large scale complex projects beyond the ‘iron triangle ... · technical or hard skills of project...
TRANSCRIPT
Large scale complex projects — Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: An
influence of soft skills on project success
Azadeh Rezvani
Bachelor of Computing, University of Portsmouth
Master of Science (IT Management), UTM
Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy (PhD)
Supervisor: Professor Rowena Barrett
School of Management
QUT Business School
Queensland University of Technology
2018
ii
Abstract
Worldwide many large scale complex projects experience substantial cost overruns,
delays in completion and failure in delivering successful objectives (Wu et al., 2017;
Williams & Samset, 2010). While research into complex projects has focused on the
technical or hard skills of project teams and project managers (e.g., Dimitriou et al., 2013;
Tai et al., 2009), little has concentrated on soft skills and their influence on the successful
delivery of complex projects.
The aim of this thesis is to investigate the influence of project managers and project team
members’ competency, attitudes and behaviours in large scale complex projects.
Grounded on management and psychology theory, mainly, affective events theory and
competency performance theory, this thesis identifies the competency, attitudes, and
behaviours that project managers and project team members require to achieve success
and practice effectively in the context of large scale complex projects. To examine the
influence of project managers and employees’ competency and attitudes and behaviour
on project success, this thesis uses the quantitative method and relied on the collection
and analysis of large quantities of data. By doing so, this research contributes to a deeper
understanding of the role of emotional intelligence for both project managers and
employees operating in the large scale complex project at both individual and team levels
of analysis and therefore, improve project success.
This thesis consisted of four studies. In study 1 the aim is to understand project success
in the large-scale complex project environment through an extensive systematic literature
review. To achieve this aim, a study in which the literature on complex project settings is
consolidated and analysed 30 articles.
In study 2 the aim is to understand barriers to success in the large-scale complex project
environment through an extensive systematic literature review. In this study, the literature
is integrated with proposes categories of barriers impacting the successful delivery of
complex projects and provides some specific guidelines to manage these barriers in the
context of complex projects. This systematic identification and classification of large-
scale complex project barriers fills an existing gap in the project management literature
iii
and, from a practice perspective, assists in more effectively distributing limited resources,
such as budget, time and manpower (Kardes et al., 2013; Toor & Ogunlana, 2010).
Building on the systematic review of project success and barriers to success in complex
projects (Study 1 & 2), in study 3 the focus is on managerial skills, and a more specific,
the role of the project managers’ emotional intelligence (EI) and work attitudes on project
success. In study 3 the aim is to understand how personal attributes, competency, and
attitudes of project managers contribute to their perceptions of project success at the
individual level in a complex project. A model is proposed and tested that links EI, and
work attitudes to project success. The mediating variables between EI and project success
relationship are uncovered. Based on data collected from 373 project managers in the
Australian defense industry, the analysis demonstrates that EI has a positive impact on
project success, job satisfaction, and trust. Findings show that project managers’ EI could
be expected to have a high level of positive effect on work attitudes, such as job
satisfaction and trust, which in turn impacts on the success of complex projects.
Finally, the aim of Study 4 is to examine how EI, when conceptualised at a team level,
impacted on project success through trust and relationship conflict in the team. A sample
of 389 employees in 84 project teams operating in large-scale complex projects is used to
examine the relationship between team EI, trust, and conflict and project success. Findings
show that team EI is positively related to trust, conflict in the team and project success.
In addition, the relationship between team EI and project success is mediated by trust and
conflict in the team.
Overall, the findings provide several implications for theory and practice. First, in terms
of theory, the thesis adds to the cumulative body of knowledge regarding to project
managers and project team members’ competence and attitudes towards project success;
Second, this research identifies the effective type of competence and attitudes of project
managers and project team members in large-scale complex projects; Third, this thesis
empirically examines the competence and attitudes of individuals and teams as a
determinant of project success. Fourth, this thesis extends the notions of emotion
regulation and understanding of emotions in self and others to the complex project
management literature. Fifth, this thesis identifies the underlying mechanism that links EI
iv
and project success relationships at both individual and team levels of analysis. Sixth, this
thesis advances the competency performance theory (Ley & Albert, 2003) in terms of
attributes and competence of individuals and teams. Finally, through the adoption of
emotion theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) the outcomes of this research contribute to
the relatively nascent emotions in project-based organisation literature by identifying an
outcome associated with the effective type of competence —project success relationship.
This research also provides implications for practitioners regarding the type of
competence and attitudes of project managers and project team members that should be
chosen for large-scale complex projects. Complex project organizations should not simply
look at hiring project managers and employees based on their technical strength without
also considering their EI skills. Implications for defense, infrastructure, construction, and
government exist in identifying competence and attitudes of employees and project
managers related with large scale complex project success as this resulting in time and
money saving of million dollars that will lead to successful project outcomes.
Finally, this thesis provides implications for the individual differences literature in
evaluating the knowledge of individuals and teams to predict work behaviour and
performance in the complex project-based organisations. As a total body of work, the
practical contributions are in providing evidence-based recommendations that managers
and project leaders in complex project organisations can use to improve success in
complex projects.
v
Keywords
Emotional intelligence, soft factors, affective events theory, iron triangle, individual
level, team level, project success, job satisfaction, work attitude, trust, relationship
conflict, structural equation modeling, competency performance theory, complex
project, large-scale project, project manager, project team member.
vi
Table of Contents
Title ................................................................................................................................ i Abstract ......................................................................................................................... ii Keywords ...................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables................................................................................................................. x List of Figures .............................................................................................................. xi Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. xii Statement of Original Authorship .............................................................................. xiii Publications ................................................................................................................ xiv
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... xv
Introduction ........................................................................................... 17
Problem Background ....................................................................................... 17 Purpose of This Thesis .................................................................................... 19 Research Objectives and Questions ................................................................ 20 Theoretical and Practical Aims and Contributions ......................................... 21
Research Design .............................................................................................. 22 Research philosophy and paradigm ........................................................................ 22 Research methodology ........................................................................................... 25 Level of analysis .................................................................................................... 29 Validity and reliability ........................................................................................... 29 Ethics, industry and country context ...................................................................... 29
Research Scope of Each Study ........................................................................ 31
Definition of Key Concepts ............................................................................ 33
Thesis Structure ............................................................................................... 35
Literature review ................................................................................... 36 Project ............................................................................................................. 36
Complex Project Definition ............................................................................ 38 Project Success ................................................................................................ 40
Emotional Intelligence (EI) ............................................................................. 43 Trust ................................................................................................................ 48 Job Satisfaction ............................................................................................... 50
Conflict ............................................................................................................ 51 Theoretical Frameworks .................................................................................. 53
Affective events theory .......................................................................................... 54 Competence performance theory ........................................................................... 54
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................... 55
Research Questions ......................................................................................... 57 Summary and Implications ............................................................................. 58
Study 1 .................................................................................................... 61 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 61 Previous Studies on Project Success ............................................................... 63
Methodology ................................................................................................... 66 Search terms ........................................................................................................... 66 Inclusion/exclusion criteria .................................................................................... 67
vii
Data synthesis ......................................................................................................... 68 Overview of Selected Publications ................................................................. 69
Annual publications ............................................................................................... 69 Projects per country ................................................................................................ 69 Research methods of included studies ................................................................... 70 Journal name and number of publications .............................................................. 71
Analysis of Results .......................................................................................... 71
Discussion ....................................................................................................... 76 Conclusion....................................................................................................... 79
References ................................................................................................................... 82
Study 2 .................................................................................................... 88 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 89
Methodology ................................................................................................... 91 Search terms ........................................................................................................... 91 Inclusion/exclusion criteria .................................................................................... 92 Data synthesis ......................................................................................................... 93
Overview of selected publications .................................................................. 94 Annual publications ............................................................................................... 94 Projects per country ................................................................................................ 94
Result............................................................................................................... 95 Barriers to project success in complex projects ..................................................... 95
Discussion and Recommendations ................................................................ 103 Practical Implications .................................................................................... 104
References ................................................................................................................. 105
Study 3 .................................................................................................. 112
Introduction ................................................................................................... 113 Critical Variables .......................................................................................... 115
Project success ..................................................................................................... 115 Emotional intelligence.......................................................................................... 117 Job satisfaction ..................................................................................................... 118 Trust ..................................................................................................................... 118
Model and Hypotheses Development ........................................................... 119 Conceptual framework ......................................................................................... 119 Emotional intelligence and project success .......................................................... 120 Emotional intelligence and work attitudes: Trust and job satisfaction ................. 121 Job satisfaction and project success ..................................................................... 122 Trust and project success...................................................................................... 123 The mediating role of job satisfaction and trust ................................................... 123
Method .......................................................................................................... 124 Context ................................................................................................................. 124 Procedure and sample........................................................................................... 124 Measures .............................................................................................................. 125
5.6.3.1 Emotional intelligence. ..................................................................................... 125 5.6.3.2 Project success. ................................................................................................. 125 5.6.3.3 Job satisfaction. ................................................................................................ 126 5.6.3.4 Trust. ................................................................................................................. 126
Analysis ......................................................................................................... 126 Procedure to test mediation .................................................................................. 126
viii
Results ........................................................................................................... 127 Measurement model ............................................................................................. 127 Hypotheses tests ................................................................................................... 129
Discussion ..................................................................................................... 131 Practical implications ........................................................................................... 133 Limitations and future directions ......................................................................... 133
References ................................................................................................................. 135
Study 4 .................................................................................................. 143
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... 143 Introduction ................................................................................................... 144 Critical Variables .......................................................................................... 145
Emotional intelligence.......................................................................................... 145 Project success ..................................................................................................... 146 Trust in team ........................................................................................................ 147 Conflict in a team ................................................................................................. 147
Hypotheses Development.............................................................................. 148 Team emotional intelligence and project success ................................................ 148 Team emotional intelligence and trust in team .................................................... 149 Team emotional intelligence and conflict in team ............................................... 150 Trust in the team and project success ................................................................... 151 Conflict in the team and project success .............................................................. 151 Conflict and Trust in the team as a mediator........................................................ 152
Method .......................................................................................................... 153 Measurements ...................................................................................................... 153
6.4.1.1 Emotional intelligence ...................................................................................... 153 6.4.1.2 Trust .................................................................................................................. 153 6.4.1.3 Project success .................................................................................................. 153 6.4.1.4 Team conflict ..................................................................................................... 153
Participants and procedure ................................................................................... 154 Data analysis ........................................................................................................ 155 Aggregation tests .................................................................................................. 155 Measurement model ............................................................................................. 156
Results ........................................................................................................... 157 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 158
Practical implications .................................................................................... 160 Research limitations and future research recommendations ......................... 161
References ................................................................................................................. 162
Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................ 167
Introduction ................................................................................................... 167 Research Outcomes and Contribution to Theory and Practice ..................... 167
Contributions of study 1 ....................................................................................... 167 Contributions of Study 2 ...................................................................................... 171 Contributions of Study 3 ...................................................................................... 176 Contributions of Study 4 ...................................................................................... 178 Overall contribution to theory and practice .......................................................... 181
7.2.5.1 Implications for theory ...................................................................................... 181 7.2.5.2 Implications for project management literature ............................................... 182 7.2.5.3 Implications for complex project management literature ................................. 182
ix
7.2.5.4 Implications for Managers ................................................................................ 183 Limitations and Future Research Directions ................................................. 184
Limitations and Future Research Directions of Studies 1 & 2 ............................. 184 Limitations and Future Research Directions of Study 3 ...................................... 184 Limitations and Future Research Directions of Study 4 ...................................... 185
Conclusions ................................................................................................... 186 References ................................................................................................................. 190
Appendices ................................................................................................................... 208
Appendix A Project Manager Survey ....................................................................... 208 Australia .................................................................................................................... 208 Appendix B Employee and Manager Survey ........................................................... 213 Iran ............................................................................................................................ 213
x
List of Tables
Table 1.1. Differences between Positivism and Interpretivism ...................................... 23 Table 1.2. A taxonomy of research methodology by Galliers (1990) ............................. 25 Table 1.3 Research Design of the Four Studies .............................................................. 27 Table 1.3 Definition of Key Concepts ............................................................................ 33
Table 5.1 Goodness-of-Fit Statistics ............................................................................. 127 Table 5.2 Convergent Validity Tests ............................................................................ 128 Table 5.3 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Discriminate Validity ......... 129 Table 5.4 Bias-Corrected Bootstrap Results ................................................................. 131
xi
List of Figures
Figure1.1. Research Scope .............................................................................................. 33
Figure 2.1. Conceptual model for individual and team levels of analysis ...................... 57 Figure 3.1 Publication per year. ...................................................................................... 69 Figure 3.2 Projects per country. ...................................................................................... 69 Figure 3.3. Research methods of included studies. ......................................................... 70 Figure 4.1. Publication per year ...................................................................................... 94
Figure 4.2. Publication per country ................................................................................. 95
Figure 5.1. Conceptual framework................................................................................ 120
Figure 5.2. Model 1 results. .......................................................................................... 130 Figure 5.3. Model 2 results. .......................................................................................... 130 Figure 6.1. Research model. .......................................................................................... 148
xii
Abbreviations
AET Affective events Theory
ADO Australian Defence Organisation
CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis
EI Emotional Intelligence
EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis
IT Information Technology
PMI Project Management Institute
CPT Competency Performance Theory
ICC1 Inter-member Reliability
ICC2 Inter-member Reliability
Rwg Inter-rater Agreement
SD Standard Deviations
xiii
Statement of Original Authorship
QUT Verified Signature
xiv
Publications
The following papers have been produced during the undertaking of the PhD.
Journal Publication
Chapter 5- Rezvani, A., Chang, A., Wiewiora, A., Ashkanasy, N. M., Jordan, P. J., &
Zolin, R. (2016). Manager emotional intelligence and project success: The mediating role
of job satisfaction and trust. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7), 1112-
1122. Accepted 31 May 2016, Available online 2nd July 2016
Publications Under Review
Chapter 3- Rezvani, A. Project success in complex projects: A systematic review. Project
Management Journal. Date of submission: 26th Dec 2018
Chapter 4- Rezvani, A. Barriers to success in large-scale complex projects: A systematic
literature review Project Management Journal. Date of submission: 26th Dec 2018
Chapter 6- Rezvani, A., Barrett, R., Khosravi, P, Emotional intelligence and project
success in large-scale construction projects: A team level perspective. Journal of
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. Date of submission: 17th Jan
2018
Conference Papers
Rezvani, A., Chang, A., & Wiewiora, A. (2016). Taxonomy of project barriers in
complex projects. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Australian and New Zealand
Academy of Management Conference, Brisbane, Australia. Presented on 5th Dec 2016
Rezvani, A., Chang, A., & Wiewiora, A. (2016). Project success in complex projects: A
systematic literature review. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Australian and New
Zealand Academy of Management Conference, Brisbane, Australia. Presented on 5th Dec
2016
Rezvani, A., Chang, A., & Wiewiora, A. (2015). Emotional intelligence, work attitudes
and project success: An examination among project managers in complex projects,
Proceedings of the 15th Annual Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management
Conference, Queenstown, New Zealand. Presented on 4th Dec 2015
xv
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, my deepest gratitude and respect goes to my principal supervisor,
Professor Rowena Barrett, who provided critical review, guidance, and support. I am so
grateful for the love, dedication, and support you showed me during my most difficult
times. Despite how I felt I wasn’t alone. You thought me the authenticity and ethics of
your leadership. I really appreciate what you've done.
I would also like to acknowledge and thank the Australian Postgraduate Research Award
and QUT Vice-Chancellor Award that provided financial assistance to support my PhD
journey. I am also thankful for the research support office, especially Carol, Dennis, Sam,
Milen and Marilyn for all their work to navigate postgraduate students through the process
and procedures.
Thanks also go to Dr. Jonathan Bader for editing and reviewing my drafts. I am also
thankful to the International Student Services office, especially Sam Zimmer, Suwati,
Elizabeth Tinder, Sachio Shigeta, Xanthe Burton and Maria for organizing various
activities, for supporting postgraduate students.
I would like also to thank the field organizations for the willingness to be involved in this
research. I would especially like to acknowledge the IT and HR staff for their support
during my data-gathering.
My love goes to my parents who helped me regain my confidence and become the person
that I am now.
I would also like to thank all my friends for all their support.
I would also like to thank, professional editor, Dr. Bill Wrigley, who provided
proofreading services, according to the guidelines laid out in the university-endorsed
national guidelines for editing research theses.
17
Introduction
This chapter is an overview of the content of this thesis. An outline of the research into
emotional intelligence (EI) and complex project performance is presented, containing an
overview of the problem background (Section 1.1), theoretical and practical aims and
contribution (Section 1.2), research design (Section 1.3), purpose of this thesis (Section
1.4), the research objectives and questions (Section 1.5), the research scope of each study
(Section 1.6), the definitions of key concepts (Section 1.7), and thesis structure (Section
1.8).
Problem Background
Large and complex projects are prone to experience substantial cost overruns, delays in
completion and failure to deliver their objectives (Eden, Williams, & Ackermann, 2005;
Williams & Samset, 2010). A study conducted by Standish Group International (2009)
reported that more than 40% of projects experience cost and time overruns. For example,
the FIFA World Cup 2014 project budget increased from the originally estimated one
billion to eleven billion Euros. There are a number of similar examples across various
industries, where complex projects experience budget overruns or failure to deliver
promised outcomes on time and according to expectations such as the Marmaray Tunnel
under the Bosporus Sea, which today serves as a rail link between Asia and Europe. The
project managers, a Japanese‒Turkish consortium led by Taisei Corporation, scheduled
completion for 2009 but did not actually complete the job until 2013, with a cost overrun
of $500 million dollars. Disappointing outcomes such as this suggest that there is an
imperative for further investigation into the best practices for success in complex projects
(Toor & Ogunlana, 2009a; Zhang & Fan, 2013).
Scholars have focused on the technical/hard skills for project teams and project managers
(Dimitriou et al., 2013; Hyvari, 2006; Williams, 2005), and overlooked the importance of
soft skills in complex project management (Wu et al., 2017; Müller, Zhai & Wang, 2017).
“When it comes to project management, it's the people that count” (Lechler, 1998, p. 205).
18
This indicates the importance of soft skills, which can also determine the success of
complex projects (Müller, Geraldi, & Turner, 2012; Pant & Baroudi, 2008). Pant and
Baroudi (2008) observed that the desire for human skills for successful project team has
already been recognized and there has been a shift from a hard skill to soft skills for project
managers and project teams. For example, the International Project Management
Association Competence Baseline (2006) classifies 46 competency elements into three
groups: contextual, behavioral, and technical competencies. This shows, there will
continue to be a need for an in-depth study on the human side of project management or
soft skills for project managers and project teams in ensuring project success (Wu et al.,
2017; Müller et al., 2017). However, the literature has largely ignored the effects of
emotional intelligence (EI) on project success (Müller &Turner, 2007; Avolio &
Yammarino, 2013). Therefore, in this thesis, there is an investigation into the influence of
soft skills more specifically EI and work attitudes for both project managers and
employees on project success at individual and team levels of analysis in large-scale
complex projects.
The central arguments, for this thesis, is that EI plays an important role in improving the
performance of large-scale complex projects (Clarke, 2010; Müller & Turner, 2007).
Several studies found that individuals and teams with high EI competencies were more
likely to achieve successful outcomes and make unique contributions than those who were
less emotionally intelligent and, therefore, experienced disappointment, which caused
counterproductive work behaviour (Clarke, 2010; Goleman, 1995; Müller & Turner,
2007; Thoresen, Kaplan & Barsky, 2003). For example, at the individual level, studies
have shown that emotionally intelligent project managers are more likely to engage in
effective communications (Clark, 2010; Müller & Turner, 2007), are more creative toward
the complex task (Wu et al., 2017), more capable of expressing sympathy and support and
are more enthusiastic about good performance (Wu et al., 2017; Müller et al., 2017).
However, research analyzing the effects of EI at the individual level on project success in
large-scale complex projects is still scarce (Clarke, 2010; Maqbool et al., 2017; Rezvani
et al., 2016). In organisational behaviour literature reveal that those with higher levels of
EI perform better than teams with lower levels of EI (Jordan & Troth, 2004; Troth et al.,
2012). However, there are no studies in project management literature analysing how EI,
19
when conceptualised at the team level, can influence project success. Thus, in this thesis,
the focus is on the individual and team levels because a project organisation may wish to
understand the benefit of effective communication and coordination with internal and
external stakeholders in order to achieve success. Individual-level studies may find that
staff communicate and coordinate effectively with internal and external stakeholders and
therefore judge the project a success. Team level studies may find that no ongoing
communications emerge, and judge the project a failure. Thus, in this thesis, the focus is
on examining EI at two levels more specifically, how individuals and teams’ EI contribute
to project success.
Even more limited insights exist into the role of underlying variables influencing the EI-
project success relationship at both the individual and team levels. In this regard, Müller
and Jugdev (2012) suggested that if we are to understand the factors that underlie the
success of project outcomes, there is a need for researchers to explore variables that
potentially mediate between project team characteristics (such as EI) and project success.
Finally, a lack of context-specific research has been widely criticized (Jordan,
Dasborough, Daus, & Ashkanasy, 2010; Liden & Antonakis, 2009). Therefore, the focus
in this thesis is on the complex project because it has a major impact on our society
(Whitty & Maylor, 2009) and requires an exceptional level of organizational and
managerial capability because of their complexity (Maqbool et al., 2017). Moreover,
preliminary evidence has indicated the significance of EI for project managers in complex
projects (Clarke, 2010; Maqbool et al., 2017).
Purpose of This Thesis
The purpose of this thesis is to consider the soft factors that improve project success and
address the high failure rate in complex projects. Overall, this thesis contributes to the
growing body of knowledge in project-based organisations on soft skills, particularly EI,
at both the individual and team levels, and its influence on project success in complex
projects. The content of this thesis is, thus, primarily positioned within the complex
project management literature; however, the findings also contribute to the field of
organizational behaviour and management psychology.
20
Collectively, the findings from each study that make up this thesis demonstrate that
project success is influenced by the EI and attitudes of individuals and teams in a large-
scale complex project environment.
Research Objectives and Questions
In this thesis, the lack of research examining EI on project success at both individuals,
and team levels of analysis, is addressed. The underlying mechanisms that link EI to
project success at both the individual and team levels of analysis were also examined. The
overarching aim is addressed in this thesis is: What personal attributes, competency and
attitudes of project managers and project team members contribute to project success
at the individual and team levels of analysis in large-scale complex projects?
The four objectives of this thesis are:
1. understand the factors that enable project success in the context of large-scale complex
projects.
2. understand the barrier factors that influence project success in the context of large-
scale complex projects
3. examine the influence of EI, work attitudes and behaviour, on project success at both
the individual and team levels.
4. uncover underlying mechanisms that link EI to project success at both the individual
and team levels.
Six RQs are therefore designed. The first question is addressed in study 1 (Chapter 3).
The second research question is addressed in study 2 (Chapter 4). Questions 3 and 4 are
addressed in study 3 (Chapter 5) and Questions 5 and 6 are addressed in study 4 (Chapter
6), as follows:
RQ1. What are the project success factors in large-scale complex projects?
RQ 2. What are the barriers to success in large-scale complex projects?
21
RQ3. How does emotional intelligence as an important skill influence complex project
success at the individual level?
RQ4. What are the underlying mechanisms of emotional intelligence and complex project
success at the individual level?
RQ5. What is the influence of team emotional intelligence on project success in large-
scale complex projects?
RQ6. What is the underlying mechanism between team emotional intelligence and project
success in large-scale complex projects?
To address the aim and research questions individual and team level analyses were
undertaken to examine EI and its influence on project success for both employees and
project managers.
Theoretical and Practical Aims and Contributions
The aim of this thesis is to address the gap in existing knowledge about the effect of soft
skills and their influence on project success in complex projects, by examining personal
attributes, competency and attitudes of project managers and project team members on
project success at both individual and team levels of analysis. Therefore, this thesis
contributes to theory and practice in several ways. First, in terms of theory, this thesis
adds to the cumulative body of knowledge regarding project managers and project team
members’ competency, attitudes and behaviours towards project success; Second, this
research identifies the effective type of competence and attitudes of project managers and
project team members in large-scale complex projects; Third, in this thesis an empirical
examination of the competence and attitudes of individuals and teams as a determinant of
project success are utilised. Fourth, this thesis extends the notions of emotion regulation
and understanding of emotions in self and others to the complex project management
literature. Fifth, the underlying mechanism that links EI and project success relationships
at both individual and team levels of analysis are identified. Sixth, this thesis advances
the competency performance theory (Ley & Albert, 2003) in terms of attributes and
competence of individuals and teams. Finally, through the adoption of emotion theory
(Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) the outcomes of this research contribute to the relatively
22
nascent literature on emotions in the workplace by identifying an outcome associated with
the effective type of competence —project success relationship.
This research also provides implications for practitioners with regard to the type of
competence and attitudes of project managers and project team members that should be
chosen for large-scale complex projects. Implications for defense, infrastructure,
construction, and government exist in identifying competence and attitudes of employees
and project managers related with large-scale complex project success as this results in
saving time and money that this leads to successful project outcomes.
Finally, this thesis provides implications for the individual differences literature in
evaluating the knowledge of individuals and teams to predict work behaviour and
performance in the complex organisation. As a total body of work, the practical
contributions are in providing evidence-based recommendations that managers and
project leaders in complex project organisations can use to improve success in complex
projects.
Research Design
The research design of this thesis has been informed by several factors including
philosophical preferences, the objectives of the researcher, research question and
methodological preferences (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Hopper & Powell, 1985). The
following sections discuss the research philosophy and the research methodology adopted
in this thesis.
Research philosophy and paradigm
A belief in which the data should be used, gathered and analysed about a phenomenon is
called research philosophy. There are two major research philosophies in social science
namely positivist or scientific and anti-positivist or interpretivism (Galliers, 1990). Both
research paradigms are rooted in classical Greek times with Plato, Aristotle (positivists)
and the Sophists (interpretivism). There are three major differences between these two
paradigms in terms of ontology, epistemology, and methodology (refer to Table 1.1).
Ontologically positivists believe that reality is stable and can be observed and described
from an objective viewpoint (Levin, 1988) while interpretivists believe that reality can be
fully understood through the subjective interpretation and intervention.
23
Epistemologically, positivists contends that knowledge involves proved hypotheses that
can be recognized as facts and laws or knowledge should allow verification or falsification
and seek generalizable results (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). As such, a causal relationship is
usually presented and a tight coupling among explanation, prediction, and control is
expected (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991). Interpretivists, by contrast, contend that there
may be many interpretations of reality but maintain that these interpretations are in
themselves a part of the scientific knowledge they are pursuing. They believe that
scientific knowledge should be obtained through the understanding of human and social
interaction (Walsham, 1995) rather than through hypothesis deductive testing.
Methodologically, interpretivists believe that to understand the meaning embedded in
human and social interaction, researchers need to engage in the social setting investigated
and learn how the interaction takes place from the participants’ perspective. In contrast,
positivists contend that to test the hypothetic-deductive theory, research should take a
value-free position and employ objective measurement to collect research evidence. A
quantitative method such as the survey is a typical positivist instrument (Orlikowski &
Baroudi, 1991).
Table 1.1. Differences between Positivism and Interpretivism
Positivist Interpretivism
Ontologically
• Reality exists objectively
and independently from
human experiences
(Morgan & Smircich, 1980)
• Subjective meaning of
the reality that is
constructed and
reconstructed through a
human and social
interaction process
(Morgan & Smircich,
1990)
24
Epistemologically
• Researchers concerned with
the hypothetic-deductive
testability of theories.
• Scientific knowledge
should allow verification or
falsification and seek
generalizable results.
• A causal relationship is
usually presented and a
tight coupling among
explanation, prediction, and
control is expected
(Orlikowski &
Baroudi,1991)
• Scientific knowledge
should be obtained not
through hypothetic-
deductive reasoning but
through the
understanding of human
and social interaction by
which the subjective
meaning of the reality is
constructed (Walsham,
1995).
Methodologically
• The researcher should take
a value-free position and
employ objective
measurement to collect
research evidence.
• A quantitative method such
as the survey is a typical
positivist instrument
(Orlikowski & Baroudi,
1991)
• Researchers need to
engage in the social
setting investigated and
learn how the interaction
takes place from the
participants’ perspective.
• Field studies that engage
researchers in the real
social setting would be
more appropriate for
generating interpretive
knowledge (Orlikowski
& Baroudi, 1991)
In addition, there has been debate on the advantage and disadvantages of using positivist
and interpretivism in social science (Hirschheim, 1985), this thesis shall not elaborate on
this debate because the researcher believes that both research methods are valuable if
managed carefully and used appropriately based on the problem under consideration as
well as the objective of the researchers (Benbasat et al., 1984). The aim of this thesis is to
formulate a number of hypotheses based on positivism as this thesis seeks to explain and
predict phenomenon through empirically testing the hypothesis.
25
Research methodology
Galliers (1990) identified various types of research methodology. Table 1.2, list the
methodologies identified by Galliers (1990), representing if they typically belong to the
interpretivist or positivist paradigms. In the following paragraphs, this thesis, summarise
the major research designs with respective strengths and weaknesses in the table, and
justifies the choice of methodologies and explain how they align with the aim of this
thesis.
Table 1.2. A taxonomy of research methodology by Galliers (1990)
Positivist paradigm Interpretivist paradigm
Case studies Case Studies
Survey Action Research
Simulation Futures Research
Forecasting Role/Game Playing
Theorem Proof Subjective/Argumentative
Laboratory Experiments Descriptive/Interpretive
Field Experiments
Both positivist and interpretivist research methods are often used in management and
social science literature. Positivist research methods include case study, survey, field
research, simulation, forecasting, laboratory experiments which align with quantitative
research methodologies or statistical aggregation of findings (DeLuca et al., 2008).
Interpretivist research paradigm includes action research, reviews, role/game playing,
subjective/argumentative and descriptive/interpretive which largely align with qualitative
research methods.
Survey studies enable the researcher to gather data about practices, views, and situation
through questionnaires (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991). Survey studies are suitable for
research questions associating to ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ (Pinsonneault & Kraemer,
1993). However, survey studies are criticized for overlooking the research context (Guba
& Lincoln, 1994).
26
Case study research involves an attempt to describe a relationship usually in a single site
or few sites over a certain period of time (Yin, 1994) and may be positivist or interpretivist
in nature depending on the approach of the researcher, the data collected and the analytical
techniques employed. Through the case study, research has the potential to understand
new phenomena. However, a case study is limited in its ability to make generalisable
statements (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991).
Action research is a form of applied research often embodied in a case study where the
researcher is an essential part of the phenomenon under study. The researchers’ input
often influences the results or a solution and his /her role could change from researcher to
subject or researcher may interpret outcomes differently (Galliers, 1990).
Laboratory experiments enable the researcher to contrast the precise relationships
between variables through a designed laboratory situation. The key weakness of
laboratory experiments is the generalisability of the result to the real-world situation due
to oversimplification of the experimental situation and the isolation of such situations
from most of the variables that are found in the real world (Galliers, 1990).
Field experiments extend laboratory experiments into real organisations and their real-life
situations (Edmondson & McManus, 2007), thereby achieving greater realism and
diminishing the extent to which situations can be criticised as contrived.
Other categories of research, as noted in Galliers’s (1990) classification, including future
research, forecasting, subjective/argumentative, descriptive/Interpretive, theorem proof
and simulation are practitioner-oriented who are specifically interested in developing
systems or tools. These categories are rarely used in the project management literature
because they are not aligned with objectives of scholars in the project management
literature.
In this thesis, the survey method is used for several reasons. First, the survey method
allows the researcher to test the hypothesis, theories and develop mathematical models
(Bryman & Bell, 2015; Pinsonneault & Kraemer, 1993). Second, the survey method can
answer research questions relating to “What” and “How” which is apparent in this thesis
(Pinsonneault & Kraemer, 1993). Third, a quantitative method is an appropriate way to
show the extent one variable influences another variable (Ragin, 2014) as the aim of this
27
research is to investigate what personal attribute of project managers and project team
members influence project success at the individual and team levels of analysis in large-
scale complex projects. Fourth, this thesis endeavors to use various statistical methods to
analyse the relationship between hypotheses which the survey study deemed to be
appropriate. Fifth, a survey is an appropriate method when a large number of data is
gathered from a population sample. Sixth, this thesis also endeavors to contribute to the
understanding of various levels of analysis most specifically individual and team levels
of analysis for obtaining individual and team level perceptions, attitudes and behaviours
which the survey method facilitates (Pinsonneault & Kraemer, 1993). Finally, research in
complex project management, personal characteristic, and skills of project managers,
competency of project teams and project success literature relied largely on quantitative
approach (Clarke, 2010; Wu et al., 2017). Table 1.3 overviews the research design
covering four studies with the respective statistic that make up this thesis.
Table 1.3 Research Design of the Four Studies
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4
Method Systematic
literature
review
Systematic
literature
review
Quantitative Quantitative
Research
objectives
RQ 1 RQ 2 RQ 3-4 RQ 5-6
Instrument Online survey Paper-based
survey
Software
program
Excel Excel SPSS version 20
Amos version 20
Smart PLS
version 3
Sample 30 empirical
studies
28 empirical
studies
373 project
managers
(Australia)
389 employees
from 84 project
teams (Iran)
Analysis Descriptive
and thematic
analysis
Descriptive
and thematic
analysis
Structural
equation
modeling,
bootstrap
technique with n
= 5,000 and 95%
bias-corrected
interval
Structural
equation
modeling,
bootstrap
technique with n
= 1,000 and 95%
bias-corrected
interval
Data gathering Previous
studies
Previous
studies
Cross-sectional
(two points in
time)
Cross-sectional
(two points in
time)
28
Level of analysis Project Project Individual Team
Studies 1 and 2 are systematic literature reviews aimed to identify project success and
barriers to success in a large-scale complex project environment. Excel software was used
to analyse the data in these studies. Study 3 and study 4 relied on the collection and
analysis of large quantities of data to determine the range and strength of factors in order
to make a statement about the outcomes using supporting, numerical evidence, essentially
a hypothesis testing approach (Huber & Power, 1985). The quantitative data for study 3
were collected by using an online survey and analyzed using the software programs, SPSS
and AMOS version 20. AMOS was used to test the structural equation model (Arbuckle,
2009) in study 3 because several estimation methods were available in AMOS. For
example, Amos directly produces bootstrapped bias-corrected confidence intervals for
indirect effects as well as maximum likelihood estimation method. Both estimation
methods were adopted in study 3. In study 4, partial least squares analysis was used to test
the team-level hypotheses. Partial Least Square (PLS), is used to test the theoretical
framework for several reasons. First, it provides accurate estimates of the paths among
constructs by analysing the structural and measurement models simultaneously (Chin,
1998a, 1998b). Second, it is an appropriate statistical method for exploratory studies,
analysing complicated relationships and permits modeling latent constructs in small to
medium sample sizes (Ringle, Sarstedt, & Straub, 2012; Chin, Marcolin, & Newsted,
2003). Finally, PLS has been widely used in project management studies (e.g. Carvalho
& Rabechini, 2017; Martens et al., 2017). In study 4, individual survey responses were
collected and aggregated to the team level. Aggregation of variables was essential because
variables were measured at the individual level. To support the aggregation of variables,
rwg scores were calculated as a measure of agreement within teams (James, Demaree and
Wolf, 1984), inter-member reliability (ICC1 and ICC2) to examine the presence of within-
team variance in individual-level performance and examined whether average scores
varied significantly across teams. ICC1 shows the proportion of variance in ratings due to
team membership, while ICC2 shows the reliability of team mean differences (Klein et
al., 2000). To measure and conceptualise a team EI there are several methods such as
minimum, average, diversity and maximum. This thesis adopts a summative composition
29
approach by operationalizing team EI as an average for several reasons. First, this
approach views team EI as a collective resource team member share to assist each other
(Chan, 1998; Elfenbein, 2006). Second, the average of individual team members' EI is the
most common method (Cote & Miners, 2006; Troth et al., 2012). The third reason is based
on Kozlowski and Klein (2000) who believes that team input variable measured using the
mean is appropriate for tasks that involve communication, problem-solving and
identifying a solution. Finally, the summative composition approach also suggests that
there is no requirement for high agreement among individual emotional intelligence
scores to operationalize the team-level construct (Chan, 1998; Elfenbein, 2006).
Level of analysis
The influence of emotional intelligence on project success has been investigated at the
individual and team levels of analysis in this thesis.
Validity and reliability
Validated and published measures of EI, job satisfaction, trust, conflict and project
success are used in this thesis. To ensure content validity the instrument was pilot tested
prior to the distribution of the survey instrument. Using criteria recommended by Hair et
al. (2012), which included the tests: (1) Cronbach α > 0.70 for all constructs, (2)
composite reliability for all constructs > 0.70, and (3) average variance extracted of each
construct > 0.50 the reliability, convergent and discriminant validity of all construct were
assessed. All the criterion was met in this thesis.
For discriminant validity, and as Hair et al. (2012) recommend, the square root of the
average variance extracted for each construct examined to assess whether is greater than
the bivariate correlations between the constructs. Moreover, both the independent and
dependent variables were collected at two different times to increase the validity and
reliability of the findings.
Ethics, industry and country context
A research was undertaken on large-scale Australian and Iranian complex projects in the
defense and infrastructure industries in this thesis. Ethical approvals for gathering the data
from employees and managers in these industries were received from QUT (ethical
approval numbers 1500001062, 0900000597). In study 3 data was collected form project
30
managers in the Australia Defence Organisation (ADO), which has an AUD5 billion
dollar operating budget for capital acquisition projects. The ADO was selected because it
spends over 20% of the AUD24 billion dollar defense budget. The ADO exists to provide
the military capability to the Australian Government for the conduct of military
operations. These operations have attracted a high range of adverse publicity regarding
project failures that have been perceived to have impacted the Australian Defence Force’s
military capability and caused financial waste. The drive for efficiencies and high
performance are key themes in defense projects which have placed emphasis on the soft
skills and competencies of individuals and teams (Dvir, Sadeh, & Malach-Pines, 2006).
It is argued that the behavioural skills of project managers and project teams are needed
to achieve efficient outcomes and performance in defense projects. Access to the staff in
defense projects was established through their managers, the research sponsor, and the
industry liaison officer. The targeted sample for study 3 was 2,500 staff members. Within
the ADO, complex projects are characterised by high project management complexity,
high levels of technical complexity, difficult support and commercial arrangements, and
a typical lifecycle period of 12 years or more. In chapter 4 the field study is described in
more detail.
For study 4, data were collected from the complex dam and water plant projects. The
targeted sample for the study 4 were 960 staff members including both project managers
and employees in the large-scale infrastructure /construction projects in Iran. Access to
these projects was established through a prior relationship the researcher held. After
scheduling the site visit, immediately upon arrival the researcher met four key contacts
within the human resource and IT departments who facilitated access for a site visit. All
participants were provided with a cover letter explaining the purpose of the study and a
participant information sheet approved by QUT Ethics, and all were provided informed
consent that assured them of their anonymity and confidentiality. In chapter 6 the field
study is described in more detail.
The issues and challenges associated with complex projects highlighted the need for
success to be achieved in complex projects. Soft skills, particularly EI impacts on the
performance of complex projects through skills and expertise of individuals and teams in
large-scale complex projects. Any improvement in the teams and individuals should
31
improve project performance and mitigate the substantial risk to the Australian and
Iranian economy, and thereby address high failure rates in complex projects.
Focusing on the two distinct contexts, defense and infrastructure/construction, (Western
and the Middle East) provide an opportunity to generalize the findings in Western and the
Middle East contexts.
Research Scope of Each Study
Figure1.1 outlines the way the four studies make up the thesis. In study 1 (Chapter 3) a
comprehensive list of project success factors in complex projects is developed. Through
a systematic review the PM success criteria or meeting time, cost and quality (technical
factors) is evidenced in 20 out of 30 articles when measuring project success across all
types of complex projects. This shows that complex project management still relies
strongly on PM success criteria or technical factors and overlooked the role of soft factors
such as communication, stakeholder relationship, satisfaction, attitudes, competencies,
and behaviour of project managers and project team members. Research has shown that
focuses only on technical factors in complex projects can lead to a very objective
measurement of project success which, appears to threaten the desired long-term impacts.
This is because project success does not commensurate with the product success and if
stakeholders are not satisfied there are no future deals (Yang et al., 2011; Eweje, Turner
& Muller, 2012).
In study 2 (Chapter 4) various barrier factors associated with project failure are identified
through a systematic review of 29 articles in complex project management literature. The
review shows that the majority of these factors relate to managerial, organisational and
project team competencies. The review shows that effectively manage a project includes
planning, managing risk, and resources. Moreover, through the application of specific
skills, competencies, and knowledge desired outcomes are to be achieved within a specific
time and budget. The systematic review, in particular, identifies that the complex project
management literature has overlooked the role of individual and team competencies,
attitudes, behaviour, and skills to achieve desired outcomes.
32
In study 3 (Chapter 5) a significant gap is addressed in the project management literature,
that is little attention has been paid to personal attribute, attitudes and soft skills of the
individual, more specifically project managers, in complex projects. The focus of this
research is to improve the capability of defense organisations to achieve successful
outcomes in complex projects by examining project manager’s EI as an important
individual competency. In this paper, a model is proposed and tested that links EI to
project success and the mediating effects of project manager’s job satisfaction and trust
in this relationship is tested at the individual level.
In study 4 (Chapter 6) the broader complex project organisation was examined between
EI and project success through the mediating mechanism of trust and conflict in the team.
In this study key concepts are investigated and extended from the third paper by increasing
understanding of the link between EI and project success at the team level in large-scale
complex construction projects. In addition, the underlying mechanism that links this
relationship is also examined at the team level of analysis. Thus, this study provides a
comprehensive understanding of the link between EI and project success and responded
to calls for team-level research (e.g., Troth et al., 2012).
In total, grounded on extensive systematic review (study 1 & 2) in complex project
management regarding project success and barriers to success and existing research on
competencies and skills of project managers and project teams (Müller & Turner, 2007;
Müller & Turner, 2010) as well as management and psychology theory the focus of study
3 and study 4 investigate the influence of project managers and project team members
competency, attitudes and behaviour on project success in the context of complex
projects. This thesis focuses on the competence of project managers and project team
members more specifically emotional intelligence as a solution to achieve success in
large-scale complex projects. Collectively, the overarching aim of this thesis is to address
the main research question: What personal attributes, competency, and attitudes of
project managers and project team members contribute to project success at the
individual and team levels of analysis in large-scale complex projects?
33
Figure1.1. Research Scope
Definition of Key Concepts
Table 1.3 presented the key concepts and definitions central to this research.
Table 1.3 Definition of Key Concepts
Concepts Definition
Project (PMI, 2008, p. 5) “A temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique
product, service.”
Project complexity (Geraldi
& Adlbrecht, 2007)
Project complexity refers to a combination of many varied
interrelated parts with dynamic and emerging features.
Mission clarity
(Pinto 1990, p. 31)
“initial clarity of goals and general directions”
Top management support
(Pinto 1990, p. 31)
“willingness of top management to provide the necessary
resources and authority for project success”
Communication
(Pinto 1990, p. 31)
“the provision of an appropriate network and necessary data
to all key actors in the project”
Trouble-shooting
(Pinto 1990, p. 31)
“managing complex problem as they occur in crises moment”
Emotional intelligence
(Salovey & Mayer, 1990)
Emotional intelligence is an ability to monitor one's and
others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them
and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and
actions.
Project success (Frank, Sadeh
& Ashkenasi, 2011)
Project success refers to the measure of project outcomes,
prior/after to the project completion.
34
Job satisfaction (Brief, 1998) Job satisfaction is defined as an attitude toward one’s job.
Trust (Rousseau et al., 1998) Trust is a psychological state comprising of the intention to
accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the
intentions or behaviors of another.
Relationship conflict (Jehn,
1995)
Relationship conflict refers to the opposing views and
disagreements between individual and teams.
Attitude (Judge & Kammeyer-
Mueller, 2012)
Attitude refers to an internal state that influences an
individual’s choices of personal action, or a response
tendency.
Work attitude (Judge &
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012)
Evaluations of one’s job that express one’s feelings toward,
beliefs about, and attachment to one’s job
Competency (Turner, Müller
& Dulewicz 2009, p.199)
Competency refers to “A combination of knowledge, skills
and core personality characteristics that lead to superior
results.”
Project manager (PMI, 2008,
p.13)
The person “assigned by the performing organisation to
achieve the project objectives.”
Project Management (PMI,
2008, p.21)
Project management is “the application of processes, method,
knowledge, skills, and experience to achieve the project
objectives”
35
Thesis Structure
This thesis is made up of seven chapters with four distinct studies presented in chapters 3
to 6.
Chapter 2: In this chapter, a review of key variables which is presented.
Chapter 3: Project success in complex projects: A systematic review
Chapter 4: Barriers to success in large-scale complex projects.
Chapter 5: Manager emotional intelligence and project success: The mediating role of
job satisfaction and trust.
Chapter 6: Emotional intelligence and project success in large-scale construction
projects: A team-level perspective.
Chapter 7: Summarises the key findings from all studies and demonstrates a summary of
the collective contribution of the body of work, concluding with a discussion of the
limitations of the studies and opportunities for future research.
36
Literature review
This literature review chapter provides information about project (section 2.1), complex
project definition (section 2.2), project success (section 2.3), emotional intelligence
(section 2.4), trust (section 2.5), job satisfaction (section 2.6), conflict (section 2.7),
theoretical frameworks (section 2.8), conceptual model (section 2.9), research questions
(section 2.10) and summary and implication.
Project
A project is a temporary organization in which created a unique product, service, or result
(Project Management Institute, 2008). There is a project-based organizing to achieve
business objectives in innovative and rapidly changing environments (Keegan et al.,
2012). Projects can vary from simple to complex organisations. Simple projects are small
in scale and have standardized system processes with clear goals and objectives Complex
projects are larger in scale with multiple stakeholders, a larger size and operate in a longer
time duration, a large number of participants and extensive impacts on the community,
economy, technological development, and environment of the region or even the whole
country (Wu et al., 2017; Zhai, Xin & Cheng 2009). This thesis’s focus is on the complex
projects for several reasons. First, complex projects have a major impact on our society
as a result of national and even international implications associated with these projects
(Davies & Mackenzie, 2014; Flyvbjerg, 2005; Whitty & Maylor, 2009). There are a
number of examples (see Table 2.1) across various industries, where complex projects
experience budget overruns or failure to deliver promised outcomes on time and according
to expectations such as the Marmaray Tunnel under the Bosporus Sea, which today serves
as a rail link between Asia and Europe. The project contains the construction of an
undersea rail tunnel, a high-speed railway which creates a network between Europe and
Asia. The project managers, a Japanese‒Turkish consortium led by Taisei Corporation,
scheduled completion for 2009 but did not actually complete the job until 2013, with a
cost overrun of over $500 million. The project cost was estimated at $4.1 billion. The
tunnel was delivered four years over schedule and cost increased to over $4.6 billion.
37
Another example is Lockheed Martin F-35, which today works as a joint strike fighter in
the USA. The Lockheed Martin F-35 is designed to meet the bulk of the needs of the US
military throughout the first half of the 21st century. Project funding is provided by the
USA, the United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark, and
Canada. The contract was awarded to Lockheed-Martin in 2001. The initial cost estimates
were about $200 billion and the delivery was scheduled for 2016. However, the cost has
ballooned from $50 million per craft in 2001 to more than $113 million in 2010.
Disappointing outcomes such as this suggest that there is an imperative for further
investigation into the best practices for success in complex projects (Toor & Ogunlana,
2009a; Zhang & Fan, 2013). Second, empirical research within the context of complex
projects remains limited (Kardes, Ozturk, Cavusgil & Cavusgil, 2013). Third, studies have
shown that, complex projects warrant their own research and analysis within the
framework of traditional and smaller-scale projects may not be effective as a result of
unique characteristics of complex projects (Kardes et al., 2013; Dvir et al., 2006; Shenhar,
Dvir, Levy & Maltz, 2001). In addition, preliminary evidence has indicated the
significance of EI for project managers in complex projects (Maqbool et al., 2017).
38
Table 2.1 Some Examples of Complex Projects Worldwide
Project name Project details
Lockheed Martin F-35
Joint Strike Fighter,
USA1
The F-35 Lightning II is designed to meet the bulk of the needs of
the US military throughout the first half of the 21st century.
Project funding is provided by the USA, the United Kingdom,
Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark, and
Canada. The contract was awarded to Lockheed-Martin in 2001.
The initial cost estimates were about $200 billion and the delivery
was scheduled for 2016. However, the cost has ballooned from
$50 million per craft in 2001 to more than $113 million in 2010.
Eurofighter Typhoon,
EU2
Eurofighter Typhoon is a Europe’s largest military aircraft.
Billions more have been spent on delivering the fighter plane that
was originally anticipated; however, it will not be ready until
2018. Project costs have risen by a fifth to $20.2 billion.
Boeing 787 Dreamliner3 The Boeing 787 is a super-efficient airplane. Due to several
technical problems during the test phase, first delivery of the
airplane was delayed and the company was more than three years
behind schedule when the product was introduced in 2011.
Galileo (satellite
navigation), EU4
Galileo is Europe’s own global navigation satellite system, as a
substitute for the US GPS and Russian GLONASS systems. By
early 2011 costs for the project had run 50% over initial estimates.
Galileo was expected to be operational by 2014 with a total budget
estimate of less than 3.4 billion ($4.76 billion).
Marmaray Tunnel,
Turkey5
The project contains the construction of an undersea rail tunnel, a
high-speed railway which creates a network between Europe and
Asia. The project cost was estimated at $4.1billion. The project
aimed to be finished in 2009 and opened in 2011. The tunnel was
delivered two years over schedule and cost increased to over $500
million.
Complex Project Definition
The nature of complexity has become significant topics in fields such as philosophy,
mathematics, information system and computer science (Rezvani et al., 2012) technology
1 http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/aeronautics/mediacenter/mediakits/f35/F-
35FastFacts01142010.pdf 2 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12614995 3 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/comment/Boeing-787-Dreamliner-a-timeline-of-problems/ 4 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38329341 5 http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/marmaray-project-tunnel-faced-with-a-four-year-delay-11644338
39
and engineering (Kim & Wilemon, 2003); and social sciences, including economics and
management (Bawden, 2007; Corning, 1998; Morgan,1980). In the literature on
complexity, there are debates about its definition and nature (Whitty & Maylor, 2009).
Morgan (1980) for example describe complexity through the use of metaphor such as
understanding organisations as a machine with different parts. Corning (1998) defines
complexity as the characteristic of having a large number of interacting parts. Bawden
(2007) defines complexity as a system with synergistic interactions between different
parts and a system which is unpredictable and unknowable.
In the field of project management, there are various definitions of complexity in the
project (eg., Cicmil et al., 2006; Geraldi et al., 2011; Williams 1999; Vidal, Marle &
Bocquet, 2011; Wu et al., 2017). Cicmil (2006), for example, defined project complexity
as involving of numerous diverse interconnected parts and can be operationalizes
complexity in terms of differentiation and interdependency. In the definition,
differentiation refers to the number of varied components of the project (tasks, specialists,
subsystems, and parts), and interdependency refers to the degree of interlinkages among
these components. Williams (1999), highlights project complexity as structural
complexity, the number and interdependence of elements, and uncertainty in goals and
means. Vidal et al. (2011), classifies complexity into four categories: project scale,
differentiation of project elements, the interaction of project elements, and interaction
with the external environment; and further stresses that these factors constitute the
necessary and insufficient conditions for project complexity. Geraldi et al. (2011), defines
complexity as having structural, uncertainty, dynamics, pace, and sociopolitical
complexity. From the foregoing discussion, most scholars highlight the impact of
interactions of various elements and interdependencies between various parts as a project
complexity (Ivory & Alderman, 2005). Other authors regard to project complexity as
having non-linear, highly dynamic, and emerging features. Ahern, Leavy, and Byrne
(2014), for example, proposed the definition of a complex project as the property of a
project which makes it difficult to understand, foresee, and keep under control its overall
behavior, even when given complete information about the project system. This thesis
defines a complex project is defined as “consisting of many varied interrelated parts and
has dynamic and emerging features” (Geraldi & Adlbrecht, 2007 p.35). In addition,
40
following the Global Alliance for Project Performance Standard (GAPPS, 2007)
guidelines and prior studies in complex projects (Ahern et al., 2014; Locatelli et al., 2014;
Rezvani et al., 2016; Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011). For this thesis a project is considered
as being “complex” if it has at least one of the following characteristics: a high degree of
uncertainty and mixture of joined organizations and sub-contracting (Ahern et al., 2014);
rapid change of technology (Davies & Mackenzie, 2014; Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011);
high degree of interdependency between a number of system parts and organizations
involved (Locatelli & Mancini, 2012); strong legal, social or environmental implications
from undertaking the project (Wu et al., 2017); strategic importance of the project to the
organization or organizations involved (Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011); stakeholders with
conflicting needs regarding the characteristics of the project’s product (Locatelli et al.,
2014); and newness of technology (Robinson Fayek et al., 2006).
Project Success
Defining project success in complex projects – where timeframes for completion are long
and the size of the projects are substantial – remains a challenging issue (Toor &
Ogunlana, 2010; Wang & Huang, 2006). However, project management scholars
generally agree on two components that define project success: success
criteria and critical success factors (Müller & Jugdev, 2012; Turner & Zolin, 2012).
Success criteria relate to standard project measures of cost, time and quality, referred to
as the “iron triangle”, which can be measured retrospectively after project completion.
Success factors, on the other hand, focus on soft issues, such as the soft skills of project
teams as well as customer and stakeholder satisfaction, and can be measured prior to
project completion (Pinto & Slevin, 1987; Turner & Zolin, 2012).
A preliminary review of the literature shows that project success factors have been
researched extensively in the project management literature. Some of the foremost works
include Kerzner (1987) who identifies 6 critical success factors for successful projects
including executive commitment to project management, corporate understanding of
project management, organisational adaptability, commitment to planning and control,
project manager’s leadership style, and project manager selection criteria. Pinto and
Slevin (1987), who identify ten critical success factors including top management support,
41
project mission, project schedule/plan, client acceptance, monitoring and feedback,
communication, and troubleshooting. Cooke-Davies (2002) who identifies project
management success factors and factors related to the successful projects. He reveals four
critical success factors and six project management success factors. Under project
management success factors, he identifies factors which help ensure the project is
completed on time and specific budget. Kendra and Taplin (2004) create a list of success
factors and grouped them into four types: micro-technical, and macro-technical, micro-
social and macro-social. Turner et al. (2009) and Turner and Zolin (2012) focus on the
role of stakeholders and long-term business success. Their study shows the importance of
internal and external stakeholders to achieve long-term business success. These studies
all show that the development of success factors frameworks and the importance of
success factors to accomplish successful projects.
There are several reviews of project success. For example, Savolainen et al. (2012) review
seven articles on areas of research on software development project success and failure.
They identified three success factors from the supplier’s perspective: short-term and long-
term business benefits and customer satisfaction. Ika (2009) analyses 30 articles on
success from two journals in project management, the Project Management Journal (PMJ)
and the International Journal of Project Management (IJPM). He emphasises the
complexity of defining project success but also highlighted the distinction between project
success factors and project management success (e.g. time and budget) and the link
between project management success and project success factors. Davis (2014) conducts
a systematic review of 29 papers, paying attention to different stakeholders’ perceptions
of success. Jugdev and Müller (2005) conducts a longitudinal literature review of 30
papers and explored the development of project success at different time periods in the
project life cycle.
While a number of studies and reviews have been conducted to understand the success
factors in the project management, each study emphasises a certain facet of project
success. One of the most important findings arising from the preliminary studies and prior
literature reviews is that these factors may not be appropriate in the context of complex
projects. Moreover, the evaluation of complex project success in project management
literature is often based upon the combination of the most common PM success or meeting
42
time, cost and quality goals and therefore complex project success seem to adhere to the
traditional measure of the iron triangle. However, researchers criticise these criteria and
argue that traditional focus on time cost and quality is not adequate to define project
success and leads to an incomplete view of project success (Turner & Zolin, 2012). This
is because of the long-time frame of complex projects usually between 5 to 10 years,
project specification and original requirements which almost certainly change and this
impact the time and cost of complex projects (Rezvani et al., 2016). As de Wit, (1998)
argues that focuses on PM success can contribute to project success, however, it is not
likely to be able to avoid failure, or it has been said that “the operation was a success but
the patient has died” (Jugdev & Muller, 2005, p.22). An example of this is the Sydney
Opera House where the project was not managed well from a project management
perspective but at the end was viewed as an engineering masterpiece. The project was 14
times over budget and took 15 years to complete. This project was a success and
engineering masterpiece in terms of project success, but it was a failure in terms of PM
success (Baccarini, 1999).
This has led to the current effort in examining the understanding of project success from
the viewpoint of a soft factor in large-scale complex projects. This is an important topic
because the success of complex projects and its implication, consequently, influences the
broader organisation and society in several dimensions. Achieving success in complex
projects is essential because it has a bearing on the future guidelines of project
management in the strategic context.
Based on study 1 and study 2 the focus of this thesis is on the four project success factors
seen to be “people related/soft skills”: (1) perceptions of effective communication with
internal and external stakeholders; (2) perceptions of effective troubleshooting (i.e.,
unexpected complications and challenges are effectively managed as they occur in crisis
moments); (3) perceptions that the project mission is clear; and (4) perceptions of the top
management support (Pinto, 1990).
Review the literature (study 1 & 2) regarding project success and barriers to success
reveals that these four factors as the keys to project success. For instance, Couillard (1995)
identified communication and troubleshooting as indicators of project success in high-risk
43
and complex projects. In the same vein, Belout and Gauvreau (2004) found that
troubleshooting and a clear project mission elucidate project success in the execution
stage. More recently, Davis (2014) and Mazur and her associates (2014) specifically
identified the four factors as the best indicators of project success, especially in the context
of complex project management.
Communication refers to “the provision of an appropriate network and necessary data to
all key actors in the project” (Pinto 1990, p. 31). This represents the degree to which
project managers are able to communicate effectively with internal and external
stakeholders to ensure that the best combination of skills and knowledge exist, and is
viewed as an important managerial competency that impacts on project success.
Troubleshooting refers to “managing complex problem as they occur in crises moment”
(Pinto, 1990, p. 31). In complex projects, project managers are prone to unexpected
problems and challenges due to task interdependency and complexity (Pich, Loch, &
Meyer, 2002; Sun & Meng, 2009).
Mission clarity refers to “initial clarity of goals and general directions” (Pinto 1989, p.
31). Complex projects are characterised by high levels of complexity and ambiguity (Dvir
et al., 2006). Rezvani et al. (2016) pointed out that in a large and complex defense project,
it is not uncommon for projects to have an ambiguous goal such as “increase defense
capability” at the beginning of long-term projects.
Top management support refers to the “willingness of top management to provide the
necessary resources and authority for project success” (Pinto 1990, p. 31). Rezvani, Dong
and Khosravi (2017) pointed out, in particular, that top management support is a critical
factor in all phases of project planning and execution.
Emotional Intelligence (EI)
The concept of EI is a relatively new and debatable topic among scholars and practitioners
(Antonakis, Ashkanasy & Dasborough, 2009). EI comprises of two constructs: emotion
and intelligence. Intelligence is the knowledge and skills that an individual acquires
(Spearman, 1927). It is also defined as a biological ability to acquire knowledge and skills
(Spearman, 1927). On the other hand, emotion is mental processes and representations
44
that are influenced by thoughts, attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, and appraisals (Spackman
& Miller, 2008). There are ten primary emotions: anger, joy, fear, happiness, anticipation,
anger, disgust, sadness, surprise, and acceptance. These emotions are classified as
positive, negative, or even neutral (Antonakis et al., 2009). Emotions also act as influential
driving forces and affect a person’s decisions, thoughts, actions, and convey knowledge
about a person’s relationship with the world (Mayer et al., 2008). For example, fear can
increase into panic or anger can intensify into a rage (Lewis et al., 2008). These emotional
experiences greatly affect decisions, behaviours, and communication with others
(Stephens & Carmeli, 2016). An understanding of emotions and the ability to use them to
understand and direct decisions, behaviours, and communication is the basis of emotional
intelligence (Mayer et al., 2008). Salovey and Mayer (1990) were first to introduce the
concept of EI. While, there are many definitions of EI in the literature, Salovey, and Mayer
(1990) definition is the most widely recognised and accepted definition (Ashkanasy &
Daus, 2005). Salovey and Mayer (1990) defined EI as the ability to monitor one’s own
and others’ emotions, to discriminate between them, and to use the information to guide
one’s thinking and actions.
EI can also be classified into three different models. These include ability models, which
focus on EI as a skill or people able to understand and regulate one’s own and others’
emotions (Mayer et al., 2008). Another category of research focuses on EI as a trait or
self-perception of a person’s personality (Joseph & Newman, 2010). The third model is a
mixed model which describes a construct including mental abilities, and character traits
(Krishnakumar et al., 2016). Mayer and Salovey's (2008) construct of EI is used in this
thesis as it pertains to the specific interaction between cognition and emotion and has
received the most rigorous testing and is the only model with an associated ability measure
of the construct (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005).
In the context of large-scale projects, much has been emphasized on recognizing the
competencies, skills, qualities, and attributes required for a successful project manager
and project teams (Müller & Turner, 2010; Rezvani et al., 2016). In the project
management literature, psychological profiles of project managers and project teams
show that they score significantly higher in the intellectual (IQ) dimension of critical
analysis, and the two emotional (EQ) dimensions of sensitivity and conscientiousness,
45
and lower in the managerial (MQ) dimensions of communication and developing others
(Turner et al., 2009). Thus, EI appears to be a major differentiator for project teams and
project managers in project organisations (Müller et al., 2017). In doing so, researchers
and practitioners are deliberating on the important aspects of the human attribute and
personality; more specifically, EI, and its roles for achieving work performance. For
example, Müller and Turner (2007, 2010) found the competency and attribution
requirements of project managers differ as a function of project type. They argued that EI
is one of the important competency and skills for project managers in the context of
complex projects. Turner and Lloyd-Walker (2008) reported that EI capabilities for
project managers greatly contribute to project success. Similarly, Rezvani et al. (2016)
examined project manager’s skills and attributes related to the success of project managers
in complex projects. They found that high EI in project managers contributes to project
success through better communication and problem-solving in complex projects. They
argue that in the context of complex project management, an emotionally intelligent
project manager is more likely to have a positive impact on their peers that can lead to
increasing the enthusiasm of project managers to communicate effectively with their team
members and be actively involved in solving new problems and challenges that a complex
project brings. Similarly, Thomas and Mengel (2008) found that project manager who
scores high on EI have the ability to recover quickly from negative emotions and stress in
difficult situations.
A high EI project team member who perceives that conflicting opinions among team
members have given way to emotions of anger and frustration may respond by suggesting
ways to de-escalate these counter-productive, negative emotions and are thereby able to
maintain favorable interpersonal relationships at work, which may enhance project
performance. In addition, Clarke (2010) found that EI was important in project manager
effectiveness. He suggested that EI performs as an underlying capability that regulates the
behavioural complexity of project managers in highly complex project environments. On
these bases, Thomas and Mengel (2008) suggested that low EI results in stress, conflict,
and low performance, particularly where there is space for conflict and misunderstanding
in complex project environments. Overall, such results provide compelling evidence for
the significant role of EI at the individual level and its influence on performance.
46
Despite the importance of EI in managing conflict situations, improving communication,
performance and decreasing negative emotions in communication, scholars argue that the
concept is still in its infancy stage, has been given little attention in project management
literature, and has been inadequately researched in large-scale complex projects (Rezvani
et al., 2016; Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005). In addition, there is no study in project
management literature that focus on EI and project success at the team level of analysis.
Instead, scholars have devoted much attention to the role of EI for better social
relationship and communication, while partly ignoring the effects of emotional
intelligence on project success at team level of analysis on large-scale complex projects.
Understanding EI at team level of analysis is significant in the context of large-scale
complex project management for several reasons. First, project organizations have
adopted a more collaborative way of working using teamwork (Drouin & Bourgault,
2013; Stephens & Carmeli, 2016; Lindsjørn et al., 2016). Second, a growing body of
organisational behaviour literature suggests that a team members’ abilities to understand
and manage their own feelings, and emotions, as well as others, contribute to making and
building an effective team (Druskat & Wolff, 2001; Stephens & Carmeli, 2016). Druskat
and Wolff (2001) argue that EI in teams is a critical component in behaving in a group
that can builds relationships both inside and outside the team and strengthens the team’s
ability to face challenges. They further argue that teams are most effective when all
members participate and collaborate with one another, assuming that the members have
already developed a team identity, mutual trust, and a feeling of efficacy (Druskat &
Wolff, 2001). Stephens and Carmeli (2016) also reinforce the importance of the
emotionally intelligent team as a necessary skill in order to work effectively. The reason
for this might be found in the evidence that emotionally intelligent teams are more likely
to engage in a cooperative culture and are more able to understand their own emotions as
well as the emotions of the other team members, which in turn enables them to regulate
their emotions and actions that lead to high performance (Troth et al., 2012).
Teams with higher collective EI have been shown to use collaboration and conflict
resolution (Jordan & Troth, 2002). Team members’ abilities to understand and manage
their own feelings, moods and emotions, as well as those of their team members, are more
likely to create a climate in which their uplifts and hassles can be shared, discussed, and
47
worked through (Rapisarda, 2002). This is because when granting material and/or
resources, higher levels of team members’ EI may create perceptions of empathy and
support. Having high levels of EI can facilitate interpersonal relationships and trust in
team members, which in turn, can assist in effective problem solving which lead to high
performance (Barczak, Lassk, & Mulki, 2010). Such results imply that EI in a team can
be interpreted as a necessary skill that the team uses to effectively gather and exchange
information towards its goal and perform its tasks beyond expectations to achieve high
performance.
Thus, researchers call for research into examining EI for both project managers and
project team members at both individual and team levels of analyses by considering the
context of the workplace (Jordan et al., 2010; Troth et al., 2012). Jordan and his colleagues
argue that specific contexts (complex projects) influence certain behaviour. More
specifically they argue that the influence of EI on work attitudes and work performance
is dependent on certain contexts. In addition, research into analyzing the effects of EI at
both the individual and team levels on performance in complex projects is still scarce
(Troth et al., 2012). As Burton-Jones and Gallivan (2007) stated that, studying one
variable (e.g., EI) at one level ultimately leads to an incomplete, and disjointed view of
how organizations function. For example, a project organisation may wish to understand
the benefit of effective communication and coordination with internal and external
stakeholders in order to achieve success. Individual-level studies may find that staff
communicate and coordinate effectively with internal and external stakeholders and
therefore judge the project a success. Team level studies may find that no ongoing
communications emerge, and judge the project a failure. Only examining these two levels
will resolve such conflicting results, such as discovering how individuals and teams’ EI
contribute to project success.
Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to understand the complexity of the relationship
between emotional intelligence and project success at both individual and team levels by
narrowing down the scope of this thesis to the examining the relation between EI
(managers’ EI and project team members’ EI) and project success at both individual and
team levels of analysis in complex projects.
48
Trust
The concept of trust has received considerable attention in the project management
literature as an important soft factor that contributes to the success of large-scale projects
(e.g., Buvik & Tvedt, 2016; Rezvani et al., 2016). Trust has both cognitive and affective
underpinnings (Lewis and Weigert, 1985). Cognition‐based trust is based on one’s
willingness to rely on a team member’s expertise and reliability (McAllister, 1995;
Johnson & Grayson, 2005). Affective based trust refers to emotional ties among all those
who participate in the relationship (McAllister, 1995). Trust has been identified at three
levels: individual, team and organizational (Puusa & Tolvanen, 2006). Trust has been
found to be a predictor of performance (Maurer, 2010) and project effectiveness (Diallo
& Thuillier, 2005; Kadefors, 2004; Lee-Kelley & Sankey, 2008; Park & Lee, 2014;
Webber & Klimoski, 2004), stakeholder satisfaction (Bresnen & Marshall, 2000),
creativity and problem solving (Rezvani et al., 2016; Smyth et al., 2010), knowledge and
information disclosure, and project success (Diallo & Thuillier, 2005; Jung & Avolio,
2000; Smyth et al., 2010).
At the individual level, members’ confidence in their team members may increase
collaboration and initiate better ways of performing tasks that lead to individual
performance (Rezvani et al., 2016). At the individual level, Rousseau et al. (1998) define
trust as “a psychological state comprising of the intention to accept vulnerability based
upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviours of another” (p. 395). The key
elements of this definition are a willingness to accept vulnerability in the relationship and
positive expectations about another party under conditions of interdependence and risk
(Lewicki et al., 2006). At the team level, McAllister’s (1995) defines interpersonal trust
as the “extent to which a party is confident in and willing to act on the basis of, the words,
actions, and decisions of another party” (p. 55). At the team level, trust studied as a
collective phenomenon (Costa & Anderson, 2011).
Although trust within teams can originate from an individual set of beliefs regarding their
team, it is expected that through continuing interactions team members will develop
shared notions of trust (Gillespie & Mann, 2004). Following previous studies (e.g. Costa
& Anderson, 2011). It is argued that trust within teams mirrors an environment that is
49
shared among team members and is expected to influence and be influenced by individual
perceptions of trustworthiness. So, in this thesis, the focus is on trust between team
members and within the team as opposed to trusting in another group, or institution. At
the team level, when trust within the team is high and the team members perceive one
another as being benevolent and honest, the team members are more likely to coordinate
and communicate effectively (Buvik & Tvedt, 2016), thus enhancing project
performance.
In the context of large-scale projects, where ambiguity, uncertainty, and interdependency
are high, trust can increase the ability of team members to be vulnerable to the actions of
another party and confide in teams to share information and greater cooperation (Stephens
& Carmeli, 2016). Studies have confirmed that trust is associated with effective
communication among project teams, problem-solving, individual risk-taking,
cooperation, and performance in construction projects (Rezvani et al., 2016). Wu et
al. (2017) argue that, in large-scale projects teams that are made up of members with
opposing viewpoints, perspectives and goals, the potential for conflict, misunderstanding,
and miscommunication is high. Where there is trust, participants are likely to be more
compliant and accepting of opposing opinions and ideas (Pinjani & Palvia, 2013). In a
trusting environment, there is an acknowledgment of connection with work team co-
operation (Barczak et al., 2010). Thus, individual and teams who trust one another are
more likely to have members who work closely with each other and engage in
collaborative relationships around problems and issues, elements that are critical to
creating effective outcomes that lead to high performance (De Jong, Dirks & Gillespie,
2016; Dumitru and Schoop, 2016; Pinjani & Palvia, 2013). Lack of trust in large complex
projects can initiate defensive behaviours, reduce the cooperative behavior, increases
transaction costs and block the flow of information (Colquitt et al., 2007; Mayer & Gavin,
2005; Moe & Šmite, 2008). In addition, when trust is absent going through the waves of
communication and cooperating is still possible, however, the individual and the team
will not be as effective as they could be.
50
Job Satisfaction
Brief (1998) defines job satisfaction as “an attitude toward one’s job” (p. 10). As such,
job satisfaction encompasses cognitive and affective components. Previous studies
(Locke, 1969; Weiss, 2002) have shown that both affective and cognitive components
contribute to overall attitude and behaviour. Scholars have studied job satisfaction as both
an independent and a dependent variable (e.g., see Chen et al., 2011; Judge et al., 2005).
Job satisfaction as an independent variable has been shown to be associated with a variety
of workplace behaviours such as project managers’ performance and turnover intention,
as well as project success (Bowling, 2007; Judge et al., 2001). For example, Pheng and
Chuan (2006) found that a project manager’s performance is affected by job satisfaction,
especially in complex projects. In addition, Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) argue that job
satisfaction can increase both the expectancy that an employee's effort will lead to high
performance and the belief that sustained effort will lead to desirable behavioural
outcomes. In an extension of this idea, Fisher (2003) suggests that when employees are
more satisfied with their job, their motivation to contribute to the common interest of the
context in which they perform their work also increases. Thus, when project managers are
satisfied they tend to seek out social interactions, react more favorably to others, have
greater involvement in activities, and communicate more with their stakeholders because
they are more likely to view such interactions as rich and rewarding (Schaller & Cialdini,
1990). Moreover, as Cheung et al. (2003) find, satisfied project managers are also more
likely to undertake more effective problem resolution (troubleshooting), and to set clear
directions and motivate team members to undertake new goals that they have not yet
attained (Maylor et al., 2008).
Complementing this evidence, Fisher (2003) reports that low job satisfaction tends to
jeopardize project success. This is because managers who are not satisfied are less
motivated and consequently put in less effort to achieve project goals. Furthermore, low
job satisfaction leads to tasks being carried out less efficiently (Judge et al., 2001). Pheng
and Chuan (2006) found further that dissatisfied project managers have less interest in
communicating with project partners and are thus less able to align the strategies and
management with their firm's objectives. Based on the foregoing evidence, it is widely
acknowledged that the effectiveness of employees and project managers depends largely
51
on their job satisfaction, however, there is no study that examines project managers’ job
satisfaction in complex project organisations and its influence on project success thus, this
thesis focuses on job satisfaction for project managers in the context of large-scale
projects due to forgoing benefit of job satisfaction in the workplace.
Conflict
Conflict occurs when two or more individuals have diverse opinions, ideas, and interests
(Amason et al., 1995). It is a complex social and psychological phenomenon involving
multiple dimensions (Tekleab & Quigley, 2014). The definition of conflict is focused on
opposition and disagreement to goals, task, and priorities. Different types of conflicts
include task-oriented conflicts, and relationship-oriented conflicts (Wu et al., 2017). The
former is related to the argument for material interests, whereas the latter is associated
with human relationships (Amason et al., 1995). Task conflict is generally associated with
higher group performance and does not involves intensive interpersonal components.
Conversely, relationship conflict is associated with lower performance (Peterson &
Behfar, 2003) and involve intensive interpersonal disagreement. Conflict has been widely
applied in research on project team management (Wu et al., 2017). In large-scale complex
projects, conflicts can result from interdependencies between project stakeholders,
individual differences, and inadequate internal mechanisms of projects, such as a lack of
communication and atmosphere of noncooperation (Wu et al., 2017). Disagreements can
also arise because of limited resources, differences in goals, and sacrifices made for the
benefit of others. In this thesis, the research objective is to examine a relationship conflict
which is defined as negative interactions among project team members because of
differing perspectives and opinions. Therefore, relationship conflict is a form of conflict
in which the independent interests and goals generate the negative interactions among
project team members.
There are a number of reasons for focusing on relationship conflicts. First, the
characteristics of a large-scale complex, like inefficient production, and cost overruns can
contribute to relationship conflicts (Wu et al., 2017). Large-scale complex projects can
present a specific pattern of interaction among project team members, such that members
52
have different interests, goals or behaviour during project implementation (Jehn &
Bendersky, 2003).
Second, relationship conflict can obstruct mutual understandings, destroy relationships
between project teams and reduce team cohesion and efficiency which ultimately limit
team performance despite the presence of managerial and financial support in construction
projects (Ayoko et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2017). Lee et al. (2015) suggest that relationship
conflict can serve as a catalyst for project failure. In contrast to process and task conflicts,
relationship conflict is found to be negatively linked to project team members’ levels of
satisfaction, commitment and performance by undermining working relationships,
decreasing creative behaviour and increasing personality clashes within the team (Wu et
al., 2017). Relationship conflict is predominant in large-scale complex projects due to
unequal relationship between project stakeholders, organisations and incomplete
contracts and asymmetric information.
Third, large-scale projects involve multiple stakeholders with dissimilar objectives and
goals. The diversity of goals and interests of those stakeholders often leads to an escalation
of conflict (Wu et al., 2017). This, in turn, reduces the teams’ ability for joint decision-
making and collaborative behaviour. Without joint decision-making behaviour, project
teams are more likely to hide their real views and opinions which can affect project
success. Complementing this evidence, Liu et al. (2011) report that the differences
between expectation, opinions, interest, and decision making among project teams
contribute to poor performance and project failure. This is because the existence of
relationship conflicts can potentially disrupt the flow of information and team operations
in projects. Relationship conflicts can lead to other problems, such as negative emotions,
tensions, behavioural disintegration, low morale of the team, and disagreement among
project teams (Barki & Hartwick, 2001; Liu et al., 2011). Relationship conflict reflects an
awareness of interpersonal incompatibility that includes affective components such as
feelings of tension and friction (Wu et al., 2017). In addition, relationship conflict will
lead to negative emotions such as frustration, tension, jealousy and anger among project
team members, thus, limit effective communication, group work, and performance (Zhang
& Huo, 2015; Ayoko et al., 2008). Therefore, relationship conflicts can have significant
impacts on a project success because of the combined effects of individual characteristics,
53
communication, structure, and interest of participants. Grounded in empirical studies and
the foregoing discussion, in this thesis the focus is on the relationship conflict as a
mediator between EI and project success.
Theoretical Frameworks
There are two underpinning theories relevant to the influence of EI on project success:
Affective Events Theory (AET) (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and Competency
Performance Theory (CPT) (Ley & Albert, 2003). Both theories are concerned with
understanding the influence of personal attributes, competence, and skills of individuals
and teams on positive outcomes in the workplace. The project manager and project team
members’ competence of interest in this research are EI. To achieve success and
performance in complex projects, project managers and project team members must
effectively communicate, with internal and external stakeholders and resolve complex
tasks effectively in a timely manner. Researchers (Müller and Turner, 2010) consistently
find EI to be a prerequisite for project success. In particular, Müller and Turner (2007,
2010) find direct evidence that EI increases the chance of project success, especially in
highly complex project environments. Thomas and Mengel (2008) find project managers
and project teams who have scored high on EI have the ability to recover quickly from
negative emotions and stress in difficult situations. Clarke (2010) also reinforces the
importance of EI in project team effectiveness. He reports that EI acts as an underlying
ability that determines the behavioural complexity of project team members in complex
project situations. With this in mind, lack of competencies and skills of project managers
and project team members is identified as a problem that impacts on the ability of project
managers and project team members to communicate effectively with internal and
external stakeholders and resolve complex task in crises moments which decrease the
chance of project success. This is an overlooked area in the complex project management
literature that has only recently begun to be explored. In line with the AET and CPT,
emotions experienced by project managers and project team members at large-scale
complex project environment are suggested to be the antecedents of work attitudes,
behaviour and project success.
54
Affective events theory
Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) offer a theoretical foundation for illumination the
antecedents and consequences of affective experiences at work. In line with the principles
underlying AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), this thesis focuses on the manner in which
an individual’s and team’s responses to affective experiences at work shape their work
attitude and behaviour. According to Weiss and Cropanzano (1996), attitudes and
behaviour at work are influenced by the experience of emotions and feelings such as pride,
enthusiasm, anger, shame, guilt, fear, frustration, and envy. These emotions emerge from
events that create emotional reactions in the work environment. Research has shown that
employees, including organisational top management, experience emotions at work, and
a number of studies support the underlying assumptions of AET (Mignonac & Herrbach,
2004; Zhao et al., 2007). For example, Ashton-James and Ashkanasy (2005) argue there
is a strong bond between strategic decision-making processes and the emotions that
managers experience in response to workplace events. In the same vein, Pirola-Merlo et
al. (2002) use AET in a study of leadership to explain the effect workplace events have
on team affective climate and consequently on team performance. Large, complex
projects with large budgets are likely to have frequent challenging events which,
according to AET, could produce emotional reactions. These reactions may result in both
positive and negative emotions for the project managers, team members, contractors, and
stakeholders (Lindebaum & Jordan, 2014).
Based on the underlying principles of AET it is argued that attitudes and behaviour at
work are derived from emotional reactions to events. Ashkanasy (2002) notes that EI
plays a critical role in addressing emotions at work insofar as emotion management
abilities help individuals to perceive, understand, and manage their own and other’s
emotions. As such, EI should serve to shape employees’ work attitudes and behaviours in
a more positive direction, thus influencing project success.
Competence performance theory
CPT suggests that competencies can predict performance outcomes and explain poor
performance (Ley & Albert, 2003). CPT connects competencies to actual performance in
the workplace. Competency has been defined as a cognitive (e.g. knowledge and skills),
affective (e.g. attitudes and values), behavioral and motivational (e.g. motives)
55
characteristics or dispositions of a person which enable him or her to perform well in a
specific situation. Common types of competencies are task and behaviour (Turner, Müller
& Dulewicz (2009). Task-related competence focus on the task in an effort to increase
task efficiency and effectiveness (Mulder et al., 2009). Behaviour-related competency
focus on skills, expertise, and attributes of the individual and teams (Mulder et al., 2009).
The conceptualisation of competence employed by this research is behaviour-oriented
competence because it is most closely aligned with competence that has been used by
Turner, Müller, and Dulewicz (2009) and Shao and Müller, (2011) in project management
literature as a combination of knowledge, skills and core personality characteristics such
as traits and motives that lead to positive result. The success of complex projects
increasingly depends on their intellectual assets, as opposed to their resources (Rezvani
et al., 2016). These assets include knowledge and skills of project managers and project
team members which lead to project performance. Scholars have long attempted to
identify ways to increase knowledge and skills in project teams and project managers.
From a project management point of view, the question has been how project-based
organizations are able to use the assets to secure a persisting competitive advantage. Based
on competency performance theory this thesis argues that competence and attitudes of
project managers and project team members more specifically EI lead to success in large-
scale complex projects.
Conceptual Framework
In this thesis, the focus is on the role of competence and attitudes of project managers and
project team members particularly EI on project success at both individual and team levels
of analysis in large-scale complex defense and construction/infrastructure projects. An
investigation of the underlying variables links the relationship between EI and project
success is therefore undertaken. Based on AET and CPT (Ley & Albert, 2003; Weiss &
Cropanzano, 1996), attitudes and behavior at work are influenced by the experience of
emotional experience. The emotional experiences emerge from events at large scale
complex projects create emotional reactions in the work environment. Research shows
that employees and managers, experience emotions at work, and a number of studies
support the underlying assumptions of AET and CPT (Mignonac & Herrbach, 2004;
56
Rezvani et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2007). For example, Ashton-James and Ashkanasy
(2005) argue that there is a strong bond between strategic decision-making processes and
the emotions that managers experience in response to workplace events.
Based on CPT, Mazur and her colleagues (Mazur et al., 2014) found that there is a strong
relationship between EI and project performance in complex projects. In the same
vein, Pirola-Merlo et al. (2002) used AET in a study of leadership to explain the effect
workplace emotions have on team affective climate and consequently on team
performance. Large, complex projects with large budgets are likely to have frequent
challenging events which, according to AET and CPT, could produce emotional reactions.
These reactions may result in both positive and negative emotions for the project
managers, team members, contractors, and stakeholders (Lindebaum & Jordan, 2014).
The model as depicted in the conceptual model provided in Figure 2.1, is based on the
underlying principles of AET and CPT that attitudes and behaviour at work are derived
from emotional reactions at work. Ashkanasy (2002) notes that EI plays a critical role in
addressing emotions at work insofar as emotion management abilities help individuals to
perceive, understand, and manage their own and other's emotions. As such, EI should
serve to shape employees' work attitudes and behaviours in a more positive direction, thus
influencing project success. Thus, this thesis first examines the relationship between EI,
on work attitudes, relationship conflict and project success at individual and team levels
of analysis. To understand underlying variables between EI and project success at the
individual level this thesis focuses specifically on two work attitudes that may enhance
this relationship: job satisfaction and trust. In addition, to understand the underlying
mechanism between EI and project success at the team level of analysis this thesis focuses
on the conflict and trust in the team.
57
Figure 2.1. Conceptual model for individual and team levels of analysis
Research Questions
There are four objectives of this thesis. To understand the factors that enable project
success in the context of large-scale complex projects. To understand the barrier factors
that influence project success in the context of large-scale complex projects. To examine
the influence of EI, on project success at both the individual and team levels. To uncover
underlying variables that link EI to project success at both the individual and team levels
of analysis. In addressing these objectives, the thesis aims to answer the paucity of
research investigating the influence of competency and skills of project managers and
project team members and how they contribute to project success. The overall research
question: What personal attributes, competency and attitudes of project managers and
project team members contribute to project success at the individual and team levels of
analysis in large-scale complex projects, drives the objectives in this thesis.
To address the research question, an individual and team levels of analysis of the influence
of EI on project success at different levels is undertaken, focusing on managers’ EI and
project team members’ EI on project success. Six sub-questions are identified.
RQ1. What are the project success factors in large-scale complex projects?
RQ 2. What are the barriers to success in large-scale complex projects?
RQ3. How does emotional intelligence as an important skill influence complex defense
project success at the individual level?
58
RQ4. What are the underlying mechanisms of emotional intelligence and complex defense
project success at the individual level?
RQ5. What is the influence of team emotional intelligence on project performance in
large-scale complex construction projects?
RQ6. What is the underlying mechanism between team emotional intelligence and project
performance in large-scale complex construction projects?
Each question informs the development of subsequent studies which make up the body of
this thesis. Studies presented in chapters 3 to 6 and a summary demonstrating how the
collective findings address the overarching research question is presented in chapter 7.
Summary and Implications
A considerable body of research exists in the project management literature particularly
related to complex project management on the positive influence of EI on various
outcomes. There is a general acceptance of the benefits of understanding and managing
emotions in large complex projects for project managers and project team members. It is
evident in the literature that effective project management is not simply determined by
technical or hard skills but also by capabilities related to emotions (Fisher, 2011). In
particular, project team members, and managers’ ability to understand and to regulate
emotion in self and others produce high quality, effective relationships with both internal
and external stakeholders. However, knowledge of what competence and skill of project
managers and project team members in large complex projects influences project success
is nascent.
The influence of project managers and project team members’ competence and attitudes
on project success at the individual level and within a broader organizational environment
that consists of various project teams with complex and conflict interactions is not
examined in project management literature. Our understanding of what personal attributes
and attitudes of project managers and project team members influence project success is
lacking in the project management literature.
Teamwork and leadership are a crucial part of managing complex projects, impacting
directly on successful project outcomes (Troth et al., 2012; Shenhar et al., 2001). Thus,
59
this thesis specifically focuses on project managers and project team members' skills and
in particular the effect of project managers' EI, and team EI defined by Mayer et al.
(2004) as the ability to be aware of, to utilise, to understand, and to manage emotions in
self and others. This approach is justified in the context of complex project management
on the basis of research by Clarke (2010) and Müller and Turner (2007), who identify EI
as a key ingredient of effective complex project leadership and teamwork (see
also, Thomas and Mengel, 2008). In more recent research, Maqbool et al. (2017) argue
specifically that high EI project managers are able to solve new challenges and problems
as well as better communicate with their peers. In this thesis, however, the focus is on the
competence and attitudes of both project team members and managers on project success
at both individual and team levels of analysis.
In addition, this thesis uncovers the underlying variables that link emotional intelligence
to project success at both individual and team levels of analysis. In this regard, Müller and
Jugdev (2012) suggest that if we are to understand the factors that underlie the success
of project outcomes then there is a need for researchers to explore variables that
potentially mediate between project manager characteristics (such as EI) and project
success.
The AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and CPT (Ley & Albert, 2003) underpin the
relationship between variables which provides the framework for understanding how EI
influences project success. To address the gap in complex project management literature,
this thesis answers six related questions, synthesizing the findings from each question to
answer the overarching question: “What personal attributes, competency, and attitudes of
project managers and project team members contribute to project success at the
individual and team levels of analysis in large-scale complex projects?” In four distinct
journal articles, this thesis advances knowledge of how managerial and project team
members competency more specifically emotional intelligence influences project success.
By examining the influence of managerial and project team members competence and
attitudes at both individual and team levels of analysis in large-scale complex projects,
this thesis contributes to theory and practice in several ways. First, by developing and
empirically testing a model of the impact of EI on a sample of both project managers and
60
project team members working on large-scale complex defense and
construction/infrastructure projects. Second, by exploring potential mechanisms by which
emotionally intelligent project managers and project team members may contribute to
project success. Third, by adding to an increasing body of literature on the emotional,
attitudinal, and behavioural implications of EI in complex project management
organisations.
61
Study 1
Project Success in Complex Projects: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Complex projects are important drivers of social change. Even when operations follow
best practices there are serious challenges, which all too often lead to failure in complex
projects. However, while complex project success and failure have been widely studied
there is no comparison of project success in complex projects across different types of
projects. This study reveals project success in the context of complex projects by
analysing 30 articles. This review systematically identifies and compares project success
indicators in three types of complex projects: construction/infrastructure,
aerospace/defence, and information technology. The paper offers practitioners and
researchers a more comprehensive understanding of success in managing complex
projects and useful recommendations for future research.
Keywords: Project success, Project failure, Complex projects, Barriers to Success, Review
Introduction
Complex projects are known to be the prime enablers of business and social change; they
are also vital contributors to future business success, although they are notoriously
difficult to manage (Whitty & Maylor, 2009). Despite the growing number of complex
projects implemented around the world, most complex projects fail to meet their
objectives and experience substantial cost and schedule overruns (Brady & Davies, 2014;
Flyvbjerg, 2014; Molloy & Chetty, 2015). For example, the Summer Olympics in Rio de
Janeiro ended up costing $16.4 billion over the 2008 budget of $4.6 billion (Flyvbjerg et
al., 2016). Another example of project cost and schedule overrun is the Sydney Opera
House, which exceeded the original budget by 14 times, costing AU$102 million, and was
delivered ten years over schedule (Söderlund & Lenfle, 2013). These disappointing
outcomes motivate further investigation into identifying the best practices for succeeding
62
in complex projects (Toor & Ogunlana, 2009a; Zhang & Fan, 2013). Project success has
been identified in prior reviews (e.g. Cooke-Davies, 2002; Davis, 2014; Jugdev & Müller,
2005). Davis (2014), for example, described the development of project success across
various timeframes, paying particular attention to different stakeholders’ perceptions of
success. Jugdev & Müller (2005) produced a historical review and focused on the
development of project success at different time periods in the project life cycle. These
prior reviews illustrate that project success has been identified and reproduced in various
studies; however, project management literature has not considered the importance of
identifying project success across different types of projects, specifically complex
projects. The unclear view of project success in complex projects has therefore created a
gap to further examine project success across various types of complex projects (Adoko
et al., 2015; Liu & Wang 2016).
This review, therefore, extends our understanding in the field by first focusing on complex
projects, owing to their specific features. Complex projects are characterised by multiple
joined organisations with often dissimilar objectives; a large scope, timeline, and budget;
a high level of technology advancement; a high degree of interdependency; and a high
degree of uncertainty (Rezvani et al., 2016). Complex projects vary regarding goals,
budgets, ownership, structure, and accountability compare to normal or small-scale
projects (Flyvbjerg, 2014). Large and complex projects attract public interest, while the
goals of small-scale projects are driven by profits and self-interest (Toor & Ogunlana,
2009a). Stakeholders in large and complex projects disperse around the world with
conflicting interest, and performance of these projects are dependent on a high degree of
interdependency and communication (Locatelli et al., 2014; Rezvani et al., 2016).
Research also shows that large and complex projects are more open to external influences
because of their accountability to multiple communities, legislative, and mandates policy
(Kwak and Smith, 2009; Rezvani et al., 2016). Furthermore, Rezvani et al. (2016) found
that project managers in these projects require approaches and skills that are beyond those
of traditional project management. Thus, the specific features of complex projects make
them much more challenging to manage than smaller-scale projects (Toor & Ogunlana,
2009a).
63
Moreover, this study differentiates between different types of complex projects. This
review argues that evaluating success indicators across different types of complex projects
is important, as the meaning of success may vary across different project types (Hyväri,
2006; Ika, 2009). Recent empirical research into complex projects suggests that different
types of complex projects may require different success factors (Alshawi et al., 2012;
Chang et al., 2013; Toor & Ogunlana, 2009a; Turner & Zolin, 2012; Williams, 2016).
This is mainly due to the differences in environmental variables, the nature of the project,
the nature of the participant organisations and the prioritisation of project goals (Toor &
Ogunlana, 2010). For example, a complex defence project typically attracts high public
attention. Thus, an increase in defence capability may dominate the perception of success.
On the other hand, complex construction projects may place a heavier emphasis on health
and safety records. A systematic review is needed to synthesize, integrate the literature
and to provide a comprehensive view of success in complex projects. This study,
therefore, aims to answer the following research questions:
Research Question 1: What are the project success factors in complex projects?
Research Question 2: Are there any differences in success factors between different types
of complex projects which have been identified in the literature?
Previous Studies on Project Success
Defining project success is a challenging issue as it can mean different to different project
stakeholders and individuals (Ika, 2009; Toor & Ogunlana, 2005). However, in project
management literature scholars are agreed on two viewpoints of project success: project
success factors and project management success/success criteria. The PM success criteria
relate to standard project measures of cost, time and quality, referred to as the “iron
triangle”, which can be measured retrospectively after project completion (Müller &
Jugdev, 2012; Cooke-Davies, 2002; Davis, 2014). Success factors, on the other hand, are
understood as an element which can be influenced to increase the chance of project
success/failure. Critical success factors more specifically focus on soft issues, such as the
behavioural skills of project teams and customer and stakeholder satisfaction, and can be
measured prior to the project’s completion (Pinto & Slevin, 1987; Turner & Zolin, 2012).
A preliminary review of the literature showed that project success factors have been
64
researched extensively in the project management literature. Some of the foremost works
involved: Kerzner (1987) who identified 6 critical success factors for successful projects
including: executive commitment to project management, corporate understanding of
project management, organisational adaptability, commitment to planning and control,
project manager’s leadership style, and project manager selection criteria. Pinto and
Slevin (1987), identified ten critical success factors including: top management support,
project mission, project schedule/plan, client acceptance, monitoring and feedback,
communication, and troubleshooting. Cooke-Davies (2001) identified project
management success factors and factors related to the successful projects. He reveals four
critical success factors and six project management success factors. Under project
management success factors, he identified factors which help ensure the project is
completed on time and specific budget. Kendra and Taplin (2004) created a list of success
factors and grouped them into four types: micro-technical, and macro-technical, micro-
social and macro-social. Turner et al., (2009) and Turner and Zolin (2012) focused on the
role of stakeholders and long-term business success. Their study shows the importance of
internal and external stakeholders to achieve long-term business success. These studies
show that the development of success factors frameworks and the importance of success
factors to accomplish successful projects.
This study also found several review articles regarding project success (See Table 3.1).
For example, Savolainen et al. (2012) reviewed seven articles on areas of research on
software development project success and failure. They identified three success factors
from the supplier’s perspective: short-term and long-term business benefits and customer
satisfaction. Ika (2009) analysed 30 articles on success from two journals in project
management, the Project Management Journal (PMJ) and the International Journal of
Project Management (IJPM). He emphasised the complexity of defining project success,
but also highlighted the distinction between project success factors and project
management success (e.g. time and budget) and the link between project management
success and project success factors. Davis (2014) conducted a systematic review of 29
papers, paying attention to different stakeholders’ perceptions of success. Jugdev and
Müller (2005) conducted a longitudinal literature review of 30 papers and explored the
development of project success at different time periods in the project life cycle.
65
While a number of studies have been conducted to understand the success factors in
project management literature, however each study emphasis on a certain facet of project
success. One of the most important findings arising from the preliminary studies and prior
literature reviews was that the factors so far illustrated may not appropriate in the context
of complex projects. In addition, when we reviewed the published articles, we found that
the evaluation of complex project success in project management literature is based upon
the combination of the most common PM success or meeting time, cost and quality goals
and therefore complex project success seems to adhere to the traditional measure of the
iron triangle. However, researchers criticised these criteria and argued that traditional
focuses on time cost and quality is not adequate to define project success and leads to an
incomplete view of project success (Turner & Zolin, 2012). This is because due to the
long-time frame of complex projects usually between 5 to 10 years, project specification
and original requirements will almost certainly change and this will impact the time and
cost of complex projects (Rezvani et al., 2016). As de Wit, (1998) argued that focuses on
PM success can contribute to project success, however, it is not likely to be able to avoid
failure, or it has been said that “the operation was a success but the patient has died”
(Jugdev & Muller, 2005, p.22). An example of this is the Sydney Oprah House where the
project was not managed well from a project management perspective but at the end was
viewed as an engineering masterpiece. The project was 14 times over budget and took 15
years to complete. This project was a success and engineering masterpiece in terms of
project success, but it was a failure in terms of PM success (Baccarini, 1999).
This has led to the current effort in re-examining the understanding of the critical success
factors and success criteria across various type of projects in complex projects. This is an
important topic because the success of complex projects and its implication, consequently,
influences the broader organisation and society in several dimensions. Identifying project
success in complex projects is also essential because it has a bearing on the future
guidelines of project management in the strategic context. This study adds to the previous
reviews as it concentrates on project success in complex projects.
66
Table 3.1. Previous Reviews of Project Success
Reference Focus of the study
Savolainen et al. (2012) This study focused particularly on software projects
Ika (2009) This study analysed articles on project success definitions from two
journals on project management: the PMJ and IJPM
Jugdev & Müller (2005) This longitudinal literature review explained the development of
project success at different time periods
Davis (2014) This study described the evolution of the idea of project success
over successive decades, paying particular attention to different
stakeholders’ perceptions of success
Methodology
Following guidelines offered by Tranfield et al. (2003), Researcher conducted a
systematic review to identify and synthesise all the available research evidence of
sufficient quality over three stages: planning, conducting and reporting the review. In the
planning stage, this study identified a need for a review and developed research questions
and the review protocol. In the conducting stage, this study performed searches, identified
included studies, extracted data from studies and synthesised the data. In the reporting
stage, this study reported the results.
Search terms
This systematic literature review was guided by the research questions investigating
complex project success and barriers to success. A three-step search strategy was used.
An initial search of Science Direct, Wiley, and ABI/INFORM databases was undertaken
to determine optimal search terms, followed by a second search using all relevant
keywords. In the second search, the key papers related to complex project success, a
number of search terms were identified and grouped into two categories: (“complex
project*” OR “mega project*” OR “large scale project*” OR “large project*” OR “major
project*”) AND (“success” OR “project success factor*” OR “project performance” OR
“project success criteria” OR “performance” OR “project success” OR “project failure”
OR “barrier*” OR “project risk*” OR “poor performance” OR “cost overrun” OR “time
overrun”). Finally, the selected terms were searched for across publication keywords,
titles, and abstracts. In total, the search identified in excess of 8660 papers. It was possible
67
to get a large number of papers, even with some limitations to the search, while
performing searches in databases with search strings. However, most of these papers were
discussion papers, duplicate papers or contained one of the review search terms but did
not address project success or barriers to success in complex projects. Therefore, once all
studies had been retrieved from the databases, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were
used to determine whether the study was relevant to the review, leaving a total of 513
publications for further analysis. After removing duplicates and unrelated papers the
authors applied a two-stage filtering process previously adopted by Yang et al. (2011) and
Mok et al. (2015) in their literature review. In the first stage, the author reviewed the
abstracts and introductions of the remaining 513 papers that addressed project success
factors and barriers to success in complex projects. This process led to the extraction of
435 papers, leaving 78 papers for further review. In the second stage, the author excluded
irrelevant papers after the full text was retrieved and thoroughly assessed. As a result, 30
articles were included in this study and were considered to offer insights about project
success factors and barriers to success in complex project environments based on the
inclusion criteria. The articles identified for the systematic review are demonstrative of
the literature, owing to the rigorous search process employed.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
This study limited the review to empirical papers that: (1) were published in peer review
journals, (2) were published between 2000 and 2017, and (3) provided empirical evidence
regarding the success of complex projects. Studies in languages other than English,
conceptual papers, conference papers, unpublished full-text documents and review papers
were excluded from the search. This study also excluded reports because reports have
criticised for failing to describe research method used (Savolainen et al., 2012; Jørgensen
& Moløkken-Østvold, 2006).
Following the Global Alliance for Project Performance Standard (GAPPS, 2007)
guidelines and prior studies in complex projects (Ahern et al., 2014; Locatelli et al., 2014;
Rezvani et al., 2016; Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011) this study consider a project as being
“complex” if it has at least one of the following characteristics: a high degree of
uncertainty and mixture of joined organizations and sub-contracting (Ahern et al., 2014);
68
rapid change of technology (Davies & Mackenzie, 2014; Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011);
high degree of interdependency between a number of system parts and organizations
involved (Locatelli & Mancini, 2012); strong legal, social or environmental implications
from undertaking the project (Rezvani et al., 2016); strategic importance of the project to
the organization or organizations involved (Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011); stakeholders
with conflicting needs regarding the characteristics of the project’s product (Locatelli et
al., 2014); and newness of technology (Robinson Fayek et al., 2006).
Data synthesis
This study used a combination of analytical approaches to guarantee a rigorous research
process and to increase the validity and reliability of the systematic literature review (Levy
& Ellis, 2006), namely descriptive and thematic analysis (Morgan & Smircich, 1980;
Ritchie et al., 2013). The descriptive analysis allows the main characteristics of the field
under investigation to be identified (Dey, 2003) such as a year of publication, countries,
methodology and study design. The thematic analysis consists of synthesising the main
outcomes extracted from the literature and condensing the text into fewer content-related
categories of qualitative data via content analysis (Braun & Clarke 2006; Guest et al.,
2011). Content analysis is a method used to determine the major facets of a data set by
counting the number of times a topic appears (Neuendorf, 2002). According to the
literature, this is a valid method to undertake a systematic literature review (Levy & Ellis,
2006). Following Ritchie et al.’s (2013) method, a series of steps were undertaken in order
to conduct a thematic analysis. First, the literature was read and textually analysed to
derive a set of suitable categories. This led to identifying recurring themes from the
collected literature with specific reference to various complex project types and their
success factors in order to answer the questions. After the themes were identified the first
author arranged the main categories and their attributes using a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet to compare the identified categories. Finally, the results of the complete
categorisation set were condensed into a table to answer the research questions and were
revised as necessary by the author. Any discordances were settled, and the complete set
of final categories was finalised. Section 4 of this study, the results section, provides the
final detailed categorisation of various complex project types and their success factors.
69
Overview of Selected Publications
Annual publications
As shown in Figure 3.1, a rapid increase of publications on complex projects was seen in
2009, 2012 and 2013. The fast pace of research into complex or large projects can be
attributed to the advanced technology, rapid globalisation and gradual increase in interest
in exploring the best ways to deliver successful complex projects (Williams, 2016).
Figure 3.1 Publication per year.
Projects per country
In order to ascertain countries with the most research on complex projects in our final
pool, we conducted a simple counting of papers. There were a number of papers that
focused on complex projects which were not attributed to any specific country or were
focused on multiple countries; these were considered to be “International” papers. Figure
3.2 presents research into complex projects based on countries.
Figure 3.2 Projects per country.
* Contains studies that were focused on multiple countries
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
20
00
20
01
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
01234567
US
A
Au
stra
lia
Chin
a
Inte
rnat
ion
al*
Can
ada
UK
Th
aila
nd
New
Zea
lan
d
Sw
eden
Isra
el
Vie
tnam
UA
E
Po
lan
d
70
The vast majority of studies investigating complex projects came from the United States,
which had the highest number of publications (n=6), followed by Australia (n=5). It is
noticeable that contributions from researchers investigating complex projects in other
countries are very low. This could be due to a limited number of complex projects in those
countries or could be due to publications being in a language other than English, which
were not considered in this study.
Research methods of included studies
In my attempt to understand the methodological diversity in research related to project
success and barriers, I found that researchers have used multiple research methods to
study project success in project management literature. Figure 3.3 shows a summary of
the various research methods used by researchers, these include survey (19), case study
(17), mixed methods (7), document analysis (1) and interview (4). The most preferred
research method adopted by researchers is the quantitative and case study approaches (see
Figure 3.3). This could be due to the findings being generalizable to similar projects.
Figure 3.3. Research methods of included studies.
2018
74 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Su
rvey
Cas
e S
tud
y
Mix
met
ho
ds
Inte
rvie
w
Do
cum
ent
anal
ysi
s
71
Journal name and number of publications
This review identified a number of publications from academic journals which could be
useful to researchers seeking to conduct future studies in complex projects. As Table 3.2
shows, the IJPM and PMJ have the most published articles in this area.
Table 3.2 Academic journal names and number of publications.
Journal name Publications
(n)
International Journal of Project Management 9
Project Management Journal 4
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 3
Construction Innovation 2
Cost engineering 1
Interfaces 1
MIS Quarterly 1
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 1
Interlending & Document Supply 1
Construction Management and Economics 1
Journal of Enterprise Information Management 1
System Dynamics Review 1
Decision Science 1
Information Systems Management 1
Communications of the ACM 1
Information System Journals 1
Analysis of Results
Based on the papers in our final pool, this study classified complex projects into three
categories: construction/infrastructure; defense and aerospace; and information
technology (IT) projects. Table 3.3 portrays project success across these three types of
complex projects. The study followed the division of project success into project
management success criteria and project success factors used in previous studies on
project success (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Davis, 2014; Dvir et al., 2003; Ika, 2009; Jugdev
& Müller, 2005; Toor & Ogunlana, 2009; Papke-Shields et al., 2010; Sadeh et al., 2000;
Savolainen et al., 2012; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; Williams, 2016). This study combined
both PM success criteria and project success factors for ease of data presentation in Table
3.3. Table 3.3 contains five sections.
72
Section A in Table 3.3 highlights success criteria. The PM success criteria (schedule/time,
budget/cost and quality), used in 20 studies. Our result shows that the PM success criteria
reign supreme in all three types of complex projects. Seven out of 20 articles only used
project management success criteria to measure the success of complex projects. This is
also consistent with prior studies that conceptualise project success as a uni-dimensional
construct concerned with meeting budget, time and quality (e.g. Tai et al., 2009). Thirteen
out of 20 articles arguing for the multidimensionality of success. In addition to the PM
success criteria, researchers also measured project success factors such as stakeholder
satisfaction (Williams, 2016; Zhang & Fan, 2013), communication, technical capabilities
and meeting design goals (Alshawi et al., 2012; Liu and Wang, 2016). This illustrates that
complex project management is still a very young research area, thus it still relies strongly
on traditional project success measures, while continuing to search for additional success
factors to complement the traditional measures.
73
Table 3.3 Project Success
Section Project success Construction/Infrastructure projects Defence & Aerospace projects IT projects Total
Sources* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
A.
PM
Su
cces
s
Crit
eri
a
Time/Schedule 20
Cost/Budget Quality
B.
Co
mm
on
success
facto
rs
acro
ss a
ll t
yp
es
of
com
ple
x
pro
jects
Stakeholders satisfaction 7
Open communication 7
Specific Plans 6
Meeting users/customers/
owner’s requirement 7
C.
Co
mm
on
success
facto
rs
betw
een
tw
o
typ
es
of
pro
jects
Top management support 4
Staff commitment 4
Training 3
Technical capabilities 2
D.
Su
cce
ss
facto
rs
iden
tifi
ed
by
defe
nse
pro
jects
Problem-solving 3
Defence capability 2
Mission clarity 2
Project member wellbeing 1
E.
Su
ccess
facto
rs
iden
tifi
ed
by
IT
pro
jects
Technical support 2
Achieve
business/organisational goals 2
Software selection 1
Team contributions 1
Consulting capability 1
F.
Su
ccess
fa
cto
rs
iden
tifi
ed
by
co
nst
ru
cti
on
pro
jects
Health and safety 3
Project manager and project
team competence
3
Project control 2
Involvement of client 1
Risks management 1
Claim management 1
Absence of conflicts 1
74
Standardization of the project
delivery
1
Project efficiency 1
Availability of resources 1
75
Section B in Table 3.3 highlights the five most common success factors across all three
types of complex projects: construction, IT and defense projects. Common success factors
among the three types of projects are project planning, effective communication, meeting
user/customer/owners’ requirements and stakeholder satisfaction. This potentially
illustrates a consensus of some success indicators across construction, IT and defense
projects, and also the importance of soft measures when defining project success in
complex projects.
Section C in Table 3.3 reports on factors identified by two (but not all three) types of
complex projects. Top management support and training were mentioned in defense and
IT projects (Dvir et al., 2006; Ferratt et al., 2006; Lech, 2013; Liu & Wang, 2016;
McGillivray et al., 2009; Rezvani et al., 2016) but surprisingly were not echoed in
construction projects. This highlights a gap in the literature, presenting an opportunity to
conduct an empirical study into assessing these essential success factors in complex
construction projects when defining project success. Staff commitment (Ogunlana, 2008;
McGillivray et al., 2009) was found in both IT and construction projects, but was not
mentioned in defence projects, which is understandable as staff members in defence
projects are mostly ongoing or close-to-retirement defence personnel; “commitment” to
the defence culture is an important selection criterion for all project personnel, thus little
variation is expected to be observed among different staff on this factor (Chang et al.,
2013). Technical capabilities (Alshawi et al., 2012; Adoko et al., 2015) were echoed in
construction and defense projects but surprisingly were not mentioned in IT projects. It
could be assumed that technical capabilities should be on the top of the success factors in
complex IT projects as they allow staff to customize the equipment to meet their specific
needs (McGillivray et al. 2009); however, to date there has been limited empirical
research conducted in complex IT projects to identify the importance of technical
capabilities as a prerequisite selection criterion for staff when measuring project success.
Section D in Table 3.3 shows the factors only identified in defense projects, namely:
problem-solving, defense capabilities, mission clarity, and project member well-being. In
the specific context of defence projects it is not uncommon for projects to have vague
goals, such as “increase defence capability”, at the beginning of a long-term project
(Rezvani et al., 2016) or to face unexpected problems and challenges due to task
76
interdependency and complexity (Rezvani et al., 2016). This reveals that having more
specific goals or handling unexpected crises and deviations from the plan will likely lead
to greater project success in defence projects, hence the importance of these specific
indicators.
Section E in Table 3.3 lists factors for IT projects only: technical support; software
selection; team contribution; consulting capabilities; and achieveing business goals such
as profit, market share or growth (McGillivray et al., 2009; Ferratt et al., 2006; Chua et
al., 2012; Lech, 2013). Among these factors, technical support was the most frequently
identified factor. This makes it apparent that having the ability to provide technical
support is critical in complex IT projects with new and advanced technology (McGillivray
et al., 2009; Ferratt et al., 2006). Furthermore, integrated IT solutions must address
customer needs from end to end, hence adequate technical support plays a central role in
maintaining and upgrading the system (Ferratt et al., 2006; Slywotzky and Wise, 2003).
Section F of Table 3.3 illustrates factors that are only mentioned in construction projects,
in particular: health and safety, the involvement of clients, project control, risk
management, claim management, the absence of conflict, standardisation of the project
delivery, competency, and efficiency. Among these factors, health and safety of personnel
was the most frequently mentioned factor. This reflects the importance of health and
safety issues in construction projects and the emphasis on enhancing workers’ abilities to
anticipate possible hazards in complex construction projects (Williams, 2016). This also
shows that management needs to be more active in the safety program to ensure that
accidents are prevented and that personal injury and property damage are avoided, in turn
ultimately increasing the chance of project success (Toor & Ogunlana 2010; Zhang &
Fan, 2013).
Discussion
This study was designed to conduct a systematic literature review in order to develop a
comprehensive list of project success factors in complex projects. To achieve this aim,
this study consolidated the literature on complex project settings by analysing 30 articles.
The analysis of the articles evidenced the PM success criteria or meeting time, cost and
quality were mentioned in 20 out of 30 articles when measuring project success across the
77
three types of complex projects. This shows that complex project management still relies
strongly on PM success criteria. It can be assumed that focus only on PM success criteria
in complex projects can lead to a very objective measurement of project success which,
in this view appears to threaten the desired long-term impacts. This is because project
success does not commensurate with the product success and if stakeholders are not
satisfied there are no future deals (Yang et al., 2011; Eweje et al., 2012; Shenhar & Dvir,
2007).
Thirteen out of 30 articles used PM success criteria along with critical success factors as
a measure of success across three types of complex projects. This shows that project
success is perceived across three types of complex projects not just by the traditional view
of completing within budget, time and desired quality goals, but also by whether the
project delivers the desired outcomes including stakeholder satisfaction, open
communication, specific plans and whether it meets user/customer/owner requirements.
This evidence reveals a consensus of these four factors along with PM success criteria to
achieve success across three types of complex projects. This evidence also reveals the
importance of evaluating project success as separate but interlinked measures to achieve
long-term business success.
To answer the second research question, this paper identified differences between the
three types of projects regarding their success factors. Despite the four commonly shared
success factors, this review demonstrates that there are also success factors unique to each
type of complex project. In defense projects, problem-solving, defense capabilities,
mission clarity, and project member wellbeing were used as a measure of success. It seems
to be commonalities between the results of our study with Pinto and Slevin's
(1987) success factor list. The critical success factors in Pinto and Slevin's study are
project mission, top management support, schedule and plans, client consultation,
personnel, technical tasks, client acceptance, monitoring and feedback, communication
and troubleshooting. Comparing the success factor list created by Pinto and Slevin's
(1987) and those revealed in our review shows that scholars were building on previous
work and there is lack of new factors being created, suggesting a gap to generate additional
up to date list of success factors, instead of merely testing current success factors. In
complex IT projects technical support, achieve business/organisational goals, software
78
selection, team contribution, consulting capability were measured as success factors.
There is a commonality between our result and the result of the Savolainen and his
colleague (2012) on software development project success. They used customer
satisfaction, short-term and long-term business success as a measure of success in
software development projects. Although the criteria found in these software development
projects are similar they are not exactly the same as the ones we identified in this
systematic review. Comparing our result and those project success factors identified by
Savolainen et al. (2012) in software development projects divulges the significance of
defining context and research settings when studying complex project success due to the
differences between success criteria by project type (Müller & Turner, 2007), as is also
suggested by various studies such as Pinto and Prescott (1990), Toor and Ogunlana
(2009) and Williams, (2015). In complex construction/infrastructure projects, health and
safety, project manager and project team competence, project control, the involvement of
client, risk management, claim management, absence of conflicts, standardisation of the
project delivery, project efficiency and availability of resources were used as a measure
of success.
In addition, comparing critical success factors used in each type of complex projects in
this review suggest that, although some success factors are common in complex projects
– for example, stakeholder satisfaction, open communication and specific plans, most
success factors are varied from projects to projects. This review reveals that the success
factors used in IT projects whose main objective is to deliver an information system that
will support and strengthen the organization’s own business may not valid for
construction projects. Therefore, it is important to define and understand the research
context to identify valid success criteria and their influences on complex project success.
Although, it is difficult to determine which factors are valid for each organisation type or
which factors should be taken into account in, for example, IT projects but not in Defence
or construction projects. However, it is important to identify and understand project
success in each type of complex projects in order to determine whether various success
factors or new factors have an impact on complex project success.
From the bibliometric analysis point of view, our result reveals that very few studies focus
on IT and defense projects compare to construction/infrastructure projects. The lack of
79
such studies is surprising given the importance of Defence and IT projects and their
substantial influences on environmental, social, economics, national and even
international implications associated with these types of projects (Dvir et al., 2006;
Rezvani et al., 2016).
In addition, the result shows that most studies on project success in complex projects are
context specific. As reported in Figure 3.2, most of the research on complex projects is
based on data from developed countries. Consequently, the result and implications of
studies on project success in complex projects are restricted to the specific norms, culture
and countries where these studies have been conducted. Therefore, this study suggests
that more research should be conducted in other national and settings to understand the
nature of the various types of complex projects, nature of organisations, management
strategies, norms, socio-economic factors and local cultural values. It may be worthwhile
examining complex projects by specifically focusing on the context of developing
countries to account for the nature and structure of the local industry; that is, how they
differ from developed countries in terms of challenges, requirements or management
styles, or what unique characteristics or specific factors arise due to infrastructure, local
cultural values or languages. Specifically, cultural value and socio-economic factors have
been growing astonishingly and complex projects have placed different challenges to all
stakeholders involved at various levels. Mostly in the developing world, where activities
are heavily interrelated and enforced by the various stakeholders who are dispersed
around the world, cross-cultural communications and coordination play a significant role
towards problem-solving, management strategies, and decision making. Thus, research
identifying and examining the specific CSFs by considering the nature of projects such as
socio-economic and cultural factors will not only help to increase the understanding of
various types of complex projects but also help to capture the perception of different
stakeholders, project managers, contractors, designer and consultants in large-scale
complex projects.
Conclusion
In contrast to previous project success reviews, which classify success factors into decades
with a focus on the time frame of the project lifecycle (e.g., Jugdev and Müller, 2005;
80
Davis, 2014), this paper provides a comprehensive list of project success in complex
projects and distinguishes these factors based on project types. The categorisation of
project types with their success factors helps managers to identify factors which are more
project-type-specific within complex projects and to embark on the subsequent steps to
manage these projects. By identifying project success across different project types in
complex projects, project managers can determine improvement measures to raise the
probability of success and reduce the chances of any setbacks in their own projects. There
may also be practical benefits to policy development in improving the way project success
is assessed in different complex projects. This review may help organisations to
effectively divert their resources to where maximum success lies while helping project
leaders to accomplish their objectives.
81
Appendix A.
Table A1. Study sources
1 Toor & Ogunlana (2009a) 2 Zhang & Fan (2013) 3 Ogunlana (2008) 4 Locatelli & Mancini (2012)
5 Dimitriou et al. (2013) 6 Tai et al. (2009) 7 Alshawi et al. (2012) 8 Liu & Leitner (2012) 9 Toor & Ogunlana (2010) 10 Hui et al. (2008)
11 Williams (2016) 12 Eriksson et al. (2017)
13 Nguyen et al. (2004) 14 Messa et al. (2016) 15 Chang et al. (2013) 16 Mazur et al. (2014) 17 Lyneis et al. (2001)
18 Turner & Zolin (2012) 19 Dvir et al. (2006) 20 Kwak & Smith (2009) 21 Adoko et al. (2015) 22 Rezvani et al. (2016) 23 Art Gowan & Mathieu (2005)
24 McGillivray et al. (2009)
25 Yetton et al. (2000)
26 Ferratt et al. (2006)
27 Sauer et al. (2007)
28 Chua et al. (2012)
29 Lech (2013)
30 Liu and Wang (2016)
82
References
Adoko, M. T., Mazzuchi, T. A., & Sarkani, S. (2015). Developing a cost overrun
predictive model for complex systems development projects. Project Management
Journal, 46(6), 111-125.
Ahern, T., Leavy, B., & Byrne, P. J. (2014). Complex project management as complex
problem solving: A distributed knowledge management perspective. International
Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1371-1381.
Akkermans, H., & van Oorschot, K. E. (2016). Pilot Error? Managerial decision biases as
an explanation for disruptions in aircraft development. Project Management
Journal, 47(2), 79-102.
Alshawi, M., Goulding, J., Al Nahyan, M. T., Sohal, A. S., Fildes, B. N., & Hawas, Y. E.
(2012). Transportation infrastructure development in the UAE: Stakeholder
perspectives on management practice. Construction Innovation, 12(4), 492-514.
Art Gowan Jr, J., & Mathieu, R. G. (2005). The importance of management practices in
IS project performance: An empirical study. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 18(2), 235-255.
Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Jongkind, Y., Mooi, H., Bakker, H., & Verbraeck, A. (2011).
Grasping project complexity in large engineering projects: The TOE (Technical,
Organizational and Environmental) framework. International Journal of Project
Management, 29(6), 728-739. Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2014). Managing structural and dynamic complexity: A tale of
two projects. Project Management Journal, 45(4), 21-38.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Chua, C. E. H., Lim, W.-K., Soh, C., & Sia, S. K. (2012). Enacting clan control in complex
IT projects: A social capital perspective. MIS Quarterly-Management Information
Systems, 36(2), 577.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” success factors in projects. International Journal of
Project Management 20 (3), 185–190.
Davis, K. (2014). Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success.
International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 189-201.
Davies, A., & Mackenzie, I. (2014). Project complexity and systems integration:
Constructing the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games. International
Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 773-790.
Dey, I. (2003). Qualitative data analysis: A user friendly guide for social scientists.
Routledge, New York, NY, 10001.
Dimitriou, H. T., Ward, E. J., & Wright, P. G. (2013). Mega transport projects—Beyond
the ‘iron triangle’: Findings from the OMEGA research programme. Progress in
Planning, 86, 1-43.
83
Dvir, D., Ben-David, A., Sadeh, A., & Shenhar, A. J. (2006). Critical managerial factors
affecting defence projects success: A comparison between neural network and
regression analysis. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 19(5),
535-543.
Eriksson, P. E., Larsson, J., & Pesämaa, O. (2017). Managing complex projects in the
infrastructure sector—A structural equation model for flexibility-focused project
management. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1512-1523. Ferratt, T. W., Ahire, S., & De, P. (2006). Achieving success in large projects:
Implications from a study of ERP implementations. Interfaces, 36(5), 458-469.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview.
Project Management Journal, 45(2), 6-19.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2008). Curbing optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation in planning:
Reference class forecasting in practice. European Planning Studies, 16(1), 3-21.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: An
anatomy of ambition. Cambridge University Press.
Flyvbjerg, B., Stewart, A., & Budzier, A. (2016). The Oxford Olympics Study 2016: Cost
and Cost Overrun at the Games. Said Business School WP 2016-20. Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2804554
GAPPS, (2007). A framework for performance based competency standards for global
level 1 and 2 project managers. Global Alliance for Project Performance
Standards.
Giezen, M. (2012). Keeping it simple? A case study into the advantages and disadvantages
of reducing complexity in mega project planning. International Journal of Project
Management, 30(7), 781-790.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis. Sage,
London, UK.
Han, S. H., Yun, S., Kim, H., Kwak, Y. H., Park, H. K., & Lee, S. H. (2009). Analyzing
schedule delay of mega project: Lessons learned from Korea train express. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 56(2), 243-256.
Hartmann, A., Ling, F. Y. Y., & Tan, J. S. (2009). Relative importance of subcontractor
selection criteria: Evidence from Singapore. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 135(9), 826-832.
Hogg, M.A., Van Knippenberg, D. & Rast, D.E. (2012). Intergroup leadership in
organizations: Leading across group and organizational boundaries. Academy of
Management Review, 37(2), pp.232-255.
Hui, P. P., Davis‐Blake, A., & Broschak, J. P. (2008). Managing interdependence: The
effects of outsourcing structure on the performance of complex projects. Decision
Sciences, 39(1), 5-31.
Hyväri, I. (2006). Success of projects in different organizational conditions. Project
Management Journal, 37(4), 31–42.
84
Ika, L. (2009). Project success as a topic in project management journals. Project
Management Journal, 40(4), 6–19.
Janssen, M., Van Der Voort, H., & van Veenstra, A. F. (2015). Failure of large
transformation project from the viewpoint of complex adaptive systems:
Management principles for dealing with project dynamics. Information Systems
Frontiers, 17(1), 15-29.
Jørgensen, M., & Moløkken-Østvold, K. (2006). How large are software cost overruns?
A review of the 1994 CHAOS report. Information and Software
Technology, 48(4), 297-301. Jugdev, K., & Müller, R. (2005). A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of
project success. Project Management Journal, 36(4), 19-31.
Kardes, I., Ozturk, A., Cavusgil, S. T., & Cavusgil, E. (2013). Managing global
megaprojects: Complexity and risk management. International Business Review,
22(6), 905-917.
Karlsen, J. T., Andersen, J., Birkely, L. S., & Ødegård, E. (2005). What characterizes
successful IT projects. International Journal of Information Technology &
Decision Making, 4(04), 525-540.
Kendra, K., & Taplin, L. J. (2004). Project success: A cultural framework. Project
Management Journal, 35(1), 30-45. Kent, D. C., & Becerik-Gerber, B. (2010). Understanding construction industry
experience and attitudes toward integrated project delivery. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 136(8), 815-825.
Kerzner, H. (1987). In search of excellence in project management. Journal of Systems
Management, 38(2), 30. Kwak, Y. H., & Smith, B. M. (2009). Managing risks in mega defence acquisition
projects: Performance, policy, and opportunities. International Journal of Project
Management, 27(8), 812-820.
Lech, P. (2013). Time, budget, and functionality?—IT project success criteria revised.
Information Systems Management, 30(3), 263-275.
Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. J. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature
review in support of information systems research. Informing Science:
International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 9(1), 181-212.
Liu, L., & Leitner, D. (2012). Simultaneous pursuit of innovation and efficiency in
complex engineering projects—A study of the antecedents and impacts of
ambidexterity in project teams. Project Management Journal, 43(6), 97-110.
Liu, S., & Wang, L. (2016). Influence of managerial control on performance in medical
information system projects: The moderating role of organizational environment
and team risks. International Journal of Project Management, 34(1), 102-116.
85
Liu, Z., Zhu, Z., Wang, H., & Huang, J. (2016). Handling social risks in government-
driven mega project: An empirical case study from West China. International
Journal of Project Management, 34(2), 202-218.
Locatelli, G., & Mancini, M. (2012). Looking back to see the future: Building nuclear
power plants in Europe. Construction Management and Economics, 30(8), 623-
637.
Locatelli, G., Mancini, M., & Romano, E. (2014). Systems engineering to improve the
governance in complex project environments. International Journal of Project
Management, 32(8), 1395-1410.
Long, N. D., Ogunlana, S., Quang, T., & Lam, K. C. (2004). Large construction projects
in developing countries: A case study from Vietnam. International Journal of
Project Management, 22(7), 553-561.
Lyneis, J. M., Cooper, K. G., & Els, S. A. (2001). Strategic management of complex
projects: A case study using system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 17(3),
237-260.
McGillivray, S., Greenberg, A., Fraser, L., & Cheung, O. (2009). Key factors for
consortial success: Realizing a shared vision for interlibrary loan in a consortium
of Canadian libraries. Interlending & Document Supply, 37(1), 11-19.
Mok, K. Y., Shen, G. Q., & Yang, J. (2015). Stakeholder management studies in mega
construction projects: A review and future directions. International Journal of
Project Management, 33(2), 446-457.
Molloy, E., & Chetty, T. (2015). The rocky road to legacy: Lessons from the 2010 FIFA
World Cup South Africa stadium program. Project Management Journal, 46(3),
88-107.
Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy of
management review, 5(4), 491-500.
Müller, R., & Jugdev, K. (2012). Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin, and
Prescott-The elucidation of project success. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, 5(4), 757-775.
Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2007). The influence of project managers on project success
criteria and project success by type of project. European Management Journal,
25(4), 298-309.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Sage, London, UK.
Ogunlana, S. O. (2008). Critical COMs of success in large-scale construction projects:
Evidence from Thailand construction industry. International Journal of Project
Management, 26(4), 420-430.
Patanakul, P. (2014). Managing large-scale IS/IT projects in the public sector: Problems
and causes leading to poor performance. The Journal of High Technology
Management Research, 25(1), 21-35.
86
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1987). Critical factors in successful project implementation.
Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions, 1, 22-27.
Remington, K., & Pollack, J. (2007). Tools for complex projects. Gower Publishing, Ltd,
Hampshire.
Rezvani, A., Chang, A., Wiewiora, A., Ashkanasy, N. M., Jordan, P. J., & Zolin, R.
(2016). Manager emotional intelligence and project success: The mediating role
of job satisfaction and trust. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7),
1112-1122.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research
practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Sage, London, UK.
Robinson Fayek, A., Revay, S. O., Rowan, D., & Mousseau, D. (2006). Assessing
performance trends on industrial construction mega projects. Cost Engineering,
48(10), 16-21.
Robinson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and
practitioner-researchers (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Sauer, C., Gemino, A., & Reich, B. H. (2007). The impact of size and volatility on IT
project performance. Communications of the ACM, 50(11), 79-84.
Savolainen, P., Ahonen, J. J., & Richardson, I. (2012). Software development project
success and failure from the supplier's perspective: A systematic literature
review. International Journal of Project Management, 30(4), 458-469.
Slywotzky, A., & Wise, R. (2003). The dangers of product-driven success: What's the
next growth act? Journal of Business Strategy, 24(2), 16-25.
Söderlund, J., & Lenfle, S. (2013). Making project history: Revisiting the past, creating
the future. International Journal of Project Management, 31(5), 653-662.
Somech, A., Desivilya, H. S., & Lidogoster, H. (2009). Team conflict management and
team effectiveness: The effects of task interdependence and team identification.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 359-378.
Tai, S., Wang, Y., & Anumba, C. (2009). A survey on communications in large-scale
construction projects in China. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 16(2), 136-149.
Toor, S.-U.-R., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2009a). Construction professionals' perception of
critical success factors for large-scale construction projects. Construction
Innovation, 9(2), 149-167.
Toor, S.-U.-R., & Ogunlana, S. (2009b). Ineffective leadership: Investigating the negative
attributes of leaders and organizational neutralizers. Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, 16(3), 254-272.
Toor, S.-U.-R., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2010). Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder
perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector
development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28(3), 228-
236.
87
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing
evidence informed management knowledge by means of systematic
review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222.
Turner, R., & Zolin, R. (2012). Forecasting success on large projects: Developing reliable
scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time
frames. Project Management Journal, 43(5), 87-99.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3) 425-478.
Williams, T. (2016). Identifying success factors in construction projects: A case study.
Project Management Journal, 47(1), 97-112
Whitty, S. J., & Maylor, H. (2009). And then came complex project management
(revised). International Journal of Project Management, 27(3), 304-310.
Yang, J., Shen, G. Q., Ho, M., Drew, D. S., & Xue, X. (2011). Stakeholder management
in construction: An empirical study to address research gaps in previous
studies. International Journal of Project Management, 29(7), 900-910.
Yau, N.-J., & Yang, J.-B. (2012). Factors causing design schedule delays in turnkey
projects in Taiwan: An empirical study of power distribution substation projects.
Project Management Journal, 43(3), 50-61.
Yetton, P., Martin, A., Sharma, R., & Johnston, K. (2000). A model of information
systems development project performance. Information Systems Journal, 10(4),
263-289.
Zhang, L., & Fan, W. (2013). Improving performance of construction projects: A project
manager's emotional intelligence approach. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 20(2), 195-207.
88
Study 2
Project Barriers in Complex Projects: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Project cost and time overruns have been the subject of much debate in complex project
management, however, there is no study of its determinants. This systematic review
integrated extant literature, proposed categories of barriers impacting the successful
delivery of complex projects and provided some specific guidelines to manage these
barriers in the context of complex project management. This systematic identification and
classification of complex project barriers fills an existing gap in the project management
literature regarding the lack of understanding of determinants of project cost and time
overruns and, from a practice perspective, assists in more effectively distributing limited
resources, such as budget, time and manpower.
Keywords: Project failure, Complex projects, Barriers to Success, Review, Project
Barriers
89
Introduction
Why do complex projects fail? This question has motivated researchers and practitioners
to investigate the underlined problems of poor performance in complex projects. Complex
projects have certain characteristics that make them fragile against collapse (Mazur,
Pisarski, Chang & Ashkanasy, 2014). They are characterized by high complexity and
uncertainty, a large number of stakeholders that contributes to time and budget overrun
(Chang, Chih, Chew & Pisarski, 2013). Typically, these projects are commissioned by
governments and delivered by private enterprises (Dvir, Ben-David, Sadeh & Shenhar,
2006). Many of these projects attract public attention because of their substantial impacts
on communities, the environment, and budgets (Van Marrewijk, Clegg, Pitsis &
Veenswijk, 2008).
Barriers to large-scale complex projects can negatively influence organizational
capabilities, productivity, and performance of these projects (Toor & Ogunlana, 2009).
Several researchers conducted studies to identify the causes of failure in complex projects
(Thamhain, 2013; Yau & Yang, 2012; Han et al., 2009). For example, Thamhain (2013)
has revealed that the main causes of cost overruns stem from a lack of a competent and
effective leader, lack of management commitment, instability of project team and redesign
or changing project requirements. Shenhar, Holzmann, Melamed & Zhao (2016) indicated
that major causes of schedule delay arise from lack of underestimating the project
requirements, material procurement and, incorrect installation of software. Although these
studies provide a ground for understanding why projects fail in complex projects.
However, the literature lacks up-to-date summaries of such phenomenon regarding
complex projects. We also found no study in the literature about a generic taxonomy of
project failure in complex projects.
It is therefore of value to conduct a systematic review of the literature on the barrier factors
for complex projects so as to broaden the understanding of the best ways of delivering
successful complex projects to both practitioners and researchers. Recognizing and
understanding the potential barriers in complex projects is essential for acquiring and
preserving the capabilities that are needed to perform well in dynamic, uncertain and
constantly changing environments (Toor & Ogunlana, 2009; Shenhar et al., 2016).
90
In this regard, a systematic review is undertaken in this paper with the following derived
research question: What are the barrier factors in complex projects?
This paper, which focuses on barriers to success, published in the past 16 years (starting
from the year 2000) in large-scale complex projects, makes several contributions. First,
this research synthesizes the contribution of research on project barriers, published over
the past 16 years in the complex projects. A key distinction is made among barrier factors,
in the domain of complex projects management. By distinguishing different loci of project
barriers, the paper identifies the determinants of project failure in complex projects.
Specifically, this review initially analyses separately barrier factors into meaningful
categories. By identification of the problems in managing complex projects, this research
can be a foundation for future research, including the development of a new managerial
approach for managing complex projects. Finally, the research findings provide
practitioners with a better understanding of common challenges in managing complex
projects so that practitioners are aware of these problems and take appropriate measures
to address them.
91
Methodology
Following guidelines offered by Tranfield et al. (2003), A systematic review was
conducted to identify and synthesise all the available research evidence of sufficient
quality over three stages: planning, conducting and reporting the review. In the planning
stage, the author identified a need for a review and developed research questions and the
review protocol. In the conducting stage, the author performed searches, identified
included studies, extracted data from studies and synthesised the data. In the reporting
stage, the author reported the results.
Search terms
This systematic literature review was guided by the research questions investigating
project barriers in the context of complex project management. A three-step search
strategy was used. An initial search of Science Direct, Wiley, and ABI/INFORM
databases was undertaken to determine optimal search terms, followed by a second search
using all relevant keywords. In the second search, a number of search terms were
identified and grouped into two categories: (“complex project*” OR “mega project*” OR
“large-scale project*” OR “large project*” OR “major project*”) AND (“failure” OR
“project barrier factor*” OR “poor performance” OR “project failure” OR “cost overruns”
OR “project risk*” OR “time overruns”).
Finally, the selected terms were searched for across publication keywords, titles, and
abstracts. In total, the search identified in excess of 9654 papers. It was possible to get a
large number of papers, even with some limitations to the search, while performing
searches in databases with search strings. However, most of these papers were discussion
papers, duplicate papers or contained one of the review search terms but did not address
project success in complex projects. Therefore, once all studies had been retrieved from
the databases, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to determine whether the
study was relevant to the review, leaving a total of 433 publications for further analysis.
After removing duplicates and unrelated papers, the author applied a two-stage filtering
process previously adopted by Yang et al. (2011) and Mok et al. (2015) in their literature
review. In the first stage, the author reviewed the abstracts and introductions of the
remaining 433 papers that addressed project success factors. This process led to the
92
extraction of 311 papers, leaving 64 papers for further review. In the second stage, the
author excluded irrelevant papers after the full text was retrieved and thoroughly assessed.
As a result, 28 articles were included in this study and were considered to offer insights
about project success in complex project environments based on the inclusion criteria. We
believe the articles identified for the systematic review are demonstrative of the literature,
owing to the rigorous search process employed.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
This systematic review limited to empirical papers that: (1) were published in peer review
journals, (2) were published between 2000 and 2016, and (3) provided empirical evidence
regarding the barrier factors in complex projects. Studies in languages other than English,
conceptual papers, conference papers, unpublished full-text documents and review papers
were excluded from the search. This review also excluded reports because reports have
criticised for failing to describe research method used (Savolainen et al., 2012; Jørgensen
& Moløkken-Østvold, 2006).
Following the Global Alliance for Project Performance Standard (GAPPS, 2007)
guidelines and prior studies in complex projects (Ahern et al., 2014; Locatelli et al., 2014;
Rezvani et al., 2016; Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011) this review considers a project as being
“complex” if it has at least one of the following characteristics: a high degree of
uncertainty and mixture of joined organizations and sub-contracting (Ahern et al., 2014);
rapid change of technology (Davies & Mackenzie, 2014; Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011);
high degree of interdependency between a number of system parts and organizations
involved (Locatelli & Mancini, 2012); strong legal, social or environmental implications
from undertaking the project (Rezvani et al., 2016); strategic importance of the project to
the organization or organizations involved (Mazur et al., 2014; Bosch-Rekveldt et al.,
2011); stakeholders with conflicting needs regarding the characteristics of the project’s
product (Locatelli et al., 2014); and newness of technology (Robinson Fayek et al., 2006).
93
Data synthesis
This study used a combination of analytical approaches to guarantee a rigorous research
process and to increase the validity and reliability of the systematic literature review (Levy
and Ellis, 2006), namely descriptive and thematic analysis (Morgan and Smircich, 1980;
Ritchie et al., 2013). The descriptive analysis allows the main characteristics of the field
under investigation to be identified (Dey, 2003) such as a year of publication, countries,
methodology and study design. The thematic analysis consists of synthesising the main
outcomes extracted from the literature and condensing the text into fewer content-related
categories of qualitative data via content analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006; Guest et al.,
2011). Content analysis is a method used to determine the major facets of a data set by
counting the number of times a topic appears (Neuendorf, 2002). According to the
literature, this is a valid method to undertake a systematic literature review (Levy and
Ellis, 2006). Following Ritchie et al.’s (2013) method, a series of steps were undertaken
in order to conduct a thematic analysis. First, the literature was read and textually analysed
to derive a set of suitable categories. This led to identifying recurring themes from the
collected literature with specific reference to various complex project types and their
success factors in order to answer the research question. After the themes were identified
the author arranged the main categories and their attributes using a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet to compare the identified categories. Finally, the results of the complete
categorisation set were condensed into a table to answer the research question and were
revised as necessary.
94
Overview of selected publications
Annual publications
As shown in Figure 4.1, a rapid increase of publication in the complex project was seen
in years 2012 and 2013. This can be attributed to the advanced technology and rapid
globalization (Mok et al., 2015). A rising of interest in exploring the best ways of
delivering successful complex projects was also seen between years 2015 and 2016. It is
predicted that this trend of increasing research on complex projects would continue as
more governments and countries are now embracing and implementing these types of
projects, which would naturally foster more research in that area.
Figure 4.1. Publication per year
Projects per country
The countries with most studies are presented in Figure 4.2. Publications with a research
focus in more than one country were considered ‘International’, therefore, were not
attributed to any specific country. The vast majority of studies investigating complex
project performance come from International, USA, and UK which have the highest
numbers of publications, with 5 and 3 publications respectively. It is noticeable that
contributions from researchers in other countries are very low. This could be due to a
limited number of complex projects or could be the publication in another language than
English, which was not considered in this study.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
200
0
200
2
200
4
200
6
200
8
200
9
201
0
201
2
201
3
201
4
201
5
201
6
95
Figure 4.2. Publication per country
Result
Barriers to project success in complex projects
Barriers to success classified into eight categories: organizational, managerial,
contractual, project team, project design and implementation, political/legal, financial,
and technical (see Table 4.1). Specific recommendations to overcome some of these
barriers in complex projects were also provided.
Organizational barriers refer to the lack of structural and organizational priorities and
policies, as well as the lack of understanding of cultural aspects of an organization (Hall
et al., 2012; Thamhain, 2013). As Table 4.1 shows, of the 10 organizational barriers
affecting complex project success, poor communication is the most frequently cited.
Improper communication or failure to communicate effectively with internal and external
stakeholders was considered a hindrance factor for project success in complex projects
(Rezvani et al., 2016). This could be due to organizations engaged in complex projects
focusing primarily on the technical aspects of a project, but lacking emphasis on
communication with internal and external stakeholders. Organizational barriers can be
overcome by ensuring more effective communication focused on setting clear goals and
requirements, and upholding the principles of transparency and open communication
among all the stakeholders involved in complex projects (Liu et al., 2016; Remington &
Pollack, 2007). This will help to ensure the commitment of all organizations, allow all
possible requirements to be identified and all voices to be heard (Janssen et al., 2015).
5
3 3
2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Inte
rnat
ion
al*
US
A
UK
UA
E
Chin
a
Ko
rea
Vie
tnam
Po
lan
d
Ger
man
y
Sin
gap
ore
Net
her
lan
ds
Tai
wan
Can
ada
Th
aila
nd
96
Managerial barriers are related to a lack of or poor managerial skills and competencies
throughout the project life cycle. These can have negative consequences, affecting
everything from technical feasibility to cost, market timing, financial performance and
strategic objectives (Alshawi et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2012). As Table 4.1 presents, among
the five managerial barriers affecting complex project success, the lack of a competent
and effective leader is the most frequently cited barrier in the project management
literature. This illustrates the lack of attention to managerial behaviours and skills in
complex projects. Earlier research in complex projects has shown that managerial skills
and competencies can be trained (Clark, 2010; Rezvani et al., 2016). To cope with
managerial barriers in complex projects, organisations should introduce training
approaches that increase managerial competency and skills in project leaders and
managers.
Contractual barriers arise when stakeholders pursue self-interested goals in initiating
contracts and there are an inadequate and ineffective coordination and lack of information
sharing among the parties (Alshawi et al., 2012; Anthopoulos et al., 2016; Long et al.,
2004). As Table 4.1 demonstrates, of the two contract-related barriers that were identified
in this category the most frequently cited in the literature was a contractual dispute. This
highlights that in complex projects many contractors and sub-contractors are involved,
resulting in complex relationships between parties. Such intricate relationships often
cause deficiencies in contractual agreements. These barriers can be overcome by ensuring
transparency in defining goals and clarity of contractual agreements. Kent and Becerik-
Gerber (2010) assert that as a backup plan, project-based organizations can buy insurance
against the risk of either party breaching the contract. Through such contractual
arrangements both parties can secure their interests. However, it is important to note that
complex projects often have ambitious and ambiguous goals and a very long time horizon,
thus these recommendations are difficult to implement in practice (Rezvani et al., 2016).
A more realistic strategy is to employ a strong contractual agreement based on shared risk
and reward arrangements, such as a policy of “sink or swim together” (Kent & Becerik-
Gerber, 2010). A good example of contractual success through shared risk and reward is
the London Heathrow Terminal 5 project, where both parties agreed on mutual risk and
gain sharing; all stakeholders in the project, including project partners and contractors,
97
worked collaboratively and responded to emergent, unforeseen problems in real-time, a
risk budget was maintained and remaining profits were shared (Kardes et al., 2013). The
project was finished on time and within the budget of £4.2 billion in 2008.
Project team barriers refer to conflict, lack of trust among team members and lack of
teamwork experiences. These barriers produce management pressures and exacerbate
conflict and instability within the team (Rose & Schlichter, 2013; Yetton et al., 2000). As
shown in Table 4.1, of the five project team barriers that reduce the chance of success in
complex projects, instability, and conflict in project teams are the most frequently
identified factors in the literature. Project team barriers can be softened through applying
effective approaches to conflict management, focused on transparency and open
discussion of any differences between project teams, and joint problem-solving.
Researchers have advocated that effective conflict management increases mutual trust and
allows teams to successfully resolve their disagreements and develop team cohesion
(Somech et al., 2009). Strong intergroup leadership to enact a shared group identity is also
critical to decreasing conflict and instability in project teams (Hogg, Van Knippenberg &
Rast, 2012).
Project design and implementation barriers refer to the lack of detailed specification of
the implementation process (Patanakul, 2014). As Table 4.1 shows, among the six project
design and implementation factors two – redesign/rework/changing project requirements
and poor project planning – are the most frequently cited. While this may highlight the
lack of clear initial requirements it also reflects the nature of complex projects, which
includes ambiguous project goals, a long-time horizon, and complex relationships. It has
been argued that without a clear project design and documented requirements there is a
high possibility of new requirements being added to the project and existing requirements
being discarded (Patanakul, 2014), undermining the chance of project success (Hall et al.,
2012; Thamhain, 2013). Large projects cannot be completed without detailed planning
from the start as the complexity is very high, which in turn may influence their
development (Janssen et al. 2015). In order to overcome project design and
implementation barriers one solution would be to start out with a sufficient front-end plan
that accounts for likely changes in the project direction, or changes in technology and the
legal environment, since most complex projects have little flexibility after initiation due
98
to their high degree of regulation. Studies have highlighted that projects with better initial
design processes show a higher success rate than those with insufficient front-end plans
(Davies & Mackenzie, 2014). Investment in the early stages of the project can help to
maintain the schedule and improve quality. Therefore, cost reduction is secured and better
outcomes are achieved (Davies & Mackenzie, 2014).
Political/legal barriers relate to government or political intervention, which interferes
with or prevents business transactions, or changes in the terms of agreements in the project
planning phase (Alshawi et al., 2012). These barriers arise from the actions of local as
well as national governments due to the uncertainty from possible changes in the policies
of regulatory bodies, which may affect project costs and revenue (Thamhain, 2013). These
changes include the levels of local and national taxation, limitations on the import and
export of foreign and local currencies, and changes in the levels of customs duties on
imported equipment and supplies (Yau & Yang, 2012). As Table 4.1 shows, among the
five political/legal barriers in complex projects, governmental processes and
undervaluation/changing of regulation are the most frequently identified factors in the
literature. To cope with political/legal barriers one solution would be to co-operate and
maintain good relationships with local government departments by preparing all
necessary documents and feasibility reports in a timely manner (Alshawi et al., 2012). It
is also important to obtain support from foreign firms’ home governments and
international monetary institutions, such as the World Bank, against expropriation by
local government or its agencies. In addition, forming a cooperative joint venture with
local partners, especially the central-local government agencies or state-owned companies
is also vital (Yau & Yang, 2012). It is also very important to carefully study the differential
taxation laws and find legal and reasonable measures to reduce taxes (Locatelli &
Mancini, 2012).
Financial barriers refer to the lack of money, funding, and resources for complex projects
(Alshawi et al., 2012). As Table 4.1 identifies, price increments and unavailability of
resources are the most cited factors among the four financial barriers in complex projects.
These barriers can be easier to overcome for complex projects funded by the government,
given it has the resources and experience to deal with financial barriers (Alshawi et al.,
2012). In particular, the government has the legal power to ensure that the required
99
resources are obtained (Bing et al., 2005). Other dominant sources of project financing
are the World Bank and other aid agencies. A good example is the “land acquisition” of
the YD2nd Tunnel in Shanghai, China, where the local authority took responsibility for
providing financial support (Bing et al., 2005).
Technical barriers refer to the lack of relevant knowledge and experience of the technical
aspects of the project and expertise that can lead to several problems and inefficiencies in
developing projects, increasing the risk of failure (Yetton et al., 2000). As Table 4.1
shows, among the seven technical barriers in complex projects, system complexity,
technical difficulties and the newness of the project are the most frequently mentioned
factors. To cope with technical barriers in complex projects, managers, project managers,
and project teams should possess the necessary skills and knowledge to use the newly
implemented technology (Brookes & Locatelli, 2015). According to Hartmann et al.
(2009), technical knowledge enables the use of correct working methods to competently
handle machinery and equipment. In this domain, training plays an important role to
ensure the new technology is used efficiently and to reduce resistance to change.
100
Table 4.1 Barrier Factors
Barrier Categories
Lec
h (
2013
)
Als
haw
i et
al.
(201
2)
Pat
anak
ul
(20
14
)
Hal
l et
al.
(2
012
)
Ro
se &
Sch
lich
ter
(20
13
)
Yet
ton
et
al. (2
000
)
Lo
cate
lli
& M
anci
ni
(201
2)
Hu
i, e
t al
. (2
008
)
Rob
inso
n F
ayek
et
al.
(200
6)
Dim
itri
ou
et
al.
(2013
)
Yau
& Y
ang (
20
12
)
Too
r &
Og
unla
na
(2009
b)
Tai
et
al.
(2009
)
Th
amhai
n (
201
3)
Lin
g &
Lau
(20
02
)
Fly
vbje
rg (
2008
)
Van
Mar
rew
ijk
et
al.
(200
8)
Ko
pp
enja
n e
t al
. (2
011
)
Liu
et
al. (2
016
)
Lon
g e
t al
. (2
004
)
Bro
okes
&L
oca
tell
i (2
015
)
Gie
zen (
20
12
)
Han
et
al.
(200
9)
An
thopo
ulo
s et
al.
(20
16
)
Sh
enhar
et
al. (2
016
)
Ak
ker
man
s &
van
Oo
rsch
ot
(201
6)
Jan
ssen
et
al.
(20
15
)
Dav
ies
& M
ack
enzi
e (2
014
)
Nu
mber
of
refe
ren
ces
1- Organizational Poor communication/relationship
with stakeholders 8
Lack of organizational structure 1 Lack of uniform standards for
information 1
Lack of access to relevant
information 1
Changing organizational
priorities 1
Disproportionate focus on policy
setting 1
Excessive and misplaced trust in
commercial partners 1
Use of unproven vendors 1 Change management 1 Outsourcing structures where
owner firms do not maintain high
levels of dominance over the
activities
1
2- Managerial Lack of competent and effective
leader 3
Poor risk management 2 Poor project control 2 Lack of management
commitment 1
101
Table 4.1 – continued Barrier Factors
Barrier Categories
Lec
h (
2013
)
Als
haw
i et
al.
(201
2)
Pat
anak
ul
(20
14
)
Hal
l et
al.
(2
012
)
Ro
se &
Sch
lich
ter
(20
13
)
Yet
ton
et
al. (2
000
)
Lo
cate
lli
& M
anci
ni
(201
2)
Hu
i, e
t al
. (2
008
)
Rob
inso
n F
ayek
et
al.
(200
6)
Dim
itri
ou
et
al.
(2013
)
Yau
& Y
ang (
20
12
)
Too
r &
Og
unla
na
(2009
b)
Tai
et
al.
(2009
)
Th
amhai
n (
201
3)
Lin
g &
Lau
(20
02
)
Fly
vbje
rg (
2008
)
Van
Mar
rew
ijk
et
al.
(200
8)
Ko
pp
enja
n e
t al
. (2
011
)
Liu
et
al. (2
016
)
Lon
g e
t al
. (2
004
)
Bro
okes
& L
oca
tell
i (2
01
5)
Gie
zen (
20
12
)
Han
et
al.
(200
9)
An
thopo
ulo
s et
al.
(20
16
)
Sh
enhar
et
al. (2
016
)
Ak
ker
man
s &
van
Oo
rsch
ot
(201
6)
Jan
ssen
et
al.
(20
15
)
Dav
ies
& M
ack
enzi
e (2
014
)
Nu
mber
of
refe
ren
ces
Wrongful use of power 1 3- Contractual
Contractual disputes 2 Complexity in managing
contract 1
4- Project team Instability of project team 3 Conflict in project team 2 Lack of trust to team members 1 Unqualified engineers 1 Lack of team work experiences 1
5- Project design and
implementation
Poor planning/ unclear initial
requirements 9
Redesign / Rework / Changing
project requirements 8
Ineffective response plan 1 Inaccuracy of project
information 1
Inadequate business process
model 1
Inadequate security measures for
the eventual operation of the
scheme
1
Table 4.1 – continued Barrier Factors
102
Barrier Categories
Lec
h (
2013
)
Als
haw
i et
al.
(201
2)
Pat
anak
ul
(20
14
)
Hal
l et
al.
(2
012
)
Ro
se &
Sch
lich
ter
(20
13
)
Yet
ton
et
al. (2
000
)
Lo
cate
lli
& M
anci
ni
(201
2)
Hu
i, e
t al
. (2
008
)
Rob
inso
n F
ayek
et
al.
(200
6)
Dim
itri
ou
et
al.
(2013
)
Yau
&Y
ang
(2
012
)
Too
r &
Og
unla
na
(2009
b)
Tai
et
al.
(2009
)
Th
amhai
n (
201
3)
Lin
g &
Lau
(20
02
)
Fly
vbje
rg (
2008
)
Van
Mar
rew
ijk
et
al.
(200
8)
Ko
pp
enja
n e
t al
. (2
011
)
Liu
et
al. (2
016
)
Lon
g e
t al
. (2
004
)
Bro
okes
& L
oca
tell
i (2
01
5)
Gie
zen (
20
12
)
Han
et
al.
(200
9)
An
thopo
ulo
s et
al.
(20
16
)
Sh
enhar
et
al. (2
016
)
Ak
ker
man
s &
van
Oo
rsch
ot
(201
6)
Jan
ssen
et
al.
(20
15
)
Dav
ies
& M
ack
enzi
e (2
014
)
Nu
mber
of
refe
ren
ces
6- Political/Legal
Governmental processes 2 Undervaluation / changing of
regulation requirements 2
Lack of coordination with local
governments 1
Political intervention 1 Lack of political antennae 1
7- Financial
Price increments 2 Unavailability of resources 2 Changing market or customer
needs 1
Difficulty in land acquisition or
site availability 1
8- Technical
Technical difficulties 2 System complexity 2 Newness of the project 2 Inappropriate scheduling tools 1 Technology change 1 Incorrect installations 1 Software delay 1
103
Discussion and Recommendations
This study was designed to conduct a systematic literature review in order to develop a
comprehensive list of barriers to success in complex projects and to provide
recommendations to overcome these barriers. In order to achieve this aim, this review
consolidated the literature on complex project settings from over the past 16 years.
To answer the research question, this review integrated extant literature, proposed
categories of barriers impacting the successful delivery of complex projects and provided
some specific guidelines to manage these barriers in the context of complex projects. This
systematic identification and classification of complex project barriers fills an existing
gap in the project management literature and, from a practice perspective, assists in more
effectively distributing limited resources, such as budget, time and manpower (Kardes et
al., 2013; Toor & Ogunlana, 2010). As shown in Table 4.1, most of the barrier factors
were categorized under organizational, managerial, project design and implementation,
political/legal, and project contract. The remaining were categorized as either financial or
technical barrier. This indicates that technical and financial barriers are not the only
crucial factors that undermine the successful delivery of complex projects. When it comes
to complex project management, factors such as ineffective communication with internal
and external stakeholders, project team instability and incompetent leaders can jeopardize
the project’s success. It would be worth considering these factors in more detail before
the complex project is implemented in order to provide a useful guide to potential barriers
that undermine high performance in complex projects. This could also provide additional
insight into why achieving success in complex projects is so difficult for some
organizations but not for others.
From the bibliometric analysis point of view, the number of academic references in the
area of complex projects has increased in recent years, which is most likely due to the
increase in infrastructure needs in developed and developing countries. Despite the
significant cost overruns, revenue shortfalls and remarkably poor performance records in
terms of economic and public domains, complex projects continue to be initiated in large
104
numbers around the world (Flyvbjerg et al., 2003). As reported in Figure 4.1, most of the
research on complex projects is based on data from developed countries. It may be
worthwhile examining complex projects by specifically focusing on the context of
developing countries to account for the nature and structure of the local industry; that is,
how they differ from developed countries in terms of challenges, requirements or
management styles, or what unique characteristics or specific challenges arise due to
infrastructure, local cultural values or language barriers.
Practical Implications
The categorization of barrier factors provides a comprehensive list of barrier factors in
complex projects. There are also multiple benefits of using the comprehensive list of
barrier factors for practitioners. First of all, this systematic review offers practitioners a
more comprehensive understanding of the potential barriers to success in managing
complex projects so that they might proactively address those barriers prior to problems
emerging, and effectively acquire and preserve the capabilities that are needed to perform
well in a dynamic, uncertain and constantly changing the environment. This review
suggests that, given the complexity and dynamics of complex projects, all stakeholders
who are involved in complex projects should have an understanding of the different
factors that impede the success of complex projects in order to implement proper
strategies from the initial project stages (van Marrewijk et al., 2008). Second, an
integrated list of barriers to success in complex projects could help organizations to
effectively distribute limited resources, such as budget, time and manpower (Toor &
Ogunlana, 2010). Third, by increasing awareness of various barriers, managers may be
able to proactively respond to unexpected problems before they pose a significant threat.
Proactive responses could significantly enhance project efficiency and increase the chance
of success (Kardes et al., 2013). Finally, this review provides a guideline for adopting
relevant strategies by investigating several practical solutions for coping with barriers in
complex projects.
105
References
Adoko, M. T., Mazzuchi, T. A., & Sarkani, S. (2015). Developing a cost overrun
predictive model for complex systems development projects. Project Management
Journal, 46(6), 111-125.
Ahern, T., Leavy, B., & Byrne, P. J. (2014). Complex project management as complex
problem solving: A distributed knowledge management perspective. International
Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1371-1381.
Akkermans, H., & van Oorschot, K. E. (2016). Pilot Error? Managerial decision biases as
an explanation for disruptions in aircraft development. Project Management
Journal, 47(2), 79-102.
Alshawi, M., Goulding, J., Al Nahyan, M. T., Sohal, A. S., Fildes, B. N., & Hawas, Y. E.
(2012). Transportation infrastructure development in the UAE: Stakeholder
perspectives on management practice. Construction Innovation, 12(4), 492-514.
Anthopoulos, L., Reddick, C. G., Giannakidou, I., & Mavridis, N. (2016). Why e-
government projects fail? An analysis of the Healthcare.gov website. Government
Information Quarterly, 33(1), 161-173.
Art Gowan Jr, J., & Mathieu, R. G. (2005). The importance of management practices in
IS project performance: An empirical study. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 18(2), 235-255.
Bing, L., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P. J., & Hardcastle, C. (2005). The allocation of risk in
PPP/PFI construction projects in the UK. International Journal of project
management, 23(1), 25-35.
Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Jongkind, Y., Mooi, H., Bakker, H., & Verbraeck, A. (2011).
Grasping project complexity in large engineering projects: The TOE (Technical,
Organizational and Environmental) framework. International Journal of Project
Management, 29(6), 728-739. Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2014). Managing structural and dynamic complexity: A tale of
two projects. Project Management Journal, 45(4), 21-38.
Brookes, N. J., & Locatelli, G. (2015). Power plants as megaprojects: Using empirics to
shape policy, planning, and construction management. Utilities Policy, 36, 57-66.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Chang, A., Chih, Y.-Y., Chew, E., & Pisarski, A. (2013). Reconceptualising mega project
success in Australian Defence: Recognising the importance of value co-creation.
International Journal of Project Management, 31(8), 1139-1153.
Chua, C. E. H., Lim, W.-K., Soh, C., & Sia, S. K. (2012). Enacting clan control in complex
IT projects: A social capital perspective. MIS Quarterly-Management Information
Systems, 36(2), 577.
106
Clarke, N. (2010). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to transformational
leadership and key project manager competences. Project Management
Journal, 41(2), 5-20.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” success factors in projects. International Journal of
Project Management 20 (3), 185–190.
Davis, K. (2014). Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success.
International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 189-201.
Davies, A., & Mackenzie, I. (2014). Project complexity and systems integration:
Constructing the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games. International
Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 773-790.
Dimitriou, H. T., Ward, E. J., & Wright, P. G. (2013). Mega transport projects—Beyond
the ‘iron triangle’: Findings from the OMEGA research programme. Progress in
Planning, 86(3), 1-43.
Dvir, D., Ben-David, A., Sadeh, A., & Shenhar, A. J. (2006). Critical managerial factors
affecting defence projects success: A comparison between neural network and
regression analysis. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 19(5),
535-543.
Ferratt, T. W., Ahire, S., & De, P. (2006). Achieving success in large projects:
Implications from a study of ERP implementations. Interfaces, 36(5), 458-469.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview.
Project Management Journal, 45(2), 6-19.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2008). Curbing optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation in planning:
Reference class forecasting in practice. European Planning Studies, 16(1), 3-21.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: An
anatomy of ambition. Cambridge University Press, UK.
Flyvbjerg, B., Stewart, A., & Budzier, A. (2016). The Oxford Olympics Study 2016: Cost
and Cost Overrun at the Games. Said Business School WP 2016-20. Available at
SSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2804554
GAPPS, 2007. A framework for performance based competency standards for global level
1 and 2 project managers. Global Alliance for Project Performance Standards.
Giezen, M. (2012). Keeping it simple? A case study into the advantages and disadvantages
of reducing complexity in mega project planning. International Journal of Project
Management, 30(7), 781-790.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis. Sage,
London, UK.
Hall, M., Kutsch, E., & Partington, D. (2012). Removing the cultural and managerial
barriers in project to project learning: A case from the UK public sector. Public
Administration, 90(3), 664-684.
107
Han, S. H., Yun, S., Kim, H., Kwak, Y. H., Park, H. K., & Lee, S. H. (2009). Analyzing
schedule delay of mega project: Lessons learned from Korea train express. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 56(2), 243-256.
Hartmann, A., Ling, F. Y. Y., & Tan, J. S. (2009). Relative importance of subcontractor
selection criteria: Evidence from Singapore. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 135(9), 826-832.
Hogg, M.A., Van Knippenberg, D. & Rast, D.E. (2012). Intergroup leadership in
organizations: Leading across group and organizational boundaries. Academy of
Management Review, 37(2), 232-255.
Hui, P. P., Davis‐Blake, A., & Broschak, J. P. (2008). Managing interdependence: The
effects of outsourcing structure on the performance of complex projects. Decision
Sciences, 39(1), 5-31.
Hyväri, I. (2006). Success of projects in different organizational conditions. Project
Management Journal, 37(4), 31–42.
Ika, L. (2009). Project success as a topic in project management journals. Project
Management Journal, 40(4), 6–19.
Janssen, M., Van Der Voort, H., & van Veenstra, A. F. (2015). Failure of large
transformation project from the viewpoint of complex adaptive systems:
Management principles for dealing with project dynamics. Information Systems
Frontiers, 17(1), 15-29.
Jørgensen, M., & Moløkken-Østvold, K. (2006). How large are software cost overruns?
A review of the 1994 CHAOS report. Information and Software
Technology, 48(4), 297-301. Jugdev, K., & Müller, R. (2005). A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of
project success. Project Management Journal, 36(4), 19-31.
Kardes, I., Ozturk, A., Cavusgil, S. T., & Cavusgil, E. (2013). Managing global
megaprojects: Complexity and risk management. International Business Review,
22(6), 905-917.
Karlsen, J. T., Andersen, J., Birkely, L. S., & Ødegård, E. (2005). What characterizes
successful IT projects. International Journal of Information Technology &
Decision Making, 4(4), 525-540.
Kent, D. C., & Becerik-Gerber, B. (2010). Understanding construction industry
experience and attitudes toward integrated project delivery. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 136(8), 815-825.
Koppenjan, J., Veeneman, W., Van der Voort, H., Ten Heuvelhof, E., & Leijten, M.
(2011). Competing management approaches in large engineering projects: The
Dutch RandstadRail project. International Journal of Project Management, 29(6),
740-750.
108
Kwak, Y. H., & Smith, B. M. (2009). Managing risks in mega defence acquisition
projects: Performance, policy, and opportunities. International Journal of Project
Management, 27(8), 812-820.
Lech, P. (2013). Time, budget, and functionality?—IT project success criteria revised.
Information Systems Management, 30(3), 263-275.
Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. J. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature
review in support of information systems research. Informing Science:
International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 9(1), 181-212.
Ling, Y., & Lau, B. (2002). A case study on the management of the development of a
large-scale power plant project in East Asia based on design-build arrangement.
International Journal of Project Management, 20(6), 413-423.
Liu, L., & Leitner, D. (2012). Simultaneous pursuit of innovation and efficiency in
complex engineering projects—A study of the antecedents and impacts of
ambidexterity in project teams. Project Management Journal, 43(6), 97-110.
Liu, S., & Wang, L. (2016). Influence of managerial control on performance in medical
information system projects: The moderating role of organizational environment
and team risks. International Journal of Project Management, 34(1), 102-116.
Liu, Z.-z., Zhu, Z.-w., Wang, H.-j., & Huang, J. (2016). Handling social risks in
government-driven mega project: An empirical case study from West China.
International Journal of Project Management, 34(2), 202-218.
Locatelli, G., & Mancini, M. (2012). Looking back to see the future: Building nuclear
power plants in Europe. Construction Management and Economics, 30(8), 623-
637.
Locatelli, G., Mancini, M., & Romano, E. (2014). Systems engineering to improve the
governance in complex project environments. International Journal of Project
Management, 32(8), 1395-1410.
Long, N. D., Ogunlana, S., Quang, T., & Lam, K. C. (2004). Large construction projects
in developing countries: A case study from Vietnam. International Journal of
Project Management, 22(7), 553-561.
Lyneis, J. M., Cooper, K. G., & Els, S. A. (2001). Strategic management of complex
projects: A case study using system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 17(3),
237-260.
Mazur, A., Pisarski, A., Chang, A., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2014). Rating defence major
project success: The role of personal attributes and stakeholder relationships.
International Journal of Project Management, 32(6), 944-957.
McGillivray, S., Greenberg, A., Fraser, L., & Cheung, O. (2009). Key factors for
consortial success: Realizing a shared vision for interlibrary loan in a consortium
of Canadian libraries. Interlending & Document Supply, 37(1), 11-19.
109
Mok, K. Y., Shen, G. Q., & Yang, J. (2015). Stakeholder management studies in mega
construction projects: A review and future directions. International Journal of
Project Management, 33(2), 446-457.
Molloy, E., & Chetty, T. (2015). The rocky road to legacy: Lessons from the 2010 FIFA
World Cup South Africa stadium program. Project Management Journal, 46(3),
88-107.
Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy of
management review, 5(4), 491-500.
Müller, R., & Jugdev, K. (2012). Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin, and
Prescott-The elucidation of project success. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, 5(4), 757-775.
Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2007). The influence of project managers on project success
criteria and project success by type of project. European Management Journal,
25(4), 298-309.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Sage, London, UK.
Ogunlana, S. O. (2008). Critical COMs of success in large-scale construction projects:
Evidence from Thailand construction industry. International Journal of Project
Management, 26(4), 420-430.
Patanakul, P. (2014). Managing large-scale IS/IT projects in the public sector: Problems
and causes leading to poor performance. The Journal of High Technology
Management Research, 25(1), 21-35.
Pemsel, S., & Wiewiora, A. (2013). Project management office a knowledge broker in
project-based organisations. International Journal of Project Management, 31(1),
31.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1987). Critical factors in successful project implementation.
Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions, 1(2), 22-27.
Remington, K., & Pollack, J. (2007). Tools for complex projects. Gower Publishing, Ltd,
Hampshire.
Rezvani, A., Chang, A., Wiewiora, A., Ashkanasy, N. M., Jordan, P. J., & Zolin, R.
(2016). Manager emotional intelligence and project success: The mediating role
of job satisfaction and trust. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7),
1112-1122.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative Research
Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Sage, London,
UK.
Robinson Fayek, A., Revay, S. O., Rowan, D., & Mousseau, D. (2006). Assessing
performance trends on industrial construction mega projects. Cost Engineering,
48(10), 16-21.
Robinson, C. (2002). Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and
Practitioner-Researchers (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
110
Rose, J., & Schlichter, B. R. (2013). Decoupling, re-engaging: Managing trust
relationships in implementation projects. Information Systems Journal, 23(1), 5-
33.
Sauer, C., Gemino, A., & Reich, B. H. (2007). The impact of size and volatility on IT
project performance. Communications of the ACM, 50(11), 79-84.
Savolainen, P., Ahonen, J. J., & Richardson, I. (2012). Software development project
success and failure from the supplier's perspective: A systematic literature
review. International Journal of Project Management, 30(4), 458-469.
Dvir, D., Ben-David, A., Sadeh, A., & Shenhar, A. J. (2006). Critical managerial factors
affecting defense projects success: A comparison between neural network and
regression analysis. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 19(5),
535-543.
Shenhar, A. J., Holzmann, V., Melamed, B., & Zhao, Y. (2016). The challenge of
innovation in highly complex projects: What can we learn from boeing's
dreamliner experience? Project Management Journal, 47(2), 62-78.
Slywotzky, A., & Wise, R. (2003). The dangers of product-driven success: What's the
next growth act? Journal of Business Strategy, 24(2), 16-25.
Söderlund, J., & Lenfle, S. (2013). Making project history: Revisiting the past, creating
the future. International Journal of Project Management, 31(5), 653-662.
Somech, A., Desivilya, H. S., & Lidogoster, H. (2009). Team conflict management and
team effectiveness: The effects of task interdependence and team identification.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 359-378.
Tai, S., Wang, Y., & Anumba, C. (2009). A survey on communications in large-scale
construction projects in China. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 16(2), 136-149.
Thamhain, H. (2013). Managing risks in complex projects. Project Management Journal,
44(2), 20-35.
Toor, S.-u.-R., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2009a). Construction professionals' perception of
critical success factors for large-scale construction projects. Construction
Innovation, 9(2), 149-167.
Toor, S.-u.-R., & Ogunlana, S. (2009b). Ineffective leadership: Investigating the negative
attributes of leaders and organizational neutralizers. Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, 16(3), 254-272.
Toor, S.-u.-R., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2010). Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder
perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector
development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28(3), 228-
236.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing
evidence informed management knowledge by means of systematic
review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222.
111
Turner, R., & Zolin, R. (2012). Forecasting success on large projects: Developing reliable
scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time
frames. Project Management Journal, 43(5), 87-99.
Van Marrewijk, A., Clegg, S. R., Pitsis, T. S., & Veenswijk, M. (2008). Managing public–
private megaprojects: Paradoxes, complexity, and project design. International
Journal of Project Management, 26(6), 591-600.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Williams, T. (2016). Identifying success factors in construction projects: A case study.
Project Management Journal, 47(1), 97-112
Whitty, S. J., & Maylor, H. (2009). And then came complex project management
(revised). International Journal of Project Management, 27(3), 304-310.
Yang, J., Shen, G. Q., Ho, M., Drew, D. S., & Xue, X. (2011). Stakeholder management
in construction: An empirical study to address research gaps in previous
studies. International Journal of Project Management, 29(7), 900-910.
Yau, N.-J., & Yang, J.-B. (2012). Factors causing design schedule delays in turnkey
projects in Taiwan: An empirical study of power distribution substation projects.
Project Management Journal, 43(3), 50-61.
Yetton, P., Martin, A., Sharma, R., & Johnston, K. (2000). A model of information
systems development project performance. Information Systems Journal, 10(4),
263-289.
Zhang, L., & Fan, W. (2013). Improving performance of construction projects: A project
manager's emotional intelligence approach. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 20(2), 195-207.
112
Study 3
Manager Emotional Intelligence and Project Success: The Mediating
Role of Job Satisfaction and Trust
Abstract
The number of complex projects is increasing across many sectors and the associated
challenges are substantial. Using a field study, this paper aims to understand how project
managers’ emotional intelligence (EI) contributes to project success. This paper proposes
and test a model linking EI to project success and examine the mediating effects of project
managers’ job satisfaction and trust on this relationship. Based on data collected from 373
project managers in the Australian defence industry, results indicated that EI had a
positive impact on project success, job satisfaction, and trust. Moreover, result shows that
job satisfaction and trust mediated the relationship between EI and project success.
Findings from this study, suggested that top management should be aware of the
importance of project managers’ job satisfaction and trust, which can both serve to boost
project success in complex project situations.
Keywords: Complex project, project success, emotional intelligence, trust, work
attitudes and job satisfaction
113
Introduction
The globalisation and rapid growth of industry has increased the number of complex
projects across many sectors, including defence, infrastructure, and aerospace. The
challenges associated with these projects are substantial. Indeed, almost every complex
project is seemingly a “first of its kind” (Sauser, Reilly, & Shenhar, 2009), intended to
deliver new capacities and/or complex infrastructures. These projects tend to be
characterised by large budgets and issues associated with complex systems, such as
nonlinearity, irregularity, and uncertainty. Moreover, such complex projects typically
attract strong public attention and political interest as a result of substantial social,
environmental, national, and even international implications being associated with the
success and failure of such enterprises (Whitty & Maylor, 2009).
The performance of these large, complex projects is often disappointing. Many complex
projects experience substantial cost overruns and delays in completion, and fail to deliver
their objectives (Chang, Chih, Chew, & Pisarski, 2013; Eden, Williams, & Ackermann,
2005; Williams & Samset, 2010). For example, the FIFA World Cup 2014 project budget
increased from the originally estimated €1 billion to €11 billion. Such failures in complex
projects are not unique to sport events. The construction of Denver International Airport
exceeded the original budget by 200% and was delivered 16 months over schedule
(Flyvbjerg, 2005). Clearly, any research that seeks to improve the record of
accomplishment in complex projects merits attention.
Researchers including Dvir, Ben-David, Sadeh, and Shenhar (2006) and Sauser et al.
(2009) have found that challenges in complex projects are primarily associated with
managerial, rather than technical issues. In this regard, project management skills and
leadership skills may be the most critical determinants of successful project outcomes
(Kaulio, 2008; Müller, Geraldi, & Turner, 2012). In developing our central arguments, we
note the role of emotion has been highlighted recently as being a central factor in how
successful leaders manage on a day-to-day basis (Jordan & Lindebaum, 2015). In order
to incorporate emotions as an element in our research we draw on the principles of
Affective Events Theory (AET; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) in developing a testable
114
model of this process. Within the AET model, events at work result in employee affective
reactions that, in turn, determine their subsequent work attitudes and behaviours. As
Ashkanasy (2002) has pointed out, the underlying principles of AET enable us to
understand the cause and consequence of emotional experience on employee work
attitudes and behaviour. In our study we extend this to consider how emotion plays a role
in the leadership of complex projects.
Leadership is a crucial part of managing complex projects, impacting directly on
successful project outcomes (Shenhar et al., 2002). In this research we specifically focus
on leaders’ managerial skills and in particular the effect of project managers’ emotional
intelligence (EI), defined by Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2004) as the ability to be aware
of, to utilise, to understand, and to manage emotions in self and others. We justify this
approach in the context of project management on the basis of research by Clarke (2010)
and Müller and Turner (2007), who identified EI as a key ingredient of effective complex
project leadership (see also, Sunindijo, Hadikusumo, & Ogunlana, 2007; Thomas &
Mengel, 2008). In more recent research, Mazur, Pisarski, Chang, and Ashkanasy (2014)
have argued specifically that high EI project managers are able to solve new challenges
and problems as well as to better communicate with their peers.
Although EI has been offered as a solution to resolving some complex project
management issues, the underlying mechanisms influencing the EI–project success
relationship remain unknown. In this regard, Müller and Jugdev (2012) have suggested
that if we are to understand the factors that underlie the success of project outcomes then
there is a need for researchers to explore variables that potentially mediate between project
manager characteristics (such as EI) and project success.
In particular, in accordance with the principles underlying AET, we argue that job
satisfaction and trust resulting from affective experiences may mediate the relationship
between EI and project manager behaviours. We argue that emotionally intelligent project
managers should be more likely to be satisfied with their jobs and to trust in others (Sy,
Tram, & O’Hara, 2006). Subsequently, we consider that higher levels of trust and job
satisfaction will, in turn, lead to higher levels of project success in terms of high quality
communication, effective troubleshooting, mission clarity, and top management support
115
(Mazur et al., 2014). In this regard, Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and Patton (2001), Pheng and
Chuan (2006), and Thompson (2008) found positive relationships between job
satisfaction, trust, and project success. We also note that Güleryüz, Güney, Aydın, and
Aşan (2008), Sy et al. (2006), and Wong and Law (2002) found that EI is an antecedent
to job satisfaction and trust. In our study we extend these findings in an examination of
variables in a field-based study within a complex project management organisation. A
review of the literature reveals no studies that have tested the mediating relationships
linking these variables in the context of a complex project management organisation.
We argue that our study contributes to theory and practice in three ways. First, we develop
and empirically test a model of the impact of EI on a sample of managers working on
large and complex defence projects. Second, we explore potential mechanisms by which
an emotionally intelligent project manager may contribute to project success factors.
Third, we add to an increasing body of literature on the emotional, attitudinal, and
behavioural implications of EI in complex project management organisations.
Critical Variables
The critical variables in our study are project managers’: ratings of project success factors,
EI, job satisfaction, and trust in others. In the following section we introduce these four
variables and then describe our study model and hypotheses.
Project success
Although defining project success in complex projects – where timeframes for completion
are long and the size of the projects are substantial – remains a challenging issue (Toor &
Ogunlana, 2010; Wang & Huang, 2006), project management scholars generally agree on
two components that define project success: success criteria and critical success factors
(Müller & Jugdev, 2012; Turner & Zolin, 2012). Success criteria focus on objective
measures, such as completion timeliness, quality, and cost (Pinto & Slevin, 1987). Such
objective criteria, however, have been criticised, especially in the context of defining
complex project success. This is because they tend to draw on overly simplistic constructs
which do not mirror the experience in large, complex projects (Toor & Ogunlana, 2010).
Moreover, as Jugdev and Müller (2005) have pointed out, such criteria fail to address
116
broader factors that can be considered as success factors, such as behavioural skills or
strategic management objective criteria.
Critical success factors, on the other hand, focus on “soft” issues, such as behavioural
skills of project teams as well as customer and stakeholder satisfaction, and therefore
represent a more realistic progressive approach to assessing project success (Jugdev &
Müller, 2005; Pinto, 1990). Turner and Zolin (2012) have pointed out that success factors,
unlike impacts such as time, cost, and quality, can be measured prior to the end of the
project. Given the long timeframes for complex projects this type of measurement is
useful in assessing a project’s progress. We employ Pinto and Slevin’s (1987) approach,
which uses project managers’ ratings of “critical success factors”. These are the factors
that have been identified by Jugdev and Müller (2005) as the most widely recognised and
used measures of success factors.
Taking our lead from Mazur et al. (2014) and Procaccino, Verner, Shelfer, and Gefen
(2005), we focus on the four project success factors that are regarded as “people related”:
(a) effective communication with internal and external stakeholders, (b) troubleshooting
(i.e., unexpected complications and challenges are effectively managed as they occur in
crisis moments), (c) clear project mission, and (d) top management support (Pinto, 1990).
Researchers have consistently identified these four factors as the keys to project success.
For instance, Couillard (1995) identified communication and troubleshooting as
indicators of project success in high-risk and complex projects. In the same vein, Belout
and Gauvreau (2004) found that troubleshooting and clear project mission objectives
contribute to project success in the execution stage. More recently, Davis (2014) and
Mazur and her associates (2014) specifically identified these four factors as the best
indicators of progressive project success, especially in the context of complex project
management.
Communication refers to “the provision of an appropriate network and necessary data to
all key actors in the project” (Pinto & Slevin, 1989, p. 31). This represents the degree to
which project managers are able to communicate effectively with internal and external
stakeholders to ensure the best combination of skills and knowledge are available for the
117
project. Communication is an important managerial competency that influences project
success.
Troubleshooting refers to being able to “handle unexpected crises and deviations from the
plan” (Pinto & Slevin, 1989, p. 31). In complex projects, project managers are prone to
unexpected problems and challenges due to task interdependency and complexity (Pich,
Loch, & Meyer, 2002; Sun & Meng, 2009). These need to be addressed for the project to
be successful.
Mission clarity refers to “initial clarity of goals and general directions” (Pinto & Slevin,
1989, p. 31). Complex projects are characterised by high levels of complexity and
ambiguity (Dvir et al., 2006). Chang et al. (2013) have pointed out that in large and
complex defence projects it is not uncommon for projects to have vague goals, such as
“increase defence capability”, at the beginning of a long-term project. More specific goals
lead to greater project success.
Top management support refers to “willingness of top management to provide the
necessary resources and authority/power for project success” (Pinto & Slevin, 1989, p.
31). Mazur et al. (2014) have pointed out in particular that top management support is a
critical factor across all phases of project planning and execution.
Emotional intelligence
Salovey and Mayer (1990) define EI as an “ability to monitor one’s and others’ feelings
and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s
thinking and actions” (p. 189). Since it was first put forward, EI has been consistently
identified as a key set of managerial skills, which has a significant influence on how
managers interact with others. This is particularly the case in the context of high project
complexity (Caruso & Salovey, 2004; Clarke, 2010; Joseph & Newman, 2010; Müller &
Turner, 2010).
Based on the accumulating evidence that EI is related to managerial effectiveness
(O'Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011), it seems reasonable to conclude
that effective project management is not simply determined by technical or hard skills but
also by capabilities related to emotions (Fisher, 2011). In the specific context of project
management, research by Mazur and her colleagues (2014) and Müller and Turner (2007)
118
have demonstrated a link between EI as a personal attribute of managers and effectiveness
in the context of complex project management. In particular, the results of their research
(Mazur et al., 2014; Müller &Turner, 2007) tell us that a project manager’s ability to
understand and to regulate emotion in self and others produces high quality, effective
relationships with both internal and external stakeholders.
Job satisfaction
Brief (1998) defines job satisfaction as “an attitude toward one’s job” (p. 10). As such,
job satisfaction encompasses cognitive and affective components. Previous studies
(Locke, 1969; Weiss, 2002) have shown that both affective and cognitive components
contribute to overall attitude and behaviour.
Scholars have studied job satisfaction as both an independent and a dependent variable
(e.g., see Chen, Ployhart, Thomas, Anderson, & Bliese, 2011; Judge, Bono, Erez, &
Locke, 2005). Job satisfaction as an independent variable has been shown to be associated
with a variety of workplace behaviours such as project managers’ performance and
turnover intention, as well as project success (Bowling, 2007; Judge et al., 2001). For
example Parker and Skitmore (2005) found that job satisfaction is a significant predictor
of a project manager’s turnover intention. Moreover, Pheng and Chuan (2006) found that
a project manager’s performance is affected by job satisfaction, especially in complex
projects.
Trust
Our final variable is trust, which Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer (1998) define as “a
psychological state comprising of the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive
expectations of the intentions or behaviours of another” (p. 395). The key elements of this
definition are a willingness to accept vulnerability in the relationship and positive
expectations about another party under conditions of interdependence and risk (Lewicki,
Tomlinson, & Gillespie, 2006). Trust has been found to be a predictor of project
performance (Maurer, 2010) and project effectiveness (Diallo & Thuillier, 2005;
Kadefors, 2004; Lee-Kelley & Sankey, 2008; Park & Lee, 2014; Webber & Klimoski,
2004), stakeholder satisfaction (Bresnen & Marshall, 2000), creativity and problem
solving (Smyth, 2005), knowledge and information disclosure, and project success (Diallo
119
& Thuillier, 2005; Jung & Avolio, 2000; Smyth, Gustafsson, & Ganskau, 2010;
Wiewiora, Murphy, Trigunarsyah & Brown, 2014).
Model and Hypotheses Development
Conceptual framework
In Figure 5.1 we outline the model we propose for our study. In line with the principles
underlying AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), we have focused on the manner in which
an individual’s responses to affective experiences at work shape their work attitude and
behaviour.
According to Weiss and Cropanzano (1996), attitudes and behaviour at work are
influenced by the experience of emotions and feelings such as pride, enthusiasm, anger,
shame, guilt, fear, frustration, and envy. These emotions emerge from events that create
emotional reactions in the work environment. Research has shown that employees,
including organisational top management, experience emotions at work, and a number of
studies support the underlying assumptions of AET (Mignonac & Herrbach, 2004; Zhao,
Wayne, Glibkowski, & Bravo, 2007). For example, Ashton-James and Ashkanasy (2005)
argued that there is a strong bond between strategic decision-making processes and the
emotions that managers experience in response to workplace events. In the same vein,
Pirola-Merlo, Härtel, Mann, and Hirst (2002) used AET in a study of leadership to explain
the effect workplace events have on team affective climate and consequently on team
performance. Large, complex projects with large budgets are likely to have frequent
challenging events which, according to AET, could produce emotional reactions. These
reactions may result in both positive and negative emotions for the project managers, team
members, contractors, and stakeholders (Lindebaum & Jordan, 2014).
Although we do not set out to test AET per se, our model is based on the underlying
principles of AET that attitudes and behaviour at work are derived from emotional
reactions to events. Ashkanasy (2002) notes that EI plays a critical role in addressing
emotions at work insofar as emotion management abilities help individuals to perceive,
understand, and manage their own and other’s emotions. As such, EI should serve to shape
employees’ work attitudes and behaviours in a more positive direction, thus influencing
120
project success. In the present research we focus specifically on two job attitudes that
may enhance this relationship: job satisfaction and trust.
Figure 5.1. Conceptual framework.
Emotional intelligence and project success
Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) have pointed out that emotional experiences change over
time and that work behaviours also fluctuate depending on an employee’s flow of
emotional experience. In the work environment employees often experience positive or
negative emotions (Lindebaum & Jordan, 2014). Positive emotions, in general, are seen
to have a positive effect and to enable employees to perform better at work (Mayer,
Salovey, & Caruso, 2008; Sy et al., 2006; Wong & Law, 2002), while negative emotions
such as frustration, irritation, and anger can reduce enthusiasm which can contribute to a
decrease in performance (Fisher, 2003; McColl-Kennedy & Anderson, 2002; Von
Glinow, Shapiro, & Brett, 2004).
Emotionally intelligent project managers are more likely to experience and to express
their emotions positively (Peslak, 2005). This, in turn, is likely to increase the enthusiasm
of project managers, enabling them to communicate effectively towards their team
members and to facilitate creativity toward addressing challenging tasks (Carmeli, 2003).
Project managers with high EI should therefore be more motivated to have a positive
impact on their subordinates and to offer appropriate solutions to solve new problems and
challenges that a complex project brings (Mount, 2006).
121
Indeed, researchers (Clarke, 2010; Mazur et al., 2014; Müller & Turner, 2010) have
consistently found that EI is a prerequisite for project success. In particular, Müller and
Turner (2007, 2010) found direct evidence that EI increases the chance of project success,
especially in highly complex project environments. Thomas and Mengel (2008) found
that project managers who score high on EI have the ability to recover quickly from
negative emotions and stress in difficult situations. Clarke (2010) also reinforces the
importance of EI in project manager effectiveness. He reported that EI acts as an
underlying ability that determines the behavioural complexity of project managers in
complex project situations. Supporting these findings, Thomas and Mengel (2008) found
that a lack of EI results in frustration, stress, and low performance, especially where there
is scope for misunderstanding and tensions in complex project settings. Overall, these
studies provide compelling evidence for the significant role EI plays in determining
project success factors. We therefore hypothesise:
H1. Project managers’ EI is positively related to project success.
Emotional intelligence and work attitudes: Trust and job satisfaction
Organisational researchers (Barczak, Lassk, & Mulki, 2010; Christie, Jordan, & Troth,
2015; Kafetsios & Zampetakis, 2008; Sy et al., 2006) have also consistently reported that
EI significantly affects team members’ job satisfaction and trust in others. An explanation
for this might be found in the evidence that managers with high EI are better than their
low EI counterparts at managing the emotional fluctuations employees experience at work
and to facilitate positive emotions. Positive emotions have been linked to developing
better social relationships and building trust with others (Barczak et al., 2010; Christie et
al., 2015), but also in generating higher levels of job satisfaction compared to individuals
who experience emotions such as disappointment, depression, and anger (Jordan,
Lawrence, & Troth, 2006). In this regard, Dunn and Schweitzer (2005) found that positive
emotions increase trust in others, while negative emotions (such as anger) decrease trust.
In terms of negative emotions, Boden and Berenbaum (2007) found that lower levels of
emotional awareness are associated with higher levels of suspicion and frustration.
Since emotional awareness is a component of EI (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) we argue from
these findings that EI should also be related to team members’ perceptions of trust in
122
others. Finally, we also note that Sy et al. (2006) and Christie et al. (2015), who examined
the impact of EI on work attitudes and outcomes, also found that perceptions of job
satisfaction and trust are directly related to emotional skills. Thus, we next hypothesise:
H2. Project managers’ EI is positively related to (a) their job satisfaction and (b) their
trust in others.
Job satisfaction and project success
Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) argued that job satisfaction can increase both the
expectancy that an employee’s effort will lead to high performance and the belief that
sustained effort will lead to desirable behavioural outcomes. In an extension of this idea,
Fisher (2003) suggested that when employees are more satisfied with their job, their
motivation to contribute to the common interest of the context in which they perform their
work also increases. Thus, when project managers are satisfied they tend to seek out social
interactions, react more favourably to others, have greater involvement in activities, and
communicate more with their stakeholders because they are more likely to view such
interactions as rich and rewarding (Schaller & Cialdini, 1990). Moreover, as Cheung, Ng,
Wong, and Suen (2003) found, satisfied project managers are also more likely to
undertake more effective problem resolution (troubleshooting), and to set clear directions
and motivate team members to undertake new goals that they have not yet attained
(Maylor, Vidgen, & Carver, 2008).
Complementing this evidence, Fisher (2003) reported that low job satisfaction tends to
jeopardise project success. This is because managers who are not satisfied are less
motivated and consequently put in less effort to achieve project goals. Furthermore, low
job satisfaction leads to tasks being carried out less efficiently (Judge et al., 2001). Pheng
and Chuan (2006) found further that dissatisfied project managers have less interest in
communicating with project partners and are thus less able to align the strategies and
management with their firm’s objectives. Based on this evidence, we next hypothesise:
H3a. Project managers’ job satisfaction is positively related to project success.
123
Trust and project success
We argue that work attitudes (e.g., trust) shape the degree to which project managers rate
the success or otherwise of their projects. Trust facilitates interactions between project
managers and their team members by providing effective horizontal working relationships
between individuals, especially where there are uncertainties and ambiguities (as is likely
in a complex project). Under conditions of uncertainty and ambiguity, a manager’s trust
in the other party increases better communication, troubleshooting, and organisational
support (Diallo & Thuillier, 2005).
In the specific context of complex project management, communication and cooperation
between project managers and their team members become more critical than ever
(Cherns & Bryant, 1984; El-Sabaa, 2001; Turner & Müller, 2004). Such communication
and cooperative efforts in turn depend to a large degree upon trust. According to McEvily,
Perrone, and Zaheer (2003), belief in the other party is needed by managers to share risks
and to contribute resources to jointly develop and deliver the product or services that
project managers cannot provide on their own.
Conversely, a lack of trust by project managers towards team members can initiate
defensive behaviours and block the flow of information that constitutes effective
communication, cooperative relationships, and problem-solving tasks (Colquitt, Scott, &
LePine, 2007; Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Moe & Šmite, 2008). Atkinson, Crawford, and
Ward (2006) have shown further that lack of trust can lead to dysfunctional and
opportunistic team member behaviours. Such behaviours can result in the project
manager focussing on detecting signs of opportunism and poor performance, rather than
on positive factors likely to lead to project success. Thus, we now hypothesise:
H3b. There is a positive relationship between project managers’ trust in others and
project success.
The mediating role of job satisfaction and trust
In the foregoing discussion we sought to establish relationships between project
managers’ EI and two key work attitudes – job satisfaction and trust in others (H2) – and
the relationship between work attitudes and project success (H3). We now argue that,
124
based upon the principles underlying AET, job satisfaction and trust serve as the
attitudinal mediators through which EI contributes to project success.
The first mediating path (via job satisfaction) draws on the impact of EI on project
managers’ evaluative judgments or positive emotions regarding their job. We argue that
project managers who are emotionally intelligent and have high job satisfaction are more
likely to encourage effective communication, troubleshooting, and project mission clarity.
The second mediating path (trust) highlights trust of another party as a critical foundation
to increase project success. Emotionally intelligent managers are likely to know how their
team members are feeling or might feel in diverse circumstances and use this information
to promote content and productive relationships that lay the foundation for trust (Chun,
Litzky, Sosik, Bechtold, & Godshalk, 2010; Mayer et al., 2008). This, in turn, contributes
to the exchange of information, open communication, and facilitates the generation of
creative ideas in crises moments with the aim of increasing project success (Christie et
al., 2015). We therefore finally hypothesise:
H4. Project manager attitudes, namely (a) job satisfaction and (b) trust, mediate the
relationship between project managers’ EI and project success.
Method
Context
We collected the data for our study as members of a team examining leadership and
project effectiveness in an Australian defence organisation. The organisation has an
AU$5 billion operating budget for capital acquisition projects. Within this organisation
complex projects are characterised by high project management complexity, high levels
of technical complexity, difficult support and commercial arrangements, and a typical
lifecycle period of 12 years or more.
Procedure and sample
Our research model was empirically tested using an online survey. To collect our data we
asked the Human Resource Department to make our online survey available to 2500
employees in the organisation, and to invite them to complete the instrumentation. A total
of 1582 questionnaires were completed, including managerial (n= 780) and non-
125
managerial respondents, with an overall response rate of 63.2%. Our final data sample for
this study consisted of 373 valid responses from project managers. The aim of our research
was to investigate the work attitudes of project managers and therefore we excluded non-
managerial respondents from our study. Sixty-one of the 373 respondents were female
(16.4%) and 85% had a college or university degree.
Measures
We used published and validated measures of EI, job satisfaction, trust, and project
success. All of the measures asked participants to rate each scale item using a seven-point
Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
5.6.3.1 Emotional intelligence.
We used a self-report measure of EI that adheres to the Salovey and Mayer (1990) ability
definition of EI (Jordan & Lawrence, 2009). The 16-item scale was particularly designed
for use in organisations and within a team context, which predominates in the organisation
we studied. Using this scale we were able to measure four specific components of EI: (1)
awareness of own emotions (sample item: “I can explain the emotions I feel to team
members”; (2) awareness of others’ emotions (sample item: “I can read my fellow team
members’ true feelings, even if they try to hide them”); (3) management of own emotions
(sample item: “When I am frustrated with fellow team members, I can overcome my
frustration”); and (4) management of others’ emotions (sample item: “I can get my fellow
team members to share my keenness for a project”). The Cronbach alpha reliability for
this measure was .88.
5.6.3.2 Project success.
To measure project success we utilised Pinto’s (1990) 20-item scale to investigate
participants’ assessments against four factors: (1) communication (sample item:
“Individuals/groups supplying input have received feedback on the acceptance or
rejection of their input”); (2) trouble-shooting (sample item: “Immediate action is taken
when problems come to the project team’s attention”); (3) mission clarity (sample item:
“The basic goals of the project are made clear to the project team”); and (4) top
management support (sample item: “Upper management is responsive to our requests for
additional resources, if the need arises”. This measure obtained an alpha reliability of .92.
126
5.6.3.3 Job satisfaction.
To measure job satisfaction we employed a four-item global job satisfaction scale
developed by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1983). A sample item is “I am
satisfied with my job”. The Cronbach alpha reliability for this measure was .84.
5.6.3.4 Trust.
Finally, we employed the 10-item Behavioural Trust Inventory (BTI) to measure trust
(Gillespie, 2012; Lewicki et al., 2006). The BTI has two dimensions: (1) willingness to
rely on another’s work-related skills, abilities, and knowledge (sample item: “How willing
are you to rely on your leader’s task-related skills and abilities?”); and (2) willingness to
disclose sensitive work or personal information to another (sample item: “Discuss how
you honestly feel about your work, even negative feelings and frustration”). The BTI has
good psychometric properties and a stable factor structure (Gillespie & Mann, 2004) and
in our study this measure had an alpha reliability of .81.
Analysis
To test our parallel multiple mediator model, we employed Structural Equation Modelling
(SEM, Jöreskog, 1993). We chose this method for two reasons. First, SEM enables us to
study both latent and directly measured variables. The use of latent variables removes the
effects of unreliability in mediator variables, and improves the accuracy of the mediated
effect measurement. Therefore, the latent variable approach should have a higher
statistical power to identify the mediating effect than the traditional regression analysis.
Second, SEM software allows users to choose from multiple estimation methods,
including ordinary least squares, generalized least squares, maximum likelihood, and
asymptotically distribution free methods (Byrne, 2013). Different assumptions must hold
for various estimation methods. For example, the generalised least squares method
assumes normality of the data, while the bootstrap method does not (Preacher & Hayes,
2008).
Procedure to test mediation
To test our mediation hypotheses we selected the parallel multiple mediation model
(Preacher & Hayes, 2008). We chose this approach for three reasons. First, the likelihood
127
of parameter bias (due to absent variables) in the multiple parallel mediators is minimised
in this method. Second, the method allows us to control for multiple mediators. Third, the
method controls for potential inter-correlation among the mediators in the multiple
mediator model.
As recommended by MacKinnon (2008), we used an extension of the simple mediation
model to analyse the multiple mediators in our model. This approach consists of three
tests: (1) to see if the independent variable (EI) affects the dependent variable (project
success), (2) to determine whether the independent variable (EI) affects the mediators (job
satisfaction and trust), and (3) to see if the mediators (job satisfaction and trust) affect
project success when the independent variable (EI) is controlled. According to this model,
if job satisfaction and trust completely mediate the relationship between EI and project
success the path between them should then become non-significant.
We used AMOS 20® to test the SEM (Byrne, 2013). In particular, AMOS directly
produces bootstrapped bias-corrected confidence intervals for indirect effects as well as
the maximum likelihood estimation method. Both estimation methods are adopted in this
research. We also adopted Preacher and Hayes’ (2008) recommendation to use a
minimum of 5000 resamples for the bootstrap analysis.
Results
Measurement model
As the first stage of our analysis we employed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to
check the integrity of our measurement models. As can be seen in Table 5.1, the scales
demonstrated better fit as second-order rather than first-order models. We compared two
models by testing the difference in chi-square (Breckler, 1990) across the models. In this
regard, we found that the second-order model offered a significantly better fit to the data
(delta-chi-square = 369.22, df = 1, p < 0.001). As can also be seen in Table 5.1, the
second-order model fit statistics all exceeded accepted minimum thresholds required for
good fit (χ2/df < 2, RMSEA, SRMR < 0.08, IFI, TLI, CFI > 0.9; Hooper, Coughlan, &
Mullen, 2008).
Table 5.1 Goodness-of-Fit Statistics
128
M
odel
χ2/ df
p I
FI
T
LI
C
FI
R
MSEA
S
RMR
2nd order
1
.653
0
.000
0
.946
0
.940
0
.946
0.
042
0.
067
1st-order
2
.237
0
.000
0
.895
0
.885
0
.897
0.
059
0.
077
We next evaluated convergent and discriminant validity. We did so using criteria
recommended by Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle, and Mena (2012), which included the tests:
(1) Cronbach α > 0.70 for all constructs, (2) composite reliability for all constructs > 0.70,
and (3) average variance extracted of each construct > 0.50. As can be seen in Table 5.2,
all three criteria were satisfied.
Table 5.2 Convergent Validity Tests
Variable Cronbach’s
alpha
Composite
reliability
Average variance
extracted
EI 0.88 0.81 0.52
Job satisfaction 0.84 0.83 0.51
Project success 0.92 0.83 0.62
Trust 0.81 0.86 0.53
For discriminant validity, and as Hair et al. (2012) recommend, we examined whether the
square root of the average variance extracted for each construct was greater than the
bivariate correlations between the constructs. As can be seen in the descriptive statistics
for our study (Table 5.3) this criterion was met.
To avoid common method variance (CMV) a number of procedural remedies in designing
and administering the questionnaire (e.g. anonymity and mixing the order of the
questions) were used (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). We also employed
statistical remedies suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2012). Herman’s one factor test showed
that the first factor accounts for 26% of the total variance. We further examined our model
to see if a single, unmeasured, latent method factor was present (Podsakoff et al., 2012).
To accomplish this we compared fit statistics between models with and without the latent
method variance factor (Richardson, Simmering, & Sturman, 2009). The CMV factor
resulted in improved fit ( χ2= 150.21, df = 33, p <.001; model with CMV factor: χ2/ df
129
= 1.50, IFI = 0.952, TLI= 0.950, CFI= 0.950, RMSEA= 0.40; model without CMV factor:
χ2/ df = 1.68, IFI = 0.946, TLI= 0.940, CFI= 0.946, RMSEA= 0.42). Although these
results suggest the influence of CMV is likely to be small, we nonetheless controlled for
it by including the CMV factor in our hypothesised model test (Podsakoff et al., 2012).
Table 5.3 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Discriminate Validity
M
ean
S
D
A
ge
G
ender
E
ducation
E
I
Jo
b
Satisfaction
P
roject
Success
T
rust A
ge
3
.81
1
.81
G
ender
1
.84
0
.37
0
.21*
E
ducation
3
.97
1
.18
-
0.12*
0
.06
E
I
5
.05
1
.01
-
0.05
-
0.08
0.
08
0
.72
Jo
b
Satisfaction
3
.60
1
.03
0
.05
0
.01
0.
07
0
.42***
0.7
1
Pr
oject
Success
5
.17
1
.27
0
.03
0
.06
0.
03
0
.41***
0.5
1***
0
.79
T
rust
5
.66
0
.98
0
.06
0
.07
0.
02
0
.67***
0.3
5***
0
.38***
0
.73
Notes. Figures in bold on the diagonal represent square root of average variance
extracted. *p < .05; ***p < .00.
Hypotheses tests
We tested our structural model in two stages. In Stage 1 (Model 1) we looked at the
relationships between EI and the three variables: job satisfaction, trust in others, and
project outcomes. As can be seen in Figure 2 all three relationships were positive and
significant, supporting Hypotheses 1, 2a, and 2b. We further examined the direct effects
of job satisfaction and trust on project success. Both variables had positive significant
effects on project success (job satisfaction project success, path = 0.45, p < 0.001; and
trust project success, path = 0.25, p < 0.01), therefore H3a and H3b were supported.
The model was unchanged when we controlled for sex, age, and education level.
130
Figure 5.2. Model 1 results.
(AWOE = Awareness of own emotions; AWAE = Awareness of others’ emotions;
MOE = Management of own emotions; MAO = Management of others’ emotions)
In Stage 2, in order to identify the multiple mediation effects of job satisfaction and trust,
we conducted a comparison between Model 1 (Figure 5.2) and Model 2 (Figure 5.3),
where Model 2 included the links from the mediators (job satisfaction and trust) and the
dependent variable. In this stage we determined whether the mediators (job satisfaction
and trust) affect project success when the independent variable (EI) is controlled. If job
satisfaction and trust completely mediate the relationship between EI and project success,
the path between them should then become non-significant.
First, we used the maximum-likelihood method in AMOS, and calculated the significance
of a multiple mediation effect in the SEM. As can be seen in Figure 3, the path in Model
2 from EI to project success became non-significant. This confirms that the effect of EI
on project success was completely mediated by both job satisfaction and trust.
Figure 5.3. Model 2 results.
131
(AWOE = Awareness of own emotions; AWAE = Awareness of others’ emotions; MOE
= Management of own emotions; MAO = Management of others’ emotions)
We next conducted a complimentary test using the bootstrap method with 5000 samples
and a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (Efron & Tibshirani, 1993). Bootstrapping
provides the most powerful and reasonable method of obtaining confidence limits for
mediation effects under various conditions (Preacher & Hayes,
Table 5.4 Bias-Corrected Bootstrap Results
Confidence limits p-
value Parameters Lower Upper
EI Job Satisfaction .455 .927 .000
EI Trust .261 .554 .000
EI Project Success -1.200 .526 .874
Job
satisfaction Project Success .351 .697 .000
Trust Project Success .226 .812 .027
2008). As can be seen in Table 5.4, while the lower bound and upper bounds for the
indirect (mediated) variables do not include zero, the direct effect from EI to project
success does include zero. These findings confirm support for Hypotheses 3a and 3b (job
satisfaction and trust both link to project success), and 4a and 4b (mediation effects).
Discussion
Our main motivation in conducting the present study was to examine the underlying
mechanisms by which a critical component of project manager skill – EI – is linked to
managers’ ratings of project success factors in a complex project setting. Our findings
demonstrate in particular that, while project managers’ EI is positively related to project
success (Müller & Turner, 2010), this relationship is complex and cannot be fully
explained in terms of a straight-forward direct relationship.
132
To understand the underlying mechanisms connecting project managers’ EI and project
success we developed and tested a model that drew on relevant emotions theory
(Ashkanasy, 2002; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Using this theoretical framework, we
argued for the relationship between EI and project success and inferred that this
relationship may be mediated by two paths. First, we argued that trust is an attitudinal
variable that implies an emotional bond linking EI and project success. As such,
emotionally intelligent project managers develop trust with their team by creating an
emotional attachment with their team members, and this relationship is then reflected in
project success factors, including communication, mission clarity, troubleshooting, and
top-management support. Second, the mediating role of job satisfaction determines the
impact of EI on project managers’ evaluative judgments regarding their job and is also
reflected in their evaluations of project success.
Our findings suggest that the traditional view of the direct effect of EI on project success
only tells part of the story. In this sense, our study represents a response to Müller and
Jugdev’s (2012) call for research to explore mediating variables of project success. To the
best of our knowledge, this study is the first to apply AET to study the role of EI in project
success. The positive relationship we found between EI, job satisfaction, and trust
provides further insights into the relationship between emotionally intelligent project
managers’ skills and their work attitudes. This positive relationship is also consistent with
previous research findings related to EI and work attitudes (Sy et al., 2006, Wong & Law,
2002). Emotionally intelligent managers have the ability to recover quickly from negative
emotions and stress in difficult situations (Wong & Law, 2002). In a complex project
setting, project managers who are confronted with a difficult situation would be able to
regulate their emotions to work towards a productive outcome. The findings of this study
help shed light on this critical organisational process that has previously lacked both
theoretical and empirical attention. Given that EI and work attitudes have been shown to
make a difference in terms of heightened project success, our results may guide new
research that aims to capture the potentially business-enhancing effects of combining EI
and positive work attitudes in a complex project setting.
Our study also contributes from a methodological perspective, insofar as we examined
satisfaction and trust simultaneously, thus reducing a parameter estimate bias issue
133
(Preacher & Hayes, 2008) that would have arisen were we to have examined one mediator
at a time.
Practical implications
Understanding how EI links to project success has practical implications for project
managers, particularly in the areas of recruitment and management development. Our
findings suggest that organisations should consider recruiting project managers who have
high levels of EI since these managers can be expected to have higher levels of positive
work attitudes, such as job satisfaction and trust. In terms of human resource development,
emphasis should be given to developing EI in project managers (Clark, 2010). EI would
seem to be a significant factor that plays a key role in social situations, instilling feelings
of trust and cooperation with other project teams, particularly in highly stressful work
conditions such as complex projects. EI can also be developed through training programs.
Clarke (2010) reported that project managers who received EI training increased positive
attitudes and behaviour and decreased conflict; in Clarke’s (2010) study the organisation
that supported the EI training also exceeded its productivity goals. As a multitude of
studies have shown, revenue growth can be increased by improving manager satisfaction
and trust (Mohr & Puck, 2007). Positive work attitudes, such as job satisfaction and trust,
are enhanced by fostering EI in managers (Carmeli, 2003).
Finally, we note that our findings suggest that top management should be aware of the
importance of project managers’ job satisfaction and trust, which can both serve to boost
project success in complex project situations. As such, enhancing job satisfaction and
promoting project managers’ trust in their followers should form part of leader
development programs. In this regard, providing appropriate training programs has been
shown to be associated with increased job satisfaction (Harris, Wheeler, & Kacmar,
2009). Design of project rewards or empowerment is another strategy that increases the
development of trust between two parties in projects which lead to revenue growth (Mohr
& Puck, 2007).
Limitations and future directions
We acknowledge three limitations to our study that suggest potential fruitful opportunities
for future research. First, we acknowledge that the generalisability of results may be
134
limited because our data were collected from a defence organisation in the one country:
Australia. In this case, it might be useful to see if our findings replicate in other national
settings. Second, while we justified two particular mediators (job satisfaction and trust)
of the EI–project success relationship, we also acknowledge that additional mechanisms
might exist through which EI may impact on project success. Future research might
therefore consider other mechanisms, such as work environment characteristics and
personal dispositions. Finally, we point out that we focused on a managerial sample; in
this regard, researchers in the future might wish to examine the role of EI among non-
managerial employees and its impact on project success.
135
References
Ashton-James, C. E., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). What lies beneath? A process analysis
of affective events theory. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Härtel,
Research on Emotion in Organizations (vol. 1, pp. 23-50). Oxford, UK: Elsevier
Science.
Ashkanasy, N. (2002). Studies of cognition and emotion in organisations: attribution,
affective events, emotional intelligence and perception of emotion. Australian
Journal of Management, 27(2), 11-20.
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and
the scope of project management. International Journal of Project Management,
24(8), 687-698.
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: an examination
of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 19(4), 332-345.
Belout, A., & Gauvreau, C. (2004). Factors influencing project success: the impact of
human resource management. International Journal of Project Management, 22(1),
1-11.
Boden, M.T., & Berenbaum, H. (2007). Emotional awareness, gender, and
suspiciousness. Cognition and Emotion, 21(2), 268-280.
Bowling, N. A. (2007). Is the job satisfaction–job performance relationship spurious? A
meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(2), 167-185.
Breckler, S. J. (1990). Applications of covariance structure modeling in psychology:
cause for concern? Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 260.
Bresnen, M., & Marshall, N. (2000). Building partnerships: Case studies of client–
contractor collaboration in the UK construction industry. Construction Management
& Economics, 18(7), 819-832.
Brief, A. P. (1998). Foundations for organizational science. Attitudes in and around
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts,
Applications, And Programming. New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis
Group.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D. & Klesh, J. (1983). Michigan organizational
assessment questionnaire. Assessing Organizational Change: a Guide to Methods,
Measures, and Practices, (pp.71-138). New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes,
behavior and outcomes: An examination among senior managers. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 18(8), 788-813.
Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). The emotionally intelligent manager: How to
develop and use the four key emotionalsSkills of leadership. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
136
Chang, A., Chih, Y. Y., Chew, E., & Pisarski, A. (2013). Reconceptualising mega project
success in Australian Defence: Recognising the importance of value co-creation.
International Journal of Project Management, 31(8), 1139-1153.
Chen, G., Ployhart, R. E., Thomas, H. C., Anderson, N., & Bliese, P. D. (2011). The power
of momentum: a new model of dynamic relationships between job satisfaction
change and turnover intentions. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 159-181.
Cherns, A. B., & Bryant, D. T. (1984). Studying the client's role in construction
management. Construction Management and Economics, 2(2), 177-184.
Cheung, S.O., Ng, T. S., Wong, S.P., & Suen, H. C. (2003). Behavioral aspects in
construction partnering. International Journal of Project Management, 21(5), 333-
343.
Christie, A. M., Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2015). Trust antecedents: Emotional
intelligence and perceptions of others. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 23(1), 89-101.
Chun, J. U., Litzky, B. E., Sosik, J. J., Bechtold, D. C., & Godshalk, V. M. (2010).
Emotional intelligence and trust in formal mentoring programs. Group &
Organization Management, 35(4), 421-455.
Clarke, N. (2010). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to transformational
leadership and key project manager competences. Project Management Journal,
41(2), 5-20.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust
propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and
job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909.
Couillard, J. (1995). The role of project risk in determining project management approach.
Project Management Journal, 26, 3-15.
Davis, K. (2014). Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success.
International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 189-201.
Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2005). The success of international development projects, trust
and communication: An African perspective. International Journal of Project
Management, 23(3), 237-252.
Dunn, J. R., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion
on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 736.
Dvir, D., Ben-David, A., Sadeh, A., & Shenhar, A. J. (2006). Critical managerial factors
affecting defense projects success: A comparison between neural network and
regression analysis. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 19(5), 535-
543.
Eden, C., Williams, T., & Ackermann, F. (2005). Analysing project cost overruns:
Comparing the “measured mile” analysis and system dynamics modelling.
International Journal of Project Management, 23(2), 135-139.
137
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). The jackknife. In An introduction to the
bootstrap (pp. 141-152). Springer US.
El-Sabaa, S. (2001). The skills and career path of an effective project manager.
International Journal of Project Management, 19(1), 1-7.
Fisher, C. D. (2003). Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are
correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense theory. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24(6), 753-777.
Fisher, E. (2011). What practitioners consider to be the skills and behaviours of an
effective people project manager. International Journal of Project Management,
29(8), 994-1002.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2005). Design by deception: The politics of megaproject approval. Harvard
Design Magazine, 22, 50-59.
Gillespie, N. (2012). Measuring trust in organizational contexts: An overview of survey-
based measures. In Lyon, F., Möllering, G., & Saunders, M. (Eds.) Handbook of
Research Methods on Trust (pp. 175-188). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Gillespie, N. A., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: the
building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 588-607.
Güleryüz, G., Güney, S., Aydın, E. M., & Aşan, Ö. (2008). The mediating effect of job
satisfaction between emotional intelligence and organisational commitment of
nurses: a questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(11),
1625-1635.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use
of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414-433.
Harris, K. J., Wheeler, A. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (2009). Leader–member exchange and
empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions,
and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 371-382.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling:
Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research
Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
Jordan, P.J. & Lawrence, S.A. (2009). Emotional intelligence in teams: Development and
initial validation of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile - Short Version
(WEIP-S). Journal of Management & Organization, 15(3), 452-469.
Jordan, P. J., Lawrence, S. A., & Troth, A. C. (2006). The impact of negative mood on
team performance. Journal of Management & Organization, 12(2), 131-145.
Jordan, P.J. & Lindebaum, D. (2015) A model of within person variation in leadership:
Emotional regulation and scripts as predictors of situationally appropriate
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 594-605.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. Scott
Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
138
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-
analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job
and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(2), 257.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–
job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological
Bulletin, 127(3), 376.
Jugdev, K., & Müller, R. (2005). A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of
project success. Project Management Journal, 36(4), 19-31.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation
of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and
transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), 949-964.
Kadefors, A. (2004). Trust in project relationships—inside the black box. International
Journal of Project Management, 22(3), 175-182.
Kafetsios, K., & Zampetakis, L. A. (2008). Emotional intelligence and job satisfaction:
Testing the mediatory role of positive and negative affect at work. Personality and
Individual Differences, 44(3), 712-722.
Kaulio, M. A. (2008). Project leadership in multi-project settings: Findings from a critical
incident study. International Journal of Project Management, 26(4), 338-347.
Lee-Kelley, L., & Sankey, T. (2008). Global virtual teams for value creation and project
success: A case study. International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 51-62.
Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust
development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions.
Journal of Management, 32(1), 991-1022.
Lindebaum, D., & Jordan, P. J. (2014). When it can be good to feel bad and bad to feel
good: Exploring asymmetries in workplace emotional outcomes. Human Relations,
67(2), 1037-1050.
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 4(4), 309-336.
MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Statistical mediation analysis. In J. A. Schinka, W. F. Velicer,
& I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Research methods in
psychology (pp. 717-735). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Maurer, I. (2010). How to build trust in inter-organizational projects: The impact of
project staffing and project rewards on the formation of trust, knowledge acquisition
and product innovation. International Journal of Project Management, 28(7), 629-
637.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D.
Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational
implications. New York: Basic Books.
139
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Target Articles: Emotional intelligence:
Theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 197-215.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or
eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63(6), 503.
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds
the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal,
48(5), 874-888.
Maylor, H., Vidgen, R., & Carver, S. (2008). Managerial complexity in project‐based
operations: A grounded model and its implications for practice. Project
Management Journal, 39(1), S15-S26.
Mazur, A., Pisarski, A., Chang, A., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2014). Rating defence major
project success: The role of personal attributes and stakeholder relationships.
International Journal of Project Management, 32(6), 944-957.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and
emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 545-559.
McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle.
Organization Science, 14(1), 91-103.
Moe, N. B., & Šmite, D. (2008). Understanding a lack of trust in global software teams:
A multiple‐case study. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 13(3), 217-
231.
Mohr, A. T., & Puck, J. F. (2007). Role conflict, general manager job satisfaction and
stress and the performance of IJVs. European Management Journal, 25(1), 25-35.
Mount, J. (2006). The role of emotional intelligence in developing international business
capability: EI provides traction. In V. U. Druskat, F. Sala, & J. Mount (Eds.),
Linking Emotional Intelligence and Performance at Work (pp. 97–124). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mignonac, K., & Herrbach, O. (2004). Linking work events, affective states, and attitudes:
An empirical study of managers' emotions. Journal of Business and Psychology,
19(2), 221-240.
Müller, R., Geraldi, J., & Turner, J. (2012). Relationships between leadership and success
in different types of project complexities. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 59(1), 77-90.
Müller, R., & Jugdev, K. (2012). Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin, and
Prescott–the elucidation of project success. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, 5(4), 757-775.
Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2007). Matching the project manager’s leadership style to
project type. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 21-32.
Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2010). Leadership competency profiles of successful project
managers. International Journal of Project Management, 28(5), 437-448.
140
O'Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011).
The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta‐analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 788-818.
Park, J.G., & Lee, J. (2014). Knowledge sharing in information systems development
projects: Explicating the role of dependence and trust. International Journal of
Project Management, 32(1), 153-165.
Parker, S. K., & Skitmore, M. (2005). Project management turnover: Causes and effects
on project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 23(3), 205-
214.
Peslak, A. R. (2005). Emotions and team projects and processes. Team Performance
Management, 11(7), 251-262.
Pheng, L. S., & Chuan, Q. T. (2006). Environmental factors and work performance of
project managers in the construction industry. International Journal of Project
Management, 24(1), 24-37.
Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H., & Meyer, A. D. (2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity, and
complexity in project management. Management Science, 48(8), 1008-1023.
Pinto, J. K. (1990). Project Implementation Profile: A tool to aid project tracking and
control. International Journal of Project Management, 8(3), 173-182.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1987). Critical factors in successful project implementation.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1(2), 22-27.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Critical success factors in R&D projects. Research
Technology Management, 32(1), 31.
Pirola-Merlo, A., Härtel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. (2002). How leaders influence the
impact of affective events on team climate and performance in R&D teams. The
Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 561-581.
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. Annual Review
of Psychology, 63(3), 539-569.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40(3), 879-891.
Procaccino, J. D., Verner, J. M., Shelfer, K. M., & Gefen, D. (2005). What do software
practitioners really think about project success: An exploratory study. Journal of
Systems and Software, 78(2), 194-203.
Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009). A tale of three
perspectives examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction
of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 762-800.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after
all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-
404.
141
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9(3), 185-211.
Sauser, B. J., Reilly, R. R., & Shenhar, A. J. (2009). Why projects fail? How contingency
theory can provide new insights–A comparative analysis of NASA’s Mars Climate
Orbiter loss. International Journal of Project Management, 27(7), 665-679.
Schaller, M., & Cialdini, R. B. (1990). Happiness, sadness, and helping: a motivational
integration. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino, Richard M. (Eds.), Handbook of
motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (vol 3., pp. 265-296).
New York: Guilford Press.
Shenhar, A. J., Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., & Lechler, T. (2002). Refining the
search for project success factors: a multivariate, typological approach. R&D
Management, 32(2), 111-126.
Smyth, H. (2005). Trust in the design team. Architectural Engineering and Design
Management, 1(3), 211-223.
Smyth, H., Gustafsson, M., & Ganskau, E. (2010). The value of trust in project business.
International Journal of Project Management, 28(2), 117-129.
Sun, M., & Meng, X. (2009). Taxonomy for change causes and effects in construction
projects. International Journal of Project Management, 27(6), 560-572.
Sunindijo, R. Y., Hadikusumo, B. H., & Ogunlana, S. (2007). Emotional intelligence and
leadership styles in construction project management. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 23(4), 166-170.
Sy, T., Tram, S., & O’Hara, L. A. (2006). Relation of employee and manager emotional
intelligence to job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
68(3), 461-473.
Thomas, J., & Mengel, T. (2008). Preparing project managers to deal with complexity–
Advanced project management education. International Journal of Project
Management, 26(3), 304-315.
Thompson, T. L. (2008). The Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Project Success:
A Quantitative Study of Project Managers in Houston, Texas. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Capella University.
Toor, S.-u.-R., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2010). Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder
perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector
development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28(3), 228-
236.
Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2004). Communication and co-operation on projects between
the project owner as principal and the project manager as agent. European
Management Journal, 22(3), 327-336.
Turner, J. R. & Zolin, R. (2012) Modelling success on complex projects: multiple
perspectives over multiple time frames. Journal of Project Management, 24(3), 87-
99.
142
Von Glinow, M. A., Shapiro, D. L., & Brett, J. M. (2004). Can we talk, and should we?
Managing emotional conflict in multicultural teams. Academy of Management
Review, 29(4), 578-592.
Wang, X., & Huang, J. (2006). The relationships between key stakeholders’ project
performance and project success: perceptions of Chinese construction supervising
engineers. International Journal of Project Management, 24(3), 253-260.
Webber, S. S., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Client–project manager engagements, trust, and
loyalty. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 997-1013.
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and
affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 173-194.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion
of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 18(2), 1-74.
Whitty, S. J., & Maylor, H. (2009). And then came complex project management
(revised). International Journal of Project Management, 27(3), 304-310.
Wiewiora, A., Murphy, G., Trigunarsyah, B., & Brown, K. (2014). Interactions between
organizational culture, trustworthiness, and mechanisms for inter‐project
knowledge sharing. Project Management Journal, 45(2), 48-65.
Williams, T., & Samset, K. (2010). Issues in front‐end decision making on projects.
Project Management Journal, 41(2), 38-49.
Wong, C.S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional
intelligence on performance and attitude: an exploratory study. The Leadership
Quarterly, 13(3), 243-274.
Zhao, H. A. O., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of
psychological contract breach on work‐related outcomes: A meta‐analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 647-680.
143
Study 4
Emotional intelligence and Project Success in Large-Scale
Construction Projects: A Team Level Perspective
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the study is to enhance understanding of the relationships
among emotional intelligence (EI), trust, conflict and project success in project teams. EI,
trust and conflict are key, essential factors to achieve success in large-scale construction
projects.
Design/methodology/approach – A sample of 389 team members from 84 project teams
in large-scale construction projects was surveyed.
Findings – Findings showed that team EI is positively associated with project success. In
addition, trust and conflict in the team mediate the association between EI and project
success.
Practical implications – We show the ability to perceive one’s own and others’ emotions
significantly increases the likelihood of project success by increasing trust in a team, and
reducing conflict. Therefore, managers can use these findings to boost project success and
reduce conflict in their teams.
Originality/value – This research contributes to the better understanding of the
relationship between team EI and project success in large-scale construction projects. In
addition, this research is an empirical investigation into the mediation variables linking
EI to project success.
Keywords: Team, Trust, Emotional Intelligence, Project Success, Construction Projects
144
Introduction
Achieving project success in large construction projects is notoriously problematic
because it requires transparency, teamwork and a high degree of collaboration (Zhang &
Fan, 2013). Large construction projects are often commissioned by governments to be
delivered by private organisations, and often attract political interest and public attention
due to the considerable cost (often exceeding millions of dollars), long time frames, and
the direct impact these projects can have on the community and environment (Zhang and
Fan, 2013; Maqbool et al., 2017). One factor previously identified as important for the
success of such projects is teamwork (Buvik & Rolfsen, 2015; Hoegl & Gemuenden,
2001; Yang et al., 2011). Project organisations increasingly look to collaboration and
teamwork as the means of resolving challenges and achieving success (Stephens &
Carmeli, 2016). Teamwork is a process which can produce the most efficient and reliable
results and be a most effective way to share challenges (Buvik & Rolfsen, 2015; Drouin
& Bourgault, 2013).
One of the key determinants in ensuring effective team functioning has been found to be
team emotional intelligence (EI) (Barczak et al., 2010; Stephens & Carmeli, 2016).
Salovey and Mayer (1990) defined EI as the ability to recognise and manage the emotions
of the self and others. Team EI can enhance team members’ ability to communicate with
one another, to be open to opposing views, ideas and to use emotion to increase team
performance and team decision-making (Clarke, 2010; Stephens & Carmeli, 2016).
Research has predominantly investigated EI and its relationship to project success at the
individual level (Rezvani et al., 2016). However, research on non-project organisations or
student samples has also identified team EI as an essential skill in contributing to the
performance of a team (e.g. Troth et al., 2012). Despite the importance of team EI, little
attention has been given to explain how EI, particularly when conceptualised at the team
level, impacts on project success.
The first goal of this study is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the link
between EI and project success through analysis at the team level. In addition, the
association between team EI and project success is not likely to be direct (Barczak et al.,
2010), and the mediating mechanisms are not well understood (Troth et al., 2012).
145
Therefore, the second goal of this study is to examine the possible relationship of mediator
variables between team EI and project success. We focused on trust and conflict because
studies have shown that EI is a significant predictor of both trust and conflict in teams
(Christie et al., 2015; Jordan & Troth, 2004) and consequently, trust and conflict in teams
leads to project performance (De Jong et al., 2016; Dumitru, & Schoop, 2016; Sy et al.,
2006).
Critical Variables
The critical variables in this study are EI, trust in team, conflict in team and project
success. In the following sections, we describe our key variables and study hypotheses.
Emotional intelligence
Salovey and Mayer (1990) define EI in terms of four ’branches‘, being the ability to:
(1) perceive emotions, (2) assimilate emotions in thought, (3) understand emotions, and
(4) manage emotions in self and others. EI can be classified into three different models.
These include the ability model which involves the use of the Mayer-Salovey Emotional
Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). The second model focuses on EI as a trait or self-perception
of a person’s personality that involves self-report measures based on the Salovey and
Mayer (1990) definition of EI. The third model involves other measures of EI not based
on the Salovey and Mayer definition. This study focuses on the second model of EI as it
was contained to the specific interaction between cognition and emotion and has received
the most rigorous testing (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005).
Emotional intelligence can facilitate team member cohesiveness and collaboration and is
essential to team performance (Troth et al., 2012). However, research has tended to ignore
EI as it unfolds in specific contexts (Müller & Turner, 2007). Jordan et al. (2010) argued
that testing the impact of EI and its influence on various outcomes across different
contexts is important. Large construction projects appear to be an appropriate setting for
examining the anticipated relationships between EI, trust, and performance. Research has
shown the importance and relevance of soft skills such as EI on the successful delivery of
large-scale construction projects (Müller & Turner, 2007; Maqbool et al., 2017; Wu et al.,
2017). The construction project team has certain unique characteristics, such as being
temporary in nature, task-oriented, having different team goals and responsibilities, and
146
inconsistent core competencies (Wu et al., 2017). Due to its specific features, project
teams often experience negative or positive emotions. Positive emotions enable project
teams to perform better in a work environment where uncertainty and ambiguity are high,
however, negative emotions such as interpersonal tensions, anger and frustration can often
obstruct real-time communication of information which leads to poor performance (Troth
et al., 2012; Rezvani et al., 2016). Therefore, EI is particularly imperative in large-scale
construction projects to address challenging tasks built on long-term goals (Clarke, 2010;
Maqbool et al., 2017).
Project success
Project success in large construction projects is an abstract concept and there is a lack of
consensus among researchers in defining it as it depends on the viewpoints of diverse
project participants (Chan et al., 2001; Wu et al., 2017; Zhang & Fan, 2013). However,
researchers commonly agree on two approaches that describe project success: project
management success criteria and critical success factors (Turner & Zolin, 2012; Müller &
Jugdev, 2012; Zhang & Fan, 2013). Project management success criteria refer to time,
cost and quality, commonly known as the ‘iron triangle’ (Pinto & Slevin, 1987). On the
other hand, critical success factors focus on the behavioural skills of project managers and
project teams, stakeholder satisfaction and effective communication (Pinto, 1990; Müller
& Jugdev, 2012). Critical success factors can be measured prior to the project completion
date; however, project management success can be measured at the end of the projects
(Turner & Zolin, 2012). Project management success criteria, that is, the focus on time,
cost and quality have been criticised particularly in large-scale construction projects
because they fail to address broader perspectives such as behavioural skills of project
teams in large-scale, construction projects (Müller & Jugdev, 2012; Toor & Ogunlana,
2008).
Given the accumulated evidence of widely used measures of critical success factors and
following from Rezvani et al. (2016), Wu et al. (2017), and Zhang & Fan (2013) in this
study the focus is on critical success factors and more specifically communication and
troubleshooting to assess a project’s progress. Practitioners and researchers have revealed
effective communication and troubleshooting in a timely manner as important and
147
commonly used measures of project success in large-scale construction projects (Wu et
al., 2017). In large-scale construction projects, effective communication and
troubleshooting enable project teams to more effectively coordinate and exchange
knowledge and resources to complete and deliver their task in a timely manner (Maqbool
et al., 2017; Rezvani et al., 2016).
Trust in team
Trust has received great attention in project management literature as a key factor that
contributes to the success of large-scale projects (e.g., Buvik & Rolfsen, 2015; Rezvani
et al., 2016). Following previous studies, this study adopts McAllister’s (1995) definition
of interpersonal trust as the “extent to which a party is confident in and willing to act on
the basis of, the words, actions, and decisions of another party” (p. 26). This study adopts
this definition because this study focused on trust in team resulting from emotional
experiences experienced by team members as opposed to other forms of trust (e.g.
incentive). At the team level, trust is studied as a collective phenomenon (Costa and
Anderson, 2011). In line with previous studies (e.g. Costa & Anderson, 2011; Tsai et al.,
2012), this study argues that trust within teams mirrors an environment that is shared
among team members. As such, it can be expected that trust is to influence and to be
influenced by individual perceptions of trustworthiness. Individuals are likely to cultivate
mutual and collective expectations, perceptions and norms of behaviour with their team
members by interacting within their work team.
Conflict in a team
Conflict refers to the opposing views and disagreements within a team (Jehn, 1995). There
are three types of conflicts in project teams: relationship, task, and process conflicts.
Relationship conflict refers to the interpersonal tension and disagreements in project
teams (Chen et al., 2014). This study focuses on relationship conflict for several reasons.
First, in contrast to process and task conflicts, relationship conflict is found to be
negatively linked to project team members’ levels of satisfaction, commitment and
performance by undermining working relationships, decreasing creative behaviour, and
creating personality clashes within the team (Wu et al., 2017). Second, relationship
conflict can lead to negative emotions such as frustration, tension, jealousy and anger
148
among project team members, thus, limiting effective communication, group work and
performance (Zhang & Huo 2015; Ayoko et al., 2008). Third, relationship conflict
obstructs mutual understanding, destroys the relationship among project teams and
reduces team cohesion and efficiency which ultimately limits team performance (Ayoko
et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2017). Thus, managing relationship conflict in project teams can
be an effective way to achieve success in large-scale projects.
Hypotheses Development
Figure 6.1 shows the model incorporating team EI, trust in team, conflict in team and
project success. Particularly, this study posits that team EI has a positive impact on trust
in team and a negative impact on conflict. In addition, this study argues that the trust in
team and conflict in team may mediate the path between EI and project success. In the
following section, the theoretical arguments supporting the hypotheses will be elaborated.
Figure 6.1. Research model.
(AWOE & AWAE = awareness of own and others’ emotions; MOE & MAO = management of
own and others' emotions)
Team emotional intelligence and project success
The principles of competency-performance theory (Ley & Albert, 2003) are used to
underpin the relationship between team EI and project success. Competency-performance
theory suggests an organisation’s survival is dependent upon the cooperation among the
different business areas. In line with competency-performance theory, the argument is
that a team’s understanding and management of emotions is linked to project success by
establishing a pleasant and productive working environment. With the growing size and
complexity of projects, teamwork in construction projects creates enormous challenges of
149
bringing into line individual goals with a common mission, handling and managing
resources, resolving complex tasks in crisis moments, effective communication, and
coordinating information transfer among teams (Drouin & Bourgault, 2013; Lindsjørn et
al., 2016).Thus, team EI plays a critical role in establishing a positive climate of support
and high performance in teams (Stephens & Carmeli, 2016). Studies have shown that team
members’ abilities to manage and understand their own moods, feelings, and emotions,
as well as those of their team members contributed to their outperforming other teams
with low team EI (Lindsjørn et al., 2016). A team with high EI provides a social and
emotional environment that is beneficial and conducive to facilitating cohesion and
performance (Maqbool et al., 2017; Troth et al., 2012). This is because when granting
material and resources, higher levels of a team’s emotional intelligence may create
perceptions of empathy and support, which, in turn, can lead to smoother team functioning
and higher performance (Ayoko et al., 2008; Jordan & Troth, 2004). The above arguments
suggest that team EI is a major driver of project success. Thereby, this study hypothesised
that:
Hypothesis 1. Team EI is positively related to project success.
Team emotional intelligence and trust in team
In large-scale construction projects, where ambiguity, uncertainty and interdependency
are high, a team’s understanding and management of emotions can increase the ability of
team members to confide in teams to share information and develop greater cooperation
(Stephens & Carmeli, 2016). Teams in large construction projects can be made up of
members with diverse ideas, perspectives and goals, so the potential for conflict and
miscommunication is high. Teams with high levels of EI are more likely to overcome
these issues by trusting in team members (Christie et al., 2015). This is because
understanding and managing emotions in a team enable team members to support the
norm of relational and social understanding of others in the team (Troth et al., 2012).
Emotionally intelligent teams are more likely to evoke positive emotions in the workplace
which can lead to increased trust in the team (Avey et al., 2008), as EI helps team members
building trust with others and motivating themselves (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000). This
suggests that teams with high EI are more likely to make a trust decision about their own
150
team members. Prior studies have also shown that EI and trust are related to each other,
which has been demonstrated in a major defence project setting (Rezvani et al., 2016),
educational settings (Christie et al., 2015), and in public health settings (Du Plessis et al.,
2015). Thus, this study hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 2. Team EI is positively related to trust in a team.
Team emotional intelligence and conflict in team
The evidence for relating EI to relationship conflict in construction teams is that high team
EI can help team members to manage and be mindful of their own and other team
members’ emotions that arise from conflict events. Emotional awareness and emotional
regulation abilities are key competencies for managing relationship conflict by creating a
climate in which project team members can share and discuss their hassles and develop
strong bonds (Rapisarda, 2002). In construction projects throughout the course of project
decision-making, the discussion among project teams can often become very intense due
to the involvement of various stakeholders and organisations, which can cause
experiencing negative emotions and feelings like hostility, anger and tension. In such a
context, the ability to manage and understand emotions acts as a safety mechanism to
mitigate negative emotions by reinforcing positive emotions among project teams
(Rezvani et al., 2016). This in turn, enables project teams to facilitate the transfer of
relevant information (considering the interdependent nature of construction activities), in
a timely manner to achieve success (Jordan & Troth, 2004). Similarly, Stubbs Koman and
Wolff (2008) have shown that the successful regulation and understanding of emotion
influences team members’ task engagement. More specifically, the ability to understand
and manage emotions permits project teams to reinforce their own and others’ focus on
more vital tasks and challenges that increase team performance and cohesion (Wu et al.,
2017). Overall, this study put forward the notion that, teams with high EI have fewer
relationship conflicts, and if there are conflicts between project teams, they will be more
constructive in minimising the amount of conflict that is raised in teams. So, based on
prior studies this study hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 3. Team EI is negatively related to team conflict.
151
Trust in the team and project success
In the large-scale project environment where interdependency is high and the time frame
is long, teams require more trust than individuals to complete their tasks. In such an
environment, trust facilitates working together and implies greater information sharing
and co-operation, leading to increased team performance (Lvina et al., 2017; Pinjani &
Palvia, 2013). Teams that demonstrate trust are more compliant and accepting of opposing
opinions and ideas (Pinjani & Palvia, 2013). Therefore, team members work closely with
each other and engage in collaborative relationships during crisis moments, and these are
the fundamentals crucial to producing positive outcomes that lead to success (De Jong et
al., 2016; Dumitru & Schoop, 2016; Pinjani & Palvia, 2013). Therefore, trust is a key
ingredient and acts as a facilitator to increase performance in a team by promoting
collaborative relationships among its members (Pinjani & Palvia, 2013). Accordingly, this
study hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 4. Trust in team is positively associated with project success.
Conflict in the team and project success
According to conflict theory, conflict can lead to negative emotions such as frustration,
tension, anger and counterproductive work behaviour among parties (Barki & Hartwick,
2001). Conflict is predominant in large construction projects due to the unequal nature of
project stakeholders, joint organisations, incomplete contracts and asymmetric
information. Large construction projects involve multiple stakeholders with dissimilar
objectives and goals. The diversity of goals and interests of those stakeholders often leads
to an escalation of conflict (Wu et al., 2017). This in turn, reduces a team’s ability for
joint decision-making and collaborative behaviour. Without joint decision-making
behaviour, project teams are more likely to hide their real views and opinions which can
affect project success. Complementing this evidence, Liu et al. (2011) reported that the
differences between expectations, opinions, interest, and decision-making among project
teams contributes to poor performance and project failure. This is because the existence
of relationship conflicts can potentially disrupt the flow of information and team
operations in projects. Relationship conflicts can lead to other problems, such as tension,
152
behavioural disintegration, lower morale and disagreement among project teams (Barki
& Hartwick, 2001; Liu et al., 2011). Therefore, this study hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 5. Team conflict is negatively associated to project success.
Conflict and Trust in the team as a mediator
In an earlier discussion, the associations between team EI and two key variables – trust
and conflict in team (H2 and H3) and the relationship between these two variables and
project success (H4 and H5) was established. This study now suggests that trust and
conflict in teams serves as two mediating paths through which EI influences project
success. The first mediating relationship draws on the influence of the emotionally
intelligent team on trust in the team. This study argues that trust resulting from emotional
experiences may mediate the association between team EI and project success. So teams
with high levels of EI should be more likely to trust team members and thus consequently
influence project success by facilitating the perception of trust.
The second mediating path (conflict) shows how managing conflict in a team can achieve
project success. In large-scale construction projects the diversity of the project teams,
different times to join the project, differences in priorities, and changes in project
objectives may lead to relationship conflicts or the experience of negative emotions such
as anger and tension (Henderson et al., 2016; Zhang & Huo, 2015). In such an
environment, project teams who are able to regulate and understand their emotions, that
arise from conflict events, are more likely to work towards a productive outcome and this,
in turn, facilitates social interaction, communication and the resolutions of complex tasks
among project teams (Azmy, 2012; Rezvani et al., 2016). Therefore, this study
hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 6 & 7. Trust and conflict in the team mediates the association between team
EI and project success.
153
Method
Measurements
6.4.1.1 Emotional intelligence
This study used the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence measure which contains four
branches (WLEIS; Wong & Law, 2002). Studies have shown that EI should be examined
as a multidimensional, latent construct due to the commonality between specific
emotional skills, and its true variance links to the common variance between those skills
(Cote & Miners, 2006; Wong & Law, 2002). In line with this approach and consistent
with previous empirical work (e.g. Mazur et al., 2014; Rezvani et al., 2016), the four sub-
components of EI were combined into a single factor. Team EI was measured and
conceptualised as aggregated EI of the team members (Jordan & Troth, 2004; Troth et al.,
2012). Following previous studies (e.g. Troth et al., 2012), we used the additive
composition of team level EI and averaged the EI of each member of a team (Chan, 1998)
to derive team EI. A sample item is “I am quite capable of controlling my own emotions”.
6.4.1.2 Trust
This study used the six items developed by Cook and Wall (1980) designed to reflect trust
in a team (Cronbach’s Alpha of the scale was 0.79). A sample item is “I can trust the team
I work with to lend me a hand if I needed it.” Participants’ ratings were based on a 7-point
Likert-scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).
6.4.1.3 Project success
To assess project success Pinto's (1990) 10-item scale was used to examine participants’
valuations against two factors: (1) trouble-shooting (sample item: “Brainstorming
sessions are held to determine where problems are most likely to occur.”); and (2)
communication (sample item: “All groups affected by the project know how to make
problems known to the project team.”). Participants’ ratings for all variables were based
on a 7-point Likert scale.
6.4.1.4 Team conflict
We used four items developed by Pelled et al. (1999) to measure relationship conflict in
a team. A sample item is “How often do people become angry while working in your
team?”
154
Participants and procedure
A total of 960 project team members from three large infrastructure/construction projects
(two dam projects and a hydropower plant project) were surveyed for this study. All
projects were from the Iranian public sector and all were classified as large-scale and
significant projects.
To minimise potential common method bias, data collection involved two surveys
administered four weeks apart (Podsakoff et al., 2012). The questionnaire for this study
was first developed in English and then translated into the Persian language. Using the
back-translation method, a translator who was not aware of our research context (Brislin,
1986), was asked to translate the questionnaire from Persian back into English. After
comparing the two English versions, no semantic differences were found. The
questionnaires were pilot tested prior to their formal implementation. Ten project
managers were invited to review the draft questionnaires, check each item and offer
feedback. To improve clarity, some questions were reworded from the feedback received.
Paper-based surveys were administered among the participants. Participants received
survey packs conveyed by a letter describing the aim of the study and ensuring voluntary
and anonymous participation. Surveys were distributed by the human resources managers,
and respondents were given envelopes so as to return their completed questionnaires in a
sealed envelope to the researcher. The participants were recruited voluntarily and advised
that there was no compulsion to participate. To match the participant data across the two
surveys while maintaining confidentiality and anonymity, we used self-generated
identification codes.
The survey was administered to 960 employees across three projects. 530 completed
surveys (55.2%) after Survey 1 and 467 (48.6%) following Survey 2 were received. After
excluding incomplete questionnaires because of missing or incomplete data, and those
belonging to a team with less than three participants, the matched sample comprised 389
respondents belonging to 84 teams. The overall response rate was 40.5%. The average
team size was 5.1 (SD = 4.5), from a range of three to 10 individuals, which is similar to
prior team research (e.g. Kaufmann and Wagner, 2017; Troth et al., 2012). Out of the 389
respondents, 76.8% (n = 298) were male and 23.2% (n = 91) were female working in
various positions (e.g. engineers, designers, project managers, architects etc.) and in
155
various teams (design and development, quality assurance, consultants, environment and
safety, operations, etc.). The mean age of respondents was 35 years, from a range of 18 to
65 years with 9.6 years on average of working experience.
When the sample means were compared between the usable cases and the cases dropped
based on unmatched questionnaires to check for sampling bias, the differences between
the two groups of data were not significant. This shows that the sampling bias was not a
main issue in our study and our sample was valid for further analysis.
Data analysis
This study employed the Partial Least Square (PLS), to test our research model for several
reasons. First, it provides accurate estimates of the paths among constructs by analysing
the structural and measurement models simultaneously (Chin, 1998). Second, PLS is an
appropriate statistical method for exploratory studies, analysing complicated relationships
and permits modelling latent constructs in small to medium sample sizes (Ringle et al.,
2012). Finally, PLS has been widely used in project management studies (e.g. Carvalho
& Rabechini, 2017; Martens et al., 2017).
Aggregation tests
Aggregation of variables was essential because the variables were measured at the
individual level. To support the aggregation of variables, this study calculated rwg scores
as a measure of agreement within teams (James et al., 1984), inter-member reliability
(ICC1 and ICC2) to examine the presence of within-team variance in individual-level
performance (Klein et al., 2000).
The average rwg for EI was .94 with a range from .71 to .99 between teams. The ICC1 was
.30, and ICC2 was .86, F = 8.89, p < .001. The average rwg for trust was .88 with a range
from .59 to .98 among teams. The rwg for only one team was 0.28 and was removed from
the analysis. The ICC1 was .43, and ICC2 was .84, F = 6.31, p < .001. For conflict the
average rwg was .73 with a range from .51 to .90 among teams. The ICC1 was .72,
and ICC2 was .91, F = 11.76, p < .001. For project success the average rwg was .79 with
a range from .56 to .98 among teams. The rwg for one team was 0.31 and was removed
from the analysis. The ICC1 was .59, and ICC2 was .91, F = 11.38, p < .001.
156
This study concluded that the rwg values in this study indicated a satisfactory result
(values between .51 and .99 indicate moderate to strong agreement) to justify aggregation
of our variables in the team scales (LeBreton & Senter, 2008; James et al., 1984). In
addition, the ICC1 values for this study’s variables ranged from .30 (EI) to .72 (conflict),
demonstrating medium to large effects. This means team members revealed significant
variance in individual ratings of our variables. Values of ICC2 for our study’s variables
showed acceptable to good levels of reliability of between .66 and .91 (Klein et al., 2000).
Therefore, this study concluded that the results supported the aggregation of our variables
for further analysis.
Measurement model
This study assessed the measurement model by checking convergent and discriminant
validity. For convergent validity this study checked: Cronbach’s alpha, Composite
Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). As Table 6.1 shows both CR
and Cronbach’s alpha scores are beyond the cut off value of .70 and AVE is above the cut
off value of 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) which demonstrate strong reliability and
validity.
Table 6.2 Convergent validity
Cronbach’s Alpha CR AVE
Conflict .919 .920 .746
EI .949 .948 .550
Success .921 .922 .568
Trust in team .861 .859 .552
For discriminant validity, this study examined whether the square root of AVE for each
construct was greater than its correlation with other constructs (Chin, 1998; Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). As Table 6.2 shows the analysis confirms strong discriminant validity.
157
Table 6.3 Mean, Standard deviation (SD) and discriminate validity
Mean SD Conflict EI Success Trust in team
Conflict 3.07 .937 .864
EI 5.48 .596 -.376 .742
Success 4.94 .651 -.499 .521 .753
Trust in team 5.43 .470 -.437 .612 .592 .743
This study used bootstrapping methods, including 1000 subsamples, to test the hypotheses
as suggested by Chin (1998). To test the mediation effects of trust and conflict this study
used the parallel multiple mediation model suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2008). This
study selected this method to minimise the likelihood of parameter bias and control for
multiple mediators (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
Results
Hypothesis 1 proposed that team EI would be positively associated to project success. As
Figure 6.2 shows, our analysis revealed a significant, positive association between team
EI and project success (β = .51, p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was fully supported.
Hypotheses 2 and 3 proposed a significant association between EI, trust in team and
conflict. As predicted, EI was positively related to trust in team (β = .59, p < .001) and
negatively related to conflict (β = -.36, p < .001); therefore, Hypotheses 2 and 3 were
supported. Hypothesis 4 predicted a positive association between trust in the team and
project success. As predicted, trust in team was positively related to project success (β =
.35, p < .011). Hypothesis 5 proposed a significant negative association between conflict
and project success. Conflict was negatively related to project success (β = -.26, p < .037).
Hypothesis 6 and 7 proposed that trust in team and conflict would mediate the positive
association between team EI and project success. After including trust in the team and
conflict the path coefficients between EI and project success became non-significant (β =
.20, p = .153). Thus, Hypothesis 6 and 7 were supported. This study also employed the
bootstrapping method which provides a powerful method for gaining confidence limits
158
for mediation relationships (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). As Table 6.3 shows, the findings
confirm the mediation effect of conflict and trust in team.
Figure 6.2. Results
Table 6.4 Bias-corrected bootstrap
Row Relationships Bias-corrected bootstrap 95% P-Value
Lower Upper
1 EIConflict -.530 -.175 .000
2 EITrust in team .378 .712 .000
3 EIproject success -.081 .479 .153
4 Trust in team success .066 .612 .011
5 Conflictproject success -.520 -.03 .037
Discussion
Large-scale construction projects have been criticised for poor project performance,
challenging relationships among project teams and low productivity (Clarke, 2010;
Maqbool et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2017). Thus, it is theoretically and practically significant
to examine the influence of soft factors, more specifically EI, trust and conflict
interactions between project teams on project success. Grounded in an extensive literature
review, this study answered the calls for a team-level study of EI (Rezvani et al., 2016;
Troth et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2017). In large-scale construction projects, the promise
linking team EI to project success is that teams with a high level of EI are more likely to
maintain effective and open communication with others. In turn, the enhanced
relationships that emerge facilitate knowledge and exchange of information and creativity
towards challenging tasks.
159
The positive association this study found between team EI, and trust in team offers further
insights into this association. This positive association is also consistent with prior
research findings related to EI and trust at the individual level in large-scale projects
(Rezvani et al., 2016; Sy et al., 2006). Result shows that in a large-scale construction
project, teams with high levels of EI are more likely to regulate their emotions to work
towards a productive outcome. Therefore, the result may guide new research towards
better understanding of the business-benefits influence of integrating team EI and other
soft factors within a large-scale construction project setting.
Relationship conflict is a soft factor in project teams that influences project success (Liu
et al., 2011). This paper found that relationship conflict has a negative correlation with
project success. Relationship conflict leads to a lack of communication, a lack of effective
exchange of information, a lack of creativity towards resolving complex tasks and passive
behaviour among project teams which results in poor performance. The negative
relationship we identified between team EI and relationship conflict in the team provides
further insight into this process that has previously lacked both empirical and theoretical
consideration in the project management literature. This result is consistent with prior
studies indicating that relationship conflict in project teams leads to low performance (Wu
et al., 2017). However, this study argues that the negative influence of relationship
conflicts can be diminished by improving EI. Emotional intelligence enables project
teams to manage and understand their own and the emotions of other team members that
arise from conflict events.
Trust on the other hand shows a positive correlation with project success. Given the long
time frames for large-scale construction projects, efforts are needed to improve trust in
teams that foster long-term cooperative relationships. In fact, under conditions of
ambiguity and uncertainty, it is likely in large-scale construction projects that a high level
of trust in a team is not possible without a high level of team EI. As such, project teams
with high levels of EI develop trust within the team by creating emotional attachments
among their team members, and this relationship then contributes to better
communication, and enables the generation of innovative ideas in crisis moments thus
increasing project success (Christie et al., 2015).
160
In addition, findings contribute to competency-performance theory. The competency-
performance theory states that skills or personal attributes can lead to effective
performance. This study shows that trust and conflict in teams mediates the direct
relationship of team EI on project success. The result, therefore, represents a response to
Müller and Jugdev's (2012) call for studies to discover mediating variables of project
success. This study proposes that when project teams are able to manage their negative
emotions through EI, negative responses to conflict may be diminished which in turn
facilitates effective communication, creativity towards solving complex challenges and
the exchange of knowledge and information among project teams.
Practical implications
Results emphasise the importance of EI at the team level, which could inspire
organisations that engage in large-scale construction projects to assess and build their
teams’ EI and understand how it could be facilitated. Earlier research on construction
projects showed that EI could be trained (Clarke, 2010). This paper suggests that project
organisations should introduce training methods that increase EI skills at the team level
to provide individual and team members with the necessary knowledge and skills, as this
could lead to increased performance and might result in budgets and time savings in large-
scale construction projects.
Second, the result highlighted the impact of trust. To begin with, project leaders and
managers could focus on creating trust in the relationships among team members.
Furthermore, it is vital to consider that team EI can positively influence trust in teams in
large-scale construction projects. Therefore, it could be important to inform project
organisations of the importance of EI as a primary skill in teams and its potentially
significant influence on team members’ shared trust.
Third, as an important skill, EI could be considered as a prerequisite selection criteria in
hiring, promoting, and training staff in project teams on large construction projects. In
addition, results have significant implications for project managers and project leaders
who will need to understand how to mitigate negative and destructive reactions that arise
from conflict events to achieve success in large-scale construction projects. Managers
should closely monitor their teams’ reactions to conflict. EI training may be useful among
161
teams that are facing negative and destructive reactions to conflict. The benefit of EI in
the project setting environment is expected to help managers and team members in
diminishing conflict in their teams.
Research limitations and future research recommendations
First, this study was conducted in one nation due to the boundaries and limitations of time
and resources, therefore, its results can only be generalised to those contexts where
economic and social settings are like those in Iran. Thus, it could be enlightening to further
examine team EI and its relationship to project success in different cultural contexts. The
influence of EI has been examined in various cultures (Ghorbani et al., 2002; Christie et
al., 2015). However, it is likely that trust in the team is sensitive to various cultures (Huang
& Bond, 2012; Cramton & Hinds, 2014). Therefore, it is recommended that future
research examine the various influences of trust in other settings and cultures (e.g., Asian
and Western). Second, this study examined the positive relationship of EI on project
success mediated by trust and conflict in team. Therefore, future research might consider
other forms of relationship or additional mediators. Third, it would be interesting to
examine empirically separate dimensions of EI or advocating the distinctive dimensions
of EI on team outcomes. This may lead to adding to the arguments and extending this
research, by treating EI as a multidimensional rather than a unified construct.
162
References
Ashkanasy, N.M. and Daus, C.S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence
in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26(4), 441-452. Avey, J.B., Wernsing, T.S. and Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive
organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant
attitudes and behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 48-70. Ayoko, O.B., Callan, V.J. and Härtel, C.E. (2008). The influence of team emotional
intelligence climate on conflict and team members' reactions to conflict. Small
Group Research, 39(2), 121-149.
Azmy, N., (2012). The role of team effectiveness in construction project teams and project
performance. Doctoral dissertation, Lowa State University.
Barczak, G., Lassk, F. and Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An
examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative
culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 332-345.
Barki H. and Hartwick, J. (2001). Interpersonal conflict and its management in
information system development. MIS Quarterly, 25(2) 195-228.
Brislin, R.W. (1986). Research instruments. Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research,
159-162.
Buvik, M.P. and Rolfsen, M. (2015) Prior ties and trust development in project teams–A
case study from the construction industry. International Journal of Project
Management, 33(7), 1484-1494.
Carvalho, M. M., and Rabechini, R. (2017). Can project sustainability management
impact project success? An empirical study applying a contingent
approach. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6) 1120-1132. Chan, A.P., Ho, D.C. and Tam, C.M. (2001). Effect of interorganizational teamwork on
project outcome, Journal of Management in Engineering, 17(1), 34-40.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at
different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(2), 234.
Chen, Y.Q., Zhang, Y.B. and Zhang, S.J. (2014). Impacts of different types of owner-
contractor conflict on cost performance in construction projects, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 140(6), 0401-417.
Chin, W.W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation
modelling, Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295-336. Christie, A.M., Jordan, P.J. and Troth, A.C. (2015). Trust antecedents: emotional
intelligence and perceptions of others, International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 23(1), 89-101.
163
Clarke, N. (2010). Emotional intelligence abilities and their relationships with team
processes. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 16(1), 6-
32.
Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational
commitment and personal need non‐fulfilment. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 53(1), 39-52.
Costa, A.C. and Anderson, N. (2011). Measuring trust in teams: Development and
validation of a multifaceted measure of formative and reflective indicators of team
trust. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 119-154. Cote, S. and Miners, C.T. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(1), 1-28.
Cramton, C.D. and Hinds, P.J. (2014). An embedded model of cultural adaptation in
global teams. Organization Science, 25(4), 1056-1081.
De Jong, B.A., Dirks, K.T. and Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-
analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 101(8), 1134.
Drouin, N. and Bourgault, M. (2013). How organizations support distributed project
teams: Key dimensions and their impact on decision making and teamwork
effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 32(8), 865-885.
Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence–A review and evaluation
study, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(4), 341-372.
Dumitru, C.D. and Schoop, M.A. (2016). How does trust in teams, team identification,
and organisational identification impact trust in organisations? International
Journal of Management and Applied Research, 3(2), 87-97.
Du Plessis, M., Wakelin, Z. and Nel, P. (2015). The influence of emotional intelligence
and trust on servant leadership. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 41(1), 01-
09.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18(3), 382-388. Ghorbani, N., Bing, M.N., Watson, P.J., Davison, H.K. and Mack, D.A. (2002). Self-
reported emotional intelligence: Construct similarity and functional dissimilarity
of higher-order processing in Iran and the United States. International Journal of
Psychology, 37(5), 297-308.
Henderson, L.S., Stackman, R.W. and Lindekilde, R. (2016). The centrality of
communication norm alignment, role clarity, and trust in global project teams.
International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), 1717–1730.
Hoegl, M. and Gemuenden, H.G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative
projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science,
12(4) 435-449.
164
Huang, X. and Bond, M.H. (eds.), (2012). Handbook of Chinese organizational behavior:
Integrating theory, research and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater
reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1),
85-93.
Jehn, K.A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of
intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-284.
Jehn, K.A., and Chatman, J.A. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual
conflict composition on team performance. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 11(1), 56-73.
Jordan, P.J. and Troth, A.C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem solving:
Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance. 17(2), 195-
218.
Jordan, P.J., Dasborough, M.T., Daus, C.S., and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2010). A call to
context, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(2), pp. 145-148. Kaufmann, L. and Wagner, C.M. (2017). Affective diversity and emotional intelligence
in cross-functional sourcing teams. Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, 23(1), 5-16.
Klein, K.J., Bliese, P.D., Kozolowski, S.W., Dansereau, F., Gavin, M.B., Griffin, M.A.,
Hofmann, D.A., James, L.R., Yammarino, F.J. and Bligh, M.C. (2000), Multilevel
analytical techniques: Commonalities, differences, and continuing questions:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 512-553). Jossey-Bass: San
Francisco.
LeBreton, J.M. and Senter, J.L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability
and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815-852. Ley, T. and Albert, D. (2003). Identifying employee competencies in dynamic work
domains: methodological considerations and a case study. Journal of Universal
Computer Science, 9(12), 1500-1518.
Lindsjørn, Y., Sjøberg, D.I., Dingsøyr, T., Bergersen, G.R. and Dybå, T. (2016).
Teamwork quality and project success in software development: A survey of agile
development teams. Journal of Systems and Software, 122(4), 274-286.
Liu, J.Y.C., Chen, H.G., Chen, C.C. and Sheu, T.S. (2011). Relationships among
interpersonal conflict, requirements uncertainty, and software project
performance. International Journal of Project Management, 29(5), 547-556.
Lvina, E., Maher, L.P. and Harris, J.N. (2017). Political skill, trust, and efficacy in
teams. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(1), 95-105.
McAllister, D.J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.
165
Maqbool, R., Sudong, Y., Manzoor, N. and Rashid, Y. (2017). The impact of emotional
intelligence, project managers' competencies, and transformational leadership on
project success. Project Management Journal, 48(3), 58-75.
Martens, C.D.P., Machado, F.J., Martens, M.L. and de Freitas, H.M.R. (2017). Linking
entrepreneurial orientation to project success. International Journal of Project
Management, 36(2), 255-266. Mazur, A., Pisarski, A., Chang, A. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2014). Rating defence major
project success: The role of personal attributes and stakeholder
relationships. International Journal of Project Management, 32(6), 944-957.
Müller, R. and Jugdev, K. (2012). Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin, and
Prescott–the elucidation of project success. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, 5(4), 757-775.
Müller, R. and Turner, J.R. (2007). Matching the project manager’s leadership style to
project type. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 21-32.
Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis
of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44(1), 1-28.
Pinjani, P. and Palvia, P. (2013). Trust and knowledge sharing in diverse global virtual
teams, Information & Management, 50(4), 144-153.
Pinto, J.K. (1990). Project Implementation Profile: a tool to aid project tracking and
control. International Journal of Project Management, 8(3), 173-182.
Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1987). Critical factors in successful project implementation.
IEEE Transaction Engineering Management. 1(3), 22–27.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012). Sources of method bias in
social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review
of Psychology, 63(2), 539-569.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40(3), 879-891.
Rapisarda, B.A. (2002). The impact of emotional intelligence on work team cohesiveness
and performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(4),
363-379.
Rezvani, A., Chang, A., Wiewiora, A., Ashkanasy, N.M., Jordan, P.J. and Zolin, R.
(2016). Manager emotional intelligence and project success: The mediating role
of job satisfaction and trust. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7),
1112-1122.
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Straub, D.W. (2012). Editor's comments: a critical look at
the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly. MIS Quarterly 36(1), iii-xiv. Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9(3), 185-211.
166
Stephens, J.P. and Carmeli, A. (2016). The positive effect of expressing negative emotions
on knowledge creation capability and performance of project teams. International
Journal of Project Management, 34(5), 862-873.
Stubbs Koman, E. and Wolff, S.B. (2008). Emotional intelligence competencies in the
team and team leader: A multi-level examination of the impact of emotional
intelligence on team performance. Journal of Management Development, 27(1),
55-75.
Sy, T., Tram, S. and O’Hara, L.A. (2006). Relation of employee and manager emotional
intelligence to job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
68(3), 461-473.
Toor, S.U.R. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2008). Problems causing delays in major construction
projects in Thailand, Construction Management and Economics, 26(4), 395-408.
Troth, A.C., Jordan, P.J., Lawrence, S.A. and Tse, H.H. (2012). A multilevel model of
emotional skills, communication performance, and task performance in
teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 700-722.
Tsai, W.C., Chi, N.W., Grandey, A.A. and Fung, S.C. (2012). Positive group affective
tone and team creativity: Negative group affective tone and team trust as boundary
conditions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 638-656. Turner, R. and Zolin, R. (2012). Forecasting success on large projects: developing reliable
scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time
frames. Project Management Journal, 43(5), 87-99.
Wong, C.S. and Law, K.S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional
intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership
Quarterly, 13(3), 243-274.
Wu, G., Liu, C., Zhao, X. and Zuo, J. (2017). Investigating the relationship between
communication-conflict interaction and project success among construction
project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1466-1482.
Yang, L.R., Huang, C.F. and Wu, K.S. (2011). The association among project manager's
leadership style, teamwork and project success. International Journal of Project
Management, 29(3), 258-267.
Zhang, L., and Fan, W. (2013). Improving performance of construction projects: A project
manager's emotional intelligence approach. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 20(2), 195-207.
Zhang, L., and Huo, X. (2015). The impact of interpersonal conflict on construction
project performance: a moderated mediation study from China. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 26(4), 479–498.
167
Discussion and Conclusions
This chapter brings together the findings from each study outlined in Chapters 3-6 to
summarise the key outcomes for the overarching research question. The contributions to
practice, limitations, and future research directions are presented. The chapter then closes
with an overview of the findings and conclusions of the thesis.
Introduction
This thesis is designed around 4 studies in order to answer the overarching research
question, six research questions were constructed and presented in studies as well as in
Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6. In the following section explains the outcomes are synthesized to
present implications for both theory and practice.
Research Outcomes and Contribution to Theory and Practice
Contributions of study 1
The aim of study 1 was to identify project success factors in complex projects.
Consequently, the main research question was as follows:
RQ1. What are the project success factors in complex projects?
To answer this question, a systematic review was conducted using descriptive and
thematic analyses in order to develop a comprehensive list of project success factors in
complex projects. By consolidating and analysing 30 articles in the literature on complex
project settings the PM success criteria or meeting time, cost and quality were found to
be mentioned in 20 out of 30 articles where project success was measured across three
types of complex projects. Clearly, complex project management relies on traditional PM
success criteria and in doing so the success of complex projects is seen to be objective
measurements which, appear to threaten the desired long-term impacts. This is because
project success should not be commensurate with the product success and if stakeholders
are not satisfied there are no future deals (Yang et al., 2011; Eweje et al., 2012; Shenhar
& Dvir, 2007).
168
Thirteen out of 30 articles used PM success criteria along with critical success factors as
a measure of success across three types of complex projects. This shows that project
success is perceived across three types of complex projects not just by the traditional view
of completing within budget, time and desired quality goals, but also by whether the
project delivers the desired outcomes including stakeholder satisfaction, open
communication, specific plans and whether it meets user/customer/owner requirements.
This evidence reveals a consensus of these four factors along with PM success criteria to
achieve success across three types of complex projects. This evidence also reveals the
importance of evaluating project success as separate but interlinked measures to achieve
long-term business success.
From this review, the differences between the three types of projects regarding their
success factors were identified. Despite the four commonly shared success factors, this
review demonstrated that there were also success factors unique to each type of complex
project. In defence projects, problem-solving, defence capabilities, mission clarity, and
project member wellbeing were used as a measure of success. It seems these were
commonalities between Pinto and Slevin's (1987) success factor list. Project mission, top
management support, schedule and plans, client consultation, personnel, technical tasks,
client acceptance, monitoring and feedback, communication and troubleshooting.
Comparing the success factor list created by Pinto and Slevin's (1987) and those revealed
by this review shows that scholars have been building on previous work but there is lack
of new factors being created, suggesting a gap to generate additional up to date list of
success factors, instead of merely testing current success factors.
In complex IT projects technical support, achieve business/organisational goals, software
selection, team contribution, consulting capability were measured as success factors.
There is a commonality between the result of this review and the result of the Savolainen
and his colleague (2012) on software development project success. They used customer
satisfaction, short-term and long-term business success as a measure of success in
software development projects. Although the criteria found in these software development
projects are similar they are not exactly the same as the ones this review identified.
Comparing the result of this systematic review and those project success factors identified
by Savolainen et al. (2012) in software development projects divulges the significance of
169
defining context and research settings when studying complex project success due to the
differences between success criteria by project type (Müller & Turner, 2007), as is also
suggested by various studies such as Pinto and Prescott (1990), Toor and Ogunlana
(2009a) and Williams, (2015).
In complex construction/infrastructure projects, health and safety, project manager and
project team competence, project control, the involvement of client, risk management,
claim management, the absence of conflicts, standardisation of the project delivery,
project efficiency and availability of resources were used as a measure of success.
In addition, comparing critical success factors used for each type of complex projects, it
appears that, although some success factors are common in complex projects – for
example, stakeholder satisfaction, open communication, and specific plans, most success
factors vary from project to project. The review revealed that the success factors used in
IT projects where the main objective is to deliver an information system that will support
and strengthen the organization’s own business, may not be valid for construction
projects. Therefore, it is important to define and understand the research context to
identify valid success criteria and their influences on complex project success. Although
it is difficult to determine which factors are valid for each organisation type or which
factors should be taken into account in, for example, IT projects but not in Defence or
construction projects. However, it is important to identify and understand project success
in each type of complex project in order to determine whether various success factors or
new factors have an impact on complex project success.
The review showed that few studies focus on IT and defence projects compared to
construction or infrastructure projects. The lack of such studies is surprising given the
importance of Defence and IT projects and their substantial influences on environmental,
social, economics, national and even international implications associated with these
types of projects (Dvir et al., 2006; Rezvani et al., 2016).
In addition, the systematic review shows that most studies on project success are based
on data from developed countries. Consequently, the result and implications of studies on
project success in complex projects are restricted to the specific norms, culture, and
countries where these studies have been conducted. It appears research should be
170
conducted in other national and settings to understand the nature of the various types of
complex projects, nature of organisations, management strategies, norms, socio-economic
factors and local cultural values. It may be worthwhile examining complex projects by
specifically focusing on the context of developing countries to account for the nature and
structure of the local industry; that is, how they differ from developed countries in terms
of challenges, requirements or management styles, or what unique characteristics or
specific factors arise due to infrastructure, local cultural values or languages. Specifically,
cultural values and socio-economic factors in complex projects place different challenges
on all stakeholders involved at various levels. Particularly, in the developing world, where
activities are heavily interrelated and enforced by the various stakeholders who are
dispersed around the world, cross-cultural communications and coordination play a
significant role towards problem-solving, management strategies, and decision making.
Thus, research identifying and examining the specific critical success factors by
considering the nature of projects such as socio-economic and cultural factors will not
only help to increase the understanding of various types of complex projects but also help
to capture the perception of different stakeholders, project managers, contractors, designer
and consultants in large-scale complex projects.
In summary, in contrast to previous project success reviews, which classify success
factors into decades with a focus on the time frame of the project lifecycle (e.g., Jugdev
& Müller, 2005; Davis, 2014), this systematic review of project success in complex
projects provides a comprehensive list of project success in complex projects and
distinguishes these factors based on project types. The categorisation of project types with
their success factors helps managers to identify factors which are more project-type-
specific within complex projects and to embark on the subsequent steps to manage these
projects. By identifying project success across different project types in complex projects,
project managers can determine improvement measures to raise the probability of success
and reduce the chances of any setbacks in their own projects. There may also be practical
benefits to policy development in improving the way project success is assessed in
different complex projects. The review may help organisations to effectively divert their
resources to where maximum success lies while helping project leaders to accomplish
their objectives.
171
Contributions of Study 2
The aim of study 2 was to identify barriers to success and provide recommendations to
overcome these barriers in complex projects. Consequently, the main research question
was as follows:
RQ2: What are the barrier factors in complex projects?
To answer this question, a systematic review was conducted where descriptive and
thematic analyses lead to the proposed categories of barriers impacting the successful
delivery of complex projects. Specific recommendations were provided to overcome
some of these barriers in complex projects. The following paragraphs discuss the findings
and explain each category with respective recommendations and strategies to overcome
these barriers in complex projects.
Organizational barriers refer to the lack of structural and organizational priorities and
policies, as well as the lack of understanding of cultural aspects of an organization (Hall
et al., 2012; Thamhain, 2013). Result shows, of the 10 organizational barriers affecting
complex project success, poor communication is the most frequently cited. Poor
communication or failure to communicate effectively with internal and external
stakeholders was considered a hindrance factor for project success in complex projects
(Rezvani et al., 2016). This could be due to organizations engaged in complex projects
focusing primarily on the technical aspects of a project, but lacking emphasis on
communication with internal and external stakeholders. Organizational barriers can be
overcome by ensuring more effective communication focused on setting clear goals and
requirements, and upholding the principles of transparency and open communication
among all the stakeholders involved in complex projects (Liu et al., 2016; Remington &
Pollack, 2007). This will help to ensure the commitment of all organizations, allow all
possible requirements to be identified and all voices to be heard (Janssen et al., 2015).
Managerial barriers are related to a lack of or poor, managerial skills and competencies
throughout the project life cycle. These can have negative consequences, affecting
everything from technical feasibility to cost, market timing, financial performance and
strategic objectives (Alshawi et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2012). The review reveals, amongst
the five managerial barriers affecting complex project success, the lack of competent and
172
effective project team members and leader is the most frequently cited barrier in the
project management literature. This illustrates the lack of attention to managerial and
project team members behaviours and skills in complex projects. Earlier research in
complex projects has shown that managerial skills and competencies can be trained
(Clarke, 2010; Rezvani et al., 2016). To cope with managerial barriers in complex
projects, organisations should introduce training approaches that increase managerial
competency and skills for project team members, project leaders, and managers.
Contractual barriers arise when stakeholders pursue self-interested goals in initiating
contracts and there are inadequate and ineffective coordination and a lack of information
sharing among the parties (Alshawi et al., 2012). The review demonstrates, of the two
contract-related barriers identified in this category, the most frequently cited in the
literature is contractual disputes. In complex projects, many contractors and sub-
contractors are involved, resulting in complex relationships between parties. Such
intricate relationships often cause deficiencies in contractual agreements. These barriers
can be overcome by ensuring transparency in defining goals and clarity of contractual
agreements. Kent and Becerik-Gerber (2010) assert that as a backup plan, project-based
organizations can buy insurance against the risk of either party breaching the contract.
Through such contractual arrangements, both parties can secure their interests. However,
it is important to note that complex projects often have ambitious and ambiguous goals
and a very long-time horizon, thus these recommendations are difficult to implement in
practice (Alshawi et al., 2012). A more realistic strategy is to employ a strong contractual
agreement based on shared risk and reward arrangements, such as a policy of ‘sink or
swim together’ (Kent & Becerik-Gerber, 2010). A good example of contractual success
through shared risk and reward is the London Heathrow Terminal 5 project, where both
parties agreed on mutual risk and gain sharing; all stakeholders in the project, including
project partners and contractors, worked collaboratively and responded to emergent,
unforeseen problems in real-time, a risk budget was maintained and remaining profits
were shared (Kardes et al., 2013). The project was finished on time and within the budget
of £4.2 billion in 2008.
Project team barriers refer to conflict and a lack of trust among team members as well as
lack of teamwork experiences. These barriers produce management pressures and
173
exacerbate conflict and instability within the team (Rose & Schlichter, 2013). Of the five
project team barriers that reduce the chance of success in complex projects, instability,
and conflict in project teams are the most frequently identified factors in the literature.
Project team barriers can be reduced through applying effective approaches to conflict
management, focused on transparency and open discussion of any differences between
project teams, and joint problem-solving. Researchers have advocated that effective
conflict management increases mutual trust and allows teams to successfully resolve their
disagreements and develop team cohesion. Strong intergroup leadership to enact a shared
group identity is also critical to decreasing conflict and instability in project teams (Hogg,
Van Knippenberg & Rast, 2012).
Project design and implementation barriers refer to the lack of detailed specification of
the implementation process (Patanakul, 2014). Among the six project design and
implementation factors two – redesign/rework/changing project requirements and poor
project planning – are the most frequently cited. While this may highlight the lack of clear
initial requirements it also reflects the nature of complex projects, which includes
ambiguous project goals, a long time horizon, and complex relationships. It has been
argued that without a clear project design and documented requirements there is a high
possibility of new requirements being added to the project and existing requirements
being discarded (Patanakul, 2014), undermining the chance of project success (Hall et al.,
2012; Thamhain, 2013). Large projects cannot be completed without detailed planning
from the start as the complexity is very high, which in turn may influence their
development (Janssen et al. 2015). In order to overcome project design and
implementation barriers one solution would be to start out with a sufficient front-end plan
that accounts for likely changes in the project direction, or changes in technology and the
legal environment, since most complex projects have little flexibility after initiation due
to their high degree of regulation (Van Marrewijk et al., 2008). Studies have highlighted
that projects with better initial design processes show a higher success rate than those with
insufficient front-end plans (Davies & Mackenzie, 2014). Investment in the early stages
of the project can help to maintain the schedule and improve quality. Therefore, cost
reduction is secured and better outcomes are achieved (Davies & Mackenzie, 2014).
174
Political/legal barriers relate to government or political intervention, which interferes
with or prevents business transactions, or changes in the terms of agreements in the project
planning phase (Alshawi et al., 2012). These barriers arise from the actions of local as
well as national governments due to the uncertainty from possible changes in the policies
of regulatory bodies, which may affect project costs and revenue (Thamhain, 2013). These
changes include the levels of local and national taxation, limitations on the import and
export of foreign and local currencies, and changes in the levels of customs duties on
imported equipment and supplies (Yau & Yang, 2012). Among the five political/legal
barriers in complex projects, governmental processes and undervaluation/changing of
regulation are the most frequently identified factors in the literature. To cope with
political/legal barriers one solution would be to co-operate and maintain good
relationships with local government departments by preparing all necessary documents
and feasibility reports in a timely manner (Alshawi et al., 2012). It is also important to
obtain support from foreign firms’ home governments and international monetary
institutions, such as the World Bank, against expropriation by local government or its
agencies. In addition, forming a cooperative joint venture with local partners, especially
the central-local government agencies or state-owned companies is also vital (Yau &
Yang, 2012). It is also very important to carefully study the differential taxation laws and
find legal and reasonable measures to reduce taxes (Locatelli & Mancini, 2012).
Financial barriers refer to the lack of money, funding, and resources for complex projects
(Alshawi et al., 2012). Price increments and unavailability of resources are the most cited
factors among the four financial barriers in complex projects. These barriers can be easier
to overcome for complex projects funded by the government, given it has the resources
and experience to deal with financial barriers (Alshawi et al., 2012). In particular, the
government has the legal power to ensure that the required resources are obtained (Bing
et al., 2005). Other dominant sources of project financing are the World Bank and other
aid agencies. A good example is the “land acquisition” of the YD2nd Tunnel in Shanghai,
China, where the local authority took responsibility for providing financial support (Bing
et al., 2005).
Technical barriers refer to the lack of relevant knowledge and experience of the technical
aspects of the project and expertise that can lead to several problems and inefficiencies in
175
developing projects, increasing the risk of failure (Yetton et al., 2000). Among the seven
technical barriers in complex projects, system complexity, technical difficulties and the
newness of the project are the most frequently mentioned factors. To cope with technical
barriers in complex projects, managers, project managers, and project teams should
possess the necessary skills and knowledge to use the newly implemented technology
(Brookes & Locatelli, 2015). According to Hartmann et al. (2009), technical knowledge
enables the use of correct working methods to competently handle machinery and
equipment. In this domain, training plays an important role to ensure the new technology
is used efficiently and to reduce resistance to change.
This systematic identification and classification of complex project barriers fills an
existing gap in the project management literature and, from a practice perspective, assists
in more effectively distributing limited resources, such as budget, time and manpower
(Kardes et al., 2013; Toor & Ogunlana, 2010). The review reveals that most of the barrier
factors were categorized under organizational, managerial, project design and
implementation, political/legal, and project contract. The remaining were categorized as
either financial or technical barrier. This indicates that technical and financial barriers are
not the only crucial factors that undermine the successful delivery of complex projects.
When it comes to complex project management, factors such as incompetent project team
members and leaders, attitudes and skills of the project team and project managers,
ineffective communication with internal and external stakeholders, project team
instability can jeopardize the project’s success. It would be worth considering these
factors in more detail before the complex project is implemented in order to provide a
useful guide to potential barriers that undermine high performance in complex projects.
This could also provide additional insight into why achieving success in complex projects
is so difficult for some organizations but not for others.
Overall, the categorization of barrier factors provides a comprehensive understanding of
barriers to complex projects. There are also multiple benefits of using the comprehensive
list of barrier factors for practitioners. First, this review offers practitioners a more
comprehensive understanding of the potential barriers to success in managing complex
projects so that they might proactively address those barriers prior to problems emerging,
and effectively acquire and preserve the capabilities that are needed to perform well in a
176
dynamic, uncertain and constantly changing the environment. This review suggests that,
given the complexity and dynamics of complex projects, all stakeholders who are
involved in complex projects should have an understanding of the different factors that
impede the success of complex projects in order to implement proper strategies from the
initial project stages (van Marrewijk et al., 2008). Second, an integrated list of barriers
and the recommendation to overcome these barriers in complex projects could help
organizations to effectively distribute limited resources, such as budget, time and
manpower (Toor & Ogunlana, 2010). Third, by increasing awareness of various barriers,
managers may be able to proactively respond to unexpected problems before they pose a
significant threat. Proactive responses could significantly enhance project efficiency and
increase the chance of success (Kardes et al., 2013). Finally, this review provides a
guideline for adopting relevant strategies by investigating several practical solutions for
coping with barriers in complex projects.
Contributions of Study 3
Building on study 2 where incompetent project team members and project managers were
identified as barriers decrease the chance of complex project success, the aim of study 3
was examining how managerial skills, more specifically project managers’ EI contributes
to project success in complex projects. Therefore, the consequent research questions of
study 3 were:
RQ3. How does emotional intelligence as an important soft skill for project managers
influence project success at the individual level?
RQ4. What are the underlying mechanisms of emotional intelligence and project success?
The relationship between EI and project success established by this study confirm an
existing body of research where project managers’ competencies, knowledge, and skills
are related to project success (Müller & Turner, 2007; Clarke, 2010). The positive
relationship between EI and work attitudes (job satisfaction and trust) found in this study
supported by (Sy et al., 2006). The findings also extend other research, such as Clarke
(2010), by identifying the underlying mechanisms between EI and project performance.
Study 3 a model was developed and tested that drew on relevant emotions theory: AET
(Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Using the underlying principle of the AET, it was
177
demonstrated the relationship between EI and project success had two paths that may
mediate the relationship. First, trust is an attitudinal variable that implies an emotional
bond linking EI and project success perceptions. As such, emotionally intelligent project
managers develop emotional attachment with their team members and see this reflected
in project success factors, including communication, mission clarity, troubleshooting and
top-management support. Second, job satisfaction mediates the relationship between
project managers’ EI and project success.
The findings demonstrated in study 3 show EI as an important managerial skill for project
managers which contributes to project success. Müller and Jugdev’s (2012) call for a
research to explore mediating variables of project success has been answered and to the
best of my knowledge, this study is the first to apply AET to study the role of EI in project
success. From a methodological perspective, insofar as satisfaction and trust were
examined simultaneously, a methodological contribution has been made and a parameter
estimate bias issues have been reduced (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) that would have arisen
where we to have examined one mediator at a time.
Moreover, for both the independent and dependent variables data were collected at two
different times to increase the validity and reliability of the findings (Troth et al., 2012).
Understanding the relationship between EI and project success has practical implications
for project managers, particularly in the areas of selection and management development.
Evidence of the effects of EI on manager’s attitudes and work behaviour outcome
(Carmeli, 2003; Rosete & Ciarrochi, 2005) demonstrates the potential value that may be
found in fostering EI in project managers, especially in complex project settings. Building
on this research, the findings suggested that organizations should consider recruiting
project managers who have high levels of EI as these managers can be expected to have
a higher level of positive work attitudes, such as job satisfaction and trust. Positive work
attitudes, such as job satisfaction and trust, are enhanced by fostering EI in managers
(Carmeli, 2003), and EI can also be developed through training programs (Clarke, 2010).
Clarke (2010) reported that after project managers received EI training, positive attitudes
and behavior were increased, conflict declined and a manufacturing plant exceeded its
productivity goals.
178
Finally, findings suggested that top management should be aware of the importance of
project managers’ job satisfaction and trust, which can both serve to boost project success
in complex project situations. As such, enhancing job satisfaction and promoting project
managers’ trust in their followers should be a part of leader development programs. In
this regard, providing appropriate training programs has been shown to be associated with
increased job satisfaction (Harris, Wheeler, & Kacmar, 2009). The design of project
rewards is another strategy that could increase the development of trust between two
parties in projects, which leads to revenue growth.
Contributions of Study 4
In study 4 the influence of team EI on project success was examined through the mediating
mechanism of trust and relationship conflict in the team. Thus, by conceptualising and
analysing EI and its influence on project success at the team level, study 4 was designed
to answer the following research questions:
RQ5.What is the impact of team emotional intelligence on project success?
RQ6.What is the underlying mechanisms of team emotional intelligence and project
success?
The findings of study 4 revealed the impact of team EI on project success in complex
projects at team level of analysis. Large-scale infrastructure projects have been criticised
for poor project performance, challenging relationships among project teams and low
productivity (Clarke, 2010; Maqbool et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2017). Thus, it is theoretically
and practically significant to examine the influence of soft factors, more specifically EI,
trust and conflict interactions between project teams on project success. Grounded in an
extensive literature review and CPT, this study answered the calls for a team-level study
of EI (Rezvani et al., 2016; Troth et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2017). In large-scale construction
projects, the promises linking team EI to project success is that teams with high levels of
EI are more likely to maintain effective and open communication with others. In turn, the
enhanced relationships that emerge facilitate knowledge and exchange of information and
creativity towards challenging tasks.
The positive association found between team EI and trust in team offers further insights
into this association. This positive association is also consistent with prior research
179
findings related to EI and trust at the individual level in large-scale projects (Rezvani et
al., 2016; Sy et al., 2006). The result shows that in a large-scale construction project,
teams with high levels of EI are more likely to regulate their emotions to work towards a
productive outcome. Therefore, the result may guide new research towards a better
understanding of the business-benefits influence of integrating team EI and other soft
factors within a large-scale construction project setting.
Relationship conflict is another soft factor in project teams that influence project success
(Liu et al., 2011). Relationship conflict was found to have a negative correlation with
project success. Relationship conflict leads to a lack of communication, ineffective
exchange of information, a lack of creativity in resolving complex tasks and passive
behaviour among project teams which results in poor performance. The negative
relationship that was identified between team EI and relationship conflict in the team
provides further insight into a process that has previously lacked both empirical and
theoretical consideration in the project management literature. Study 4 showed that the
negative influence of relationship conflicts can be diminished by improving EI. Emotional
intelligence enables project teams to manage and understand their own emotions and the
emotions of other team members that arise from conflict events.
Trust on the other hand shows a positive correlation with project success. Given the long
time frames for large scale construction projects, efforts are needed to improve trust in
teams that foster long-term cooperative relationships. In fact, under conditions of
ambiguity and uncertainty, it is likely in large scale construction/infrastructure projects
that a high level of trust in a team is not possible without a high level of team EI. As such,
project teams with high levels of EI develop trust within the team by creating emotional
attachments among their team members, and this relationship then contributes to better
communication and enables the generation of innovative ideas in crisis moments thus
increasing project success (Christie et al., 2015).
In addition, findings contribute to CPT which states that skills or personal attributes can
lead to effective performance. It has shown that competence of project team members
particularly EI, influences project success through the mediating mechanisms of trust and
conflict in teams. The result, therefore, represents a response to Müller and Jugdev's
180
(2012) call for studies to discover mediating variables of project success. So, when project
teams are able to manage their negative emotions through EI, negative responses to
conflict may be diminished which in turn facilitates effective communication, creativity
towards solving complex challenges and the exchange of knowledge and information
among project teams.
The outcomes in study 4 also advance understanding of how emotional skills of project
managers and project team members can impact project success within a large-scale
complex infrastructure/construction project setting. The findings suggest that a teams’
competence, particularly EI, can influence the successful delivery of complex projects.
Future research examining project performance could consider the influence of soft skills,
rather than only technical skills, in teams, as an increase in a team’s EI can contribute to
its performance in complex projects.
There are also implications for the selection and development of teams that increase the
chance of successful delivery of complex projects. As such, the research outcomes have
implications for the project management bodies of knowledge regarding the importance
of behavioural skills in teams for promoting success in complex project settings.
A strength of study 4 was that both the independent and dependent variables were
collected at two different times to increase the validity and reliability of the findings
(Troth et al., 2012). Furthermore, there is a methodological contribution to knowledge in
terms of the team analysis adopted in study 4. The study answered frequent calls that have
been made by leading academics to move beyond the individual level of analysis to study
a construct at a higher level such as the team level (Ashkanasy, 2003; Troth et al., 2012)
and this was the first study in project management literature where insight was offered
into the nature of soft skills of teams, rather than technical skills, to achieve success in
complex projects.
Finally, in study 4 traditional success measurements or success criteria was uncovered. In
particular, it was found that emotionally intelligent teams increased project success and,
as a result, can contribute to reducing time and money by examining the emotional skills
in a team that can ultimately manifest in project success. Therefore, study 4 also
181
contributed to the project management body of knowledge on emotional skills and
competencies that teams require for effective practice in complex project settings.
Overall contribution to theory and practice
This thesis was pursued to improve project success and address the high failure rate in
complex projects through identifying the personal attributes, attitudes, and competence of
both project managers and project team members operating in complex large scale
defence and infrastructure projects. The research advanced understanding of the
competence and attitudes of project managers and project team members, that can impact
project success in complex projects at both individual and team levels of analysis. The
findings, therefore, suggested that the EI of individuals and teams can increase the
likelihood of project success and reduce the chance of setbacks in complex project
organisations. As such, there are implications for the project management bodies of
knowledge and the EI literature regarding the soft skills that individuals and teams possess
for assuring success in complex project settings. The research also has implications for
the selection and development of individuals and teams to increase the chance of
successful delivery of complex projects.
7.2.5.1 Implications for theory
This thesis advances prior research in complex projects by empirically and theoretically
linking EI to project success from an individual and team levels perspectives. This thesis
answered to calls by researchers including Ashkanasy (2003) and Troth et al. (2012) to
develop a model that examines the personal skills, competence, and attitudes of project
managers and project team members on project success. This thesis encourages new ways
of thinking about project success in terms of enhancing EI in project managers and project
team members in order to resolve complex task in crises moment and facilitate
communication in complex project management. To the best of my knowledge, this is the
first empirical study in project management, to examine the individuals and teams’
competence, attitudes and behaviour for both project managers and project team members
on project success at individual and team levels of analysis. The research shows that
individual and team EI are significantly and positively related to job satisfaction, trust,
team members' communication and troubleshooting within a team. In addition, the
182
negative influence of relationship conflicts can be diminished by improving team EI. EI
enables project teams to manage and understand their own and the emotions of other team
members that arise from conflict events. CPT (Ley & Albert, 2003) is advanced in terms
of attributes and competence of individuals and teams. Furthermore, through the adoption
of AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) the outcomes of this research contribute to the
relatively nascent research of emotions in workplace literature by identifying an outcome
associated with effective type of competence —project success relationship.
7.2.5.2 Implications for project management literature
A contribution to the complex project management literature was made by this thesis,
specifically to critical success factors. In particular, at the individual level, in Study 3 it
was reported that emotionally intelligent project managers may be able to enhance
effective communication with internal and external stakeholders, set clear directions
toward complex tasks or mission clarity, provide top management support and can resolve
complex issues that can arise in crisis moments or trouble-shoot (Pinto, 1990) in complex
projects settings. At the team level, in Study 4 it was reported that the emotionally
intelligent team may be able to contribute to reducing time and money within the complex
project environment by examining the soft skills in a team as these can affect effective
communication and troubleshooting in complex projects and ultimately manifests in
project success. Therefore, this research contributed to the project management body of
knowledge regarding the soft skills, attitudes, and competencies that both individuals and
teams require for effective practices in complex project settings.
7.2.5.3 Implications for complex project management literature
This thesis also focused on large-scale complex defense and infrastructure projects
because these projects are likely to have a strong influence on the future of our society.
These projects have social, environmental, national and even international implications
(Wu et al., 2017). EI, as well as teamwork, are likely to play important roles in complex
projects, and research in this context has been largely lacking (Rezvani et al., 2016). This
thesis is the first where it has been the impact of personal attitudes and competence of
both project managers and project team members on project success empirically
demonstrated at both the individual and team levels in the complex project environment
183
through the mediating mechanism of, trust and job satisfaction at the individual level and
trust and relationship conflict in the team at the team level.
7.2.5.4 Implications for Managers
This thesis draws sample on project managers and project team members who are
operating in large-scale complex projects in complex projects, offers various potential
implications for leaders/managers. First, the finding that EI is a predictor of trust, job
satisfaction, and relationship conflict, communication and troubleshooting suggest that
project leaders operating in large organisations need to assess the EI of each
subordinate/employees/project managers. Development programs such as training in EI
can then be commenced to advance individual and team EI capabilities. In addition,
evaluations and assessments of EI might be utilised with job applicants, specifically those
applying for positions which entail considerable teamwork.
Second, the impact of trust in the team on project success in large-scale complex projects
reinforces that trust is a critical element in teams and individuals that managers need to
pay attention to. In a trusting environment, individuals and teams are more willing to share
risk and resources by sharing information and communication with their team members
thereby creating a sense of collaboration in highly complex projects (Rezvani et al., 2016).
To build a trusting relationship with project teams, who are working on long time frames
in complex projects, managers need to develop competence and skills of project team
members by developing EI training courses.
Third, at the team level, the conceptualization of EI in this thesis suggests that these are
skills that can be achieved and applied by project team members and project managers.
This may be via role modeling behaviour or it could be through formal EI training
processes such as team building. For example, a kick-off training EI courses at the
beginning of a project can help team members to get to know each other and start to build
relationships that can ultimately lead to an effective communication and resolving
complex task in a crises moment.
Finally, this thesis reveals EI contributes to more effective communication and
troubleshooting between team members. In addition, the negative influence of
relationship conflicts can be diminished by improving EI. Therefore, it would be
184
worthwhile for leaders/managers, to consider the development of EI as an important part
of team building processes.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
The following section highlights the limitations arising from each study presented in
Chapters 3-6 and potential opportunities for future research.
Limitations and Future Research Directions of Studies 1 & 2
The literature review focused on complex projects and not all types of projects. Therefore,
future research may wish to examine and compare other types of projects. Only empirical
studies were analysed because these were expected to report on validated findings and
have the highest impact on the field (Ordanini, Rubera, & DeFillippi, 2008). Hence,
studies in languages other than English, conceptual papers, reports, conference papers,
unpublished full-text documents and review papers were excluded from the search. In this
regard, future research may wish to include these latter sources.
Limitations and Future Research Directions of Study 3
There were several limitations in Study 3 that could suggest potential fruitful
opportunities for future research. First, it is acknowledged in the study that the
generalizability of the results may have been limited because the data were collected from
the defence industry in the one country, Australia. Hence, it might be useful to see if our
findings could be replicated in other national settings and other industries to increase their
generalisability. Second, while this study justified two mediators (job satisfaction and
trust) of EI in the project success relationship, this study also acknowledged that
additional mechanisms might exist through which EI may impact on project success.
Future research might, therefore, consider other mechanisms, such as work environment
characteristics and organisational culture. Third, this study focused on a managerial
sample operated in complex defence projects. In this instance, researchers in the future
might wish to examine the role of EI among non-managerial employees and its impact on
project performance in other complex project contexts. Fourth, it would be interesting to
empirically examine separate dimensions of EI or advocate the distinctive dimensions of
EI on project success. This may lead to extending this research by treating EI as a
multidimensional construct, rather than a unified construct. Finally, data were collected
185
using a self-report format, making the results subject to common methods bias. Future
research might, therefore, consider objective measures of performance to avoid common
method variance (CMV). However, to avoid CMV, several procedural remedies in
designing and administering the questionnaire, (e.g. anonymity and mixing the order of
the questions) were used (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). This study also
employed statistical remedies suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2012). Results suggested that
the influence of CMV was likely to be small; we nonetheless controlled for it by including
the CMV factor in our hypothesised model test (Podsakoff et al., 2012).
Limitations and Future Research Directions of Study 4
Study 4 has several limitations that suggested potential fruitful opportunities for future
research. First, investigations of team EI and trust in different cultural contexts are likely
to be important. It might likely that in other cultures there are different influences. The
influence of EI has been examined in many different cultures (Ghorbani et al., 2002);
however, trust is sensitive to cultural differences (Christie et al., 2015). Thus, it could be
enlightening to further test the differential effects of trust among the cultures of team
members (e.g., Asian and Western). Additionally, understanding the phenomenon of EI
and its outcomes would be greatly enhanced by a study of cross-national settings where
cultural differences may alter the outcomes of EI and trust in complex projects. Second,
the model's theoretical focus was limited to the influence of EI on project success
mediated by trust. Future research might, therefore, consider (a) moderators, (b) other
relationships, and (c) additional mediators. For instance, it would be interesting to
examine potential moderators, such as task interdependence, that could contribute to the
understanding of facilitators and barriers to the relationships between EI and team
performance in complex projects. It would also be of interest to assess further mediating
variables in future research that characterize the specific work environment. For example,
positive emotional expressions may contribute to the stability of a teams' mood in the face
of difficult situations (e.g., project failure) with a potential to spread at the team level
through mood contagion.
Third, it would be interesting to empirically examine separate dimensions of EI or
advocate the distinctive dimensions of EI on team outcomes. This may lead to extending
186
this research by treating EI as a multidimensional construct, rather than a unified
construct.
Fourth, another limitation is the use of a self-report measure of EI. However, this
measurement for EI, chosen for its simple and quick administration, showed sufficient
validity and reliability requirements (e.g., Wong, Law & Wong, 2004) and enabled the
examination of EI in a specific context. Future research might wish to use alternative
measures of EI such as peer and the situational test of emotional management.
Fifth, little is known about functional and dysfunctional emotion–project success
relationships in a complex project and work settings that are driven by strong
interdependency and risk. Also, we cannot rule out that emotionally intelligent individuals
in complex project environments, who are not driven by ethical values, can hold the power
to promote oneself at the cost of others (e.g. increasing workloads and decreasing job
satisfaction among employees due to focusing on strategically important targets at the
cost of others), a phenomenon known as ‘dark intelligence’ (Nagler, et al., 2014). In this
regard, researchers in the future might wish to examine this phenomenon in a complex
project environment.
Sixth, another project manager, and project team members attitudes and competencies, in
addition to the one examined by this study, should be tested in order to advance our
understanding of the project manager and project team members competencies, skills and
attitudes that can influence the positive outcomes in complex projects.
Finally, a summative composition approach has taken to operationalizing team EI (as an
average) and team EI has viewed as a collective resource team member share to assist
each other (Chan, 1998; Elfenbein, 2006). In this regard, future research might wish to
conceptualise team EI by using other methods such as diversity, minimum and maximum
to measure a team's collective level of EI (Elfenbein, 2006).
Conclusions
A considerable body of research exists in the area of complex project management related
to the positive influence of skills and competence of project managers and project team
members on various outcomes. There is a general acceptance of the benefit of
187
understanding and managing emotions especially in large-complex projects for project
managers and project team members. However, knowledge of what competence, attitudes,
and skills of project managers and project team members in large-scale complex projects
influence project success are nascent. The influence of project manager and project team
members’ competence and attitudes on project success at the individual level and within
a broader organizational environment that consist of various project teams with complex
and conflict interactions is not examined in project management literature. Our
understanding of what personal attribute and attitudes of managers and project teams
influence project success is lacking in project management literature.
Teamwork and leadership are a crucial part to managing complex projects, impacting
directly on successful project outcomes (Troth et al., 2012; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). Thus,
in this thesis the focus has specifically on managers' skills and in particular the effect of
project managers' EI and team EI defined by Mayer et al. (2008) as the ability to be aware
of, to utilise, to understand, and to manage emotions in self and others. This thesis justify
this approach in the context of complex project management on the basis of research
by Clarke (2010) and Müller and Turner (2007), who identified EI as a key ingredient of
effective complex project leadership and teamwork (see also, Thomas & Mengel, 2008).
In more recent research, Clarke (2010) has argued specifically that high EI project
managers are able to solve new challenges and problems as well as to better communicate
with their peers. This thesis, however, focuses on the competence and attitudes of both
project team members and managers on project success at both individual and team levels
of analysis. Study 1 and study 2 show that effective project management is not simply
determined by technical or hard skills but also by capabilities related to personal attribute,
attitudes, and competency. Grounded on study 1 and study 2 (systematic review), study 3
and study 4 were designed to address the gap related to examining competency, attitudes
and behavior of project managers and project team members in the context of large-scale
complex projects. In addition, this thesis uncovered the underlying variables that link
project managers’ competency particularly EI to project success at both individual and
team levels of analysis. In this regard, this thesis addresses the call by Müller and Jugdev
(2012) to understand the factors that underlie the success of project outcomes. As there
188
is a need for researchers to explore variables that potentially mediate between project
manager characteristics (such as EI) and project success (Müller & Jugdev, 2012).
The AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and CPT (Ley & Albert, 2003) underpin the
relationship between variables which provides the framework for understanding the
influence of competence and attitudes of project managers and project team members on
project success. To address the gap in complex project management literature, this thesis
answers six related questions, synthesizing the finding from each question to answer the
overarching question: “What personal attributes, competency, and attitudes of project
managers and project team members contribute to project success at the individual and
team levels of analysis in large-scale complex projects?” Thus, in four distinct journal
articles, this thesis advances knowledge of how managerial and project team members
competency more specifically the role of emotional intelligence, work attitudes and
behaviour of project managers and project team members on project success.
By examining the influence of managerial and project team members competency,
attitudes and behaviour at both individual and team levels of analysis in large-scale
complex projects, this thesis contributes to theory and practice in several ways. First, this
thesis develops and empirically test a model of the impact of EI on a sample of both
project managers and project team members working in large-scale complex defence and
infrastructure projects. The findings suggest that the EI of individuals and teams can
increase project success at both the individual and team levels, can subsequently improve
the likelihood of project success and can reduce the chance of setbacks in complex project
organisations by enhancing both individual and team EI.
Second, this thesis explores potential mechanisms by which emotionally intelligent
project managers and project team members may contribute to project success. This
thesis, therefore, represent a response to Müller and Jugdev's (2012) call for studies to
discover mediating variables of project success. This thesis proposes that when project
teams and project managers are able to manage their negative emotions through EI,
negative responses to conflict may be diminished and job satisfaction and trust will be
increased which in turn facilitates effective communication, creativity towards solving
complex challenges and the exchange of knowledge and information among project
189
teams. Thus, this thesis adds to an increasing body of literature on the complex project
management literature regarding the soft skills that individuals and teams possess for
assuring success in complex project settings.
190
References
Alshawi, M., Goulding, J., Al Nahyan, M. T., Sohal, A. S., Fildes, B. N., & Hawas, Y. E.
(2012). Transportation infrastructure development in the UAE: Stakeholder
perspectives on management practice. Construction Innovation, 12(4), 492-514.
Arbuckle, J. (2009). Amos 18 user's guide, SPSS Incorporated Armonk, New York, USA.
Ahern, T., Leavy, B., & Byrne, P. J. (2014). Complex project management as complex
problem solving: A distributed knowledge management perspective. International
Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1371-1381.
Amason, A. C., Thompson, K. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Harrison, A. W. (1995).
Conflict: An important dimension in successful management
teams. Organizational Dynamics, 24(2), 20-35.
Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2009). Does leadership need
emotional intelligence?. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 247-261.
Ashton-James, C. E., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). What lies beneath? A process analysis
of affective events theory. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Härtel,
Research on Emotion in Organizations (vol. 1, pp. 23-50). Oxford, UK: Elsevier
Science.
Ashkanasy, N. (2002). Studies of Cognition and Emotion in Organisations: Attribution,
Affective Events, Emotional Intelligence and Perception of Emotion. Australian
Journal of Management, 27(1), 11-20.
Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Emotions in organizations: A multi-level perspective. In Multi-
Level Issues in Organizational Behavior and Strategy (pp. 9-54). Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence
in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26(4), 441-452.
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L. & Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and
the scope of project management. International Journal of Project Management,
24(8), 687-698.
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2013). Reflections, closing thoughts, and future
directions. In Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead
10th Anniversary Edition (pp. 449-470). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. J., & Härtel, C. E. (2008). The influence of team emotional
intelligence climate on conflict and team members' reactions to conflict. Small
Group Research, 39(2), 121-149.
Baccarini, D. (1999). The logical framework method for defining project success. Project
Management Journal, 30(1), 25-32.
Barczak, G., Lassk, F. & Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination
of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 19(4), 332-345.
Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2001). Interpersonal conflict and its management in
information system development. Mis Quarterly, 25(2) 195-228.
Baseline, I. I. C. (2006). Version 3.0. International Project Management Association.
Bawden, R. (2007). Complexity: unruly and otherwise. Perspectives in Biology and
Medicine, 50(4), 614-624.
191
Benbasat, I., Dexter, A. S., Drury, D. H., & Goldstein, R. C. (1984). A critque of the stage
hypothesis: theory and empirical evidence. Communications of the ACM, 27(5),
476-485.
Bing, L., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P. J., & Hardcastle, C. (2005). The allocation of risk in
PPP/PFI construction projects in the UK. International Journal of Project
Management, 23(1), 25-35.
Brief, A. P. (1998). Foundations for organizational science. Attitudes in and around
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods. Oxford University Press,
USA.
Bidault, F. & Castello, A. (2009). Trust and creativity: understanding the role of trust in
creativity‐oriented joint developments. R&D Management, 39(3), 259-270.
Bresnen, M. & Marshall, N. (2000). Building partnerships: case studies of client–
contractor collaboration in the UK construction industry. Construction
Management & Economics, 18(1), 819-832.
Brief, A. P. & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace.
Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 279-307.
Brookes, N. J., & Locatelli, G. (2015). Power plants as megaprojects: Using empirics to
shape policy, planning, and construction management. Utilities Policy, 36(3), 57-
66.
Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Jongkind, Y., Mooi, H., Bakker, H., & Verbraeck, A. (2011).
Grasping project complexity in large engineering projects: The TOE (Technical,
Organizational and Environmental) framework. International Journal of Project
Management, 29(6), 728-739.
Bowling, N. A. (2007). Is the job satisfaction–job performance relationship spurious? A
meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(2), 167-185.
Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-
level review and integration. The leadership quarterly, 18(6), 606-632.
Burton-Jones, A., & Gallivan, M. J. (2007). Toward a deeper understanding of system
usage in organizations: a multilevel perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 657-679.
Buvik, M. P., & Tvedt, S. D. (2016). The impact of commitment and climate strength on
the relationship between trust and performance in cross-functional project teams:
A moderated mediation analysis. Team Performance Management, 22(3), 114-
138.
Buvik, M. P., & Rolfsen, M. (2015). Prior ties and trust development in project teams–A
case study from the construction industry. International Journal of Project
Management, 33(7), 1484-1494.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Multivariate applications book series. Structural Equation Modeling
With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ, US:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D. & Klesh, J. (1983). Michigan organizational
assessment questionnaire. Assessing Organizational Change: a Guide to Methods,
Measures, and Practices, (pp.71-138). New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Campbell, J. P., Mccloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H. & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of
performance. Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
192
Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes,
behavior and outcomes: An examination among senior managers. Journal of
Mnagerial Psychology, 18(1), 788-813.
Carvalho, M. M., & Rabechini, R. (2017). Can project sustainability management impact
project success? An empirical study applying a contingent approach. International
Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1120-1132.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at
different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(2), 234.
Chen, G., Ployhart, R. E., Thomas, H. C., Anderson, N., & Bliese, P. D. (2011). The power
of momentum: a new model of dynamic relationships between job satisfaction
change and turnover intentions. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 159-
181.
Cheng, M. I., Dainty, A. R. & Moore, D. R. (2005). What makes a good project manager?
Human Resource Management Journal, 15(3), 25-37.
Cherns, A. B. & Bryant, D. T. (1984). Studying the client's role in construction
management. Construction Management and Economics, 2(2), 177-184.
Cheung, M. W. (2007). Comparison of approaches to constructing confidence intervals
for mediating effects using structural equation models. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 227-246.
Cheung, S.-O., Ng, T. S., Wong, S.-P. & Suen, H. C. (2003). Behavioral aspects in
construction partnering. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3),
333-343.
Chin, W. W. (1998a). The partial least squares approach to structural equation
modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295-336.
Chin, W. W. (1998b). Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. Management
Information Systems Quarterly, 22(1), 768-813.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent
variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a
Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption
study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189-217.
Christie, A. M., Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2015). Trust antecedents: Emotional
intelligence and perceptions of others. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 23(1), 89-101.
Chun, J. U., Litzky, B. E., Sosik, J. J., Bechtold, D. C. & Godshalk, V. M. (2010).
Emotional intelligence and trust in formal mentoring programs. Group &
Organization Management, 35(2), 421-455.
Clarke, N. (2010). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to transformational
leadership and key project manager competences. Project Management Journal,
41(3), 5-20.
Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J., & Hodgson, D. (2006). Rethinking project
management: researching the actuality of projects. International Journal of
Project Management, 24(8), 675-686.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A. & Lepine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust
propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and
job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 909-1006.
193
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” success factors on projects. International journal of
project management, 20(3), 185-190.
Cooke-Davies, T., Cicmil, S., Crawford, L. & Richardson, K. (2007). Mapping the strange
landscape of complexity theory, and its relationship to project management.
Project Management Journal, 38(3), 50-61.
Corning, P. A. (1998). Complexity is just a word!. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 59(2), 197-200.
Costa, A. C., & Anderson, N. (2011). Measuring trust in teams: Development and
validation of a multifaceted measure of formative and reflective indicators of team
trust. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 119-154.
Cote, S. & Miners, C. T. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 1-28.
Couillard, J. (1995). The role of project risk in determining project management approach.
Project Management Journal, 26(1), 3-15.
Crede, M., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Dalal, R. S. & Bashshur, M. (2007). Job
satisfaction as mediator: An assessment of job satisfaction's position within the
nomological network. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
80(3), 515-538.
Dai, C. X. & Wells, W. G. (2004). An exploration of project management office features
and their relationship to project performance. International Journal of Project
Management, 22(7), 523-532.
Davis, K. (2014). Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success.
International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 189-201.
Davies, A., & Mackenzie, I. (2014). Project complexity and systems integration:
Constructing the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games. International
Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 773-790.
De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-
analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 101(8), 1134.
DeLuca, D., Gallivan, M. J., & Kock, N. (2008). Furthering information systems action
research: a post-positivist synthesis of four dialectics. Journal of the Association
for Information Systems, 9(2), 48.
de Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success. Project Management Journal, 6(3),
164–170
Diallo, A. & Thuillier, D. (2005). The success of international development projects, trust
and communication: an African perspective. International Journal of Project
Management, 23(3), 237-252.
Dumitru, C. D., & Schoop, M. A. (2016). How Does Trust in Teams, Team Identification,
and Organisational Identification Impact Trust in Organisations?. International
Journal of Management and Applied Research, 3(2), 87-97.
Dimitriou, H. T., Ward, E. J., & Wright, P. G. (2013). Mega transport projects—Beyond
the ‘iron triangle’: Findings from the OMEGA research programme. Progress in
Planning, 86(3), 1-43.
194
Drouin, N., & Bourgault, M. (2013). How organizations support distributed project teams:
Key dimensions and their impact on decision making and teamwork
effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 32(8), 865-885.
Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001). Building the emotional intelligence of
groups. Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 80-91.
Dirks, K. T. & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and
implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611.
Dunn, J. R. & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion
on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 736.
Dvir, D., Ben-David, A., Sadeh, A. & Shenhar, A. J. (2006). Critical managerial factors
affecting defense projects success: A comparison between neural network and
regression analysis. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 19(5),
535-543.
Dvir, D., Sadeh, A., & Malach-Pines, A. (2006). Projects and project managers: the
relationship between project managers’ personality, project types, and project
success. Project Management Journal, 15(2), 36-48.
Eden, C., Williams, T. & Ackermann, F. (2005). Analysing project cost overruns:
comparing the “measured mile” analysis and system dynamics modelling.
International Journal of Project Management, 23(2), 135-139.
Edkins, A. J. & Smyth, H. J. (2006). Contractual management in PPP projects: evaluation
of legal versus relational contracting for service delivery. Journal of Professional
Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 132(1), 82-93.
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field
research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246-1264.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). The jackknife. In An introduction to the
bootstrap (pp. 141-152). Springer US.
El-Sabaa, S. (2001). The skills and career path of an effective project manager.
International Journal of Project Management, 19(1), 1-7.
Elfenbein, H. A. (2006). Team emotional intelligence: What it can mean and how it can
affect performance. In Druskat V. U., Sala F., Mount G. (Eds.), Linking emotional
intelligence and performance at work: Current research evidence with individuals
and groups, (pp. 165-184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Elfenbein, H. A., Polzer, J. T. & Ambady, N. (2007a). Can teams have emotional skills?
The case of recognizing others’ emotions. In: Härtel, C. E. J., Ashkanasy, N. M.
& Zerbe, W. J. (eds.) Research on emotion in organizations: Functionality,
intentionality and morality Oxford, UK: Elsevier/JAI Press.
Elfenbein, H. A., Polzer, J. T. & Ambady, N. (2007b). Team emotion recognition
accuracy and team performance. Research on Emotion in Organizations, 3(1), 87-
119.
Elliot, A. J. & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality:
approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82(5), 804.
Eweje, J., Turner, R., & Müller, R. (2012). Maximizing strategic value from
megaprojects: The influence of information-feed on decision-making by the
project manager. International Journal of Project Management, 30(6), 639-651.
195
Fisher, C. D. (2003). Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are
correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense theory. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24(6), 753-777.
Fisher, E. (2011). What practitioners consider to be the skills and behaviours of an
effective people project manager. International Journal of Project Management,
29(8), 994-1002.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2005). Design by deception: The politics of megaproject approval. Harvard
Design Magazine, 22(3), 50-59.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2009). Optimism and misrepresentation in early project development. In:
T.Williams, K.Samset & K.Sunnevåg (eds.) Making Essential Choices with Scant
Information. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N. & Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: An
anatomy of ambition, Cambridge University Press, UK.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18(3), 382-388.
Fortune, J. & White, D. (2006). Framing of project critical success factors by a systems
model. International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 53-65.
Frank, M., Sadeh, A., & Ashkenasi, S. (2011). The relationship among systems engineers'
capacity for engineering systems thinking, project types, and project
success. Project Management Journal, 42(5), 31-41.
Friedman, J., Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. (2010). Regularization paths for generalized
linear models via coordinate descent. Journal of Statistical Software, 33(1), 1.
Galliers, R. D. (1990). Choosing appropriate information systems research approaches: a
revised taxonomy. In Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG8. 2.
GAPPS, (2007). A framework for performance based competency standards for global
level 1 and 2 project managers. Global Alliance for Project Performance
Standards.
Geraldi, J. G., & Adlbrecht, G. (2007). On faith, fact, and interaction in projects. Making
Project Management Indispensable for Business Results, 38(1), 32.
Geraldi, J., Maylor, H., & Williams, T. (2011). Now, let's make it really complex
(complicated) A systematic review of the complexities of projects. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(9), 966-990.
Ghorbani, N., Bing, M. N., Watson, P. J., Davison, H. K., & Mack, D. A. (2002). Self-
reported emotional intelligence: Construct similarity and functional dissimilarity
of higher-order processing in Iran and the United States. International Journal of
Psychology, 37(5), 297-308.
Gillespie, N. Measuring trust in working relationships: the behavioral trust inventory.
Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Seattle, Washington, 2003.
Gillespie, N. A., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: The
building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 588-607.
Goleman, D. P. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ for
character, health and lifelong achievement. New York: Bantam Books.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A. & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance:
Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(2), 327-347.
196
Güleryüz, G., Güney, S., Aydın, E. M. & Aşan, Ö. (2008). The mediating effect of job
satisfaction between emotional intelligence and organisational commitment of
nurses: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(11),
1625-1635.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-
117). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Hall, M., Kutsch, E., & Partington, D. (2012). Removing the cultural and managerial
barriers in project to project learning: A case from the UK public sector. Public
Administration, 90(3), 664-684.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use
of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414-433.
Harris, K. J., Wheeler, A. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (2009). Leader–member exchange and
empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover
intentions, and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 371-382.
Herman, H. & Dasborough, M. T. (2008). A study of exchange and emotions in team
member relationships. Group & Organization Management, 33(2), 194-215.
Hogg, M.A., Van Knippenberg, D. & Rast, D.E. (2012). Intergroup leadership in
organizations: Leading across group and organizational boundaries. Academy of
Management Review, 37(2), 232-255.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling:
Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research
Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
Hopper, T., & Powell, A. (1985). Making sense of research into the organizational and
social aspects of management accounting: A review of its underlying
assumptions. Journal of Management Studies, 22(5), 429-465.
Huber, G. P. & Power, D. J. (1985). Retrospective reports of strategic‐level managers:
Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3),
171-180.
Hyvari, I. (2006). Success of projects in different organizational conditions. Project
Management Journal, 37(4), 31.
Ika, L. A. (2009). Project success as a topic in project management journals. Project
Management Journal, 40(4), 6-19.
Ishak, S. N. H., Chohan, A. H. & Ramly, A. (2007). Implications of design deficiency on
building maintenance at post-occupational stage. Journal of Building Appraisal,
3(2), 115-124.
Ivory, C., & Alderman, N. (2005). Can project management learn anything from studies
of failure in complex systems?. Project Management Institute.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater
reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1),
85.
Janssen, M., Van Der Voort, H., & van Veenstra, A. F. (2015). Failure of large
transformation project from the viewpoint of complex adaptive systems:
Management principles for dealing with project dynamics. Information Systems
Frontiers, 17(1), 15-29.
197
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of
intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282.
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency
perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 25(2), 187-242.
Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service
relationships. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 500-507.
Jordan, P. J., Dasborough, M. T., Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2010). A call to
context. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(2), 145-148.
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem solving:
Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance, 17(2), 195-
218.
Jordan, P. J., Lawrence, S. A. & Troth, A. C. (2006). The impact of negative mood on
team performance. Journal of Management & Organization, 12(2), 131-145.
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-
analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54.
Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). Job attitudes. Annual Review of
Psychology, 63(1), 341-367.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job
and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(2), 257.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E. & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological
Bulletin, 127(3), 376.
Jugdev, K. & Müller, R. (2005). A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of
project success. Project Management Journal, 36(12), 19-31.
Jung, D. I. & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation
of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and
transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(3), 949-964.
Kadefors, A. (2004). Trust in project relationships—inside the black box. International
Journal of Project Management, 22(3), 175-182.
Kafetsios, K. & Zampetakis, L. A. (2008). Emotional intelligence and job satisfaction:
Testing the mediatory role of positive and negative affect at work. Personality and
Individual Differences, 44(3), 712-722.
Kardes, I., Ozturk, A., Cavusgil, S. T., & Cavusgil, E. (2013). Managing global
megaprojects: Complexity and risk management. International Business
Review, 22(6), 905-917.
Keegan, A., Huemann, M. & Turner, J. R. (2012). Beyond the line: exploring the HRM
responsibilities of line managers, project managers and the HRM department in
four project-oriented companies in the Netherlands, Austria, the UK and the
USA.The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(3), 3085-
3104.
Kendra, K., & Taplin, L. J. (2004). Project success: A cultural framework. Project
Management Journal, 35(1), 30-45.
198
Kent, D. C., & Becerik-Gerber, B. (2010). Understanding construction industry
experience and attitudes toward integrated project delivery. Journal of
construction engineering and management, 136(8), 815-825.
Kerzner, H. (2009). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling,
and Controlling, New York, Wiley.
Kerzner, H. (1987). In search of excellence in project management. Journal of Systems
Management, 38(2), 30.
Khosravi, P., Rezvani, A., Subasinghage, M., & Perera, M. (2012, January). Individuals'
absorptive capacity in enterprise system assimilation. In ACIS 2012: Location,
location, location: Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian conference on
information systems 2012 (pp. 1-7). ACIS.
Kim, J., & Wilemon, D. (2003). Sources and assessment of complexity in NPD
projects. R&D Management, 33(1), 15-30.
Klein, K. J., Bliese, P. D., Kozolowski, S. W. J., Dansereau, F., Gavin, M. B., Griffin, M.
A., . . . Bligh, M. C. (2000). Multilevel analytical techniques: Commonalities,
differences, and continuing questions. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski
(Eds.), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations,
Extensions, and New Directions (pp. 512-553). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-
Bass.
Klimoski, R. J. & Karol, B. L. (1976). The impact of trust on creative problem solving
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(2), 630.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research
in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein &
S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in
Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions (pp. 3-90). San
Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.
Krishnakumar, S., Hopkins, K., G. Szmerekovsky, J., & Robinson, M. D. (2016).
Assessing workplace emotional intelligence: Development and validation of an
ability-based measure. The Journal of psychology, 150(3), 371-404.
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A. & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career
potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all?
Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(1), 148.
Kutsch, E. & Hall, M. (2005). Intervening conditions on the management of project risk:
dealing with uncertainty in information technology projects. International Journal
of Project Management, 23(8), 591-599.
Kutsch, E., Maylor, H., Weyer, B. & Lupson, J. (2011). Performers, trackers, lemmings
and the lost: Sustained false optimism in forecasting project outcomes—Evidence
from a quasi-experiment. International Journal of Project Management, 29(8),
1070-1081.
Lau, D. C. & Liden, R. C. (2008). Antecedents of coworker trust: leaders’ blessings.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1130.
Leban, W. & Zulauf, C. (2004). Linking emotional intelligence abilities and
transformational leadership styles. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 25(7), 554-564.
199
Lee-Kelley, L. & Sankey, T. (2008). Global virtual teams for value creation and project
success: A case study. International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 51-
62.
Lee, D., Huh, Y., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2015). Collaboration, intragroup conflict, and social
skills in project-based learning. Instructional Science, 43(5), 561-590.
Lee, P., Gillespie, N., Mann, L. & Wearing, A. (2010). Leadership and trust: Their effect
on knowledge sharing and team performance. Management Learning, 41(4), 473-
491.
Lechler, T. (1998). When it comes to project management, it’s the people that matter: an
empirical analysis of project management in Germany. IRNOP III. The Nature
and Role of Projects in the Next, 20(1), 205-215.
Levin, M. (1988). The reification-realism-positivism controversy in macromarketing: A
philosopher's view. Journal of Macromarketing, 11(1), 57-65.
Ley, T., & Albert, D. (2003). Skills Management–Managing Competencies in the
Knowledge-based Economy J. UCS Special Issue. Journal of Universal Computer
Science, 9(12), 1370-1371.
Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust
development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions.
Journal of Management, 32(3), 991-1022.
Lewis, M. D., Granic, I., Lamm, C., Zelazo, P. D., Stieben, J., Todd, R. M., ... & Pepler,
D. (2008). Changes in the neural bases of emotion regulation associated with
clinical improvement in children with behavior problems. Development and
Psychopathology, 20(3), 913-939.
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967-
985.
Ley, T., & Albert, D. (2003). Skills Management–Managing Competencies in the
Knowledge-based Economy J. UCS Special Issue. Journal of Universal Computer
Science, 9(12), 1370-1371.
Liden, R. C., & Antonakis, J. (2009). Considering context in psychological leadership
research. Human Relations, 62(11), 1587-1605.
Lindebaum, D., & Jordan, P. J. (2014). When it can be good to feel bad and bad to feel
good: Exploring asymmetries in workplace emotional outcomes. Human
Relations, 67(9), 1037-1050.
Lindsjørn, Y., Sjøberg, D. I., Dingsøyr, T., Bergersen, G. R., & Dybå, T. (2016).
Teamwork quality and project success in software development: A survey of agile
development teams. Journal of Systems and Software, 122(1), 274-286.
Liu, J. Y. C., Chen, H. G., Chen, C. C., & Sheu, T. S. (2011). Relationships among
interpersonal conflict, requirements uncertainty, and software project
performance. International Journal of Project Management, 29(5), 547-556.
Locatelli, G., & Mancini, M. (2012). Looking back to see the future: Building nuclear
power plants in Europe. Construction Management and Economics, 30(8), 623-
637.
Locatelli, G., Mancini, M., & Romano, E. (2014). Systems engineering to improve the
governance in complex project environments. International Journal of Project
Management, 32(8), 1395-1410.
200
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 4(4), 309-336.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.
MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Multivariate applications series. Introduction to statistical
mediation analysis. New York, NY, : Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Maqbool, R., Sudong, Y., Manzoor, N., & Rashid, Y. (2017) The Impact of Emotional
Intelligence, Project Managers' Competencies, and Transformational Leadership
on Project Success. Project Management Journal, 48(3), 58-75.
Maurer, I. (2010). How to build trust in inter-organizational projects: the impact of project
staffing and project rewards on the formation of trust, knowledge acquisition and
product innovation. International Journal of Project Management, 28(7), 629-
637.
Martens, M. L., & Carvalho, M. M. (2017). Key factors of sustainability in project
management context: A survey exploring the project managers'
perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1084-1102.
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D. & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional
intelligence. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59(3), 507-536.
Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In: Salovey, P. &
Sluyter, D. (eds.) Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence:
Implications for Educators. (pp. 3-34). New York: Harper Collins.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
Mayer, R. C. & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: who minds
the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal,
48(4), 874-888.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or
eclectic traits?. American psychologist, 63(6), 503.
Maylor, H., Vidgen, R. & Carver, S. (2008). Managerial complexity in project‐based
operations: A grounded model and its implications for practice. Project
Management Journal, 39(2), S15-S26.
MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional
intelligence: theory and data. Emotion, 8(4), 540.
Mcevily, B., Perrone, V. & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle.
Organization science, 14(2), 91-103.
Meng, X. (2012). The effect of relationship management on project performance in
construction. International journal of project management, 30(4), 188-198.
Merrow, E. W. (2011). Industrial megaprojects: concepts, strategies, and practices for
success, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Mignonac, K. & Herrbach, O. (2004). Linking work events, affective states, and attitudes:
An empirical study of managers' emotions. Journal of Business and Psychology,
19(2), 221-240.
Milosevic, D. & Patanakul, P. (2005). Standardized project management may increase
development projects success. International Journal of Project Management,
23(4), 181-192.
201
Moe, N. B. & Šmite, D. (2008). Understanding a lack of trust in Global Software Teams:
a multiple‐case study. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 13(3), 217-
231.
Mohr, A. T. & Puck, J. F. (2007). Role conflict, general manager job satisfaction and
stress and the performance of IJVs. European Management Journal, 25(2), 25-35.
Mount, J. (2006). The role of emotional intelligence in developing international business
capability: EI provides traction. In V. U. Druskat, F. Sala, & J. Mount (Eds.),
Linking Emotional Intelligence and Performance at Work (pp. 97–124). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization
theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 7(3), 605-622.
Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy of
Management Review, 5(4), 491-500.
Mulder, M., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., & Wesselink, R. (2009). The new competence
concept in higher education: error or enrichment?. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 33(8), 755-770.
Müller, R., Geraldi, J., & Turner, J. R. (2012). Relationships between leadership and
success in different types of project complexities. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 59(1), 77-90. Müller, R. & Jugdev, K. (2012). Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin, and
Prescott–the elucidation of project success. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, 5(1), 757-775.
Müller, R. & Turner, J. R. (2007). Matching the project manager’s leadership style to
project type. International Journal of Project Management, 25(3), 21-32.
Müller, R. & Turner, R. (2010). Leadership competency profiles of successful project
managers. International Journal of Project Management, 28(2), 437-448.
Müller, R., Zhai, L., & Wang, A. (2017). Governance and governmentality in projects:
Profiles and relationships with success. International Journal of Project
Management, 35(3), 378-392.
Nagler, U. K., Reiter, K. J., Furtner, M. R., & Rauthmann, J. F. (2014). Is there a “dark
intelligence”? Emotional intelligence is used by dark personalities to emotionally
manipulate others. Personality and Individual Differences, 65(3), 47-52.
O'boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H. & Story, P. A. (2011).
The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta‐
analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 788-818.
Ordanini, A., Rubera, G., & DeFillippi, R. (2008). The many moods of inter‐organizational imitation: A critical review. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 10(4), 375-398.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in
organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems
Research, 2(1), 1-28.
Pant, I., & Baroudi, B. (2008). Project management education: The human skills
imperative. International Journal of Project Management, 26(2), 124-128.
Patanakul, P. (2014). Managing large-scale IS/IT projects in the public sector: Problems
and causes leading to poor performance. The Journal of High Technology
Management Research, 25(1), 21-35.
202
Park, J.-G. & Lee, J. (2014). Knowledge sharing in information systems development
projects: Explicating the role of dependence and trust. International Journal of
Project Management, 32(3), 153-165.
Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance
feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92(1), 102-112.
Pheng, L. S. & Chuan, Q. T. (2006). Environmental factors and work performance of
project managers in the construction industry. International Journal of Project
Management, 24, 24-37.
Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H. & Meyer, A. D. (2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity, and
complexity in project management. Management Science, 48(2), 1008-1023.
Pinjani, P., & Palvia, P. (2013). Trust and knowledge sharing in diverse global virtual
teams. Information & Management, 50(4), 144-153.
Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. (1993). Survey research methodology in management
information systems: an assessment. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 10(2), 75-105.
Pinto, J. K. (1990). Project Implementation Profile: a tool to aid project tracking and
control. International Journal of Project Management, 8(3), 173-182.
Pinto, J., & Slevin, D. (1987). Critical factors in successful project implementation. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 34(1), 22-27.
Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1990). Planning and tactical factors in the project
implementation process. Journal of Management studies, 27(3), 305-327. Pirola-Merlo, A., Härtel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. (2002). How leaders influence the
impact of affective events on team climate and performance in R&D teams. The
Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 561-581.
PMI. (2008). A Guide to the Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMBOK). 4th
Edition, Project Management Institute, Newtown Square.
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. Annual
Review of Psychology, 63(3), 539-569.
Preacher, K. J. & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40(3), 879-891.
Procaccino, J. D., Verner, J. M., Shelfer, K. M., & Gefen, D. (2005). What do software
practitioners really think about project success: an exploratory study. Journal of
Systems and Software, 78(2), 194-203.
Project Management Institute, I. (2004). A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge (PMBOK guide), Pennsylvania, USA.
Puusa, A., & Tolvanen, U. (2006). Organizational identity and trust. EJBO-Electronic
Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 11(2), 29-33.
Ragin, C. C. (2014). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and
quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rapisarda, B. A. (2002). The impact of emotional intelligence on work team cohesiveness
and performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(4),
363-379.
203
Remington, K., & Pollack, J. (2007). Tools for complex projects. Gower Publishing, Ltd,
Hampshire.
Remington, K., Zolin, R. & Turner, R. A model of project complexity: distinguishing
dimensions of complexity from severity. Proceedings of the 9th International
Research Network of Project Management Conference, 2009. IRNOP.
Rezvani, A., Dong, L., & Khosravi, P. (2017). Promoting the continuing usage of strategic
information systems: The role of supervisory leadership in the successful
implementation of enterprise systems. International Journal of Information
Management, 37(5), 417-430.
Rezvani, A., Khosravi, P., Subasinghage, M., & Perera, M. (2012, January). How does
contingent reward affect enterprise resource planning continuance intention? The
role of contingent reward transactional leadership. In ACIS 2012: Location,
location, location: Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian Conference on
Information Systems 2012 (pp. 1-9). ACIS.
Rezvani, A., Chang, A., Wiewiora, A., Ashkanasy, N. M., Jordan, P. J., & Zolin, R.
(2016). Manager emotional intelligence and project success: The mediating role
of job satisfaction and trust. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7),
1112-1122.
Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. W. (2012). Editor's comments: a critical look at
the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii-xiv.
Robinson Fayek, A., Revay, S. O., Rowan, D., & Mousseau, D. (2006). Assessing
performance trends on industrial construction mega projects. Cost Engineering,
48(10), 16-21.
Rose, J., & Schlichter, B. R. (2013). Decoupling, re-engaging: Managing trust
relationships in implementation projects. Information Systems Journal, 23(1), 5-
33.
Rosete, D. & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace
performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 26(5), 388-399.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S. & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after
all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 393-
404.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9(3), 185-211.
Sauser, B. J., Reilly, R. R. & Shenhar, A. J. (2009). Why projects fail? How contingency
theory can provide new insights–A comparative analysis of NASA’s Mars Climate
Orbiter loss. International Journal of Project Management, 27(7), 665-679.
Savolainen, P., Ahonen, J. J., & Richardson, I. (2012). Software development project
success and failure from the supplier's perspective: A systematic literature
review. International Journal of Project Management, 30(4), 458-469.
Schaller, M., & Cialdini, R. B. (1990). Happiness, sadness, and helping: A motivational
integration. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation
and cognition: Foundations of social behavior, Vol. 2, pp. 265-296). New York,
NY, US: Guilford Press.
204
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership:
team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(4) 1020.
Simsarian Webber, S. (2002). Leadership and trust facilitating cross-functional team
success. Journal of Management Development, 21(3), 201-214.
Shao, J., & Müller, R. (2011). The development of constructs of program context and
program success: A qualitative study. International Journal of Project
Management, 29(8), 947-959.
Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O. & Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project success: a
multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Planning, 34(3), 699-725.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project management: the diamond
approach to successful growth and innovation. Harvard Business Review Press,
Boston.
Smyth, H., Gustafsson, M. & Ganskau, E. (2010). The value of trust in project business.
International Journal of Project Management, 28 (2), 117-129.
Söderholm, A. (2008). Project management of unexpected events. International Journal
of Project Management, 26(1), 80-86.
Somech, A., Desivilya, H. S., & Lidogoster, H. (2009). Team conflict management and
team effectiveness: The effects of task interdependence and team identification.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 359-378.
Sosik, J. J. & Lee, D. L. (2002). Mentoring in organizations: A social judgment
perspective for developing tomorrow's leaders. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 8(4), 17-32.
Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. Oxford, England: Macmillan.
Spackman, M. P., & Miller, D. (2008). Embodying emotions: What emotion theorists can
learn from simulations of emotions. Minds and Machines, 18(3), 357-372.
Stephens, J. P., & Carmeli, A. (2016). The positive effect of expressing negative emotions
on knowledge creation capability and performance of project teams. International
Journal of Project Management, 34(5), 862-873.
Sun, M., & Meng, X. (2009). Taxonomy for change causes and effects in construction
projects. International Journal of Project Management, 27(6), 560-572.
Sutterfield, J. S., Friday-Stroud, S. S., & Shivers-Blackwell, S. L. (2006). A case study of
project and stakeholder management failures: lessons learned. Project
Management Quarterly, 37(5), 26.
Sy, T., Tram, S. & O’hara, L. A. (2006). Relation of employee and manager emotional
intelligence to job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
68(3), 461-473.
Tekleab, A. G., & Quigley, N. R. (2014). Team deep-level diversity, relationship conflict,
and team members' affective reactions: A cross-level investigation. Journal of
Business Research, 67(3), 394-402.
Tai, S., Wang, Y., & Anumba, C. (2009). A survey on communications in large-scale
construction projects in China. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 16(2), 136-149.
Thamhain, H. (2013). Managing risks in complex projects. Project Management Journal,
44(2), 20-35.
205
Thomas, J. & Mengel, T. (2008). Preparing project managers to deal with complexity–
Advanced project management education. International Journal of Project
Management, 26(3), 304-315.
Thompson, T. L. (2008). The relationship between job satisfaction and project success:
A quantitative study of project managers in Houston, Texas, ProQuest.
Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A. & Barsky, A. P. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job
perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological
Bulletin, 129(6), 914-945.
Toor, S.-U.-R., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2009a). Construction professionals' perception of
critical success factors for large-scale construction projects. Construction
Innovation, 9(2), 149-167.
Toor, S.-U.-R., & Ogunlana, S. (2009b). Ineffective leadership: Investigating the negative
attributes of leaders and organizational neutralizers. Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, 16(3), 254-272.
Toor, S.-U.-R., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2010). Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder
perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector
development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28(3), 228-
236.
Troth, A. C., Jordan, P. J., Lawrence, S. A., & Tse, H. H. (2012). A multilevel model of
emotional skills, communication performance, and task performance in
teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 700-722.
Turner, R., & Lloyd-Walker, B. (2008). Emotional intelligence (EI) capabilities training:
can it develop EI in project teams?. International Journal of Managing Projects
in Business, 1(4), 512-534.
Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2004). Communication and co-operation on projects between
the project owner as principal and the project manager as agent. European
Management Journal, 22(3), 327-336.
Turner, J.R. , Müller, R., & Dulewicz, V. (2009). Comparing the leadership styles of
functional and project managers. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, 2(2), 198-216.
Turner, R., & Zolin, R. (2012). Forecasting success on large projects: Developing reliable
scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time
frames. Project Management Journal, 43(5), 87-99.
Tysseland, B. E. (2008). Life cycle cost based procurement decisions: a case study of
Norwegian defence procurement projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 26(4), 366-375.
Van Marrewijk, A., Clegg, S. R., Pitsis, T. S., & Veenswijk, M. (2008). Managing public–
private megaprojects: Paradoxes, complexity, and project design. International
Journal of Project Management, 26(6), 591-600.
Vidal, L. A., Marle, F., & Bocquet, J. C. (2011). Measuring project complexity using the
Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Project Management, 29(6),
718-727.
Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and
method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74-81.
206
Wang, X. & Huang, J. (2006). The relationships between key stakeholders’ project
performance and project success: Perceptions of Chinese construction supervising
engineers. International Journal of Project Management, 24(2), 253-260.
Webber, S. S., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Client–project manager engagements, trust, and
loyalty. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 997-1013.
Wegge, J., Dick, R. V., Fisher, G. K., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2006). A test of basic
assumptions of affective events theory (AET) in call centre work. British Journal
of Management, 17(3), 237-254.
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and
affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 173-194.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective Events Theory: A theoretical
discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at
work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews, Vol. 18, pp.
(1-74). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
Whitty, S. J. & Maylor, H. (2009). And then came complex project management (revised).
International Journal of Project Management, 27(3), 304-310.
Williams, T. M. (1999). The need for new paradigms for complex projects. International
Journal of Project Management, 17(5), 269-273.
Williams, M. (2007). Building genuine trust through interpersonal emotion management:
A threat regulation model of trust and collaboration across boundaries. Academy
of Management Review, 32(2), 595-621.
Williams, T. (2005). Assessing and moving on from the dominant project management
discourse in the light of project overruns. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 52(4), 497-508.
Williams, T. & Samset, K. (2010). Issues in front‐end decision making on projects.
Project Management Journal, 41(2), 38-49.
Wong, C.-S. & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional
intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership
Quarterly, 13(1), 243-274.
Wong, C. S., Law, K. S., & Wong, P. M. (2004). Development and validation of a forced
choice emotional intelligence measure for Chinese respondents in Hong
Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(4), 535-559.
Wu, G., Liu, C., Zhao, X., & Zuo, J. (2017). Investigating the relationship between
communication-conflict interaction and project success among construction
project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1466-1482.
Yang, J., Shen, G. Q., Ho, M., Drew, D. S., & Xue, X. (2011). Stakeholder management
in construction: An empirical study to address research gaps in previous
studies. International Journal of Project Management, 29(7), 900-910.
Yau, N.-J., & Yang, J.-B. (2012). Factors causing design schedule delays in turnkey
projects in Taiwan: An empirical study of power distribution substation projects.
Project Management Journal, 43(3), 50-61.
Yetton, P., Martin, A., Sharma, R., & Johnston, K. (2000). A model of information
systems development project performance. Information Systems Journal, 10(4),
263-289.
207
Yin, R. K. (1994). Discovering the future of the case study. Method in evaluation
research. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 283-290.
Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 17(2), 229-239.
Zhai, L., Xin, Y. & Cheng, C. (2009). Understanding the value of project management
from a stakeholder's perspective: Case study of mega‐project management.
Project Management Journal, 40(1), 99-109.
Zhang, L., & Fan, W. (2013). Improving performance of construction projects: A project
manager's emotional intelligence approach. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 20(2), 195-207.
Zhang, L., & Huo, X. (2015). The impact of interpersonal conflict on construction project
performance: A moderated mediation study from China. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 26(4), 479-498.
Zhao, H. A. O., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of
psychological contract breach on work‐related outcomes: a meta‐
analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 647-680. Zhu, W., Newman, A., Miao, Q. & Hooke, A. (2013). Revisiting the mediating role of
trust in transformational leadership effects: Do different types of trust make a
difference? The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 94-105.
208
Appendices
Appendix A
Project Manager Survey
Australia
QUT Ethic Approval Number:
0900000597
Managers Emotional Intelligence and Project Success: The role of Job
Satisfaction and Trust
Thank you for participating in this research. This research is being funded by a sub-set
of the defence industry and the Australian Research Council. The purpose of this
research is to explore the relationship between project manager’s emotional intelligence
and project success within a complex project environment.
Your participation in this survey:
Is voluntary.
You can withdraw from participation at any time without comment or penalty.
Your decision to participate will in no way impact upon your current or future
relationship with your organisation.
In the survey, we ask you to provide small amounts of personal information, firstly so
we can accurately describe the overall participants and to understand, for example, the
impact of things such as age, gender, and experience on project success.
All responses to the survey will be deidentified and any results given to the Defence
Materiel Organisation will be aggregated so that your answers will remain strictly
confidential.
This survey is being administered by the Queensland University of Technology, Griffith
University, and the University of Queensland. The researchers responsible for
administering these surveys are committed to protecting your anonymity and adhere to
the ethical conduct of research projects.
Your participation in this research is greatly appreciated.
209
Section 1 – Demographics
1. What is your age in years? Age
1. 18–34
2. 35–40
3. 41–45
4. 46–50
5. 51–54
6. 55–64
7. 65+
2. What is your gender? Gender
1 = female
2 = male
3. What education level have you completed or are currently
undertaking?
Education
Tick all that apply
1 = High School
2 = TAFE and/or Diploma
3 = In-service Training (DMO or other organisations)
4 = Undergraduate Degree
5 = Masters
6 = PhD
If 5 is ticked, direct to question 4
4. Are you currently undertaking or have you completed one of the
following?
Masters
1 = QUT’s Executive Master of Complex Project Management
2 = QUT’s Executive Master of Strategic Procurement
3 = No
5. What is your current position title and level? Role
6. Do you work as a Manager? Manage
1 = Yes
2 = No
210
7. Do you work as a member of a DMO ACAT
project team?
Team
1 = Yes
2 = No, but teams rely on my contribution
3 = No
Section 2 – Working in Teams
We would like you to answer the following questions to indicate how you think about teams. If
you work in a number of teams which includes an ACAT team, please think about the ACAT
team when answering. If you don’t work in a team, think about one to which you contribute or
have contributed to in the past.
1. Please read each statement and indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with
each on the scale provided.
[WEIP-S – Emotional Intelligence Scale (Jordan & Lawrence, 2009)]
I respect the opinions of team members, even if I think they are wrong.
I can explain the emotions I feel to team members.
I can read my fellow team members’ “true” feelings, even if they try to hide them.
I can discuss the emotions I feel with other team members.
When I am frustrated with fellow team members, I can overcome my frustration.
I am able to describe accurately the way others in the team are feeling.
When deciding on a dispute, I try to see all sides of a disagreement before I come to a
conclusion.
My enthusiasm can be contagious for members of my team.
When I talk to a team member I can gauge their true feelings from their body language.
If I feel down, I can tell team members what will make me feel better.
I can tell when team members don’t mean what they say.
I am able to cheer team members up when they are feeling down.
I can talk to other members of the team about the emotions I experience.
I can get my fellow team members to share my keenness for a project.
I can provide the “spark” to get fellow team members enthusiastic.
I give a fair hearing to my fellow team members’ ideas.
When I am angry with a member of my team, I can overcome that emotion quickly.
I am able to "bounce back" from an awkward situation with my team members.
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Disagree somewhat
4 = Undecided
5 = Agree somewhat
6 = Agree
7 = Strongly agree
211
2. Please indicate how willing you are, or would be, to engage in each of the following
behaviours with other team members.
[TRUST – IN TEAM (Gillespie, 2003)]
How willing are you to...
Rely on your team’s collective task related skills and abilities.
Depend on your team to handle an important issue on your behalf.
Rely on your team to represent your work accurately to others.
Depend on your team to back you up in difficult situations.
Rely on your team’s collective work-related judgments.
Share your personal feelings with your team.
Discuss work-related problems or difficulties with your team that could potentially
be used to disadvantage you.
Confide in your team members about personal issues that are affecting your work.
Discuss how you honestly feel about your work, even negative feelings and
frustration.
Share your personal beliefs with your team.
1 = Not at all willing
2 = Mostly not willing
3 = Slightly not willing
4 = Unsure of willingness
5 = Slightly willing
6 = Mostly willing
7 = Completely willing
Section 2 – Working in DMO
Whether you currently contribute to an ACAT project or not, we would like you to answer the
following questions that indicate how you think about the DMO project environment and
leadership generally. If you currently contribute to several ACAT projects, please choose one to
think about as you answer the questions. If you don’t contribute to ACAT projects, please think
about DMO projects in general.
3. Please read each statement and indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with
each on the scale provided.
The following questions ask you about your job satisfaction. Please read each statement and
indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each on the scale provided.
All things considered, how satisfied are you with your job?
How satisfied are you with the quality of the resources available to you to do your job well?
How satisfied are you with the quality of the working conditions available to you to do your
job well?
1 = Very dissatisfied
2 = Dissatisfied
3 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
212
4 = Satisfied
5 = Very satisfied
4. The following statements relate to activities occurring in projects. Please read each statement
and indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each on the scale provided.
[PROJECT SUCCESS (Pinto, 1990)]
The goals of the project are in line with the general goals of the organisation.
The basic goals of the project are made clear to the project team.
The results of the project will benefit the parent organisation.
I am enthusiastic about the chances for success of this project.
I am aware of and can identify the beneficial consequences to the organisation of the
success of this project.
Upper management is responsive to our requests for additional resources, if the need
arises.
Upper management shares responsibilities with the project team for ensuring the project’s
success.
I agree with upper management on the degree of my authority and responsibility for the
project.
Upper management will support me in a crisis.
Upper management has granted us the necessary authority and will support our decisions
concerning the project.
The results (decisions made, information received and needed, etc.) of planning meetings
are published and distributed to applicable personnel.
Individuals/groups supplying input have received feedback on the acceptance or rejection
of their input.
When the budget or schedule is revised, the changes and the reasons for the changes are
communicated to all members of the project team.
The reasons for the changes to existing policies/procedures have been explained to
members of the project team, other groups affected by the changes, and upper
management.
All groups affected by the project know how to make problems known to the project team.
The project leader is not hesitant to enlist the aid of personnel not involved in the project
in the event of problems.
Brainstorming sessions are held to determine where problems are most likely to occur.
In case of project difficulties, project team members know exactly where to go for
assistance.
I am confident that problems that arise can be solved completely.
Immediate action is taken when problems come to the project team’s attention.
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Slightly disagree
4 = Neither agree nor disagree
5 = Slightly agree
6 = Agree
7 = Strongly agree
213
Appendix B
Employee and Manager Survey
Iran
QUT Ethic Approval Number:
1500001062
Emotional intelligence and Project Success in Large-Scale Construction
Projects: A Team Level Perspective
This project is being undertaken as part of a PhD study. The purpose of this research is to
examine the relationship between EI and project outcomes/performance within a complex
project environment.
You are invited to participate in this project because you are a part of a project
team who currently work on a specific area with your other team members. Also, your
main goal within that team is to finish your project well. So, it makes you the best person
for this project who can describe your team performance and creativity.
Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you agree to participate
you do not have to complete any question(s) you are uncomfortable answering. Your
decision to participate or not participate will in no way impact upon your current or future
relationship with with your current organization. If you do agree to participate you can
withdraw from the project without comment or penalty. Any identifiable information
already obtained from you will be destroyed. However, as the questionnaire is anonymous
once it has been submitted it will not be possible to withdraw.
Submitting the completed the questionnaire is accepted as an indication of your
consent to participate in this project.
Thank you for helping with this research project.
214
Section 1 – Demographics
1. What is your age in years? Age
1. 18–34
2. 35–40
3. 41–45
4. 46–50
5. 51–54
6. 55–64
7. 65+
2. What is your gender? Gender
1 = female
2 = male
3. What education level have you completed or are currently
undertaking?
Education
1 = Diploma
2 = College Degree
3 = Undergraduate Degree
4 = Masters
5 = PhD
4. What is your current position title? Role
5. Do you work as a Manager? Manager
1 = Yes
2 = No
6. How long have you worked for the organization? Experience
7. Please identify the project team you contribute to most
8. How many people work in your team?
215
Section 2 – Working in Teams
We would like you to answer the following questions to indicate how you think about
teams. If you don’t work in a team, think about one to which you contribute or have
contributed to in the past.
9. Please read each statement and indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with
each on the scale provided. [Emotional Intelligence Scale (Wang & Law, 2002)]
Self-emotion appraisal (SEA)
I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time.
I have good understanding of my own emotions.
I really understand what I feel.
I always know whether or not I am happy.
Others' emotion appraisal (OEA)
I always know my team members’ emotions from their behavior.
I am a good observer of my team members’ emotions.
I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of my team members.
I have good understanding of the emotions of my team members around me.
Use of emotion (UOE)
I always set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve them.
I always tell myself I am a competent person.
I am a self-motivated person.
I would always encourage myself to try my best.
Regulation of emotion (ROE)
I am able to control my temper and handle difficulties rationally.
I am quite capable of controlling my own emotions.
I can always calm down quickly when I am very angry.
I have good control of my own emotions.
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Disagree somewhat
4 = Undecided
5 = Agree somewhat
6 = Agree
7 = Strongly agree
10. Please read each statement and indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree
with each on the scale provided.
[Trust Scale (Cook & Wall, 1980)]
216
If I got into difficulties at work I know my workmates would try and help me out.
I can trust my teammates I work with to lend me a hand if I needed it.
Most of my teammates can be relied upon to do as they say they will do.
Have full confidence in the skills of my workmates.
Most of my team mates would get on with their work even if supervisors were not
around.
Can rely on my teammates not to make my job more difficult by careless work.
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Disagree somewhat
4 = Undecided
5 = Agree somewhat
6 = Agree
7 = Strongly agree
11. The following questions ask you about your projects and your team performance in
general. Please read each statement and indicate the extent to which you agree or
disagree with each on the scale provided.
This team performs well in the whole organization.
This team achieves its goals effectively.
This team accomplishes its task quickly.
This team attains its objectives efficiently.
Almost always beat their targets.
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Disagree somewhat
4 = Undecided
5 = Agree somewhat
6 = Agree
7 = Strongly agree
217