer on Partial
logical empowerment. Acad Manag J 1996; 39(2): 483–504. Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM).
93. Baer M. Putting creativity to work: the implementation of 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2017.
creative ideas in organizations. Acad Manag J 2012; 55(5): 109. Hair JF Jr, Howard MC and Nitzl C. Assessing measurement
1102–1119. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2009.0470. model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite
94. Van der Hoek M, Groeneveld S and Kuipers B. Goal setting in analysis. J Bus Res 2020; 109: 101–110. DOI: 10.1016/j.
teams: goal clarity and team performance in the public sector. jbusres.2019.11.069.
Rev Public Pers Adm 2018; 38(4): 472–493. DOI: 10.1177/ 110. Henseler J. Bridging design and behavioral research with
0734371X16682815. variance-based structural equation modeling. J Advert 2017;
95. Tekleab AG, Sims HP Jr, Yun S, et al. Are we on the same 46(1): 178–192. DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2017.1281780.
page? Effects of self-awareness of empowering and trans- 111. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-
formational leadership. J Leadersh Organ Stud 2008; 14(3): ences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1988.
185–201. DOI: 10.1177/1071791907311069. 112. Cerasoli CP, Nicklin JM and Ford MT. Intrinsic motivation
96. Turner JR and Muller R. Choosing appropriate project man- and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: a 40-year
agers: matching their leadership style to the type of project. meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 2014; 140(4): 980–1008. DOI:
Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute, 2006. 10.1037/a0035661.
97. Müller R and Turner R. The influence of project managers on 113. Deci EL, Olafsen AH and Ryan RM. Self-determination
project success criteria and project success by type of project. theory in work organizations: the state of a science. Annu
Eur Mana J 2007; 25(4): 298–309. DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2007. Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav 2017; 4(1): 19–43. DOI: 10.
06.003. 1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108.
Ahmad et al. 15

114. Gaudet M-C, Tremblay M and Doucet O. Exploring the black 120. Podsakoff NP, Shen W and Podsakoff PM. The role of for-
box of the contingent reward leadership-performance rela- mative measurement models in strategic management re-
tionship: the role of perceived justice and emotional ex- search: review, critique, and implications for future research.
haustion. Eur J Work Organi Psychol 2014; 23(6): 897–914. Res Methodol Strateg Manag 2006; 3(1): 197–252. DOI: 10.
DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2013.817056. 1016/S1479-8387(06)03008-6.
115. Jung KB, Kang S-W and Choi SB. Empowering leadership, 121. Huertas-Valdivia I, Gallego-Burı́n AR and Lloréns-Montes
risk-taking behavior, and employees’ commitment to orga- FJ. Effects of different leadership styles on hospitality
nizational change: the mediated moderating role of task workers. Tourism Manag 2019; 71: 402–420. DOI: 10.1016/j.
complexity. Sustainability 2020; 12(6): 2340–2418. DOI: 10. tourman.2018.10.027.
3390/su12062340. 122. Kim M, Beehr TA and Prewett MS. Employee responses
116. Zimmerman MA. Psychological empowerment: issues and to empowering leadership: a meta-analysis. J Leadersh
illustrations. Am J Commun Psychol 1995; 23(5): 581–599. Organ Stud 2018; 25(3): 257–276. DOI: 10.1177/
DOI: 10.1007/BF02506983. 1548051817750538.
117. Grošelj M, Černe M, Penger S, et al. Authentic and trans- 123. Kundu SC, Malhan D and Kumar P. Empowering service
formational leadership and innovative work behaviour: the employees for performance: a review. Gumbad Bus Rev 2006;
moderating role of psychological empowerment. Eur J Innov 2(1): 62–73.
Manag 2021; 24(3): 677–706. DOI: 10.1108/EJIM-10-2019- 124. Lee J and Wei F. The mediating effect of psychological em-
0294. powerment on the relationship between participative goal
118. Stetler KL and Magnusson M. Exploring the tension between setting and team outcomes - a study in China. Int J Hum Resour
clarity and ambiguity in goal setting for innovation. Creativ Manag 2011; 22(02): 279–295. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.
Innov Manag 2015; 24(2): 231–246. DOI: 10.1111/caim. 2011.540152.
12102. 125. Ko Y and Yu S. The relationships among perceived patients’
119. Stewart GL, Courtright SH and Manz CC. Self-leadership: a safety culture, intention to report errors, and leader coaching
multilevel review. J Management 2011; 37(1): 185–222. behavior of nurses in Korea: a pilot study. J Patient Saf 2017;
DOI: 10.1177/0149206310383911. 13(3): 175–183.