relationship between leadership and information technology ... · leadership. while there may be no...

NOTE

This online version of the thesis may have different page formatting and pagination from the paper copy held in the Swinburne Library.

Relationship between Leadership and Information Technology Project Success

Mohan Thite M.A. (HRM), M.A. (Eco.), LLB

Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Graduate School of Management Swinburne University of Technology

Melbourne, Australia

1997

Declaration This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other

degree or diploma at any University and to the best of my knowledge and belief

contains no material previously published or written by another person or persons

except where due reference is made.

------------------

Mohan Thite

ii

Acknowledgments The motivation to conduct this research arose from my personal experience as Human

Resource manager in information technology companies where I had to grapple with

managerial deficiencies of technical managers in business and interpersonal skills

which adversely affected their effectiveness as managers. The most important

deficiency I found was lack of leadership skills in managing project team members and

the organisational bureaucracy which became the focus of this study. I have derived

immense professional satisfaction in conducting this research and hope to utilise the

knowledge gained in the process in my future endeavours.

As with any PhD study, several people have contributed to this effort directly and

indirectly. Undoubtedly, the greatest contribution was from my supervisor, Emeritus

Professor Alfred Clark, who not only demystified the enigma surrounding the image of

PhD supervisors but also made this exercise an extremely rewarding and pleasant

experience. His vast experience in research methodology and data analysis laid a

strong foundation for this study.

I am extremely grateful to the organisations which participated in the survey and

interviews. I was overwhelmed by the cooperation extended to me by the senior

managers of these organisations who acted as coordinators for the survey and spent

considerable time in persuading their IT project people to participate in the survey and

provided their insight in to the nature of IT project leadership.

My heartfelt thanks to the School of Management of Swinburne University of

Technology, particularly to Barbara Cargill and Christ Christodoulou, for awarding me

the Divisional Post-graduate Research Scholarship without which I would not have

been able to complete this study. I am also grateful to the School for sponsoring me to

various national and international conferences which were used as sounding boards

throughout the progress of my studies.

At a personal level, my wife Anjana and kids, Pallavi and Parag, have sacrificed a lot

in sparing me from household responsibilities and encouraging me to carry on despite

several odds.

iii

Special thanks are due to Professor Bernard Bass and Professor Bruce Avolio of State

University of New York, Binghamton for allowing me to use their leadership

measurement instrument in the survey and their library during my visit to SUNY

campus and to Xicom Corporation for permitting me to use portion of Project

Implementation Profile.

I gratefully acknowledge the contribution of

• Pamela Simmons for guiding me on the niceties of IT project management

• John Pidgeon, Brian Phillips, John Taffe and Glenda Franscis for assisting me in

statistical analysis

• James Sarros of Monash University for his initial contribution in writing the

research proposal, and

• Renuka Rodrigo, Phillip Wei and Ingrid Bonn, my PhD colleagues, for their friendly

advice and guidance.

The ultimate test of this study lies in its practical utility to the IT industry. It was evident

from the senior managers of participating organisations that leadership is crucial to

project outcome. I am happy that I could empirically validate it and identify some key

characteristics of successful project managers.

iv

Abstract This research explores the nature and importance of leadership in technical projects. It

contends that there is a need to develop a leadership model incorporating the unique

personality and occupational characteristics of technical professionals and their project

environment. Increasing attention is now being paid to the non-technical aspects, such

as leadership, in the execution of technical projects; but there is a dearth of empirical

research justifying their importance as critical success factors.

Using Bass and Avolio’s (1990) model and its measurement instrument, this study

tested the suitability of transformational leadership, considered a cornerstone of post-

industrial school of leadership, in the successful execution of information systems

projects. In addition, a separate technical leadership scale, derived from the meta

analysis of the technical leadership literature, was also tested, compared and

contrasted with Bass and Avolio’s model.

The conceptual framework postulated that a combination of transformational and

technical leadership styles augment transactional leadership leading to high project

success with the additional support of other contingency factors, such as clarity of

project mission, top management support and availability of technical resources.

The population for the research was information systems projects in Australian

organisations. The participating organisations were part of the top 100 computer using

organisations, top 50 software companies and members of the Australian Information

Industry Association (AIIA). Of the 111 organisations which were invited and found

suitable, 36 participated in the research, yielding a response rate of 32%.

Each participating organisation involved two project teams in the survey, one

considered more successful and another less successful, on specified parameters.

The sample consisted of the IT project managers (n = 70) and their subordinates (n =

228) who described the leadership behaviours of self/manager in terms of

transformational, transactional, and technical leadership scales and their perceived

effectiveness. In addition, senior IT managers (n = 18) were interviewed to obtain a

three dimensional (superiors, self and subordinates) perspective of project leadership.

v

The results were consistent with the hypothesis that managers of more successful

projects exhibit transformational and technical leadership behaviours to a greater

extent than managers of less successful projects. They also exhibited more of

transactional contingent reward behaviour, thus, supporting the augmentation effect.

Management-by-exception passive behaviour showed a strong but negative

correlation with leadership outcome. As hypothesised, transformational and technical

leadership scales were more strongly correlated with leadership outcome scales in

more successful projects than in less successful projects. These results were in line

with the previous findings on Bass and Avolio’s model.

The more successful projects also exhibited stronger presence of the contingency

factors considered in the study i.e., better clarity of project mission to team members,

top management support and greater availability of technical resources. There was a

broad agreement between the managers and their subordinates on leadership,

outcome and contingency scales.

The factor analysis of leadership scales resulted in one transformational scale

(combination of intellectual stimulation and idealised influence), one technical scale

(organisational catalyst), and three transactional scales (contingent reward,

management-by-exception active and passive). The modified leadership scales were

used to propose a technical leadership model, laying the foundation for a technical

leadership theory.

The results demonstrate the importance of leadership as a critical success factor in

technical projects and provide valuable clues on a “role model” for aspiring project

managers which include the key elements of transformational and technical

leadership. While there may be no one leadership style that is effective in all project

situations, the study recommends an underlying yet flexible style characterised by

organisational catalyst, intellectual stimulation, behavioural charisma and contingent

reward behaviours for enhanced leadership effectiveness.

vi

On Leadership Leadership is an invisible strand as mysterious as it is powerful. It pulls and it bonds. It is a catalyst that creates unity out of disorder. Yet, it defies definition. No combination of talents can guarantee it. No process or training can create it where the spark does not exist. The qualities of leadership are universal: They are found in the poor and the rich, The humble and the proud, The common man and the brilliant thinker; They are qualities that suggest paradox rather than pattern. But wherever they are found Leadership makes things happen. The most precious and intangible quality of leadership is trust, The confidence that the one who leads will act in the best interest of those who follow....the assurance that he/she will serve the group without sacrificing the rights of the individual. Leadership's imperative is a sense of rightness, Knowing when to advance and when to pause, When to criticise and when to praise, and Knowing how to encourage others to excel. From the leader’s reserves of energy and optimism, His/Her followers draw strength. In his/her determination and self-confidence, they find inspiration. In its highest sense, leadership is integrity. This command by conscience asserts itself more by commitment and example than by directive. Integrity recognises external obligations. But it heeds the quiet voice within rather than the clamour without. (Source: Author unknown. Published in an IBM publication around 1974).

vii

Table of Contents Acknowledgments ii

Abstract iv

Quote on Leadership vi

List of Figures and Tables xii

List of Appendixes

xiv

1 RESEARCH OVERVIEW 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Research objectives 2

1.3 Justification for the study 2

1.4 Definition of key terms 5

1.5 Research setting 7

1.5.1 Characteristics of an IT department 8

1.5.2 Organisation structure 9

1.5.3 Types of IT projects 10

1.5.4 Traits of IT personnel 11

1.6 Overview of Australian IT industry 12

1.6.1 IT industry in general 12

1.6.2 Computer services industry 13

1.6.3 Software services industry 14

1.7 Presentation of the study 14

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 16

2.1 An historical overview of leadership theories and research 16

2.1.1 Introduction 16

2.1.2 Definition of leadership 17

2.1.3 Overview of major research approaches to leadership 17

2.2 Charismatic leadership 21

2.2.1 Concept of charisma 21

2.2.2 Research on charisma 23

viii

2.2.3 Critique on charisma 23

2.3 Transformational Leadership 24

2.3.1 Burns’s concept of transforming leadership 25

2.3.2 Bennis and Nanus 26

2.3.3 Kouzes and Posner 26

2.3.4 Tichy and Devanna 26

2.3.5 Evaluation of transformational leadership theories 28

2.4 Bass and Avolio’s Model of Transformational Leadership - Concept and Research

28

2.4.1 Transactional leadership 29

2.4.2 Transformational leadership 30

2.4.3 The model on the full range of leadership 30

2.4.4 Augmentation effect of transformational leadership 33

2.4.5 Situational impact on transformational and transactional leadership 34

2.4.6 Multi-factor leadership questionnaire(MLQ) 35

2.4.7 Research on Bass and Avolio’s model 35

2.4.8 Research on the model in Australia and New Zealand 37

2.4.9 Critique of Bass and Avolio’s model 38

2.5 Technical Leadership 39

2.5.1 Technical employees in management 40

2.5.2 Studies on technical leadership 41

2.5.3 Relevance of transformational leadership to technical employees 43

2.6 Information Technology Projects : Critical Success Factors and Role of Leadership

45

2.6.1 Critical success factors 45

2.6.2 Project implementation profile (PIP) 46

2.6.3 Role of leadership in IS projects 49

2.6.4 Leadership skills in IS project managers 50

2.7 Summary 51

3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 52

3.1 Conceptual Framework 52

ix

3.2 Hypotheses 54

4 METHOD 56

4.1 Population 56

4.2 Sample Design 56

4.3 Research Design 57

4.4 Research Instruments 60

4.4.1 Measurement of Transformational, Transactional Leadership and Outcomes

60

4.4.2 Measurement of Technical Leadership 61

4.4.3 Measurement of Contingency Factors 61

4.4.4 Factor Structure and Reliability of Questionnaire Items 62

4.5 Research Procedure 62

4.5.1 Pretest of Questionnaire 62

4.5.2 Support from Industry Associations 64

4.5.3 Communication Process 64

4.5.4 Data Collection Process 65

4.5.5 Interview Process 66

4.6 Analytic Procedure 67

4.7 Characteristics of Participants 68

4.7.1 Response Analysis 68

4.7.2 Organisational Profile 70

4.7.3 Organisational Chart 71

4.7.4 Project Profile 72

4.7.5 Demographics 73

5 RESULTS 74

5.1 Introduction 74

5.2 Subordinates’ Assessment of Leadership Behaviour 74

5.3 Subordinate’s Assessment of Leadership Outcome 76

5.4 Subordinate’s Assessment of Contingency Factors 79

5.5 Self(Managers’) Ratings on Leadership, Outcome & Contingency Scales

79

x

5.6 Correlation Between Leadership and Outcome Scales (Self Ratings) 81

5.7 Comparison of Subordinates’ and Self Ratings 83

5.8 Correlation Between the Sub-scales of Transformational and Transactional Leadership

84

5.9 Factor Analysis of Transformational & Transactional Leadership Scales

85

5.10 Factor Analysis of Technical Leadership Scale 88

5.11 Intercorrelation between Transformational / Transactional and Technical Leadership Scales

89

5.12 Factor Analysis of Modified Transformational, Transactional and Technical Leadership Scales

89

5.13 Model for the Measurement of Technical Leadership 92

5.14 Test of the Model for the Measurement of Technical Leadership 94

5.14.1 Subordinates’ Assessment of Leadership Behaviour 94

5.14.2 Correlation Between the Scales & with Outcome Scale 95

6 INTERVIEWS WITH SENIOR MANAGERS 97

6.1 Introduction 97

6.2 Criteria for Judging Project Performance 98

6.3 Key Success Factors 98

6.4 Project Leadership 99

6.5 Leadership Style and Project Outcome 100

6.6 Assessment of Transformational, Transactional & Technical Leadership

100

6.7 Advice for Project Managers 102

7 DISCUSSION 103

7.1 Introduction 103

7.2 Comparison of Results with Hypotheses

103

7.3 Applicability of Bass & Avolio’s Model to Information Technology Projects

105

7.4 Construct Validity of Bass & Avolio’s model 107

xi

7.5 Is There a Technical Leadership Style? 109

7.5.1 Comparing Technical Leadership Ratings with Transformational / Transactional Leadership Ratings

110

7.5.2 Factor Structure of Technical Leadership 110

7.5.3 Distinguishing Technical Leadership from Transformational/Transactional Leadership

111

7.6 Towards a Theory of Technical Leadership 112

7.7 Implications for Leadership Research 114

7.8 Research Implications for Organisations 115

7.9 Limitations of the Study 117

7.10 Future Research 119

7.11 Conclusion 119

Publications as a Result of This Research 122

Bibliography 123

Appendixes 132

xii

List of Figures and Tables Figure 2-1 The augmentation model of transactional and

transformational leadership

34

Figure 2-2 Ten key factors of the project implementation profile

48

Figure 3-1 Conceptual framework

53

Figure 4-1 Typical organisational chart of a large IT development project

71

Table 2-1 Overview of major research approaches to leadership

18

Table 2-2 Critical success factors in an IS environment

46

Table 2-3 Essential qualities and skills of IS project managers

50

Table 4-1 Sources of data collection

59

Table 4-2 Factor structure and reliability of questionnaire items

62

Table 4-3 Pretest of research design and questionnaire

63

Table 4-4 Analysis of response to the survey

69

Table 4-5 Profile of respondent organisations

70

Table 4-6 Project participation profile

72

Table 4-7 Project performance profile

72

Table 4-8 Demographics of project managers

73

Table 4-9 Demographics of project team members

73

Table 5-1 Subordinates’ ratings on leadership behaviour

75

Table 5-2 Subordinates’ ratings on leadership outcome

77

Table 5-3 Correlations between leadership and outcome scales

78

Table 5-4 Subordinates’ ratings on contingency scales

79

Table 5-5 Self (managers’) ratings on leadership, outcome and contingency scales

80

Table 5-6 Correlations between leadership and outcome scales (self ratings)

82

Table 5-7 Correlation matrix of the subscales of transformational and transactional leadership scales (Subordinate ratings)

85

xiii

Table 5-8 Maximum likelihood factor analysis of transformational and

transactional leadership scales (subordinate ratings)

86

Table 5-9 Principal components factor analysis of technical leadership scale (subordinate ratings)

88

Table 5-10 Principal components factor analysis of modified transformational, transactional and technical leadership scales (subordinate ratings)

90

Table 5-11 Second order principal components factor analysis of modified transformational, transactional and technical leadership scales (subordinate ratings)

92

Table 5-12 Comparison between more and less successful projects using modified measurement instrument (subordinate ratings)

95

Table 5-13 Correlation between scales and with outcome scales of the modified measurement instrument

96

Table 6-1 Key success factors as named by senior managers 98

Table 6-2 Key success factors as ranked by senior managers

99

Table 6-3 Ratings of senior managers on transformational, transactional and technical leadership scales

101

xiv

List of Appendixes Appendix-1 Invitation letter for participation in the survey

132

Appendix-2 Coordinator’s questionnaire

134

Appendix-3 Interview questionnaire for senior managers

136

Appendix-4 Questionnaire for project managers

143

Appendix-5 Questionnaire for project team members

148

Appendix-6 Essential elements of transformational, transactional and technical leadership

153

Appendix-7 Invitation letter for the pretest of questionnaire

155

Appendix-8 Letter to industry associations to support the survey

156

Appendix-9 Letters from industry associations supporting the survey

158

Appendix-10 First reminder letter for participation in the survey

161

Appendix-11 Second reminder letter for participation in the survey

162

Appendix-12 List and profile of participating organisations 163

Chapter 1. RESEARCH OVERVIEW

1.1 Introduction

Organisations are undergoing a paradigm shift under the shock of technological

revolution. The post-industrial era is characterised by the emergence of service

industry at the cost of the manufacturing sector and increasing importance of

information or knowledge based products and services vis-a-vis labour or capital

intensive products and services. Information Technology (IT) is at the core of these

changes and is rightly called the “third wave”.

Rapid strides in technological advancements have led to globalisation, re-structuring,

downsizing, fewer management levels, out-sourcing and emergence of knowledge

workers and virtual corporations. The impact of the post-industrial revolution is

evidenced by the rapidly changing distribution and the profile of work force. According

to Richman (1994), “since 1950s, the number of technical workers in the USA has

increased nearly 300%, triple the growth rate for the work force as a whole and thus,

creating the largest broad occupational category. The technicians are becoming the

core employees of the digital information age. The sheer growth in the number of

technicians and the diversity of occupations they hold bespeak a profound change in

the importance to companies that hope to survive and thrive in an era of epochal

change”.

In response to these developments, the nature, characteristics and styles of technical

leadership are undergoing fundamental changes. A research study on the leadership

of technical professionals (Rosenbaum, 1991) revealed that “since technical

professionals are highly specialised, managing them according to traditional principles

may meet with only minimal success”. To successfully manage today’s technical

employees, organisations require powerfully effective leaders who understand the

unique needs and aspirations of their technical subordinates and lead them

accordingly. Cascio (1995) concludes that “more often today’s networked,

interdependent, culturally diverse organisation requires transformational leadership”.

Chapter 1 Research Overview

2

1.2 Research Objectives

The basic purpose of this study was to identify the nature and characteristics of the

leadership styles or behaviours that were most suitable in the successful execution of

information technology (IT) projects. The second aim of the study was to examine the

importance of leadership as a critical success factor in IT projects in conjunction with

other critical variables. In order to address the purposes of this study, the following

research objectives were formulated:

1. To describe the leadership behaviour of more and less successful IT project

managers as perceived by themselves, their subordinates, and their superiors.

2. To test the effectiveness of different leadership behaviours in the success of the

projects led by IT project managers.

3. To replicate Bass and Avolio’s (1990) model on transformational and transactional

leadership in an IT project environment. Further, to compare the key characteristics

of transformational and transactional leadership behaviours in Bass and Avolio’s

model with those of effective technical leaders identified by the technical leadership

literature in order to examine whether the subordinates perceive these behaviours

as distinct, or as significantly overlapping.

4. To examine the differences, if any, between the perception of leaders (project

managers) and their subordinates with regard to leadership behaviour and its

effectiveness.

5. To examine the role of leadership as a critical success factor in the execution of IT

projects in conjunction with other critical variables.

6. To examine the essential skills and qualities in IT project managers as perceived by

their superiors.

7. To propose a leadership model and a measurement instrument which capture the

key behaviours of technical leaders leading to positive outcomes which are

quantitatively and qualitatively better than ordinary outcomes.

1.3 Justification for the Study

Leadership is critical in any human endeavour. It is generally recognised that

technical/scientific employees lack managerial skills, including leadership skills (Mann,

Mayer, Hutton and Cupper, 1994). In technology-intensive organisations, they are a

major source of talent for promotion to management but their transition to


3

management often becomes difficult for lack of interpersonal skills and adequate role

models in managing people (Davis, 1981; Rosenbaum, 1991).

Further, considering the unique occupational characteristics of technical employees

(Peterson, 1987) and their work environment (Wooldridge, 1976), a different approach

is called for in successfully leading them. However, an analysis of the literature reveals

that leadership research has given scant attention to technical leadership in terms of

proposing a leadership model that specifically takes in to account the unique problems

and challenges in leading technical employees nor has it incorporated technology,

such as IT, as either independent or dependent variable in to the design of empirical

research although it represents major organisational interventions (Klenke, 1996). This

study intends correcting this imbalance by specifically focusing on technical

leadership.

For the purpose of this study, the IT industry was chosen as the research setting for

several reasons. Today, IT is the major driving force of the post-industrial society

(Sadler, 1992) and therefore, provides an appropriate setting to look at technical

leadership. Secondly, there is a widespread dissatisfaction about the performance of

information systems (IS) projects and while analysing the causes for this failure,

researchers are increasingly recognising that technology is more often a secondary

issue behind management, particularly of human resources (Sauer, 1993; Lowry,

Morgan and FitzGerald, 1996). The importance of leadership as a critical success

factor in IS project management is well recognised (Pulk, 1990; Cash and Fox, 1992;

Cleland, 1995). However, in most cases, the identification of project success factors

have been theoretically based, rather than empirically derived (Pinto and Prescott,

1988).Thirdly, the author is well acquainted with the IT industry having worked for

several years as a Human Resources Management professional in IT organisations.

This study tests the suitability of Bass and Avolio’s (1990) model of transformational

leadership in an IT environment. Transformational leadership is considered a “new

force in leadership research” having dominated the field since 1980s (Bryman, 1992;

Yukl, 1994; Rost, 1993). The effects of transformational leadership is seen to be

quantitatively greater and qualitatively different than the effects specified in past

theories (Shamir, House and Arthur, 1993) which are collectively referred to as

“transactional leadership”.


4

While there are many theories on transformational leadership, Bass and Avolio’s

(1990) ‘full range of leadership model’ stands out as it clearly identifies different

components of transformational and transactional leadership and provides a well-

tested measurement instrument which has produced an impressive array of findings

(Bryman, 1992). Further, Bass and Avolio’s model has been empirically validated in a

wide variety of organisations, cultures and levels within organisations.

The model has been tested with generally positive results in technical and R&D

organisations (Keller, 1992; Howell and Higgins, 1990; Beatty and Lee, 1992) but not

in an IT project environment.

The model has been criticised on several grounds and this study addresses those

criticisms while testing the model:

• According to Yukl (1994), the distinction between transformational and

transactional leadership ignores some important managerial behaviours that do not

belong to either category. This study tests the model along with some other

important leadership behaviours, derived from the meta analysis of technical

leadership, to examine whether or not the model is able to explain the key

leadership behaviours of IT project managers.

• Most of the studies on this model have used questionnaire/survey method and

thus, suffer from the limitations of questionnaire correlational research (Hunt, 1991;

Smith and Peterson, 1988; Yukl, 1994). This study uses both quantitative (survey

questionnaire) and qualitative (interview) methods to facilitate a better

understanding of this growing body of leadership.

• Much of the research on transformational leadership has concentrated on top level

leaders (Burns, 1978; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Tichy and Devanna, 1986). Bass

and Avolio (1993: 54) concurred that even though transformational leadership has

been observed at lower organisational levels, it is likely to occur more frequently at

the highest organisational levels. This study tests the relevance of transformational

leadership at the middle management level to further understand the “universality”

of transformational leadership.

• The amount of empirical research on transformational leadership is still very limited

(Yukl, 1989: 223). As noted by Bass and Avolio (1993), not all of the behaviours of


5

transformational leadership have been identified or accurately measured and more

work remains to be done regarding the conceptualisation and measurement of

different constructs in the model. This study contributes to that effort.

Thus, the contribution of this research is two-fold: First, it throws more light on the

nature, characteristics and importance of technical leadership, in general and IT

project leadership, in particular. Second, it adds to the research on transformational

leadership by testing its relevance, predictability of success, and construct validity in

an IT project environment.

1. 4 Definition of Key Terms

• Leadership

Considering the purpose and nature of this study, Yukl’s (1994:5) definition seems to

be most appropriate. He defines leadership broadly as “influence processes affecting

the interpretation of events for followers, the choice of objectives for the group or

organisation, the organisation of work activities to accomplish the objectives, the

motivation of followers to achieve the objectives, the maintenance of cooperative

relationships and teamwork, and the enlistment of support and cooperation from

people outside the group or organisation”.

In line with Yukl’s (1994) thinking, the terms leader and manager are used

interchangeably in this study to refer to people who occupy positions in which they are

expected to exert leadership, but without any assumption that this process actually

occurs. Further, the terms style and behaviour are used interchangeably in this study

to describe what leaders do.

• Technical Leadership Technical leadership in the context of this thesis refers to leadership of employees

engaged in technical/scientific occupations such as engineering, information

technology, and research & development (R&D).

• Information Technology/ Systems Information Technology (IT) can be defined as “the hardware and software that is used

to collect, transmit, process, and disseminate data (symbols) in an organisation”


6

(Laudon and Turner, 1989: 52). The terms “information technology” and “information

systems” (IS) are used interchangeably. The term “system” is used here for the

combination of hardware and software that provides a computer service.

• Project “An undertaking which involves a single, definable purpose, end product or result,

usually specified in terms of cost, schedule and performance requirements” (Nicholas,

1990: 3).

• Information Technology Project A project where the prime project activity centres on information technology or

computing activities to deliver a business requirement.

• Project Manager The person who is charged with managing the resources to get the complete project

implemented on time, within budget and with agreed functionality.

• Critical Success Factors (CSFs) CSFs are those few things that must go well to ensure success of an undertaking and

must be given special and continual attention to bring about high performance

(Boynton and Zmud, 1984).

• Leadership Effectiveness/ Success The words ‘success’ and ‘effectiveness’ are used interchangeably in this study with

reference to the leader and the project. The effectiveness/success of the leader are

measured by the leaders themselves (self perception) and the team members of the

project (subordinate perception) on the following parameters:

1. ability of the project manager (leader) in representing his/her group to higher

authority,

2. ability of the leader in meeting the job-related needs of his/her subordinates,

3. ability of the leader in meeting the requirements of the organisation, and

4. the overall effectiveness of the group.

• Leadership Satisfaction The satisfaction with leadership based on self and subordinate perception are

measured in terms of:


7

1. Satisfaction with the leadership abilities of the project manager, and

2. Satisfaction with the methods of leadership used by the project manager in getting

his/her group’s job done.

• Project Success The relative success or failure of the project is assessed by the senior manager of the

respondent organisations (to whom the project managers report) and are measured on

the following parameters:

1. Technical quality: the extent to which specified quality requirements are satisfied.

2. Cost performance: the extent to which the project is within the budgeted cost.

3. Deadline: the extent to which the key milestones are achieved.

4. Customer satisfaction: the extent to which the user is satisfied with the system

performance.

5. Overall project performance.

1.5 Research Setting

There are two kinds of IT organisations: One, a service department within an

organisation engaged in a non-IT activity (eg., an IT department in a bank), and

another whose main business is IT itself, i.e., hardware or software (development/

maintenance/ enhancement) or both (eg. IBM, Microsoft). This study covers both types

of organisations.

Even though an IT department is like any other service function in an organisation, it

differs quite significantly from others in terms of its characteristics and organisational

structure. These features have a vital bearing on organisational policies and

procedures and pose unique challenges to IT managers. Donaldson (1978) argues

that “computer projects can be extremely complex and they always demand a high

degree of technical and management skill. As they grow in size, the complexity grows

in a way that seems to be exponential”.

1.5.1 Characteristics of an IT Department According to Wooldridge (1976), an IT department in any organisation has following

distinguishing characteristics:

1. The mission of service: As a service unit, its mission is to provide workable

computer systems within acceptable limits of costs and time.


8

2. The technical nature of work: Not only is work largely technical in nature, but it is

also a rapidly changing technology requiring constant training and acquisition of new

hardware and software.

3. Project orientation: Most of the system development department’s resources and

time are used to work on projects. Whether those efforts are directed to new systems,

support, enhancements or maintenance, all are project oriented, with discrete start and

finish points for each. This orientation to projects sets it apart from the other

departments, making it difficult for other groups to relate to it (Peterson, 1987: 43).

4. The bifurcated career path: The traditional career path in an IT set-up is from

programmer to systems analyst to manager. Many organisations provide alternate

career paths with both technical and managerial positions going in parallel and

carrying the same benefits so that a technical employee who does not want a

managerial position can continue in the technical path without losing managerial perks.

5. High turnover of staff: The first loyalty of IT employees is to their profession rather

than to the company. To retain the challenge in their technical work and to remain

competitive, they tend to change their jobs frequently, especially if they are working in

a non-IT organisation. Further, there is a global shortage of IT specialists.

Consequently, the turnover of IT staff in most organisations is much higher than for

other occupational categories and is typically in the range of 15 to 20%.

6. Orientation to development work: Much of the work in an IT department concerns

operation and maintenance of existing systems but most of the IT staff aspire to work

in development of new systems which is nonrepetitive and challenging. This attitude

has serious implications on deployment of resources, morale, turnover of staff and

training.

7. Outsourcing: Due to the complexity and constantly changing technical skills required

in an IT project, most organisations today outsource part or whole of their information

systems development and maintenance functions. Consequently, for better career

prospects and rewards, a significant number of IT specialists (programmers, analysts,

consultants) prefer to work independently as contractors or through IT consultancy and

placement organisations which take up IT projects on a turn-key basis or on time and

material basis. This creates two groups of people in an IT project: one, the permanent


9

employees of the organisation and two, the outside contractors. This reflects on

difference in remuneration, organisational and project loyalty between the team

members and its impact on managerial control.

1.5.2 Organisation Structure Wooldridge (1976: 27) identified three basic patterns of IT departmental organisation:

1. Hierarchical structure: In this pattern which was prevalent before 1980s, the

department manager is at the top and may report to the head of management

services or general manager or CEO. Reporting to him/her are a systems manager

and a programming manager, who are in turn responsible for the analysts,

programmers and trainees in each category.

2. Pool or matrix structure: In this structure, the teams are drawn from pools of

systems analysts and programmers. In the most fluid of arrangements, one

individual may be leader for one project, but may also may be a team member

cooperating with someone else on another project, simultaneously or

consecutively. The size and composition of the team often varies through the life

cycle of the project. A matrix organisation employs a “multiple command system”.

The major drawback of this structure is that it splits the lines of reporting and may

cause confusion and frustration as to who is the real ‘boss’.

3. Permanent team structure: In this structure, there may be a layer of project

managers between the head of IT department and team leaders. Each team

consists of programmers and analysts, who may be specialists in particular

application areas, and are assigned to that team almost permanently. This

structure demands a competent project leader for its success and its cohesiveness

fosters team spirit.

1.5.3 Types of IT Projects There are a number of jobs that qualify as separate projects in implementing a data

processing system (Awani, 1986; Wooldridge, 1976):

1. Feasibility studies: In this, the data processing requirements of the organisation are

analysed to determine if there is technological, operational and economic

justification to change to a new system, and if so, what are the alternatives and the

best approach to take.


10

2. Systems development: This involves information gathering, data and problem

analysis, system design, programming, system testing, conversion and

implementation, and post-implementation evaluation.

3. Equipment and software selection: This concerns the evaluation and procurement

through competitive tendering of appropriate hardware and software to run and

maintain the system.

The basic activities of an IT project are best introduced in relation to the phases of

system’s life cycle:

• Initiation- requirements analysis.

• Definition- functional specification

• Design- construction specification

• Programming- coding

• Testing- integration

• Operation- maintenance.

1.5.4 Traits of IT Personnel According to Peterson (1987:118), as an occupational group, IT personnel exhibit

certain distinguishing traits:

1. Youth: IT employees are significantly younger, on average, (typically in their

twenties and thirties) than those of most departments, both absolutely and in terms of

their salary and position levels.

2. Mobility: They are more apt to change jobs frequently and are more amenable to

geographic flexibility than most other groups. With competitive job markets, this tends

to result in short tenure (typically, less than four years).

3. Craftsman approach: As craftsmen, they place a high priority on the tools they utilise

and the abstract quality of the product they produce. This attitude is a unique mix of

the product/service orientation.

4. Sensitivity to work: They tend to identify their own worth with the success and

acceptance of the product produced. They see the system that they produce as an

extension of their personality and a statement of their level of skill.


11

5. Isolation from corporate society: Due to a general misunderstanding of what a

development department does and how, the corporation does not relate well to

systems development personnel. The result is a sense of isolation and a notable

aloofness and separatism in the personalities of the staff.

6. Association with absolutes: IT personnel tend to have a black/white approach to

problem solving. The pragmatism of politics and interpersonal relations is somewhat at

odds with their sense of right or wrong production systems.

7. Intenseness: The intense concentration required of IT personnel implies success for

those who can concentrate by excluding outside influences.

8. Flexibility: Due to the dynamic nature of the discipline, successful IT personnel tend

to display extraordinary flexibility in accepting and adapting to change.

1.6 Overview of Australian IT Industry

According to Da Silva (1996), “Australia is perceived as a technology-intensive nation.

It is second only to the USA in both the number of personal computers per head of

population and use of the internet. Australia also employs more IT professionals per

capita than almost any other country”.

1.6.1 IT Industry in General Using a new IT map, the Bureau of Industry Economics (BIE) (Houghton, Pucar and

Knox, 1996) divides the IT sector into four main industries- communication services

(telephony etc.), information (computer) services (networks and computer related

services), equipment manufacturing and content (information products and

publications).

The BIE estimates that “in 1993, 7500 businesses were operating in the Australian IT

industries employing more than 160,000 people. The IT industry today represents 5%

of the Australian economy with an annual turnover of over $33 billion in 1995 and is

growing at the rate of 25% a year. The IT and telecommunications will be Australia’s

biggest single industry by the year 2000”.


12

According to BIE, majority (67%) of computing professionals and data processing

managers have degrees or higher education-based qualifications. They have enjoyed

a compound annual growth of 23% in the IT industries since 1989-90.

The Australasian IT industry (Australia and New Zealand) is very top heavy. For

instance, of the 3001 top computer using organisations in the region, the top 10

combined were bigger than the bottom 2500 combined (Conners, 1995). These large

users spend more money, employ more people, and develop more software, than just

about the rest of the industry put together.

In terms of industry representation in the IT sector, the government owned industries

dominate the scene. For example, of the top 100 computer using organisations, the

community services (education, health, welfare etc.), public administration, and

defence accounted for more than half (51%), followed by finance industry (banking

and insurance) (Conners, 1995).

1.6.2 Computer Services Industry The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (1995) defines the Computer Services (CS)

industry as “the businesses whose primary activities are the provision of data

processing services, computer maintenance services, computer consultancy services,

and information storage and retrieval services”. The following statistics relate to the

computer services (CS) industry for the year 1992-93, as per the latest information

compiled by the ABS (1995).

In 1992-93, there were 4894 businesses in the CS industry employing about 30,000

people with a sales turnover of $4 billion. The spread of employment within the

industry was as follows:

Computer consultancy services - 75%

Computer maintenance - 16%

Data processing services - 7%, and

Information storage and retrieval services - 2%.

The CS industry was dominated by small businesses, with 97% of businesses

employing fewer than 20 people. Particularly, over 85% of them employed less than 5

persons. The small businesses (employing less than 20 persons) accounted for 42%

of industry employment and 28% of industry operating profit before tax. In contrast, the


13

29 businesses in the industry employing 100 or more persons (representing less than

1% of total businesses) accounted for 42% of employment and 58% of operating profit.

The states of New South Wales (NSW) (of which Sydney is the capital) and Victoria (of

which Melbourne is the capital) dominated the CS industry as together they accounted

for 77% of employment and 81% of income for the industry. This is no surprise

considering that about 50% of the Australian population is concentrated in NSW and

Victoria.

87% of the employees in the CS industry worked full-time. While males dominated

computer maintenance and consultancy services (above 70%), females dominated the

data processing services (62%) with majority of females working part-time (56%).

Females were employed more in non-technical work whereas males dominated as

working proprietors/directors and computing/technical staff.

1.6.3 Software Services Industry The software services sector is the driving force of the IT industry. For instance, the

top 50 software companies generated total revenues of $959 million and achieved a

growth rate of about 22% in 1994-95, nearly double the average growth of Australian

IT industry (Kennedy, 1996:4). Of these top 50, 18 were Australian companies and the

rest were multinational software vendors with local offices in Australia. Together, the

top 50 employed nearly 5500 employees in 1995.

1.7 Presentation of the Study

This research is presented in seven parts:

1. Research overview

2. Literature review

3. Conceptual framework

4. Method

5. Results

6. Interviews with senior managers, and

7. Discussion.

The first part,

• introduces technical leadership,


14

• states the research objectives,

• outlines the reasons justifying the study,

• defines key terms used in the study, and

• presents the characteristics of the research setting, namely, the information

technology environment and the salient features of the Australian IT industry.

The second part focuses on the literature review. It consists of:

• an historical overview of leadership theories and research,

• concept and research on charismatic leadership, a key component of

transformational leadership,

• concept and various theories on transformational leadership, in general,

• concept and research on Bass and Avolio’s model of transformational leadership

• an account of various studies on technical leadership, and

• review of critical success factors, particularly, the role of leadership, in information

technology projects.

The third part deals with:

• conceptual framework of the thesis, and

• hypothesis arising out of the conceptual framework.

The fourth part pertains to the research method and accordingly includes:

• the research design and the identified sources of data collection,

• the research instruments used to measure, both quantitatively and qualitatively,

project leadership and contingency factors influencing IT project implementation,

• the research procedure outlining the pretesting of questionnaire and

communication with respondents,

• the analytical methods used to interpret the data, and

• characteristics of participants.

In the fifth part, the results of the study are presented to test the hypotheses drawn

from the conceptual model. The data for the more and less successful projects are

compared and contrasted. First the subordinates’ ratings on their project manager’s

leadership behaviour and its perceived effectiveness are discussed and later

compared with the self ratings of managers. Thereafter, using the subordinate ratings,

the construct validity of leadership scales are examined and the results are used to

propose a refined model to test technical leadership behaviours.


15

The sixth part presents the results from the content analysis of the interviews with the

senior IT managers of the participating organisations. Thus, the overall results present

three views of IT project leadership, i.e., of superiors, self and subordinates.

In the final part, the results are interpreted in the light of the findings of previous

studies and conclusions drawn with regard to the applicability of Bass and Avolio’s

model (1990) to IT projects, its construct validity, comparison between the model and

the technical leadership scale tested, and finally the proposed model to measure

technical leadership. The organisational implications of the research are highlighted,

along with the limitations of the study and directions for future research.

Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 An Historical Overview of Leadership Theories and Research

2.1.1 Introduction The history of mankind is rich with the subject of leaders and leadership. Bass (1990)

argues that the study of leadership rivals in age the emergence of civilisation, which

shaped its leaders as much as it was shaped by them. Yukl (1994) opined that the

widespread fascination with leadership may be because it is such a mysterious

process, as well as one that touches everyone’s life. Accordingly, leadership has been

a subject of intense debate and controversy among sociologists, political scientists,

historians, psychologists and management scientists.

However, it appears that the intellectual debate on leadership has generated more

heat than light. There is a deep sense of pessimism among the leadership scholars

about what has been achieved so far. In this connection, the following remarks by

some of the reputed scholars of leadership research are worth noting:

• Bernard (1948): Leadership has been the subject of an extraordinary amount of

dogmatically stated nonsense.

• Stogdill (1974): The endless accumulation of empirical data has not produced an

integrated understanding of leadership.

• Burns (1978): Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood

phenomena on earth.

• Bennis and Nanus (1985): Thousands of empirical investigations of leadership

have been conducted in the last seventy-five years alone, but no clear and

unequivocal understanding exists as to what distinguishes leaders from non-

leaders.

• Rost (1993): Most of what is written about leadership has to do with its peripheral

elements and content rather than with the essential nature of leadership as a

relationship.

• Yukl (1994): Leadership research has been characterised by narrowly focused

studies with little integration of findings from different approaches.

What is wrong with leadership research? The basic problem appears to be the lack of

consensus on almost all aspects of the study of leadership. Kunhert (1993) observes

Chapter 2 Literature Review 17

that leadership researchers have been criticised for shoddy scientific approaches: lack

of definitional focus, poor methodology, poor measurement, inappropriate

assumptions, and reliance on outdated theories. According to Burns (1978:3), one of

the most serious failures in the study of leadership has been the lack of integration

between the literature on leadership and the literature on followership. In this

connection, Crowe, Bochner, and Clark (1972) stated, on the basis of their empirical

study, that the subordinates’ influence is strong enough to bring about a response from

managers that is opposite to their own preference and therefore, the influence of

subordinates must be included in theories that seek to understand the manager-

subordinate relationship.

Considering the controversy surrounding the subject, this literature review chapter on

leadership theories takes an overall and broad historical look at the literature without

being influenced by any particular school of thought or line of thinking. During the

discussion, the theories are classified by their broad approaches.

2.1.2 Definition of Leadership In the opinion of Bass (1990:11), “generally, leadership has been conceived as the

focus of group processes, as a matter of personality, as a matter of inducing

compliance, as the exercise of influence, as particular behaviours, as a form of

persuasion, as a power relation, as an instrument to achieve goals, as an effect of

interaction, as a differentiated role, as initiation of structure, and as many combinations

of these definitions”. Yukl (1994:3) adds that “most definitions of leadership assume

that it involves a social influence process whereby intentional influence is exerted by

one person over other people to structure the activities and relationships in a group or

organisation”. In research, the operational definition of leadership will depend to a

great extent on the purpose of the researcher (Yukl, 1994; Bass, 1990).

2.1.3 Overview of Major Research Approaches to Leadership Theories of leadership attempt to explain the factors involved either in the emergence

of leadership or in the nature of leadership and its consequences (Bass, 1990:37).

Table 2-1 summarises the theories of leadership in terms of major approaches, as

adapted from Yukl (1994).

Table 2-1: Overview of major research approaches to leadership

Approach

Essential Theme

Major Studies

Major Methodologies

Limitations

Trait Emphasises the • McClelland, Comparing traits of 1. Lack of attention


Approach (1930s to 1940s)

personal attributes of leaders such as adaptability, alertness, achievement orientation etc.

1965 • Miner, 1965

successful and unsuccessful leaders through interviews, critical incidents etc.

to intervening variables in the causal chain

2. Individual traits fail to strongly correlate with effectiveness

Behaviour Approach (1950s to 1970s)

Focuses attention on the content of leadership behaviour divided between task-orientation (initiation) and people-orientation (consideration).

• Ohio State Leadership Studies (Stogdill and Coons, 1957);

• Michigan Leadership Studies;

• Managerial Grid (Blake and Mouton, 1964)

Behaviour description questionnaires

1. Problems with identifying meaningful behavioural categories;

2. Emphasis on individual rather than patterns of specific behaviours;

3. Mostly contradictory and inconclusive results

Power-Influence Approach

Examines influence processes between leaders and followers. Explains leadership effectiveness in terms of the amount and type of power possessed by a leader and how power is exercised.

• French and Raven, 1959;

• Social exchange theory;

• Strategic contingencies theory;

• Leader-member Exchange Theory (LMX) (Dansereau, Graen, and Haga, 1975)

Questionnaires 1. Lack of validity for the measures of leader power;

2. Failure to deal with likely confounding among different sources of power; LMX theory is more descriptive than prescriptive.

Situational Approach (1970s to early 1980s)

Looks at contextual factors. Has two streams: 1. Influence of organisational type or managerial position on managerial behaviour 2. Contingency theories that explain leadership effectiveness in terms of Situational moderator variables.

1. Mintzberg, 1973 2(a). Path-goal theory (House, 1971) 2(b). Leader substitutes theory 2(c).The multiple- linkage model 2(d). Leadership contingency theory (Fiedler, 1967); 2(e). Cognitive resources theory

Comparative study of situations

1. Lack of a broad perspective on the demands and constraints faced by a leader. 2(a). Mixed results; methodological limitations; conceptual deficiencies 2(d) Meaning of Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) unclear; intervening variables ignored; weak empirical support.


Partcipa-tive leadership

Primarily concerned with power sharing and empowerment of followers.

Vroom and Yetton (1973) Normative Decision Model

Laboratory and field experiments.

1. Methodological weaknesses;

2. Lack of consistent results

Charismatic and Transformational leadership (Since early 1980s)

Explore how some leaders motivate followers to perform beyond expectations and identify behaviours and traits, such as charisma and vision, facilitating leadership effectiveness.

• Burns, 1978; • Bass, 1985; • Conger and

Kanungo, 1987; • Kouzes and

Posner, 1987; • Tichy and

Devanna, 1986; • Bennis and

Nanus, 1985

Questionnaires; Interviews

1. Two factor distinction is unclear and an oversimplification of a complex phenomenon.;

2. Ignores other important managerial behaviours;

3. Distinction between charisma and transformational leadership needs clarification.

Adapted from Yukl (1994)

It is difficult to fit all the theories in the form of major approaches as leadership by its

very nature is a multi-disciplinary concept. Further, the different theories of leadership

are not separate and distinct movements in the history of leadership studies. As stated

by Rost (1993:23-28), “the models feed on one another and are a mish-mash of the

structural-functionalist framework of groups and organisations. Moreover, the theories

did not run riot in any one separate time period, nor did they disappear from the picture

when the next so-called dominant theory appeared on the scene”. Still, considering the

enormous amount of work done on leadership, some kind of categorisation becomes

inevitable.

As can be seen from the Table 2-1, the scientific research on leadership started with

individual traits of consequence which fell out of favour for some time only to reappear

again in 1980s. In direct opposition to trait theories, situational theorists suggested that

leadership is all a matter of situational demands and advanced the view that the

emergence of a great leader is a result of time, place and circumstance. Then came

the theories combining personal and situational factors. The path-goal theory focused

on the reinforcement of change in the subordinate by the leader.

A major shift in leadership research occurred when the emphasis moved to task

(initiation) vs. relations (consideration). However, these theories were criticised for not

taking into account the situational contingencies moderating the effects. These


contingencies include the make-up of the subordinates and the organisational

constraints, tasks, goals, and functions in the situation. The Hersey-Blanchard model

(1969) tried to remedy the situation by focusing on the followers’ psychological

maturity and job experience as the most important contingencies affecting the leader’s

need to be task-oriented or relations oriented. However, according to Yukl (1994:71),

“the long fixation on consideration and initiating structure appears to be ended, and

most researchers now realise that it is necessary to examine more specific types of

behaviours to understand leadership effectiveness”.

The next major impact was felt by the situation research which explained leadership

effectiveness in terms of situational moderator variables. For instance, Fiedler’s widely

researched contingency model states that 1. task orientation works best in situations

that are either extremely favourable or extremely unfavourable to the leader or in

which the leader has a very high or very low control and 2. relations orientation works

best in situations that are moderately favourable to the leader or in which the leader

has moderate control. However, this approach was criticised for lack of a broad

perspective, neglect of intervening variables, and weak empirical support (Yukl, 1994;

Bryman, 1992).

The current phase in leadership research is dominated by charismatic and

transformational leadership theories which identify the types of behaviour used by the

leader and traits that facilitate the leader’s effectiveness. They also take into account

follower perceptions and attributions. As transformational leadership is the focus of this

study, it is discussed in detail in terms of its character, contribution and controversy in

the subsequent chapters.

What is the final picture and outcome of all the leadership theories? Lau, Atwater,

Avolio and Bass (1991:11) state that “in between the oldest and the newest theories,

we have seen the rise of theories that are situational rather than personal explanations

of leadership”. Yukl (1994:16) concludes that “we have learned something about the

different pieces but have little information about the way the pieces fit together”.

According to Sashkin and Fulmer (1988), “one of the challenges for leadership theory

and research is the identification of a limited number of variables in each of the three

areas- personality, situation, and behaviour- that nonetheless explain a maximum

degree of variance in leadership effectiveness”. In response to the call for an

integrated approach, House (1988:256) feels that “although there is certainly room for


integration of the propositions of the several theories, each purports to explain a

different aspect of the leadership phenomenon and therefore, these theories are not in

direct competition with each other”.

Despite widespread discontentment about what has been achieved so far in

leadership research, Bass (1990) concludes, after reviewing more than 7500

references, that “considerable body of theory, method, evidence, and understanding is

available about how, why, and under what conditions leadership, in all its rich

variations, energises and exerts its influence”.

Having looked at historical milestones in leadership theories, the literature review now

focuses on the current phase of leadership research characterised by charismatic and

transformational leadership.

2.2 Charismatic Leadership

In the 1980s, leadership research shifted to an increasing focus on charismatic

leadership, visionary leadership, and transformational leadership. While there are

differences in these concepts, there is considerable overlap too. For instance, vision is

a critical component of charisma whereas charisma is a key component of

transformational leadership. Many writers have focused exclusively on charisma

(House, 1977; Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Bryman, 1992).

2.2.1 Concept of Charisma Max Weber is credited with introducing the concept of charisma to the sociology of

religion in the early part of this century. Weber’s concept of charisma, as summarised

by Trice and Beyer (1986), had five components: 1. a person with extraordinary gifts,

2. a crisis, 3. a radical solution to the crisis, 4. followers who are attracted to the

exceptional person because they believe that they are linked through him to

transcendent powers, and 5. validation of the person’s gifts and transcendence in

repeated experiences of success. Since then, “Weber’s original concept has been

modified, expounded on , and extended in numerous sociological, political science,

and psychoanalytic treaties” (Bass, 1990:186).

According to Bryman (1992:41), “charismatic leadership is concerned with

relationships between leaders and their followers in which, by virtue of both the

extraordinary qualities that followers attribute to the leader and the latter’s mission, the


charismatic leader is regarded by his/her followers with a mixture of reverence,

unflinching dedication, and awe. This devotion is due to the charismatic leader qua

individual and not by occupancy of a status or position that is legitimised by traditional

criteria”.

Bass (1990:220) observes that “two attributes are seen to be essential for the

charismatic relationship. The leader must be a person of strong convictions,

determined, self-confident, and emotionally expressive and his/her followers must want

to identify with the leader as a person, whether they are or not in a crisis. Whether the

charismatic leader is self-aggrandising or prosocial, he or she generates extraordinary

performance in the followers”.

In the opinion of Bryman (1992), “routinisation is an inevitable consequence of the

emergence of charisma, in that without it the original charismatic impulse appears

doomed to failure. The success of routinisation depends on the way the succession

problem is resolved and the emergence of a structure for the perpetuation of the

charismatic influence”.

Boal and Bryson (1988:16) argue that there are two types of charismatic leaders,

visionary and crisis-produced, and the common thread is that each tries to create a

new or different world that is phenomenologically valid for his/her followers. They

further propose an integrated model of charismatic leadership consisting of six basic

components: leader characteristics and behaviours, perceptions and feelings of

followers, behaviour of followers, consequences of the behaviour of the followers,

follower characteristics, and task and environmental variables. An implication of this

model is that charismatic effects may not be limited to a few who are endowed with

exceptional gifts but that many less endowed people too may bring about similar

effects.

2.2.2 Research on Charisma The first major application of charisma to the study of formal organisations was made

by House (1977). In his work, House developed a number of testable hypotheses

about the characteristics and behaviour of charismatic leaders, situational factors, and

other issues. According to House, charismatic leaders are likely to have a strong need

for power, engage in behaviour intended to make subordinates believe in leader’s

competence and success, articulate ideological goals of the group, set their own


examples, communicate high expectations of and belief in follower performance and

arouse motives relevant to the group’s mission.

House further believed that charismatic leadership is most likely to arise in stressful

situations. The inclusion of leader traits, behaviour, influence, and situational

conditions, makes House’s theory more comprehensive in scope than most leadership

theories (Yukl, 1989:205).

Conger and Kanungo (1987) view charismatic leadership as essentially the product of

a process of attribution, whereby certain patterns of behaviour lead some individuals to

be regarded as charismatic by others. Therefore, their emphasis is on the types of

behaviour by the leader that would make the subordinates attribute charisma to

him/her. Vision is one such key behaviour and is in fact ‘the cornerstone to charismatic

leadership’. Vision is defined as the ‘idealised goal that the leader wants the

organisation to achieve in the future’.

Conger and Kanungo (1987) view the process of attribution as involving a sequence

of stages , namely, sensing opportunity and formulating a vision, articulating the vision,

building trust in the vision, and achieving the vision through empowerment.

2.2.3 Critique on Charisma One of the main problems in applying charisma to business organisations is that it is

considered to be an extremely rare leadership quality and is seen to be confined to the

top levels of the organisation. In fact, writers such as Bennis and Nanus (1985), Kotter

(1990) and Tichy and Devanna (1990) do not regard charisma as an important aspect

of effective leadership mainly because they often identify it as a rare quality that only

certain individuals exhibit by virtue of innate ability. Bryman (1992:164) opposes this

view by asserting that charisma is not an individual trait but a type of relationship

between the leader and the led which is the outcome of a process.

A major controversy is about whether charisma is primarily a result of leader

attributes, situational conditions, or an interactive influence process between leader

and followers (Yukl, 1989:205). Bryman (1992) bemoans the lack of attention by

researchers on charisma on its routinisation process such as succession and

institutionalisation of vision. Roberts and Bradley (1988) suggest that there are

inherent limits to the transfer of charisma and conclude that “at present, we have


neither a theory to predict outcomes nor any practical understanding to ensure “good”

charisma and prevent “bad” and therefore, it is still very poorly understood”.

However, the concept of charisma has fertilised the study of leadership (Burns,

1978:243). There is no doubt that charismatic leadership is one of the major focuses of

the new genre of leadership theories. It is also a key concept of transformational

leadership which is discussed next.

2.3 Transformational Leadership

In the beginning of 1980s, many US-based multinational corporations started feeling

the heat of globalisation. The emergence of Japan and South East Asian countries

forced them to alter their strategies and revitalise their organisations by downsizing,

restructuring and repositioning their operations. The economic rationale and ethical

consequences of such actions are beyond the scope of this study. As a consequence,

they had to enlist the support of their employees to accept and adapt to the on-going

changes in the organisational culture, structure and processes. Some of them were

attracted to the idea of doing this through “transformational”, “charismatic”, or

“visionary” leaders. Such leadership is claimed to affect followers in ways that are

quantitatively greater and qualitatively different than the effects specified in past

theories (Shamir, House and Arthur, 1993).

Rost (1993:123) argues that “transformational leadership is the cornerstone of the

post-industrial school of leadership”. According to Yukl (1994:350), “transformational

leadership refers to the process of building commitment to the organisation’s

objectives and empowering followers to accomplish these objectives”. Some theories

of transformational leadership also examine how leaders change the culture, structure

and processes of the organisation to be consistent with management strategies for

accomplishing organisational objectives.

Burns (1978) was the first to differentiate between transformational and transactional

leaders. His concept was further expanded by Bass (1985) and his team. Their

approach is explained in the next section. This section covers some of the prominent

research studies on transformational leadership. Much of the research on

transformational leadership has been descriptive and qualitative using interviews and

observations and then content analysing the data to identify characteristic behaviours,


traits and influence processes (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Tichy and Devanna, 1986;

Kouzes and Posner, 1987).

2.3.1 Burns’s concept of transforming leadership According to Burns (1978), leadership is inseparable from followers’ needs and goals.

The essence of the leader-follower relation is the interaction of persons with different

levels of motivations and of power potential, including skill, in pursuit of a common or

at least a joint purpose. That interaction takes two fundamentally different forms. The

first is transactional leadership where one person takes the initiative in making contact

with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things. Each party to the bargain

is conscious of the power resources and attitudes of the other. Their purposes are

related and within the bargaining process. But the relationship does not go beyond

this. The bargainers have no enduring superordinate goal that holds them together.

In contrast, transforming leadership raises to higher levels of motivation and morality.

Power bases are linked not as counterweights but as a mutual support for common

purpose. Transforming leadership ultimately becomes moral in that it raises the level of

human conduct and ethical aspiration of both leader and the led, and thus, it has

transforming effect on both (p. 19-20).

For Burns (1978), transforming leadership may be exhibited by any one in the

organisation in any type of position. Burns also differentiated transforming and

transactional leadership from influence based on bureaucratic authority. Bureaucratic

organisations emphasise legitimate power and respect for rules and tradition, rather

than influence based on exchange or inspiration.

2.3.2 Bennis and Nanus Bennis and Nanus (1985) conducted a five-year study of dynamic and innovative

leaders. They identified several common characteristics, such as developing vision,

fostering commitment and trust and facilitating organisational learning. Nanus (1992)

defined vision as a realistic, credible, attractive future for the organisation. Visionary

leaders channel the collective energies of organisational members in pursuit of a

common vision. These leaders “move followers to higher degrees of consciousness,

such as liberty, freedom, justice, and self-actualisation”.

It is not enough to identify a coherent and appealing vision, it must be communicated

and embodied in the culture of the organisation. The genius of a visionary leader lies


in articulating a vision simple enough to be understood, appealing enough to evoke

commitment, and credible enough to be accepted as realistic and attainable. Such a

leader also understood the importance of individual and organisational learning.

2.3.3 Kouzes and Posner Kouzes and Posner (1987) identified five fundamental practices in their case studies,

surveys and interviews on exemplary leadership practices that enabled leaders to get

extraordinary things done:

• challenging the process: by searching for opportunities and experimenting and

taking risks

• inspiring a shared vision: by envisioning the future and enlisting others

• enabling others to act: by fostering collaboration and strengthening others

• modelling the way: by setting examples and planning small wins, and

• encouraging the heart: by recognising contributions and celebrating

accomplishments.

Based on their conceptual and empirical framework, Kouzes and Posner developed a

leadership measurement instrument called Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI).

2.3.4 Tichy and Devanna According to Tichy and Devanna (1990), transformational leadership is about change,

innovation, and entrepreneurship. Their findings were based on ‘a number of clinical

cases based on individual interviews with limited data from others in their

organisations’. They view transformational leadership process as a sequence of

phases as follows:

1. Recognising the need for revitalisation- centres on the challenges the leader

encounters when he or she attempts to alert the organisation to growing threats from

the environment. They suggested that leaders increase sensitivity to environmental

changes and threats by encouraging objective critiques and dissenting opinions,

improved monitoring of the environment by developing better external networks,

visiting other organisations to learn from them, and by measuring performance against

that of competitors. Once the awareness is created, the next step is to manage the

transition process.

2. Creating a new vision- involves the leader’s struggle to focus the organisation’s

attention on a vision of the future that is exciting and positive. The vision evolves over


a longer period of time and is the product of a participative process involving key

people in the organisation. Beginning with the mission statement, an agenda of high

priority objectives should be developed, followed by strategies for attaining them.

3. Institutionalising change- the transformational leader must develop a new coalition

of key people, both inside and outside the organisation, who will be committed to the

vision. Some of the techniques suggested to facilitate the change process are special

task forces, planning meetings, workshops, team building interventions etc.

To achieve the above, the transformational leader should act as a change agent, be

courageous (take prudent risks), believe in people and empowerment, be value-driven,

be a life-long learner, have the ability to deal with complexity, ambiguity and

uncertainty, and be a visionary.

Yukl (1994) concludes that the descriptive research, described above, is too imprecise

for reaching firm conclusions about the nature of transformational leadership.

However, they do help identify the types of leadership behaviour typical of these

leaders.

2.3.5 Evaluation of transformational leadership theories

The theories on transformational, charismatic and visionary leadership are still under

development and therefore, it may be premature to judge their validity and

contribution. However, some critics have emerged. For example,

• according to Yukl (1994), the distinction between transformational and

transactional leadership is fast becoming a two factor theory of leadership

processes, which is an unwarranted oversimplification of a complex phenomenon.

Further, the distinction ignores some important managerial behaviours, such as

networking and team building, that do not belong to either category.

• Meindl (1989) suggested that the new theories are the victim of ‘hyper

romanticism’ and have been accorded an inflated significance. In his view,

individuals are inclined to exaggerate the significance of leadership, especially

when performance levels are at extreme.


• Bryman (1992: 152) felt that a preoccupation with ‘vision’ may engender a loss of

grip on other aspects of organisational reality and should not be part of “fads and

fashions which offer nostrums for complex problems”. He also pointed out the

excessive emphasis placed on top executives by many writers of these theories.

Despite the criticisms, the contribution of new leadership theories is generally

recognised in the leadership literature, in terms of providing solution to the leadership

challenges of the post-industrial era, emphasising the importance of vision and

charisma in transforming organisations, and combining the essence of most of the

earlier theories such as traits and situational approaches (Bryman, 1992; Yukl, 1994,

Bass and Avolio, 1997).

2.4 Bass and Avolio’s Model of Transformational Leadership - Concept and Research

Bass (1985) is a major proponent of transformational leadership theory. He expanded

on Burns’s work and presented a conceptual model and a measurement instrument.

These were refined further by Bass and Avolio and their colleagues from a variety of

empirical investigations and have been widely used by researchers all over the world,

thus, forming a solid quantitative database in the study of transformational leadership.

This section outlines Bass and Avolio’s interpretation of transactional and

transformational leadership and considers their “full range of leadership model”.

Further, it presents an overview of research done on the model with regard to its factor

structure and empirical support.

2.4.1 Transactional leadership According to Bass (1985), the “transactional” leader pursues a cost-benefit, economic

exchange to meet subordinates’ current material and psychic needs in return for

“contracted” services rendered by the subordinate. Transactional leaders clarify the

role and task requirements for the subordinates to reach the desired outcomes. This is

intended to give the subordinates sufficient confidence to exert the necessary effort.

Transactional leaders purport to know what the subordinates need and want and

accordingly clarify how these needs and wants will be satisfied if the necessary effort

is expended by the subordinate. Essentially, the transactional leaders focus on the

process, not the substance of issues (p.12-13).


Transactional leadership often fails to work for the following reasons (Bass and Avolio,

1990):

• leaders tend to underutilise transactional leadership methods due to time

pressures, poor appraisal methods, doubts about the efficacy of positive

reinforcement, lack of skill or confidence,

• leader may lack the necessary reputation or resources to deliver the needed

rewards,

• noncontingent rewards sometimes work as well as contingent rewards to bolster

performance,

• when the contingent reinforcement used is negative, the success of the

transactional leader plummets, and

• followers may take shortcuts to complete the exchange of a reward for compliance

to a task, thus, sacrificing quality.

Thus, while contingent reinforcement is successful in meeting lower-order objectives, it

will fall short of accomplishing higher-order objectives.

2.4.2 Transformational leadership Bass views a “transformational” leader as the one who ‘motivates the subordinates to

do more than they originally expected to do’. Unlike the transactional leader who

indicates how current needs of followers can be fulfilled, the transformational leader

sharply arouses or alters the strength of needs which may have lain dormant. This is

achieved in any one of three interrelated ways:

1. By raising followers’ level of awareness of the importance of achieving valued

outcomes and the strategies for reaching them.

2. By encouraging followers to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the

team, organisation, or larger policy.

3. By developing followers’ needs to higher levels in such areas as achievement,

autonomy, and affiliation, which can be both work-related and nonwork-related.

In terms of distinction between transactional and transformational leadership, Bass

(1985) differs from Burns (1978) in three respects: First, he added the “expansion of

followers’ needs and wants”. Second, for Burns, the actions are transformational only if

society benefits from them whereas, in Bass’s point of view, transformational

leadership is not necessarily a beneficial relationship. Third, Burns sees


transformational leadership as the opposite end of a single continuum from

transactional leadership. Bass felt that leaders will exhibit a variety of patterns of

transformational and transactional leadership. In other words, according to Burns a

leader can either be transformational or transactional, whereas for Bass a leader can

be both (p.20-22).

2.4.3 The model on the full range of leadership The model essentially covers three types of leadership behaviour: transformational,

transactional, and non-leadership. The components of these have increased over time

based on extensive research and conceptual refinement and presently, the model has

nine components (five transformational leadership factors, three transactional

leadership factors, and one non-leadership factor) which according to Avolio and Bass

(1991) explain the “full range of leadership styles”. Bass and Avolio (1990) have also

developed a measurement instrument called the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

(MLQ).

Bass (1985) originally conceptualised and empirically derived the following seven

leadership factors from a sample of military officers:

Transformational Leadership Factors

Bass called the transformational factors as the four I’s: idealised influence (charisma),

inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualised consideration.

Factor 1: Charisma (idealised influence) This is generally defined with respect to

follower reactions to the leader as well as to the leader’s behaviour. Followers identify

with and emulate these leaders who are trusted and seen as having an attainable

mission and vision. Such leaders are thoroughly respected, have much referent power,

hold high standards, and set challenging goals for their followers. Sample item: “Has

my trust in his/her ability to overcome any obstacle”.

Following criticisms (House et al., 1991; Smith and Peterson, 1988; Hunt, 1991) that

charisma could be conceptualised and measured as both an attribution and a

behaviour, Bass and Avolio (1993) agreed that “charisma is undoubtedly both a

behaviour and an attribution for it requires particular follower emotional reactions to the

leader to be identified as such and therefore, there is a need to differentiate ‘attributed’

from ‘behavioural’ charisma”.


Accordingly, this factor is now subdivided in the latest MLQ (Form 5X) into “attributed

charisma” (AC) (sample item: instils pride in being associated with him or her) and

“idealised influence” (II) (sample item: specifies the importance of having a strong

sense of purpose).

Factor 2: Inspirational motivation (IM) This may or may not overlap with charismatic

leadership, depending on the extent to which followers seek to identify with the leader.

Provides symbols and simplified emotional appeals to increase awareness and

understanding of mutually desired goals. Sample item: “Uses symbols and images to

focus our efforts”.

Factor 3: Intellectual stimulation (IS) Encourages followers to question their own way

of doing things or to break with the past. Followers are supported for questioning their

own values, beliefs and expectations, as well as those of the leader and organisation.

Followers are also supported for thinking on their own, addressing challenges, and

considering creative ways to develop themselves. Sample item: “Enables me to think

about old problems in new ways”.

Factor 4: Individualised consideration (IC) Followers are treated differently but

equitably on a one-to-one basis. Not only are the maturity of their needs raised, but

their means for more effectively addressing goals and challenges are dealt with. With

individualised consideration, assignments are delegated to followers to provide

learning opportunities. Sample item: “Coaches me if I need it”.

Transactional leadership factors

Factor 5: Contingent reward (CR) Involves a positively reinforcing interaction between

leader and follower that emphasises an exchange (eg., rewards for meeting agreed

objectives). Emphasis is on facilitating the achievement of objectives agreed to by

followers. Their needs are identified, and then linked both to what the leader expects

to accomplish and to rewards for the followers if objectives are met. Sample item:

“Makes sure there is close agreement between what he or she expects me to do and

what I can get from him/her for my effort”.

Factor 6: Management-by-exception (MBE) Only when things go wrong will the leader

intervene to make some correction. Leaders may remain passive until problems

emerge that need correcting, or they may arrange to more actively monitor the

performance of followers so as to intervene when followers make mistakes. Generally,


the modes of reinforcement are correction criticism, negative feedback, and negative

contingent reinforcement, rather than the positive reinforcement used with contingent

reward leadership. Punishment and discipline are likely to be evidence of

management-by-exception. Sample item: “Takes action only when a mistake has

occurred”.

Following the result of a study by Hater and Bass (1988), the MBE factor was

subdivided into active and passive dimensions. An active leader (MBEA) attempts to

avoid mistakes while also developing supervisees to higher levels of potential. Sample

item: “Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from

standards”. A passive leader (MBEP) intervenes only when a mistake occurs. Sample

item: “He or she is a firm believer in if it ain’t brake, don’t fix it”. However, the bottom

line is that, when MBE is the dominant leadership orientation, it is considered

ineffective as such a leader lacks development orientation (Bass and Avolio, 1990).

The non-leadership factor

Factor 7: Laissez-faire Leadership is absent. Intervention by the nominal leader is

avoided. There are generally neither transactions nor agreements with followers.

Decisions are often delayed; feedback, rewards, and involvement are absent; and

there is no attempt to motivate followers or to recognise and satisfy their needs.

Sample item: “Doesn’t tell me where he or she stands on issues”.

Outcome factors

The MLQ provides three factors to measure the effectiveness of leadership:

Extra effort- Reflects the extent to which coworkers or followers exert effort beyond the

ordinary as a consequence of the leadership. Sample item: “Heightens my motivation

to succeed”.

Effectiveness- Reflects a leader’s effectiveness as seen by both self and others in four

areas: meeting the job related needs of followers, representing followers’ needs to

higher-level managers, contributing to organisational effectiveness; and performance

by the leader’s work group. Sample item: “How effective is the leader in meeting the

requirements of the organisation?”.

Satisfaction- Reflects how satisfied both leader and followers are with the leader’s

style and methods, as well as how satisfied they are in general with the leader.


Sample item: “In all, how satisfied are you with the leadership abilities of the person

you are rating?”

2.4.4 Augmentation effect of transformational leadership A key concept of this model is the “augmentation effect” of transformational leadership

on transactional leadership. The transactional process, using contingent reward and

positive management-by exception, is viewed by the model as an essential component

of effective leadership. However, by adopting transformational leadership methods, a

transactional leader can enhance or augment the effectiveness of his/her leadership,

as shown in Figure 2-1. The newer paradigm adds transformational leadership to

previous transactional leadership models in a constructive and integrative manner to

explain more fully the range of behaviours and outcomes impacted by various styles of

leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1993).

Figure 2-1: The Augmentation model of transactional and transformational leadership

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP + + +

Charisma Inspiration Intellectual stimulation

Individualised consideration

TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP

Expected Effort

Performance Beyond Expectations

Extra Effort

Expected Performance

Management-by-Exception

+ Contingent

Reward (Source: Bass and Avolio, 1990)

In contrast, leaders who are inactive and laissez-faire or who exhibit MBEP behaviour

tend to produce less than desirable results, lower follower motivation, and are seen by

followers as ineffective leaders. In an “optimum” leadership profile, proactive (CR and

MBEA) and active (transformational) leadership behaviour are more frequently

observed; reactive (MBEP) and passive (lassaiz-faire) behaviour are less frequent.

HeWolff

Rectangle

HeWolff

Text Box

Image not available - see printed version


2.4.5 Situational impact on transformational and transactional leadership Bass (1985) stated that whether or not transformational or transactional leadership

emerges in a given situation depends upon the external environment, the

organisational environment, and the personality of the leader. He suggested that

transformational leaders are most likely to emerge in times of growth, change and

crisis. This does not mean that they are absent in “steady state” bureaucracies, but

merely that they will have to work harder in such conditions to push for improvements

(Bass and Avolio, 1990: 17). Bass also argued that transformational leadership is

more likely to emerge in organisations with less constrictive (organic) environments

than in constrictive (mechanistic) organisations and is also likely to occur more

frequently at the highest organisational levels than at the middle and lower levels.

2.4.6 Multi-factor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) The MLQ is the primary quantitative instrument to measure both transactional and

transformational leader behaviour, and to investigate the nature of the relationship

between these leader styles and work unit effectiveness and satisfaction. It is available

in two forms which are parallel in content: the Rater Form, in which the subordinate or

the co-worker rates the leadership skills of the leader, and the Self-Rating Form, in

which the leader rates himself/herself on the same items. A five-point rating scale for

rating the frequency of observed leader behaviours is used for both forms and bears a

magnitude estimation-based ratio to each other of 4:3:2:1:0 with “frequently, if not

always” and “not at all” serving as the endpoint anchors.

The current MLQ (Form 5X) assesses five transformational leadership factors, three

transactional leadership factors, one non-leadership factor, and three outcome factors.

It contains a total of 80 items to measure three leadership scales (47 for

transformational leadership, 23 for transactional leadership, and 10 for non-leadership)

in addition to 9 items to measure outcome factors and 3 items to obtain biographical

data.

2.4.7 Research on Bass and Avolio’s model Among the transformational leadership theories, most research has been done using

the MLQ (Yukl, 1994: 353), primarily because, unlike other theories which have used

qualitative research methods and suffer from a lack of conceptual clarity, Bass and

Avolio’s model clearly identifies various components of transformational and

transactional leadership and provides a well-tested measurement instrument.


Most of the research studies involved the use of MLQ Rater Form which examines

subordinates’ perception of leader behaviour and effectiveness. The studies cover a

wide variety of organisations (Hicks, 1990), cultures (Bass and Yokochi, 1991), and

levels within organisations (Yammarino and Bass, 1990b). Transactional and

transformational leadership has been observed in varying degrees in organisations

involving health (Bryant, 1990; Gottlieb, 1990), industry (Ruggiero, 1989; Hater and

Bass, 1988), education (Cowen, 1990; Koh, 1990), government (Crookall, 1989),

religious institutions (Onnen, 1987), and the military (Boyd, 1988; Curphy, 1992;

Yammarino and Bass, 1990a).

The studies have covered all levels within the organisations: apex level like senior

executives (Avolio and Howell, 1992), middle level like project managers (Keller,

1992), and lower levels like first-level supervisors (Bass, Walderman, Avolio and Bebb,

1987). In these studies, the leadership scales have been related to a range of

effectiveness criteria such as subordinate or peer perceptions of effectiveness, as well

as to a variety of organisational measures of performance such as supervisory ratings

and financial performance. Questionnaires/surveys are the predominant method of

data collection in these studies.

In most of the studies, the leadership scales used in the MLQ have been found to be

statistically reliable. For instance, in a study of samples involving 1006 followers rating

251 of their immediate supervisors in high-technology and manufacturing

organisations, Bass and Avolio (1990: 21) found that the leadership alpha reliability

coefficients yielded a range of .77 through .95 for the MLQ Rater Form scales and .60

to .92 for the MLQ Self-Rating form scales.

In terms of intercorrelations among the leadership factor scores, the transformational

leadership factors have been found to be highly correlated with each other (0.50 to

0.76) in the ratings of self, subordinates and co-workers. Similarly, transactional

contingent reward (CR) leadership correlates highly with transformational leadership

(0.35 to 0.65) (Bass and Avolio, 1990:25; Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam, 1996).

Research findings using the MLQ have generally reported statistically significant

relationships between leader effectiveness and transformational leadership scales.

The transactional scale contingent reward (CR) has also been associated with

effectiveness though the magnitude of the association is less than that evidenced by


the transformational scales. The transactional scale management-by-exception (MBE)

generally has low correlations with effectiveness and is often negative when significant

(Lowe et al., 1996; Yukl, 1994). For instance, in a study involving samples collected

independently from separate organisations where a diverse group of target leaders

were rated by immediate subordinates on the leadership and outcome (extra effort,

satisfaction, and effectiveness) measures, Bass and Avolio (1993: 65) reported that

the correlations with effectiveness and satisfaction typically ranged from 0.6 to 0.8 for

transformational leadership scales, 0.4 to 0.6 for CR, -0.3 to +0.3 for MBE (depending

on whether it is passive or active) and -0.3 to -0.6 for laissez-faire leadership.

A number of other correlates of transformational and transactional leadership have

been demonstrated by various studies. For example, transformational leadership has

been shown to reduce burnout and stress symptoms (Seltzer, Numerof and Bass,

1989), increase organisational commitment (Peterson, Phillips and Duran, 1989),

promote technological innovations (Howell and Higgins, 1990), and improve

organisational climate and performance requiring interdependent efforts (Curphy,

1992).

Lowe et al. (1996) conducted a meta-analytic review of 39 studies which used MLQ

(Form 5R) and concluded that transformational leadership scales were reliable and

significantly predicted effectiveness whereas transactional scales were inconsistent in

their relationships with effectiveness across studies. The results of this integrative

study further indicated that public-sector leaders are rated as demonstrating more

frequent transformational behaviour than leaders in private organisations and contrary

to widely-held beliefs, lower-level leaders were rated higher than higher-level leaders

on all three transformational leadership scales. The operationalisation of the criterion

variable used to measure effectiveness was a powerful moderator of the relationship

between MLQ scales and leader effectiveness.

2.4.8 Research on the model in Australia and New Zealand Even though most of the work on the model has been conducted in the USA, it has

found support in many countries, including Australia and New Zealand. For example,

in a study of New Zealand company managers who were asked to rate an ideal and a

real leader, Singer (1985) found that managers preferred working with leaders who

were more transformational than transactional. Parry and Sarros (1994) reported in a

study where samples were drawn from different sources like hospitals and educational

institutions that Australians generally rate their leaders lower on most leadership


factors than do respondents from the USA. The study supported the augmentation

effect of transformational leadership.

Carless (1995) compared Bass’s model (1985) with that of Kouzes and Posner (1987)

in a study of middle-level branch managers in an Australian bank and found no

empirical difference between the leader behaviours identified by both models. The

measurement instruments of both the models yielded a single underlying construct of

transformational leadership. Further, leader self efficacy was found to be a strong

predictor of transformational leadership and that group cohesion mediated the

relationship between leadership and team performance.

2.4.9 Critique of Bass and Avolio’s model Most of the criticisms levelled against the transformational leadership theory in

general, which were mentioned in the previous section, are applicable to Bass and

Avolio’s model. In addition, some specific criticisms have been made against the

model with respect to its conceptualisation of transformational and transactional

leadership and the measurement of their respective factors, particularly, the construct

validity of MLQ:

1. The MLQ has been criticised for its lack of discriminant validity with respect to the

factors comprising the survey, for including behavioural, impact and attributional items

in the same scale (Hunt, 1991; Smith and Peterson, 1988; and Yukl, 1994). In

response to this criticism, the recent versions of MLQ (Form 5X) distinguish between

attributed charisma from charismatic behaviour, and active versus passive

management-by-exception (Avolio, Bass and Jung, 1996).

2. The predominant use of questionnaire/survey method using MLQ has also been

criticised (Hunt, 1991; Smith and Peterson, 1988; and Yukl, 1994) on the basis of the

limitations of questionnaire correlational research, such as attributional biases in rating

the behaviour of leaders known to be effective. However, some studies have tested

the model using qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews, critical incidents and

behaviours (for example, Bass and Yokochi, 1991).

3. The MLQ instrument has been further criticised for its lack of discriminant validity

and psychometric problems (Curphy, 1992; Bycio, Hackett and Allen, 1995). These

criticisms concern the generally high correlations among the transformational scales,

as well as between the transformational leadership component scales and contingent


reward ( CR) leadership. To address some of these criticisms, MLQ 5X involving 9

factor model (five transformational, three transactional, and one non-leadership factor)

was developed and tested by Avolio, Bass and Jung (1996) in fifteen independent

samples using confirmatory factor analysis and partial least squares analysis with

generally positive results. Nonetheless, the transformational leadership components

were clearly correlated with each other.

4. The MLQ is seen to be very similar to the Leader Behaviour Description

Questionnaire (LBDQ) instrument used by the Ohio leadership research and suffers

from the same measurement problems, such as contamination by implicit leadership

theories (Bryman, 1992: 128). Further, there is a relative absence of Situational

analysis (Inkson and Moss, 1993).

However, Bass’s framework for examining transformational and transactional

leadership has produced an impressive array of findings (Bryman, 1992) and arguably

has made the most important contribution in the understanding of transformational

leadership, the corner stone of the new genre of leadership theories. As noted by

Bass and Avolio (1993), not all of the behaviours and characteristics of

transformational leadership have been identified or accurately measured and

therefore, much more work remains in its operationalisation, generalisation, and

linkage to other constructs and models.

Having discussed leadership in general and transformational leadership in particular,

the literature review will now shift to technical leadership which is the focus of this

research.

2.5 Technical Leadership This study assumes that technical employees are considerably different from other

occupational groups in an organisation in terms of their personality and professional

profile, motivational issues, and work-related issues. Therefore, those who lead them

need to keep these differences in mind and adapt their leadership style accordingly.

To do this requires an understanding of the concept and nature of technical

leadership.

This section starts with a discussion on the role of technical professionals in

management and the leadership skills and styles required to manage them. Further, it


highlights studies that have focused on technical leadership, including the relevance of

Bass and Avolio’s transformational leadership model to technical employees.

2.5.1 Technical employees in management Scientific and professional employees perform work that is intellectual in nature and

requires advanced education. They need to be self-disciplined and achievement -

oriented. They prefer considerable autonomy and tend to be cosmopolitans more than

locals (Davis, 1981:281). While analysing their role in management, Davis suggests

that they are a major source of talent for promotion to management, but sometimes

their transition to management is difficult, particularly if they lack management and

behavioural education and training. Their orientation towards logic, the physical world

and / or the frame work of their specialty may result in narrow viewpoints and blind

spots (p. 278).

Rosenbaum (1991:58) opines that “the challenge is even greater for most technical

leaders, who often come to management positions because of their technical

competence, not their interpersonal abilities. Many such leaders assume their

responsibilities without adequate role models. They can manage the technical aspects

of the job, but are not adept at managing the people involved in it. But the fast paced,

competitive world of technology requires balanced leaders who are responsive to the

needs of technical professionals and to the organisation’s strategic objectives”.

A number of organisations have attempted to create alternate career paths for

technical people who do not wish to become managers but they have invariably failed

(Power, 1995). Today one needs to be a “hybrid” manager with both technical and

managerial credentials and skills.

An analysis of the literature and empirical research shows that there is a widespread

global view that technical professionals lack leadership skills (Thite, 1997). In its

report, “Promoting Partnerships” (Schapper et all, 1992), the Schapper Task Force

made a critical claim that Australia is deficient in number and quality of technical

project leaders. This claim was examined in detail by a Task Force on Leadership

(Mann, Mayer, Hutton and Cupper, 1994) which found widespread agreement that

industrial R&D in Australia is hampered by the quality of R&D project leaders. The

report added that the same was the case in the U.S. and else where.


2.5.2 Studies on technical leadership The literature on organisation, technology and people has occasionally dealt with the

special and specific characteristics of technical professionals. It has discussed their

importance in today’s increasingly technology-oriented organisations, how their

motivational needs are different and therefore, how Human Resource Management

policies and leadership skills required to manage them need to be looked at from a

different perspective. However, some studies have specifically focused their attention

on technical leadership and have suggested the best-possible leadership style to

manage technical professionals successfully.

Heroic and Post-Heroic Styles

Bradford and Cohen (1984) analysed heroic-styles of leadership, namely, manager-as-

master-technician and manager-as-conductor. They concluded that while they had

their own strengths, they are not suitable to foster excellence in organisations

characterised by complex tasks, highly interdependent subordinates’ work, a

constantly changing environment and competent subordinates. The manager-as-

master-technician may be a technical wizard but his style characterised by technical

rather than managerial aspects of the job undermines subordinates’ confidence, stifles

their growth, ignores organisational systems and procedures, and over-emphasises

technical problems to the detriment of people problems.

The manager-as-conductor encourages group decision making process and respects

organisational systems and procedures. But it fails to balance diverse specialised

concerns and view points leading to suppression of subordinate development and

causing increased manipulation and strategic manoeuvring. Thus, both Technical and

Conductor models are likely to prevent excellence, overuse task - abilities of the leader

and under-utilise the competencies of subordinates (p. 33-57).

A post-heroic leader model (Manager-as-developer) is then presented by Bradford and

Cohen. The essential components of this model are: building a shared responsibility

team, developing individual’s skills continuously and fostering a common department

vision. This leadership style increases the chance of accomplishing tasks at a higher

level of quality, extends subordinate’s feeling of responsibility beyond task issues to

managerial issues, and increases subordinate motivation. “The manager-as-developer

has in his/her mind developmental, collaborative, galvanising, but subordinate -

centred image” (p. 60-61).


Problem-Solving Leadership Style

When Weinberg (1986), an acknowledged expert on technical leadership, compared

successful and unsuccessful introduction of new technical systems, he realised that

“almost all of the successes hinged on the performance of a small number of

outstanding technical workers. What distinguished them from their less successful

colleagues was a rare combination of technical expertise, and leadership skills. These

people had transformed themselves from ordinary technical supervisors into problem

solving leaders, with the power to make things happen.” (p. viii).While analysing the

leadership styles of technical leaders, Weinberg observed that “if we look more closely

at how technical leaders emphasise innovation, we find that they concentrate on three

major areas:

• Understanding the problem, i.e., defining the problem, resolve differences, seek

clarifications, and constant re-examination of assumptions;

• Managing the flow of ideas, i.e., open-mindedness in evaluating ideas, resist time

pressure, and constructive criticism; and

• Maintaining quality, i.e., maintain quality throughout, design measurement tools,

continuous assessment of viability, seek constant customer feedback, and restore

morale in crisis.

These functions are the ingredients that characterise the problem-solving leadership

style. This is the style that characterises the best technical leaders.” (p. 21)

High-Touch Leadership Style

Rosenbaum (1991), and his team conducted extensive research over a three year

period on the leadership of technical professionals in nineteen technology-oriented

companies. They found many common patterns related to effective technical

leadership. Successful leaders :

• Coach for peak performance by aligning individual and organisational goals; making

performance analyses; and managing change.

• Run organisational interference by teaching subordinates how to take advantage of

organisational opportunities and remove organisational obstructions from the path

to innovation.

• Orchestrate the professional development of their subordinates, by providing the

business perspective; building and encouraging champions; and facilitating career

development.


• Expand individual productivity through team work by establishing clear goals;

clarifying roles; securing resources; and implementing information exchange

systems.

• Facilitate self management by sharing information; delegating responsibility; and

encouraging upward communication.

The study concluded that technical leaders in a high-technology world need to be

“High-touch”, that is, adept at communicating, influencing and motivating.

2.5.3 Relevance of Transformational Leadership to Technical Employees As noted by Hater and Bass (1988), transformational leadership would most likely

appeal to employees who are well educated and who desire challenging work that can

enhance professional growth and development.

Bass (1985) believed that transformational leaders with the superior technical skills will

be able to make better use of rational appeals to followers, whereas the leader with

less technical skills will rely on more emotional appeals to followers.

Tichy and Devanna (1986) also observed that the transformational leaders are

technically competent at the task at hand. They will make each mistake into a learning

experience, both for themselves and for the followers. They will not make the same

mistake twice.

A longitudinal study of transformational leadership and the performance of project

groups in three R&D organisations found that transformational leadership predicted

higher project quality and budget/schedule performance ratings (Keller, 1992).

However, the study indicated that different leader behaviours may be required

depending on the type of R&D work performed in a project team: inspiration and

intellectual stimulation (transformational leadership) of group members are more

effective in research projects (involved in basic scientific and applied research)

whereas task allocation and coordination (initiating structure) are more important in

development projects (involved in product/process development and technical service)

(Keller, 1995).

Howell and Higgins (1990) examined the personality characteristics, leadership

behaviours and influence tactics of champions of technological innovation in Canada.


Analyses of matched pairs of champions and non-champions showed that champions

reported using transformational leader behaviours to a significantly greater extent than

non-champions. Champions exhibited higher risk taking and innovations, initiated

more influence attempts, and employed a greater variety of influence tactics than non-

champions.

In view of the high degree of technological obsolescence in high-technology

organisations, successful management of technological change is an important

challenge to a technical leader. Beatty and Lee (1992) used data from the empirical

case studies of the implementation of computer-aided design and manufacturing

(CAD-CAM) systems in UK and Canadian companies. They found that a

transformational approach to leadership that combines pathfinding with people related

problem-solving skills to introduce technological changes is likely to be more effective

in overcoming barriers to change than a transactional leadership approach that

concentrates on technical problem solving to the neglect of people and organisational

issues.

Brown (1993) suggested that the effective management of technological change

requires transformational leadership. Using data from 12 case studies of

Manufacturing Resource Planning II implementations, Brown discussed several ways

in which a transformational leader can successfully facilitate change through the use of

social rites. Rites are elaborate, dramatic, planned sets of activities that promote

change in individuals at both the psychological and the behavioural level.

McDonough and Barczak (1991) investigated the effect of the project leader’s style on

the speed of new product development. Their study indicated that a participatory

leadership style is associated with faster project development, presumably because

delegation of problem solving to highly skilled and knowledgeable team members

takes advantage of their expertise. However, the study suggested that the

effectiveness of leadership style depends on the types of projects such as size and

whether the technology for the project was acquired from outside (in which case

directive style may be more suitable) or developed within (which calls for participative

style).

Having looked at the unique occupational characteristics and personality of technical

employees and exploring suitable leadership styles to lead them successfully, the


literature review will now turn to information technology projects, the research setting

of this thesis.

2.6 Information Technology Projects: Critical Success Factors and Role of Leadership

In most organisations today, information technology (IT) systems are a critical

component in their strategic or operating plans (Carter, 1988). Along with the

increased awareness of the potential for IT to facilitate re-engineering and

restructuring of business processes in response to increased competition, there is a

growing reliance on IT in all aspects of organisational work.

However, there is a widespread dissatisfaction about the performance of Information

Systems (IS) projects. De Marco (1982) reported that some 15% of all software

development never delivers anything, and overruns of 100-200% are common in

software projects. Inordinate delays, excessive budget over-runs, post-implementation

testing, user dissatisfaction, late deliveries, poor reliability, maintenance problems...

the list of woes continues (Kapur, 1989; Abdel-Hamid, Tarek and Stuart, 1990).

2.6.1 Critical Success Factors There does not appear to be a consensus of opinion on the criteria for judging project

success and the factors that influence that success (Wateridge, 1995). Theoretical

success definitions for IS projects have traditionally followed the project dimensions of

time/cost/quality. If a project is delivered on time, within budget with agreed

functionality, then a project would be classed a success (Brown, 1994). Pinto and

Mantel (1990) identified three distinct aspects of project outcome: the implementation

process itself (internal criteria such as budget, schedule), the perceived value of the

project, and client satisfaction with the delivered project.

A comparative analysis of various studies on factors which are considered critical to

the success of a project identified nine common factors: clearly defined goals;

competent project manager; top management support; competent project team

members; sufficient resource allocation; adequate communication channels; control

mechanisms; feedback capabilities; and, responsiveness to clients (Pinto and Slevin,

1987: 3).


According to Wateridge (1995), within the IS domain there has been little research and

testing of project-success criteria and his research pointed out that there is a vast

difference between the perceptions of users and those of project managers on the

factors that contribute to successful IS projects. Table 2-2 presents a comparative

analysis of various critical success factors in an IS environment as identified in

different studies.

Table 2-2: Critical success factors in an IS environment

Deutsch (1991) “Residual management power factors”, such as management of business risk, technical risk, external interface, multiple user needs, problem scope and planning and feedback.

Cash and Fox (1992)

Management’s involvement, leadership, staffing and control and reporting.

Brown (1994) Organisational commitment, complete functional design and competent project management

Khandelwal and Hosey (1996)

Alignment of IS and organisational objectives, strategic IT plan development, data availability to users, end user service management, IS-user partnership, disaster recovery planning, educating senior management in IT, and network security.

2.6.2 Project Implementation Profile (PIP) Slevin and Pinto (1986) empirically developed a framework of the project

implementation process and a diagnostic instrument called the Project Implementation

Profile (PIP) which identifies ten critical success factors:

• Project mission - initial clarity of goals and general direction;

• Top management support - willingness of top management to provide the

necessary resource and authority/power for project success;

• Project schedule/plan - a detailed specification of the individual action steps

required for project implementation;

• Client consultation - communication, consultation, and active listening to all

impacted parties;

• Personnel - recruitment, selection, and training of the necessary personnel for the

project team;

• Technical tasks - availability of the required technology and expertise to

accomplish the specific technical action steps;

• Client acceptance - the act of “selling” the final project to its ultimate intended

users;


• Monitoring and feedback - timely provision of comprehensive control information at

each stage in the implementation process;

• Communication - the provision of an appropriate network and necessary data to all

key actors in the project implementation; and

• Trouble shooting - ability to handle unexpected crises and deviations from the plan.

As shown in Figure 2-2, in addition to the seven factors that can be laid out on a

sequential critical path, three additional factors are hypothesised to play a more

overriding role in the project implementation. These factors, monitoring and feedback,

communication, and trouble shooting, are essentially different facets of the same

general concern (i.e., project communication) and must all necessarily be present at

each point in the implementation process.

In addition to the above ten factors, Pinto and Slevin (1989) considered four additional

exogenous factors, which are often beyond the control of the project team but had a

powerful impact on the project outcome. They are: characteristics of the project team

leader (competence and authority available), power and politics, environmental events,

and urgency (perception about the importance of the project).


Figure 2-2: Ten key factors of the project implementation profile

Communication

Project mission

Top manage-ment support

Project schedule/ plans

Client consulta-tion

Personnel

Client accepta-nce

Monitering & feedback

Technical tasks

Trouble shooting

© 1984 Randall L. Schultz and Dennis P. Slevin

Source: Slevin and Pinto, 1987

However, Pinto and Prescott (1988) concluded in another study that the relative

importance of various critical success factors change significantly based on stages of

project life cycle, namely, conceptualisation, planning, execution, and termination. For

instance, during the execution stage of the project life cycle, five factors, namely,

project mission, trouble shooting, project schedule/plan, technical tasks, and client

consultation, emerged as the most important factors having explained 60% of the

variance.

The type of project, such as construction and R&D, is another variable to be

considered while judging the performance of a project as the factors that cause a

construction project to be perceived as a failure may be quite different from those that

contribute to R&D project failure (Pinto and Mantel, 1990).

2.6.3 Role of Leadership in IS Projects The literature on IS project management provides ample evidence on the importance

of non-technical issues as critical success factors (Phan, Vogel and Nunamaker, 1988;

HeWolff

Rectangle

HeWolff

Text Box

Image not available - see printed version


Laudon and Laudon, 1990). Although there is a paucity of empirical evidence on the

causes for project failure, Sauer (1993) suggests that a consensus has been reached

among researchers that failure is generally caused by the neglect of the behavioural

and social factors. Managerial, organisational, and cultural factors, rather than

technological ones, determine success in the IT industry (Lowry, Morgan and

FitzGerald, 1996).

According to Klenke (1996), “it may seem that leadership and IT are unlikely

bedfellows since research on IS has paid little attention to the influence of leadership

processes in the design and implementation of ITs. At the same time, leadership

studies have rarely incorporated ITs as either independent or dependent variables into

the design of empirical research although they represent major organisational

interventions”.

Leadership taken in the context of projects presents special challenges. The role of the

project manager in IS projects is more challenging and vital than in other types of

projects where it may be less critical (Cleland, 1995: 86). In IS departments, project

managers are faced with increasingly complex tasks which require more than a single

set of management skills (Carter, 1988). That is why, the concept of “Hybrid”

managers, particularly in the context of IS environment is gaining prominence (Palmer

and Ottley, 1990).

In the opinion of Cash and Fox (1992), “successful projects almost always have a

“champion” who either by past experience or by persistent determination provides

needed leadership to members of the project team to see that results are achieved”. A

project’s success or failure is the result of the leadership of the project’s stakeholders

(Cleland, 1995: 85). Pulk (1990) too emphasised the importance of IS project

leadership and stated that “the most obvious cause of the increased cost is the lack of

effective leadership in software development projects. Therefore, bridging the gap

between software and product development requires effective leadership and project

management within the software design teams”.

According to Bates (1994), “the key ingredient to effective project management is good

people management and leadership skills. The more complex the people situation, the

more critical a project manager’s leadership capabilities become”. Geaney (1995)

agrees: “in today’s corporations, tremendous responsibility lies with the IS project


manager, who must take the corporation’s vision and translate that vision into systems

that support the company’s strategic direction”.

2.6.4 Leadership skills in IS project managers In the IS environment, several studies have highlighted the essential qualities and

skills of IS project managers to ensure success. Table 2-3 gives a comparative picture

of such studies. They highlight the importance of IS manager’s ability to manage

people, technology, stress, emotions, organisational bureaucracy, and communication.

Table 2-3: Essential qualities and skills of IS project managers

Rahn (1987) Willingness to take risks, willingness to commit time, ability to handle stress well, deposition to people management, right emotional disposition, communication skills, ability to handle politics.

Bander (1986) Problem solving, managerial identity, achievement orientation, strong influence

Geaney (1995) Visible leadership, flexibility, sound business judgement, trust worthiness, active listening skills

Bloom (1996) Technical competence, political and people skills, handle obstacles, maturity to accept full project responsibility, stamina and sense of humour

Lowry et al. (1996)

IT staff describing their ideal manager in metaphorical terms: a coach, one who manages by walking around, diplomat, stands up for staff, open door policy, promoter of the best in people, juggler, directional, maintains momentum, a large ear and superman.

Appelgate and Elam (1992) (quoted in Klenke, 1996) found that the roles of IS

managers are being redefined. This redefinition involves a shift from the emphasis on

technical competence to broader understanding of leadership functions such as

networking, the judicious use of power (i.e., information), and business expertise.

Thus, leadership and IT are emerging as central functions in information-dominated

organisations which need to be coordinated and integrated (Klenke, 1996).

2.7 Summary This chapter started with an historical overview of leadership theories and research.

Then the concept and research on charisma, the central focus of the new genre of

leadership theories, was discussed followed by a brief description of the various

theories on transformational leadership. Since this study is a replication of Bass and

Avolio’s (1990) model on the full range of leadership, the various components of the

model, the measurement instrument and the research conducted by Bass, Avolio and


their associates and others over the last ten years were discussed in detail followed by

a critique of the model. The literature review then covered the nature and importance

of technical leadership, the focus of this study. Finally, the literature on the critical

success factors in information technology (IT) projects, particularly on IT project

leadership, was discussed.

Chapter 3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 Conceptual Framework

A major objective of this study was to replicate Bass and Avolio’s (1990) model on

transactional and transformational leadership and to test it’s relevance to information

technology projects. To make the model more situation specific, a set of behaviours

representing technical leadership was derived from the literature and tested as

supplementary component to transformational leadership. Apart from project

leadership, there are other critical success factors which have a bearing on the

outcome of IT projects. Three such contingency factors were also tested. The

conceptual framework (Figure 3-1) incorporates these essential elements.

According to Bass and Avolio (1997: 21) “transactional leaders work toward

recognising the roles and tasks required for associates to reach desired outcomes;

they also clarify these requirements for associates, thus creating the confidence they

need to exert the necessary effort” which would lead to some degree of success, as

shown in Figure 3-1. However, this kind of leadership is usually a prescription for lower

levels of performance or nonsignificant change.

Transactional leadership is viewed by Bass and Avolio (1990) as an essential

component of effective leadership. But they stress that to satisfy the higher-order

objectives or to motivate the team members to ‘perform beyond expectations’,

transactional leadership needs to be ‘augmented’ by transformational leadership.

Therefore, an “optimal profile” of leadership is the combination of transactional and

transformational leadership. This augmentation effect of transformational leadership,

as can be seen from Figure 3-1, “accounts for unique variance in ratings of

performance above and beyond that accounted for by active transactional leadership”

(Bass and Avolio, 1997: 22).

Figure 3-1: Conceptual framework

Chapter 3 Conceptual Framework

53

Leadership Style

+

Transactional Leadership

Transformational Leadership

Augmentation effect Extra effort Expected

Effort

Technical Leadership

Low project

success

Low High

High project success

Contingency Factors

Top management

support Project mission

Technical tasks + +

Several studies have confirmed the “universality” of transformational leadership across

cultures, countries, levels and occupational groups. But the model does not cover fully,

key aspects of technical leadership as identified in the literature. Therefore, as can be

seen from Figure 3-1, the conceptual framework incorporates technical leadership as

an ‘additional component’ of transformational leadership and suggests that the

augmentation of ‘both’ on transactional leadership will result in high project success in

an IT environment.

Apart from considering the effect of project leadership on the level of project success,

the study also takes in to account other contingency factors in the conceptual

framework. In an empirical study concerning R&D projects (including computer

software and hardware development), Pinto and Slevin (1989) concluded that at the


54

execution stage of project life cycle, three factors, namely, project mission, top

management support and technical tasks, exert maximum influence. As this study

concerns projects that are at the execution stage, these three factors have been

considered as the contingency factors in the framework.

Thus, the conceptual framework postulates that a combination of transformational and

technical leadership can augment the effectiveness of transactional leadership and

together with the support of contingency factors, such as clarity of project mission, top

management support and availability of technical resources, would lead to high project

success.

3.2 Hypotheses

Based on the research objectives, the gaps identified in the current literature, and the

conceptual framework, the following hypotheses are formulated for examination in this

study:

1. Managers of more successful projects will exhibit transformational and technical

leadership behaviours to a greater extent than managers of less successful

projects.

2. The relationship between transformational and technical leadership scales and

leadership outcome scales will be stronger in more successful projects than in less

successful projects.

3. The relationship between leadership and project success will be moderated by the

contingency factors such that stronger relationships will be found in projects with

more clearly specified project mission, stronger support from the top management

and better availability of technical expertise.

Bass and Avolio (1997, p.38 and 54) suggest that when leaders evaluate their own

leadership behaviour and it’s effectiveness, they tend to inflate the ratings across all

leadership factors. Several studies have reported discrepancy between the leaders’

self ratings and their subordinates’ ratings (For example, Carless, 1995; Tsui and

Barry, 1986; Atwater and Yammarino, 1992). Hence, the hypothesis,


55

4. There will be no agreement between the perception of project managers and their

subordinates with regard to leadership behaviour and it’s effectiveness.

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ- 5R), the measurement instrument of

Bass and Avolio’s model, was criticised for it’s lack of discriminant validity with respect

to it’s leadership factors (Hunt, 1991; Smith & Peterson, 1988; Yukl, 1994). In

response to these criticisms, Bass and Avolio subsequently refined the instrument

(MLQ 5X) and justified the construct validity of their new nine factor model (Avoilo,

Bass and Jung, 1996). This study has used seven of the nine leadership factors

measured by the new MLQ 5X and postulates that

5. Bass and Avolio’s model on transformational and transactional leadership (1990)

will be multi-dimensional and not uni-dimensional.

To assess the distinguishing leadership characteristics of technical leaders, such as IT

managers, a set of technical leadership behaviours which were different from the key

leadership elements covered by Bass and Avolio’s model were derived from the meta

analysis of the literature and tested in the study. Since this new scale, called “technical

leadership”, referred to a particular occupational group vis-a-vis others (non-technical

leaders), it was hypothesised that

6. The technical leadership scale will be uni-dimensional, and that

7. The transformational and transactional leadership scales of Bass and Avolio’s

model and the technical leadership scale will be distinct. In other words, they

measure different constructs of leadership behaviour.

Chapter 4. METHOD

4.1 Population

The population for the research was IT organisations and IT divisions of non-IT

organisations in Australia that were engaged in computer consultancy services, that is,

software development, enhancement, customisation, or maintenance activities in a

project team environment. Since the focus of the thesis was on project leadership, it

was necessary that the participating organisation had several IT projects, each

comprising of at least two team members and headed by a project manager, which

meant that the organisation should have had at least six employees, excluding the

senior management.

However, considering that the computer services industry in Australia is dominated by

small businesses with 87% of them employing less than five persons (ABS, 1995), it

was an extremely difficult task to identify and encourage suitable organisations to

participate in the research.

4.2 Sample Design

In view of the difficulties anticipated in finding suitable organisations to participate in

the research, it was decided to tap multiple sources of Australian IT organisations’

listings to get the maximum possible response rate. Accordingly, the list of

organisations which were invited to participate in the study was derived from the

following sources:

1. The Software 50 (Kennedy, 1996): This annual publication lists the top 50 software

companies in Australia. It is the ranking of those organisations classified as

independent software vendors (ISVs). Also included were companies that were

primary agents (distributors) of foreign-based ISVs. For the year 1996, the listing

excluded “hardware” companies which had substantial software revenues (e.g.,

IBM). All the 50 companies from this listing were invited to participate in the

research.

Chapter 4 Method 57

2. The MIS 100 (Conners, 1995): This is a listing of top 100 computer using

organisations in Australia and New Zealand based on the number of screens, as

measured by PCs and workstations plus terminals, employed throughout the

organisation. The MIS 100 is a subset of the MIS 3001, by far the most

comprehensive site listing compiled in Australasia.

From this listing, it was decided to delete New Zealand based companies,

universities (since they do not normally undertake commercial projects) and some

government departments. As a result, only 61 organisations from the listing of MIS

100 were invited to participate in the research.

3. The Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA): It is a leading

representative body of the Australian information technology and

telecommunications (IT & T) industry. It claims to represent more than 85% of the

IT & T industry. From the 1995 membership directory of AIIA, about 40 IT member

organisations were invited to participate in the research.

4. Personal Knowledge: Apart from the above sources, few organisations which

appeared to be engaged in software related activities, based on personal

knowledge, were also included.

It should be noted that there is a duplication of companies amongst software 50, MIS

100 and members of AIIA, as many of them are accounted for by more than one

source.

4. 3 Research Design

The study adapted a combination of quantitative (survey) and qualitative (interview)

methods in order to derive the advantages of both the approaches while minimising

the limitations of any single approach. Further, the research on Bass and Avolio’s

model of transformational leadership has been criticised for it’s predominant use of

questionnaire/survey methods using the MLQ (Hunt, 1991; Smith and Peterson, 1988;

Yukl, 1994). Therefore, it was necessary to collect qualitative data in order to minimise

the limitations of questionnaire correlational research. However, the primary data for

the study were obtained through surveys and was supplemented with interviews of a

cross-section of selected respondents.

Chapter 4 Method 58

The data were obtained from three levels within the respondent organisations: senior

IT manager, project managers of two selected projects and project team members of

two selected projects.

Senior IT Manager: The head of the organisation or the IT division was requested to

nominate a senior IT manager to whom the IT project managers reported, as the

coordinator for this survey (Appendix:1). The coordinator was asked to select two

recent IT projects in the company to participate in the survey: one, that was more

successful in his/her opinion (in terms of quality, cost, deadlines and customer

satisfaction) and another that was less successful. Both these projects were to be at

least half-way through their project duration (life cycle).

The coordinator was asked to complete the “coordinator’s questionnaire” (Appendix:2)

which required him/her to give general information about the company, it’s IT project

environment and to assess the performance of the selected projects on the following

criteria:

• Technical quality: the extent to which specified quality requirements were satisfied.

• Cost performance: the extent to which the project was within the budgeted cost.

• Deadline: the extent to which the key milestones were achieved.

• Customer satisfaction: the extent to which the user was satisfied with the system

performance.

• Overall project performance.

The coordinator then ensured the participation of the managers and team members of

the selected projects in the survey. The questionnaires to be completed by the

manager and team members of the more successful project were code-named “X” and

those for the less successful project were code-named “Y”. The information about the

codes were to be known only to the coordinator and not to be divulged to the

managers and their subordinates.

At the end of this data collection, the Melbourne-based senior IT managers were

interviewed while the others were administered a semi-structured questionnaire

(Appendix:3) asking their views on the role and nature of project leadership in

conjunction with other critical success factors affecting the outcome of IT projects.

Chapter 4 Method 59

Project Managers: The project managers of selected projects completed a

questionnaire (Appendix:4) describing their leadership behaviour, it’s effectiveness,

and their ratings on the selected contingency factors.

Project Team Members: The team members of the selected projects completed a

questionnaire (Appendix:5) describing the leadership behaviour of their managers,

their perception of it’s effectiveness, and their ratings on the selected contingency

factors.

Table 4-1 summarises the sources of data collection described above.

Table 4-1: Sources of data collection

Source of Data Nature of Data Collection Method

Senior Manager

• Selection of two projects: one more successful and another less successful on specified criteria

• Assessment of performance of selected projects

• Role and nature of project leadership in conjunction with other critical success factors

Questionnaire Questionnaire 1. Interviews

(Melbourne based Cos.)

2. Semi-structured Questionnaire (Non-Melbourne based Cos.)

Project

Managers • Self-description of leadership behaviour • Self-assessment of leadership

effectiveness • Rating of contingency factors

Questionnaire

Project Team Members

• Description of leadership behaviour of the project manager

• Assessment of leadership effectiveness • Rating of contingency factors

Questionnaire

4.4. Research Instruments

4.4.1 Measurement of Transformational, Transactional Leadership and Outcomes The Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) is a measurement instrument

developed by Bass and Avolio (1990) to measure transformational, transactional, and

non-leadership (laissez-faire) behaviours and the outcome measures. Over the years,

the MLQ has undergone several revisions. The current MLQ (Form 5X) assesses a

Chapter 4 Method 60

nine factor model containing five transformational leadership factors, three

transactional leadership factors, one non-leadership factor, and three outcome factors.

With the permission of Bass, the latest form of MLQ (Form 5X) was used in this

research. However, it was decided to omit one transformational leadership factor,

namely, inspirational leadership, and the non-leadership factor. Inspirational

leadership loads heavily on charisma factor (Bass and Avolio, 1990: 18). Therefore,

the most common practice among researchers is to omit it from studies (Carless,

1996: 7). The non-leadership factor which refers to absence of leadership and/or

avoidance of intervention is a totally passive leadership behaviour. This factor was

omitted as it was not going to serve the purpose of this study which was to compare

different types of active leadership styles.

Thus, this study tested a reduced model of Bass and Avolio (1990) by testing seven

instead of nine factors. In keeping with Bass’s suggestion (personal correspondence),

of those factors which were retained, all their items were included in the questionnaire

and of the factors which were omitted, all their items were deleted.

Both the forms of MLQ, namely, the self-rating form (used by the leader for self

evaluation) and the rater form (used by the subordinates to evaluate the leader) were

used in this study. Both the forms are identical in terms of directions and items.

A five-point rating scale for rating the frequency of observed leader behaviours was

used for both forms by asking how frequently the behaviour described was displayed.

The response options used to evaluate different leadership and outcome factors were

as follows:

Scale Leadership Effectiveness Satisfaction1 Frequently, if not

always Extremely effective Very satisfied

2 Fairly often Very effective Fairly satisfied 3 Sometimes Effective Neither satisfied

nor dissatisfied 4 Once in awhile Only slightly

effective Somewhat dissatisfied

5 Not at all Not effective Very dissatisfied

Chapter 4 Method 61

The reliability of the scales (Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from .70 to .93 for subordinate

ratings and from .68 to .91 for managers’ (self) ratings.

4.4.2 Measurement of Technical Leadership Based on the literature review on technical leadership styles, several key leadership

behaviours were identified. They were then compared with those in Bass and Avolio’s

model and a list of behaviours which did not seem to be adequately covered in Bass

and Avolio’s model were compiled and were collectively called “technical leadership”.

Appendix:6 lists the essential elements of transformational and transactional

leadership, identified by Bass (1985) and also 12 items of technical leadership

identified by the author and added to the questionnaire. For the purpose of uniformity,

the same scale and response options as used in the MLQ were used for the

measurement of technical leadership style and were added with the MLQ items. The

reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the technical leadership items was .81 for subordinate

ratings and .79 for managers’ (self) ratings.

4.4.3 Measurement of Contingency Factors The Project Implementation Profile (PIP), a diagnostic instrument developed by Pinto

and Slevin (1992) was used in this study, with the permission of the copyright owners,

for the measurement of three selected contingency factors out of the ten identified in

the PIP. These factors were project mission, top management support, and technical

tasks. Each factor contained five items.

Both the leaders and their subordinates were asked to rate the current status of these

factors in their projects on a five-point scale as follows: 1 = Strongly agree, 2 = Agree,

3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Disagree, and 5 = Strongly disagree. The reliability

(Cronbach’s alpha) of these items ranged from .75 to .82 for subordinate ratings and

from .66 to .88 for managers’ (self) ratings.

4.4.4 Factor Structure and Reliability of Questionnaire Items The questionnaire used in the survey of project managers and their subordinates

contained 96 items with the factor structure and reliability as shown in Table 4-2:

Table 4-2: Factor structure and reliability of questionnaire items

Scale

No. of Items

Reliability (α) Subordinates Managers

Chapter 4 Method 62

Attributed Charisma 8 0.90 0.68 Idealised Influence 10 0.86 0.82 Intellectual Stimulation 10 0.91 0.89 Individualised consideration 9 0.92 0.76 Contingent reward 9 0.88 0.68 Mangt. by exception- Active 7 0.70 0.79 Mangt. by exception-Passive 7 0.88 0.72 Extra effort 3 0.90 0.82 Effectiveness 4 0.86 0.72 Satisfaction 2 0.94 0.91 Technical leadership 12 0.81 0.79 Project mission 5 0.77 0.66 Technical tasks 5 0.75 0.80 Top management support 5 0.82 0.87 Sub Total 96 0.96 0.95 Biographical items 6 Grand Total 102

4.5. Research Procedure

4.5.1 Pretest of Questionnaire Before finalising the research design and the questionnaires, the views of the

prospective respondents were obtained. The IT manager and/or the Human Resource

Manager of six IT organisations were approached to seek their feedback on the

proposed research design and the organisation’s interest in participating in the

research (Appendix:7). Three organisations consented to participate individually in the

discussion process. The following table summarises the issues raised and the

feedback obtained during the personal discussion:

Table 4-3: Pretest of research design and questionnaire

Issues Discussed Feedback Summary What is the organisation structure of

your IT department? What is the average size, typical structure and the life cycle of IT projects in your organisation?

A typical IT department structure has a departmental head at the top followed by project managers, project leaders and software engineers. A typical IT project has three members headed by a manager who oversees several such projects with an average duration of 4 to 6 months.

How important is the role of IT project manager in the project set-up as well as the organisational set-up?

The role of project manager is highly valued. He/she is an ambassador of the company before the clients and is a critical link between the two.

What are the possible and the recommended methods of collecting

Can be obtained through customers and management. Periodic appraisal of the

Chapter 4 Method 63

data on the project performance?

project performance by the management is the most acceptable option.

What are the preferred ways to collect data on leadership behaviour from project managers and their team members, particularly, between interview and survey questionnaire methods?

Projects are extremely tight on time. Project managers would be hesitant to spend their time in participating in interviews. Quick questionnaires may be administered, if managers can be persuaded.

What is your feedback on the proposed questionnaire in terms of it’s length, structure, language and coverage of leadership and project success factors?

Questionnaire should not take more than 30 minutes per person and participants be given freedom to fill it up at their convenience. The respondents were happy with the content and the structure of questionnaires.

Who is the right person to approach in your organisation to get support from the IT project teams to participate in the research?

The survey needs the approval and cooperation of the CEO or the IT chief to divulge confidential project performance data and to persuade the selected project teams to participate.

Any difficulty anticipated It would be difficult to identify and persuade a less successful project manager and team members to participate in the survey as some of them would doubt the purpose of the survey and it’s confidentiality. It is a politically difficult exercise and may discourage participation.

Based on the above feedback, several changes were made to the research design

and questionnaire. Originally, it was proposed to collect data on leadership behaviour

and performance only from project team members, as previous research has shown

that leaders tend to inflate their own performance (Bass and Avolio, 1990:23).

However, to gain the confidence and support of project managers, it was decided to

obtain data from the managers too.

To stress the confidentiality of data, several personal questions were deleted to make

it difficult to identify the source. The proposal to interview a cross-section of project

managers and team members apart from collecting quantitative data was also dropped

as that would have required considerable time from respondents. Instead it was

decided to interview the senior managers to get the top management perspective of

project leadership and to compare and contrast it with that of project managers and

team members.

Chapter 4 Method 64

4.5.2 Support from Industry Associations In order to encourage participation and drive home the importance of the project to the

IT industry, the Australian Institute of Management (AIM) and two major IT industry

associations in Australia, namely, the Australian Computer Society (ACS) and the

Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA) were approached for support to

persuade their member organisations to participate in the survey and to publicise the

research project in their communication bulletins (Appendix:8). All three organisations

were happy to issue a letter of support (Appendix:9) encouraging their members’

participation.

4.5.3 Communication Process After finalising the list of about 160 organisations to be invited to participate in the

research out of the nearly 400 considered, phone calls were made to these

organisations to identify a suitable person to address our communication. Based on

the feedback received during the pretest, the invitation letters were addressed

specifically to the CEO or if the organisation was very large, to the head of the IT

division by their exact name and title.

The invitation letter (Appendix:1) stated the purpose of the research and the potential

benefit of participation to the organisation. Then it specifically outlined the measures to

be taken for participation which involved nominating a senior IT manager as

coordinator for the survey who would select two projects to be involved in the survey

and would assess their performance as well as ensure the participation of project

manager and team members of these projects in completing the survey questionnaire.

The letters of support from the industry association were enclosed with the invitation

letter.

Also enclosed were one copy each of the questionnaire to be completed by the

coordinator, project managers, and project team members of the two selected

projects. The coordinator was asked to ensure maximum possible participation from

the project team members. The coordinator was also requested to take additional

copies of the project team members’ questionnaire as the number was not known to

us. Thus, once the decision to participate was taken by the CEO or the IT chief, the

coordinator was to play a crucial role in the participation process and be the sole

contact point.

Chapter 4 Method 65

The confidentiality of the information collected was assured on the basis that the final

report would be a collective analysis without identifying individual organisations. It was

promised that all participating organisations would receive a summary of the survey

results. Considering the efforts involved in participation, a time frame of one month

was suggested to return the completed questionnaires.

4.5.4 Data Collection Process The first contact with the organisations was made in the beginning of October, 1995.

Four weeks later, a reminder letter was sent (Appendix:10) followed by personal calls

to check up on the progress. At this stage, many organisations informed that they were

not suitable for participation for several reasons, including not having software projects

in Australia as they were only marketing outfits for multinational corporations or not

being big enough to select suitable projects. Several organisations said that they were

still undecided while some others were in the process of identifying or persuading the

project managers to participate. A number of companies expressed their inability to

participate due to time constraints. One organisation did not want to “hurt the fragile

egos” of it’s people by involving failed projects.

After another month, a second reminder was sent (Appendix:11) along with a complete

set of questionnaires. By then, several organisations had sent their response but many

of them had got only one project member to fill up the questionnaire. These

organisations were asked to get at least 50% of the project members to participate. A

major difficulty experienced at this stage was that many project members had joined

other projects or left the company or were outside contractors who were not under the

direct control of the management. Due to various reasons, deadlines were extended

and ultimately quantitative data collection was stopped at the end of March, 1996.

4.5.5 Interview Process In the coordinator’s questionnaire, it was asked whether the senior manager acting as

the survey coordinator would be interested in participating in an interview process

later. Nearly 25 of the 35 coordinators agreed. However, mainly due to financial

reasons, it was decided to interview only Melbourne-based senior managers and to

mail a semi-structured questionnaire to the rest. This approach effectively covered the

entire population.

The interview process began in September, 1996. With the consent of the managers,

the interviews were tape recorded. Even though a semi-structured questionnaire was

Chapter 4 Method 66

used during the interviews (Appendix:3), the natural flow of the process was not

disturbed and depending on the interest and the initiative of the managers, the

discussion took it’s own course as the interview progressed. Typically, the

conversation lasted one hour.

The senior managers were asked to comment on the following issues:

• the criteria adapted by the coordinator in the selection of the projects for

participation in the survey,

• factors that contribute to the relative success or failure of IT projects and the order

of their importance,

• ranking of critical success factors in the execution of projects as identified in the

literature,

• role of project leadership in the outcome of IT projects,

• essential qualities and skills required in an IT manager,

• significant differences in the leadership qualities and skills of more and less

successful project managers,

• rating of a shortened version of the leadership behaviours of transformational,

transactional, and technical leaders,

• advice to aspiring project managers, and

• any other views about project leadership.

4.6 Analytic Procedure

The following procedures were used to analyse the quantitative data:

• The missing data were treated using “pair-wise deletion” of cases (Hertel, 1976).

• Reliability analysis of all the scales (leadership, outcome and contingency factors)

was done using Cronbach’s alpha.

• Since the number of items for each scale was different, to facilitate better

comparison of ratings on each scale, total scores were divided by the number of items

before taking the mean for that scale.

• Since independent data were collected from two different projects (more and less

successful), “independent sample t test” was conducted to compare the mean ratings

and examine whether leadership behaviours differentiate between more and less

successful projects and which of the scales are better discriminators than others. T

tests were also used to compare the mean ratings of managers (self) and their

subordinates.

Chapter 4 Method 67

• Pearson correlation coefficient was used to quantify the strength of the linear

relationship between leadership and outcome ratings.

• Principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation was conducted to test

the construct validity of technical leadership items.

• Maximum likelihood factor analysis with Varimax rotation was conducted to test the

construct validity of transformational and transactional leadership scale items.

Maximum likelihood method was chosen over principal components method because

of the power of it’s statistical tests. According to Kilne (1994: 49), “the strongest

argument for using maximum likelihood analysis lies in the fact that it has statistical

tests for the significance of each factor as it is extracted”. Bass and Avolio (1997)

recommend the use of confirmatory factor analysis but in this case, the sample size

was not large enough (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989) to justify it’s use.

• Only subordinate ratings were used while conducting factor analysis of the scales

for two reasons: One, the self ratings are not regarded as reliable as subordinate

ratings due to the tendency of leaders to inflate their ratings (Bass and Avolio, 1997;

Carless, 1995) and two, the sample size for subordinates (n = 225) was much larger

than that for managers (n = 70).

With regard to the qualitative data obtained through interviews and a semi-structured

questionnaire, the data were “content analysed” and generalised for each question so

that the value of each response was preserved to the extent possible.

4.7 Characteristics of Participants

4.7.1 Response Analysis Before analysing the response rate, several important things, which are peculiar to

this study, need to be considered. First of all, the computer services industry in

Australia is overwhelmingly dominated by small businesses, with 87% of them

employing less than 5 persons (ABS, 1995). As explained in the chapter on sample

design, the survey designed for this study required the participating organisation to

have had at least 6 employees (two projects with a project manager/leader and at

least two team members), excluding senior management, working in a project team

environment.

Further, the proportion of software-related organisations to the total number of IT-

related organisations is very small. For example, of the top 100 computer firms listed in

Chapter 4 Method 68

the Computerworld 100, only 11 were software related and the rest were dominated by

hardware vendors (Kennedy, 1996:3).

To compound the problem further, of the major software-related organisations in

Australia, the majority of them are multinational software vendors with local offices in

Australia which meant that these organisations developed their software else where

and were only marketing their products in Australia with marginal role in software

development. For instance, of the top 50 software organisations in Australia, 32 were

primary agents (distributors) of foreign-based independent software vendors

(Kennedy, 1996:3).

Of the comparatively small number of organisations that were suitable to participate in

the survey, the elaborate exercise required by the participants, in selecting a

coordinator for the survey and completing three different sets of questionnaire by

different people, was a further deterrent. As pointed out in the pre-test, choosing and

involving a less successful project in the survey was a politically difficult exercise.

Not all the difficulties mentioned above were anticipated before the start of the survey.

The profile of the industry became clear after analysing the initial response. Despite

the problems, maximum possible efforts were made through reminders, phone calls,

extension of deadlines etc. to obtain the best possible response rate. Table 4-3

presents an overview of the population and the response received.

Table 4-4: Analysis of response to survey

S/W 50 MIS 100 AIIA&others Total % Total Considered 50 100 250* 400* Total Invited 50 61** 47 158 Not Suitable 10 17 20 47 (30) Net Population (2-3) 40 44 27 111 100 Participated 9 15 12 36 32.4 Refused to participate 5 9 6 20 18 No Response 26 20 9 55 49.5 Notes: * There is a duplication of companies amongst S/W 50, MIS 100 & AIIA. ** From the MIS100, New Zealand-based companies, Universities and some government departments were omitted from consideration.

Chapter 4 Method 69

As indicated in table 4-4, of the 158 companies invited to participate, 47 (30%)

indicated that they were not suitable to participate in the survey for various reasons:

• the organisation is too small to participate (45%),

• the work carried out is not in a project environment as required by the survey

(40%), and

• the organisation was basically a software vendor and not developer (15%).

Considering that 30% of the organisations invited expressed their unsuitability, it is

highly likely that of the 55 organisations (nearly 50% of the net population) who did not

respond either way to the invitation, a considerable number of them might have been

unsuitable too for various reasons mentioned above. Therefore, the response rate

might actually be higher than 32%, if the actual percentage of unsuitable organisations

from those invited were known.

A higher response rate would have been preferred; however, a response rate of 32%

is reasonable, especially in light of the nature of the content of the questionnaire

(Steeh, 1981) which specifically asked the organisations to identify and involve

relatively unsuccessful projects, a politically difficult task.

Of the 36 organisations which participated in the survey, the data from one

organisation was unusable as it related to only one project and only one team member

had filled up the questionnaire on behalf of all the team mates. Further, many

individual questionnaires had to be rejected for several reasons, such as significant

missing data, casual attitude of the respondent by choosing the same number on the

rating scale, and qualifying the responses with conditions. Finally, the responses from

35 organisations, involving 70 projects, 70 project managers, and 225 project team

members, were included in the analysis.

4.7.2 Organisational Profile The 35 organisations which participated in the research represented a wide range of

IT and non-IT industry categories both in public and private sectors. In terms of

industry profile, there were 23 in computer services industry (including IT consultancy),

6 in government utilities (such as, water, roads, justice, health etc.), 2 in banking, and

one each in aviation, consumer goods, R&D, and manufacturing. They included large,

medium and small businesses and were spread throughout Australia. The list of these

organisations and general information about them is provided in Appendix:12. Table 4-

5 presents the overall profile of these organisations.

Chapter 4 Method 70

Table 4-5: Profile of respondent organisations

Total

Average Maximum Minimum

No. of all employees

137,201 4035 36,000 12

No. of IT employees

11,784 357 2000 4

No. of current IT projects

1642 48 300 4

Average no. of members in each IT project

NA 7 25 1

Avr. duration of each IT project (months)

NA 8 13 2

4.7.3 Organisational Chart The coordinator of the survey was asked to provide the organisational chart for the

company as a whole and for the IT division. As could be expected, the organisational

structure varied depending on the size of the organisation, nature of operations (IT or

non-IT), type and size of the projects etc. However, some common practices could be

identified. For instance, in all the non-IT organisations covered in the study, IS

department was on par with other key departments like marketing, sales, production

etc., in terms of importance. This shows that today, management information systems

(MIS) function is regarded as highly as any other management function.

With regard to IS projects, the structure was dependent on the size, the industry, the

applications being developed (finance, insurance, telecommunications, manufacturing

etc.) and the importance of the project to the company. However, size of the project

seemed to be the main criteria. A typical organisational chart of a small project

consisted of a project manager reporting to the head of IT services and managing a

team of applications developers, technical consultants and writers. The structure of a

large project is presented in Figure 4-1.

Figure 4-1: Typical organisational chart of a large IT development project

Project Steering Committee

(Client reps., Account manager, Projects Director)

Chapter 4 Method 71

4.7.4 Project Profile

Admin. support (Personnel, Costing)

Quality Assurance

Develoment Team Leader

Tech. Design & System Devpt. Team Leader

Business Analysis Team Leader

Support Services - H/W & Network - Testing & Integration - Documentation - User Education & Training Team Members Team Members Team Members

Project Manager

Each respondent organisation involved two IT projects in the survey, one more

successful, and another, less successful. Overall, 70 projects (35 more successful and

35 less successful), 70 project managers and 225 project team members (123

members in more successful projects and 102 in less successful projects) took part in

the survey.

Table 4-6: Project participation profile

More successful

project

Less successful

project

Overall

No. of projects participated

35 35 70

No. of project managers participated

35 35 70

Total no. of team members

279 246 525

Total no. of members participated

123 102 225 (43%)

Average no. of members/ project

8 8 8

Average no. of members/ project participated

4 3 3

Average duration of each project/ months

16.5 14 15

The coordinator of the survey was requested to evaluate the performance of the

selected projects on specified parameters. The ratings are summarised in Table 4-7.

Table 4-7: Project performance profile

Chapter 4 Method 72

(Average ratings on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high))

Measure

More successful project Less successful project

Technical quality

4 3

Cost performance

4 2

Deadlines

4 2

Customer satisfaction

4 3

Overall performance 4 2

4.7.5 Demographics The profile of the project managers is given in Table 4-8. Respondents were mainly

male (74%), in their late thirties and were graduates (70%). They had an average IT

work experience of 15 years and had spent an average of 11 months on the project

which they were leading at the time of the survey.

Table 4-8: Demographics of project managers

Demographics More

successful project

Less successful

project

Total

Sex • Male • Female

26 8

26 8

52 (74%) 14 (20%)

Average age in years

39 39 39

Qualification • Post-secondary • Graduate • Post-graduate

2

15 11

5

20 3

7 (10%) 35 (50%) 14 (20%)

Average experience in years

17 13 15

Average time spent in the project in months

11 10 11

As shown in Table 4-9, the project team members were mainly male (65%), in their

mid-thirties and had spent an average of nearly nine years as IT professionals. Like

managers, they also had spent an average of 11 months on the project they were

working on at the time of the survey.

Table 4-9: Demographics of project team members More Less Total

Chapter 4 Method 73

successful project

successful project

Sex • Male Female

80 32

67 30

147 (65%) 62 (28%)

Average age in years 33 35 34 Qualification Insufficient

information Average experience in years 8 9 8.5 Average time spent in the project in months

11 10 11

Chapter 5. RESULTS

5.1 Introduction It was hypothesised in the study that transformational and technical leadership will be

associated more strongly with more successful projects. It was also hypothesised that

more successful projects will exhibit higher incidence of contingency factors, namely,

project mission, top management support and technical tasks. To test these, first the

subordinate ratings on managers of more and less successful projects with regard to

their leaders’ behaviours and their outcome were analysed. Then these ratings were

compared with the self ratings of managers to examine the extent of agreement

between the two. Thereafter, the construct validity of leadership scales were tested,

using subordinate ratings, to examine to what extent they were distinct. Finally, based

on the results of the factor analysis of leadership scales, a suitable measurement

instrument was proposed to test technical leadership behaviours. The proposed model

was further tested for it’s reliability and used to measure leadership behaviour, the

correlation between the scales and leadership outcome scale.

5.2 Subordinates’ Assessment of Leadership Behaviour (H1) Consistent with hypothesis one, the results presented in Table 5-1 show that

managers of more successful projects exhibited transformational and technical

leadership behaviours to a greater extent than their counterparts of less successful

projects.

As the questionnaire scale ranged from 5 (low) to 1 (high), lower mean scores reflect

responses that indicate higher attributions of the leadership characteristics and higher

mean scores indicate lower attributions. The mean for subordinate ratings of

managers on the total of transformational leadership scales was 2.36 for more

successful projects and 2.76 for less successful projects (t = 3.79, 226 df, p < .001).

Similarly, the mean for subordinate ratings on technical leadership behaviours of the

managers of more successful projects was 2.25 as compared to 2.63 for managers of

less successful projects (t = 3.12, 225 df, p < .002).

Table 5-1: Subordinates’ ratings on leadership behaviours

Scale: 5 (low) to 1 (high)

Chapter 5 Results 75

Scale More

successful projects

Less successful projects

t-value

df p 2 tail

Mean SD Mean SD Transformational L’p Attributed

Charisma 2.28 .80 2.60 .87 2.83 226 .005

Idealised Influence

2.29 .80 2.74 .96 3.88 226 .000

Intellectual Stimulation

2.34 .83 2.73 .87 3.49 226 .001

Individualised Consdn.

2.29 .96 2.67 .85 3.11 226 .002

Total 2.36 .77 2.76 .82 3.79 226 .000 Transactional L’p

Contingent Reward

2.76 1.09 3.14 1.04 2.64 225 .009

Mangt. by Excepn.- Active

3.06 .84 3.25 .78 1.77* 226 .078* (1 tail < .05)

Mangt. by Excpn.- Passive

3.65 .90 3.36 1.02 2.28# 210 .023#

Technical L’p

2.25

.89

2.63

.94

3.12

225

.002

n = 123 for more successful projects and 105 for less successful projects. p- 2 tail = <.01, except * (<.10) and # (<.05) * = Since the direction of effect was specified, 1-tail test of significance can be applied, the value of which is significant.

As regards transactional leadership scales, the managers of more successful projects

exhibited more of contingent reward (CR) and management by exception- active

(MBEA) behaviours. The mean for CR for more successful projects was 2.76 as

against 3.14 for less successful projects (t = 2.64, 225 df, p <.01). Similarly, for MBEA,

the mean was 3.06 for more successful projects and 3.25 for less successful projects

(t = 1.77, 226 df, p <.05). Only with respect to management by exception- passive

(MBEP) behaviour, more successful project managers were rated lower with a mean of

3.65 as against 3.36 for their counterparts of less successful projects (t = 2.28, 210 df,

p < .05).


In terms of the ranking of leadership behaviours of their managers, the subordinates of

more successful projects rated technical leadership as the most important (mean 2.25)

followed by transformational leadership scales (2.36), contingent reward (2.76),

management-by-exception (MBE)- active (3.06) and MBE- passive (3.65). The

subordinates of less successful projects gave the same ranking as above to the

leadership behaviours tested but rated their leaders lower on all these scales, except

management-by-exception passive.

The results show that technical leadership behaviour was regarded very highly by the

subordinates in comparison with transformational and transactional leadership scales.

The results also supported the augmentation effect proposed by Bass and Avolio

(1990) whereby transformational leadership supplemented by transactional leadership

leads to greater success. Management by exception (passive) is clearly regarded by

the subordinates as a negative leadership behaviour. This is again in line with the

argument of Bass and Avolio (1997: 33) that management-by-exception behaviour is

both a active (positive) and passive (negative) form of leadership.

5.3 Subordinates’ Assessment of Leadership Outcome (H2)

The leadership outcome was measured in terms of how motivated the subordinates

were by their leader in making extra efforts, how effective they thought their leader was

and how satisfied they were with their leader’s leadership style. The results presented

in Table 5-2 show that subordinates perceived the managers of the more successful

projects as more encouraging in exerting extra efforts, more effective and more

satisfying. The mean for the total of all the three outcome scales was 2.35 for more

successful projects as against 2.86 for less successful projects (t = 4.68, 226 df, p

<.01).

Table 5-2: Subordinates’ ratings on leadership outcome Scale: 5 (low) to 1 (high)

Scale More

successful projects


t-value

df p 2 tail


Mean SD Mean SD 1. Extra effort

2.79

1.19

3.36

1.16

3.52

216

.001

2. Effectiveness 2.26 .69 2.77 .78 5.19 225 .000 3. Satisfaction 2.11 .99 2.48 1.12 2.67 225 .008

Total 2.35 .81 2.86 .83 4.68 226 .000 n = 123 for more successful projects and 105 for less successful projects. p = <.01

However, in order to see how different leadership styles tested in the study were rated

in terms of their outcome, we need to look at the correlation between leadership and

outcome scales.

In line with hypothesis two, Table 5-3 shows that the relationship between

transformational & technical leadership scales and the combined leadership outcome

scales (extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction) were stronger in more successful

projects than in less successful projects.

It can be seen from Table 5-3 that apart from all the transformational leadership scales

and technical leadership scale, transactional contingent reward was strongly

correlated (.71) and management-by-exception active was moderately correlated (.48)

with the outcome scales for more successful projects. management-by-exception

passive was negatively correlated (-.29) with outcome. These results again show that

of all the leadership scales measured in the survey, only management-by-exception

passive was considered as the negative leadership behaviour by the subordinates.

Table 5-3: Correlation between the leadership and outcome scales (subordinate ratings)

Leadership Scale Outcome Scales (combined)

More successful projects



Attributed charisma .81 .70 Idealised influence

.72

.62

Intellectual stimulation

.63

.58

Individualised considn.

.75

.71

Transformational Total

.83

.72

Contingent reward

.71

.66

Management by Exception- Active

.48

- .00 ns*

Management by Exception- Passive

- .29#

.63

Technical leadership

.74

.56

Notes: • n = 116 for more successful projects and 102 for less successful projects. • Outcome scale comprised of three sub-scales, namely, extra effort, effectiveness,

and satisfaction. • Considering the sample, r values > .19 are considered significant. • All the correlations are significant beyond the .000 level, except * (.97) and # (.001) • ns = not significant

The results are generally in line with the findings of previous studies where “significant

relationships were found between leader effectiveness and the transformational scales

of charisma, individualised consideration and intellectual stimulation. The transactional

contingent reward has also been associated with effectiveness though the magnitude

of the association is less than that evidenced by the transformational scales. The

transactional management-by-exception (MBE) generally has low correlations with

effectiveness and is often negative when significant” (Lowe, Kroeck and

Subramaniam, 1996). The only deviation in the results of this study from the previous

findings is that transactional contingent reward was more strongly correlated with

leadership outcome (.71) than transformational intellectual stimulation (.63).

5.4 Subordinates’ Assessment of Contingency Factors (H3)

Affirming hypothesis three, the results presented in Table 5-4 clearly indicate that the

contingency factors were more frequent in more successful projects than in less


successful projects. The mean for project mission, top management support and

technical tasks were 1.77, 2.29 and 2.09 respectively, as against 2.03, 2.55, and 2.40

for the less successful projects (t = 3.35, df 226; t = 2.42, df 223, and t = 3.69, df 225

respectively; p <.01 for all).

Table 5-4: Subordinates’ ratings on contingency scales Scale: 5 (low) to 1 (high)

Factor More

successful projects


t-value

df p 2 tail

Mean SD Mean SD Project

Mission 1.77

.49 2.03 .67 3.35 226 .001

Top Mangt. Support

2.29

.79 2.55 .82 2.42 223 .016*

Technical Tasks

2.09 .63 2.40 .63 3.69 225 .000

Total

2.04 .52 2.31 .58 3.71 226 .000

Notes: • n = 123 for more successful projects and 103 for less successful projects • p < .001 except * < .02

5.5 Self (Managers’) Ratings on Leadership, Outcome & Contingency Scales

Table 5-5 presents the mean and standard deviations for the self ratings of managers of

more and less successful projects with regard to leadership, outcome and contingency

factors.

Table 5-5: Self (managers’) ratings on leadership, outcome & contingency Scales


Factor


Mean (SD)


Mean (SD)

t-value

df p 2 tail

Transformational Leadership Factors Attributed

Charisma 2.07 (.53) 2.33 (.48) 2.15 68 .035 a

Idealised Influence 1.99 (.56) 2.26 (.53) 2.07 68 .042 a Intellectual 1.89 (.56) 2.16 (.60) 1.92 68 .059 b


Stimulation Individualised

Consdn. 1.79 (.48) 1.98 (.47) 1.68 68 .098 b

Total 1.98 (.45) 2.23 (.41) 2.44 68 .017 c Transactional Leadership Factors Contingent

Reward 2.45 (.89) 2.39 (.63) .31 68 .758 ns

MBE- Active 3.55 (.66) 3.25 (.71) 1.82 68 .073 b MBE- Passive 4.11 (.46) 3.81 (.57) 2.39 68 .019 a Technical Leadership 2.16 (.53) 2.18 (.38) .26 68 .798 ns Outcome Factors Extra effort 2.08 (.74) 2.42 (.67) 1.97 68 .053 b Effectiveness 2.26 (.52) 2.49 (.47) 1.99 68 .051 b Satisfaction 2.01 (.68) 2.25 (.73) 1.44 68 .155 d Total 2.15 (.47) 2.41 (.47) 2.36 68 .021a Contingency Factors Project Mission 1.57 (.38) 1.92 (.45) 3.48 68 .001e Top Mangt.

Support 1.97 (.59) 2.46 (.88) 2.74 60 .008 f

Technical Tasks 1.93 (.59) 2.25 (.61) 2.27 68 .027 a Total 1.82 (.41) 2.21 (.46) 3.66 68 .000 e Notes: n = 35 for more successful projects and 35 for less successful projects p = a- 2 tail <.05; b- 1 tail <.05; c-2 tail <.02; d-1 tail <.10; e-2 tail <.001; f-2 tail < .01 (Since the direction of effect was specified, 1 tail test of significance can be applied). ns = not significant

Table 5-5 shows that project managers of more successful projects perceived

themselves to be more transformational on all the four scales. On a scale of 5 (low) to

1 (high), the mean for the total of transformational scales was 1.98 for more successful

projects as against 2.23 for less successful projects (t = 2.44, 68 df, p <.02). With

regard to technical leadership behaviour, the mean rating for more successful projects

was only marginally higher than for less successful projects (2.16 against 2.18) which

was statistically insignificant.

With regard to transactional leadership behaviours, project managers of more

successful projects considered themselves to be less transactional on all the three

scales (contingent reward, management-by-exception- active and passive) than their

counterparts of less successful projects. However, with regard to contingent reward,

the difference in the ratings was insignificant.


In terms of leadership outcome, the managers of more successful projects rated

themselves higher on all the three outcome scales (extra effort, effectiveness and

satisfaction) than their counterparts of less successful projects but the difference in

ratings were not as significant as they were for subordinate ratings.

As regards contingency scales, the ratings support the hypothesis that all three

contingency factors are present more in more successful projects than in less

successful projects. The mean ratings for project mission, top management support

and technical tasks were 1.57, 1.97 and 1.93, respectively for more successful

projects as against 1.92, 2.46, and 2.25, respectively, for less successful projects.

In terms of ranking of leadership behaviours, the managers of more successful

projects regard their transformational behaviour the highest (mean 1.98), followed by

technical leadership (2.16), contingent reward (2.45), management-by-exception

(MBE) active (3.55) and MBE passive (4.11). However with regard to less successful

projects, the managers rank technical leadership as more important (mean 2.18) than

transformational leadership (2.23) followed by contingent reward (2.39), MBE active

(3.25) and MBE passive (3.81).

5.6 Correlation Between Leadership and Outcome Scales (Self Ratings)

Consistent with hypothesis two, Table 5-6 reveals that in the opinion of project

managers, the relationship between transformational & technical leadership scales and

leadership outcome scales is stronger in more successful projects than in less successful

projects.

Table 5-6: Correlation between leadership and outcome scales (self ratings)

Leadership Scale Outcome scales (combined)



Attributed charisma

.52

.64

Idealised influence

.68

.45


.54

.39


Individualised considn.

.72

.48

Transformational Total

.75

.62

Contingent reward

.37

.63

MBEA

.00 *

.29

MBEP

-.33

-.44


.78

.48

Notes: • n = 116 for more successful projects and 102 for less successful projects. • Outcome scale comprised of three sub-scales, namely, extra effort, effectiveness,

and satisfaction. • Considering the sample, r values > 0.19 are considered significant. • All the correlations are significant beyond the .000 level.

As per the self ratings of the managers of more successful projects, technical

leadership was most strongly correlated (.78) with outcome scales (extra effort,

effectiveness and satisfaction) followed by transformational leadership (.75) and

contingent reward (.37). The transactional management-by-exception (MBE) active

had zero correlation (.00) whereas MBE passive had negative correlation (-.33).

5.7 Comparison of Subordinates’ and Self Ratings (H4) An analysis of the self and subordinate ratings indicate that there was a broad

agreement between the two. This substantially negates the hypothesis that there will

be no agreement between the perception of managers and their subordinates with

regard to leadership behaviour and it’s effectiveness.

The results show that there was a broad agreement between the managers and their

subordinates with regard to leadership, outcome and contingency scales to the extent

that both agreed that all leadership behaviours, except the negative management-by-

exception (passive) behaviour, and contingency factors are present more in more

successful projects. However, with regard to technical leadership, contingent reward


and all the three leadership outcome scales, the managers of less successful projects

rated themselves nearly as high as those of the more successful projects. This is to be

expected as previous research suggests that leaders tend to inflate their ratings,

particularly with regard to leadership effectiveness, in comparison with the ratings of

their subordinates (Bass and Avolio, 1997: 54).

With regard to the ranking of leadership behaviours, there was a slight disagreement

between the managers and subordinates of more successful projects. While the

subordinates rated technical leadership of their managers (mean 2.25) higher than

transformational leadership (2.36), the managers rated themselves higher on

transformational leadership (1.98) than technical leadership (2.16). However, with

regard to less successful projects, both the subordinates and their managers rated

technical leadership higher than transformational leadership.

In terms of correlation between leadership and outcome scales, it is interesting to note

that in the perception of managers of more successful projects, technical leadership

had the strongest relationship with outcome scales (.78) followed by individualised

consideration (.72) and idealised influence (.68) whereas in the perception of

subordinates, attributed charisma had the strongest correlation with outcome scales

(.81) followed by individualised consideration (.75) and technical leadership (.74). This

shows the difference in the degree of importance attached to various leadership scales

by leaders and subordinates.

Overall, both the subordinates and their managers generally agreed that technical,

transformational and contingent reward behaviours were strongly and positively

associated with project success, in that order, whereas management-by-exception

(MBE)- active had a moderately positive impact and MBE- passive had a moderately

negative impact on project outcome.

5.8 Correlation Between the Sub-scales of Transformational and Transactional Leadership

It was hypothesised that Bass and Avolio’s model on transformational and

transactional leadership with seven factors would be multi-dimensional. To test this,

first, the inter-correlation between the scales of transformational and transactional

leadership was examined and secondly, the factor analysis of the scales was

undertaken.


Table 5-7 presents the correlation matrix of the sub-scales of transformational and

transactional leadership as rated by the subordinates of more and less successful

projects. The results indicate that there was a very high positive correlation between

the subscales of transformational leadership. The mean correlation for these scales

was .73, the range being .64 to .79. Of the transactional leadership scales, contingent

reward (CR) was positively strongly correlated (.68) with the subscales of

transformational leadership. CR was correlated positively strongly with individualised

consideration (.80) but moderately with attributed charisma (.66), idealised influence

(.65), and intellectual stimulation (.61).

Management-by-exception (MBE)- active had a moderate but positive correlation with

contingent reward (.35) and the subscales of transformational leadership (.36). MBE-

passive had a moderate but negative correlation with all other scales (from -.29 with

intellectual stimulation to -.50 with individualised consideration) .

Table 5-7: Correlation matrix of the sub-scales of transformational and transactional leadership (subordinate ratings)

Mean

(SD)

Attributd charisma

Idealised influence

Intltl. stimltn

Indvsd. consdn.

Contngt reward

MBEA MBEP

Attributed charisma

19.42 (6.75)

-

Idealised influence

24.99 (9.04)

.79

-


25.19 (8.69)

.73

.78

-

Individualised consdn.

24.64 (9.28)

.73

.70

.64

-

Contingent reward

26.40 (9.75)

.66

.65

.61

.80

-

-


MBE Active 22.07 (5.74)

.34 .34 .44 .32 .35

MBE Passive

24.61 (6.81)

- .43

- .37

- .29

- .50

- .36

.07 *

ns

-

Note: n = 228; P (2 tailed significance) = .000 for all except * (MBEA & MBEP: 0.29). These results are consistent with previous studies on Bass & Avolio’s model. “The

transformational leadership factors have been found to be highly correlated with each

other (.50 to .76) in the ratings of self, subordinates and coworkers. Similarly,

transactional contingent reward correlates highly with transformational leadership (.35

to .65)” (Bass and Avolio, 1990). Bass and Avolio (1997: 37) argue that these

intercorrelations provide empirical support for the theoretical links between

transformational and transactional leadership.

5.9 Factor Analysis of Transformational & Transactional Leadership Scales (H5) Table 5-8 presents the results of maximum likelihood factor analysis with Varimax

rotation of transformational and transactional leadership scales using subordinates’

ratings. A seven factor solution after 7 iterations accounted for 56.4% of the variance.

Table 5-8: Maximum likelihood factor analysis of transformational & transactional leadership scales (subordinate ratings)

No. of Items/Scale Loaded on Each Factor (& their Loadings) Factor

1 Factor

2 Factor

3 Factor

4 Factor

5 Factor

6 Factor

7 Total Items

Eigenvalue

21.33

4.33

2.56

1.91

1.62

1.09

.98

Percentage of Variance

35.5

7.2

4.3

3.2

2.7

1.8

1.6

56.4 %

Attributed Charisma (AC)

3 (.60, .51,

.46) 3

(.53, .44, .42)

- - - 2 (.67, .58)

- 8

Idealised Influence (II)

2 (.66, .58)

7 (.67, .62, .60, .60, .53, .52,

.44)

- - - - 1 (.44)

10

Intellectual Stimulation (IS)

3 (.51, .48,

.40) 7

(.74, .70, .65, .65, .63, .58,

.46)

- - - - - 10

Individualised 9 (.79, .69,

- - - - - - 9


Consideration (IC)

.69, .65,

.58, .57,

.49, .46, .40)

Contingent Reward (CR)

4 (.59, .53,

.38) - - 5

(.82, .76, .73, .68,

.61)

- - - 9

MBE Active (MBEA)

- - 1 (-.23)

- 6 (.77, .60, .52, .44, .42, .41)

- - 7

MBE Passive (MBEP)

- - 5 (-.76, -.75, -.73, -.73,

-.70)

1 (-.29)

1 (.47)

- - 7

Maximum convergence

IC

II + IS

MBEP

CR part

MBE

A

n = 228

The Keiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was significantly high

at .88. The chi-square was 1908.42 (df 1371, p = .00). Varimax converged in 15

iterations and produced the following solution.

As can be seen from Table 5-8, there was a high convergence between the sub-scales

of transformational leadership scales. The first factor accounted for 35.5% of the

variance with eigenvalue of 21.33. Even though the first factor accounted for all the

nine items of individualised consideration scale, it was also loaded by three items of

attributed charisma, two items of idealised influence, three items of intellectual

stimulation, and four items of transactional contingent reward. Hence, the first factor

did not clearly account for any of the leadership scales of the Bass and Avolio’s model.

The second factor was loaded by seven of ten items each of idealised influence (II)

and intellectual stimulation (IS) apart from three of eight items of attributed charisma

with an eigenvalue of 4.33 and 7.2% variance. Thus, it represented a combination of II

and IS. The third factor, with an eigenvalue of 2.56 and variance of 4.3%, was loaded

by five of the seven items of management-by-exception- passive (MBEP) and one item

of MBE-active and therefore, represented MBEP. The fourth factor (1.91 eigenvalue

and 3.2% variance) was loaded on five of the nine items of contingent reward (CR)

and one item of MBEP, thus, accounting for CR. The fifth factor had an eigenvalue of

1.62 and accounted for 2.7% of the variance. It was loaded by six of the seven items

of MBE- active and one item of MBEP and hence, represented MBE-active.


To conclude, the first factor was loaded by all the items of individualised consideration

but was also loaded by other transformational scales and contingent reward and

hence was unable to clearly represent any factor. The second factor represented a

combination of idealised influence and intellectual stimulation; the third, MBE-passive;

the fourth, contingent reward and the fifth, MBE active. Thus, the factor analysis

indicates that of the seven factors of the Bass & Avolio’s model, the factor structure of

only three transactional factors (contingent reward, MBE-active and MBE-passive)

appear to be confirmed with the fourth one being the combination of idealised

influence and intellectual stimulation.

The results support the hypothesis that Bass & Avolio’s model is multi-dimensional;

however, the constructs are highly correlated.

5.10 Factor Analysis of Technical Leadership Scale (H6)

The principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation of 12 items of the

technical leadership scale, using subordinate ratings, yielded a two-factor solution, as

shown in Table 5-9, thus, negating the hypothesis that technical leadership scale is

uni-dimensional.

Table 5-9: Principal components factor analysis of technical leadership scale (subordinate ratings)

Factor 1

Factor 2

Eigenvalue: 4.87

1.12

% of Variance: 40.6

9.3

Alignment of team goals with organisational goals (.64)

1. Satisfy the desire for autonomy (.64)

Prevent organisational bureaucracy (.48)

2. Manage the process of change (.68)

Encourage champions by acting as catalyst (.78)

3. Remain open-minded while evaluating ideas (.67)

Facilitate career development by 4. Takes timely & effective steps to


providing challenging assignments (.82)

achieve desired quality standards (.64)

Encourage free exploration of solutions (.41)

5. Secures resources to support creative endeavours (.54)

Ensure that organisation rewards

contributions appropriately (.75) 6. Impassionately implements

management’s decisions (.41) • n = 228 • The factor loadings for each item are given in brackets.

The factor analysis extracted two factors with eigenvalues more than one. Of the

twelve items of technical leadership scale, six each got loaded on each of the two

factors with a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin sampling adequacy of .88. The first factor accounted

for 40.6% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 4.87. A close look at the items loaded

on this factor suggest that they relate to the characteristics of a leader in an

organisational role as a manager. The second factor accounted for 9.3% of the

variance with an eigenvalue of 1.12. The items loaded on this factor suggest that they

relate to the characteristics of a manager in the individual role as a leader.

The second order factor analysis yielded the same results. Thus, these results indicate

that technical leadership is a two-dimensional scale and not uni-dimensional, as

hypothesised.

5.11 Intercorrelation between Transformational/Transactional and Technical Leadership Scales

It was hypothesised that the transformational and transactional leadership scales of

Bass & Avolio’s model and the technical leadership scale would be separate and not

overlapping as the former was a generic model on leadership whereas the latter

specifically applied to technical leadership. To test this, first, the intercorrelations

between the scales was tested and secondly, principal components factor analysis of

the scales was undertaken.

Technical leadership scale was found to be strongly correlated with attributed

charisma (0.73) and idealised influence (0.70), moderately correlated with

individualised consideration (0.69), intellectual stimulation (0.65) and contingent

reward (0.65), poorly correlated with MBE-active (0.34), and poorly but negatively


correlated with MBE-passive (- 0.34). These results indicate that the technical and

transformational scales were strongly and positively correlated.

5.12 Factor Analysis of Modified Transformational, Transactional and Technical Leadership Scales (H7)

Table 5-8 revealed that Bass and Avolio’s model exhibited three factors (contingent

reward (CR), MBE-active and MBE-passive) along with another interrelated

transformational factor (idealised influence (II) + intellectual stimulation (IS)). Table 5-9

showed that technical leadership scale came out with two factors. For the purpose of

examining the similarity between transformational/transactional and technical

leadership scales, the above six factors which came out distinctly were considered for

further analysis and comprised of items which formed these factors in the analysis.

Thus, items selected for the analysis included 42 of the original 72 items representing

one combined transformational (II+IS) scale, three transactional (CR, MBEA and

MBEP) scales and two technical leadership scales.

Table 5-10: Principal components factor analysis of modified transformational, transactional & technical leadership scales (subordinate ratings)

No. of Items/Scale Loaded on Each Factor (& their Loadings) Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor

4 Factor 5 Factor

6 Total Items

Eigenvalue

14.33

4.01

2.36

2.01

1.61

1.12


34.1

9.6

5.6

4.8

3.8

2.7

60.6 %

Idealised influence (II) +

1 (.49)

1 (.45)

2 (.49, .46)

- - 3 (.61, .57,

.49) 7

Intl. stimulation (IS)

- - 6 (.78, .74, .69, .68, .56, .54)

1 (.48)

- - 7


- 5 (.86, .82, .75,

.74, .73) - - - - 5

MBE Active (MBEA)

- - - - 6 (.68, .67, .65, .60, .59, .49)

- 6

MBE Passive (MBEP)

5 (-.86, -.85, -.83, -.80, -

.80)

- - - - - 5

Technical- 1 - 2 - 4 - - 6


(.74, .42) (.62, .48, .44, .40)

Technical- 2 4 (.64, .55, .48, .34)

- - 2 (.61, .48)

- - 6

Maximum convergence

MBEP

CR

II+IS

Tech-

1

MBEA

42

n = 228

The principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation of the modified

leadership scales, using subordinate ratings, extracted six factors, as shown in Table

5-10, and accounted for 60.6% of the variance. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of

sampling adequacy was .91. After Varimax converged in 10 iterations, the rotated

factor matrix revealed that factor one with an eigenvalue of 14.33 explained 34.1% of

the variance and mainly comprised of MBE-passive and Technical leadership-2

scales. Since conceptually the technical leadership does not integrate with MBEP and

also considering the high factor loadings of MBEP items (<.80), it was taken that factor

one represents MBEP. Similarly, factor two represented contingent reward, factor

three intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration, factor three technical

leadership (four items of Tech-1 and two items of Tech-2) and factor five MBE-active

scale.

Considering the above results, a second order factor analysis was done to test the five

factors (II+IS, CR, MBEA, MBEP and Technical leadership) with 30 items which

comprised these scales as shown above.

The results of the second order principal components factor analysis with Varimax

rotation are shown Table 5-11. The results very clearly demonstrate the distinct factor

structure of five factors comprising management-by-exception (MBE)- passive,

combination of intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration, contingent

reward, MBE-active and Technical leadership scales.

The results in Table 5-11 reveal that when compared to Bass and Avolio’s model of

transformational and transactional leadership scales, a part of the technical leadership

scale tested in the study comes out as a distinct factor. The initial results showed that

of the seven factors of Bass and Avolio’s model, the factor structure of one combined

transformational scale and three transactional scales were confirmed. Similarly,

technical leadership scale was shown to be comprising of two factors and was highly


correlated with transformational scales. When these six confirmed factors (one

combined transformational factor, three transactional and two technical factors) were

tested, the second order principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation

validated the constructs of five factors, comprising one transformational, three

transactional and one technical leadership scales.

Table 5-11: Second order principal components factor analysis of modified transformational, transactional & technical leadership scales

(subordinate ratings)

No. of Items/Scale Loaded on Each Factor (& their Loadings) Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Total

Items Eigenvalue

9.29

3.66

2.09

1.78

1.44


31

12.2

7

6

4.8

60.9%

Idealised influence (II) +

- 2 (.58, .47)

- - - 2

Intl. stimulation (IS)

- 6 (.79, .76, .74, .69, .67, .59)

- - - 6


- - 5 (.87, .83, .77,

.76, .70) - - 5

MBE Active (MBEA)

- - - 6 (.68, .67, .65, .60, .59, .50)

- 6

MBE Passive (MBEP)

5 (.87, .87, .82,

.81, .81) - - - - 5

Technical L’p - - - - 6 (.69, .64, .55, .49,

.43, .38) 6

Maximum convergence

MBEP

IS+II

CR

MBEA

TECH

30

n = 228

These results support the hypothesis that transformational, transactional and technical

leadership scales measure different constructs of leadership behaviour.


5.13 Model for the Measurement of Technical Leadership

Based on the results shown in Table 5-11, it can be argued that a model comprising

five leadership scales with 30 items is better suited to measure technical leadership

behaviour, such as information technology project managers. The items comprising of

these five leadership scales, as validated in the factor analysis, are presented below:

Scale Items (Factor Loadings) Intellectual

stimulation + Idealised influence (*)

1. Encourages subordinates to rethink ideas which had never been questioned before (.79)

2. Questions the traditional ways of doing things (.76) 3. Encourages non-traditional thinking to deal with traditional

problems (.74) 4. Suggests new ways of looking at how subordinates do their

jobs (.69) 5. Emphasises the value of questioning assumptions (.67) 6. Gets subordinates to look at problems from many different

angles (.59) 7. Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose

(.58)* 8. Displays conviction in his/her ideals, beliefs and values (.47)*


9. Encourages to freely explore the solution to the problem, i.e., hacking (.69)

10. Implements upper management’s decisions with the same enthusiasm, even if he/she does not completely agree with them (.64)

11. Satisfies subordinates’ desire for autonomy (.55) 12. Facilitates career development of subordinates by providing

challenging stretch assignments (.49) 13. Ensures that the goals of the subordinates are similar to the

goals of the organisation (.43) 14. Prevents the organisational bureaucracy from interfering with

the work of subordinates (.38) Contingent

reward 15. Works out agreements with subordinates on what they will

receive if they do what needs to be done (.87) 16. Negotiates with subordinates about what they can expect to

receive for what they accomplish (.83) 17. Tells subordinates what to do to be rewarded for their efforts

(.77) 18. Makes clear to subordinates what they can expect to receive,

if their performance meets standards (.76) 19. Makes sure that subordinates receive appropriate rewards for

achieving performance targets (.70).

Management-by-exception Active

20. Keeps track of the mistakes of subordinates (.68) 21. Closely monitors the performance of subordinates for errors

(.67) 22. Directs attention toward failure to meet standards (.65)


23. Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions and deviations from standards (.60)

24. Enforces rules to avoid mistakes (.59) 25. Searches for mistakes before commenting on the

performance of subordinates (.50)

Management-by-exception Passive

26. Problems must become chronic before he/she takes action (.87)

27. Things have to go wrong for him/her to take action (.87) 28. Fails to intervene until problems become serious (.82) 29. The work of subordinates has to fall below minimum

standards for him/her to try to make improvements (.81) 30. It requires a failure to meet an objective for him/her to take

action (.81)

The first scale is a combination of intellectual stimulation and idealised influence

(which in turn is part of charisma) and therefore, could be termed as “intellectual and

charismatic stimulation”. The second scale representing technical leadership

comprises of items which emphasise the ‘organisational’ role of a leader as a ‘catalyst’

in empowering the subordinates with autonomy, facilitating their career progression by

providing challenging assignments, aligning individual and organisational goals and

preventing organisational bureaucracy from hindering the work of the subordinates.

This scale was termed as “organisational catalyst”.

5.14 Test of the Model for the Measurement of Technical Leadership

The suggested model was tested for it’s reliability and used to compare the

subordinates’ ratings for more and less successful projects to distinguish the

leadership behaviours between the managers of these projects. Further, the

correlation between the scales and with leadership outcome scale was tested.

5.14.1 Subordinates’ Assessment of Leadership Behaviour Using the above model, Table 5-12 compares more and less successful projects

based on subordinate ratings. As can be seen from the table, all the scales were found

to be reliable as the Cronbach alpha for the scales ranged from .69 to .94. As

expected, the subordinates of more successful projects rated their managers the

highest on organisational catalyst behaviour (mean 2.29, 223 df, p < .05), followed by

transformational scale of intellectual and charismatic stimulation (mean 2.38),

transactional management-by-exception (MBE)- active (3.10), contingent reward (3.24)


and last, the MBE- passive (3.81). Thus, in their perception, MBEP is the least

preferred leadership behaviour.

Table 5-12: Comparison between more & less successful projects using modified measurement instrument (subordinates’ ratings)


Scale



t-value

df p 2-tail

α

Mean SD Mean SD Intellectual &

charismatic stimulation

2.38 .92 2.91 .91 4.37 226 .000 .89

Organisational catalyst

2.29 .94 2.57 .90 2.19 223 .03* .72

Contingent reward

3.24 1.24 3.53 1.18 1.76 218 .080**

.89

Mangt-by-excpn Active

3.10 .88 3.29 .84 1.66 226 .098 **

.69

Mangt-by-excpn Passive

3.81 1.06 3.41 1.20 2.62 210 .010 ***

.94

• n = 123 for more successful projects and 105 for less successful projects. • p = * <.05 (2 tail), ** <.10 (2 tail) < .05 (1 tail), *** <.01 (2 tail)

5.14.2 Correlation Between the Scales & With Outcome Scale As shown in Table 5-13, organisational catalyst scale was highly correlated with

transformational scale of intellectual & charismatic stimulation (.59), followed by

contingent reward (.48), MBE-active (.29) and negatively with MBE-passive (-.33). In

regard to correlation with leadership outcome scale, organisational catalyst scale had

the strongest correlation (.62), followed by contingent reward (.59), intellectual and

charismatic stimulation (.58), MBE active (.28) and negatively with MBE passive (-52).

The results in Table 5-13 show that organisational catalyst scale was most closely

associated with leadership outcome followed by transactional contingent reward scale

and transformational intellectual and charismatic stimulation scale. MBE active had a

weak association with leadership outcome whereas MBE passive had strong but

negative association. Between the various leadership scales, there was a strong


correlation between organisational catalyst, transformational intellectual and

charismatic stimulation and transactional contingent reward scales.

Table 5-13: Correlation between scales & with outcome scale of the modified measurement instrument

Mean (SD)

Intl. & charism-atic stmn.

Organisat-ional

catalyst

Contngt reward

MBEA

MBEP

Outcome

Intellectual & charismatic stmn.

2.62 (.95)

-

Organisational catalyst

2.42 (.93)

.59 -

Contingent reward 3.38 (1.22)

.52 .48 -

Mangt-by-excepn. Active

3.19 (.87)

.44 .29 .35 -

Mangt-by-excepn. Passive

3.63 (1.14)

-.29 -.33 -.29 -.05 ns*

-

Outcome Scale # 2.58 (.85)

.58 .62 .59 .28 -.52 -

Notes: n = 228 ; p (2 tailed significance) <.001 for all except * .407; # Outcome scale comprised of three subscales, namely, extra effort, effectiveness & satisfaction; ns = not significant

These results are in line with the conceptual framework which predicted that

transactional (contingent reward and MBE active) leadership on it’s own leads to low

project success but if it is augmented with transformational and technical (organisational catalyst) leadership, the result will be high project success.

Overall, the results confirmed the hypotheses that

• managers of more successful projects exhibit more of transformational and

technical leadership behaviours (H1)

• more successful projects have stronger relationship between transformational and

technical leadership scales and leadership outcome scales (H2)

• more successful projects exhibit higher incidence of contingency factors (H3)

• transformational and transactional leadership scales are multi-dimensional (H5)

and are distinct from technical leadership scale (H7).

The hypothesis that there would be no agreement between managers and

subordinates on leadership behaviour and effectiveness (H4) was not supported as


broad agreement was found between the two. Further, the hypothesis that technical

leadership scale would be uni-dimensional (H6) was also not supported as it was found

to be two-dimensional.

Chapter 6. INTERVIEWS WITH SENIOR MANAGERS

6.1 Introduction

Apart from collecting quantitative data from project managers and their subordinates,

qualitative data was obtained by interviewing and administering semi-structured

questionnaires to senior IT managers in order to obtain a better perspective of the

nature and importance of project leadership. This approach provided a three

dimensional perspective of leadership - from the point of view of superiors, leaders

and subordinates.

As stated in the method section, personal interviews were restricted to managers

based in Melbourne and the rest were invited to complete a mailed, semi-structured

questionnaire. A total of 18 senior managers of the 35 participating organisations

provided qualitative data, yielding a response rate of 51%. Of the 18 senior managers,

10 were interviewed in Melbourne and the remaining 8 were from other parts of

Australia and responded to semi-structured questionnaire. The questions asked in the

interview and in the questionnaire were the same.

The respondents had an average of 18 years total experience in the IT industry, the

minimum being 6 yrs and the maximum, 30 yrs. They had worked in the capacity of a

project leader and/or project manager for an average period of 9 years (min. = 4 yrs,

max. = 18 yrs). At the time of collecting the data, an average of 7 project leaders

and/or project managers were directly reporting to the respondents (min. = 1, max. =

22).

Following is the content analysis of the responses given by the senior managers of the

respondent organisations who acted as the coordinators for the survey and selected

the projects for participation.

6.2 Criteria for Judging Project Performance

Chapter 6 Interviews with Senior Managers

98

The senior managers were asked about the criteria adapted in judging the

performance of the projects they selected for participation in the survey. Majority of the

respondents chose projects which were relatively large and just completed or about to

be completed. The predominant criteria for judging the project success were customer

satisfaction, followed by ability to meet the deadlines, cost performance and morale of

the team members.

6.3 Key Success Factors

The respondents were asked to name the factors which, in their opinion, contributed to

the relative success or failure of IT projects. The summary of their response is as

follows:

Table 6-1: Key success factors as named by senior managers Key Success Factors Total no. of times

mentioned • Clarity of customer requirements/

goals/ specifications 9

• Team commitment/ cohesiveness/ stability

5

• Leadership and leadership style of project manager

4

• Management support 4 • Supportive/ satisfied client 4 • Managing change (including

technology) 3

• Methodology 3 • Understanding of business 2 • Managing expectations 1 • Managing by principles 1 (Note: many respondents misunderstood the question as measurement criteria (how) instead of success criteria (what) and mentioned time, cost, quality etc.).

The respondents were further asked to rank the ten critical success factors identified

by Slevin and Pinto (1986) in the order of importance. Top management support

(willingness of top management to provide the necessary resource and authority) was

rated the most important factor followed by client consultation (communication,

consultation, and active listening to all impacted parties) and project mission (initial

clarity of goals and general direction).

To summarise different rankings given by the respondents, each rank was given points

ranging from 1 (rank 10) to 10 (rank 1). The final rankings were based on the overall

score. The following is the response summary:


99

Table 6-2: Key success factors as ranked by senior managers

Total Points Critical Success Factor Rank

147 Top Management Support 1 129 Client Consultation 2 126 Project Mission 3 114 Client Acceptance 4 107 Project Schedule/Plan And

Communication 5

6 101 Personnel 7 77 Monitoring & Feedback 8 58 Technical Tasks 9 37 Trouble Shooting 10

6.4 Project Leadership All the respondents agreed that project leadership is one of the critical influencing

factors in IT projects. Many felt that the importance increases with the size and

complexity of the project. One respondent stated that leadership and leadership style

is coming out as the single biggest influencing factor in his organisation and is

therefore, considered as a top selection criteria. Another respondent felt that project

leadership “can make it a great success when it would otherwise been a moderate

success and can prevent it from being a complete disaster”.

Some of the qualities and skills identified by the respondents as essential in an IT

project manager are:

• Communication (verbal/ written/ presentation)

• Inter-personal skills (people skills)

• Technical competence

• Project management skills (planning/ documentation)

• Inspirational (true leader/ enthusiastic/ drive/ motivating)

• Client relationship (customer focused/ business solution oriented)

• Good understanding of methodology

• Delegation

6.5 Leadership Style and Project Outcome Almost all the respondents agreed that leadership style is one of the influencing

factors on project outcome. A majority also expressed the view that there is not one

leadership style that is suitable to all projects and all situations. In the words of one


100

respondent, the leader “may have an underlying, individual leadership style but as the

project unfolds, the style has to move back and forth across that spectrum as the

situation arise and demands”.

In the opinion of many respondents, the style should vary depending on-

1. the project situation: an open collaborative style for a smooth running project and

authoritarian or task-oriented style when things go wrong.

2. skill set of team members: teaching/collaborative style for new, inexperienced staff

and hands-off style for senior/experienced staff.

3. phase of the project: initiation, execution and conclusion. To be a nice guy & lead

from the front in the initiation stage; to make sure that they are doing everything in the

execution stage; and be a real bastard if things move slowly during the conclusion

stage.

4. Size of the project: Larger the project, more is the importance of leadership and

leadership style.

Some of the characteristics identified in a successful leadership style are: ability to

quickly identify and inform the management of problems and ask for help; delegate

tasks and not doing everyone’s job; lead by example; develop and support followers;

have clear vision; have proven people and business skills; pay attention to details;

follow formal project methodology; committed to the success of the project etc.

6.6 Assessment of Transformational, Transactional & Technical Leadership

A short version of the questionnaire administered to project managers and project

team members was given to the senior managers asking them to judge how important

was each of the leadership behaviour described in the questionnaire in an “ideal”

project manager.

The questionnaire consisted of 32 items representing four items each for each of the

transformational (attributed charisma, idealised influence, intellectual stimulation, and

individualised consideration), transactional (contingent reward, MBEA and MBEP), and

technical leadership scales. The items for transformational and transactional scales

best represented a broader range of unique aspects representing each leadership

construct, while also maximising the convergent and discriminant validity of the scales


101

(Avolio, Bass and Jung, 1996: 27). Similarly the four items which represented technical

leadership scale in the questionnaire were chosen based on the factor analysis of the

scale using subordinate ratings.

Table 6-3: Ratings of senior managers on transformational, transactional &

technical leadership scales

Scale Mean (Scale: 1= High;

5= Low)

SD Chronbach alpha

Transformational Leadership Attributed Charisma (AC) 9.72 2.42 .60 Idealised Influence (II) 8.72 2.05 .50 Intellectual Stimulation (IS) 9.06 2.13 .62 Individualised Consideration (IC) 9.39 2.17 .50 Total

36.89 5.20 .62

Transactional Leadership Contingent Reward (CR) 10.17 2.15 .39 Mangt. by Excepn- Active (MBEA) 15.39 2.93 .72 Mangt. by Excpn- Passive (MBEP)

15.67 3.88 .69

Technical Leadership 8.28 2.24 .67 • n = 18 Senior IT Executives out of whom 10 were personally interviewed and 8

replied to a semi-structured questionnaire. • No. of items for each scale: 4

Table 6-3 shows that in the perception of senior managers, technical leadership

behaviour was the most important in an “ideal” project manager (8.28), followed by the

transformational leadership scales (II = 8.72, IS = 9.06, IC = 9.39, AC = 9.72) and

transactional leadership scales (CR = 10.17, MBEA = 15.39 and MBEP = 15.67).

These ratings are in line with those of the project managers and their subordinates.

6.7 Advice for Project Managers

The senior managers were asked as to what advice would they give to aspiring project

managers based on their experience. Some of the themes that emerged distinctly from

the advice given by the respondents are:


102

• It is a tough and stressful job. Therefore, one has to ensure that he/she is totally

committed to the role, able to make sacrifices and has no personal problem which

is likely to affect the performance.

• The project manager’s job is to get the team working together and not to do

everyone’s job oneself. The manager should not own the whole problem and try to

run people’s life for them or try to ‘micro manage’ them. What is important is that

the team members ‘respect’ the leader and not necessarily ‘like’ him/her.

• One should not become a project manager if he/she is not prepared to say “no”.

The manager should be honest in keeping the management informed of project

progress and problems. He/she should not hesitate in raising the alarm early and

asking for help. The management does not want to be “surprised” with good or bad

news.

• The manager should learn the necessary technical, project management, project

methodology and leadership skills by attending appropriate courses.

• The budding project manager should have a mentor/role model so as to analyse

and learn from successful project management practices.

Several respondents supported and emphasised the need for “alternate career paths”

for technical professionals who have little or no aptitude for managerial positions. They

stressed that their organisations have successfully provided technical and managerial

career paths which carry equal importance in terms of recognition and rewards and

their technical employees are free to choose the path they wish to pursue. They feel

this is the best possible way for an organisation to derive the best value from their

technical employees.

Chapter 7. DISCUSSION

7.1 Introduction

This research examined the nature and characteristics of leadership behaviours that

are most effective in the execution of IT projects. It did this by replicating Bass and

Avolio’s (1990) transformational and transactional leadership model in an Australian IT

environment using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) along with

technical leadership scale, derived from the meta analysis of technical leadership

literature. Further, it examined the nature and importance of leadership as a critical

success factor in IT projects in conjunction with other critical factors, such as project

mission, top management support and technical tasks. Both quantitative (survey) and

qualitative (interview) methods were employed to develop a comprehensive

understanding of leadership in an IT project set-up.

This chapter begins with a brief account of the findings in relation to the hypotheses. It

goes on to analyse them in the light of previous findings and theoretical and practical

issues. The discussion starts with the applicability of Bass and Avolio’s model to IT

projects in comparison with previous findings in other settings. Next, considering the

controversy surrounding the factor structure of various subscales of transformational

and transactional leadership in the model, it looks at the construct validity of the new

version of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire which was used in the study. It moves

on to consider the hypothesis that transformational and technical leadership scales

measure different constructs of leadership and to determine whether the results

support the construction of a technical leadership scale and a theory on technical

leadership. Finally, it discusses theoretical and practical implications of the results,

outlines the limitations of the study and points towards future research.

7.2 Comparison of Results with Hypotheses In support of the first hypothesis, Table 5-1 revealed that subordinates perceived that

managers of more successful projects exhibited transformational and technical

leadership behaviours to a greater extent than managers of less successful projects.

The managers themselves felt the same way as shown in Table 5-5. According to

subordinates, managers of more successful projects also exhibited more of

Chapter 7 Discussion 104

transactional contingent reward and management-by-exception active behaviours

which reinforced the augmentation effect of transformational leadership over

transactional leadership. Management-by-exception passive was clearly regarded as a

negative behaviour by both managers and subordinates.

The second hypothesis stated that the relationship between transformational and

technical leadership scales and leadership outcome scales will be stronger in more

successful projects than in less successful projects. This was supported both by

subordinate ratings as shown in Table 5-3 and managers’ self ratings as in Table 5-6.

The third hypothesis predicted that more successful projects will exhibit higher

incidence of contingency factors (project mission, top management support and

technical tasks). This was confirmed both in subordinate ratings (Table 5-4) and self

ratings (Table 5-5).

The fourth hypothesis that there will be no agreement between the perception of

project managers and their subordinates on leadership behaviour and effectiveness

was not supported as broad agreement was found between the two. However, there

were minor differences with regard to the ratings on transactional leadership, ranking

of leadership behaviours and correlation between leadership and outcome scales

which in many instances were not statistically significant.

With regard to the hypothesis on the multi-dimensional nature of leadership scales in

Bass and Avolio’s model (1990), the results in Table 5-7 revealed that there was a

high correlation between the subscales of transformational leadership. This was

further reinforced in the factor analysis (Table 5-8) which did not clearly confirm the

factor structure of any of the transformational leadership subscales except a

combination of two subscales; however, the construct validity of three transactional

leadership scales was validated. Thus, the results, while supporting the hypothesis

that Bass and Avolio’s model is multi-dimensional, also clearly revealed that the

constructs were highly correlated.

The next hypothesis stated that the technical leadership scale will be uni-dimensional.

This was not supported as the results of principal components factor analysis of this

scale as shown in Table 5-9 yielded a two-factor solution.


Positive support was found for the final hypothesis that the transformational,

transactional and technical leadership scales measure different constructs of

leadership. The second order principal components factor analysis of these scales as

shown in Table 5-11, confirmed the factor structure of one combined transformational

scale, three transactional scales and one technical leadership scale.

The results have important implications for the applicability of Bass and Avolio’s model

of leadership to technical projects, the construct validity of the model in an IT project

setting which was not tested before and towards the building of a technical leadership

model and its measurement. These issues are discussed in subsequent sections.

7.3 Applicability of Bass & Avolio’s Model to Information Technology Projects

Several distinguishing characteristics of technical professionals and the need for a

leadership style to suit these characteristics were identified in the literature review.

Even though the suitability of Bass and Avolio’s model in high technology industries

has been tested with generally positive results (Keller, 1992 and 1995; Howell and

Higgins, 1990; Beatty and Lee, 1992), its applicability to information technology

projects had not been tested.

The universality of the model across various industries, cultures and levels has also

been well documented (Hicks, 1990; Bass and Yokochi, 1991; Yammarino and Bass,

1990b). However, transformational leadership is identified more with top levels of

management and with organisations experiencing growth, change and crisis (Bass

and Avolio, 1990).

The applicability of the model to information technology projects was well supported by

the results of this study. The hypothesis that transformational leadership and

leadership effectiveness are associated to a greater extent with more successful

projects was supported both by subordinate and self (managers’) ratings. With regard

to transactional leadership, subordinates of more successful projects rated their

leaders as exhibiting more of contingent reward and management-by-exception active

than their counterparts of less successful projects. These results are in line with the

previous studies which found moderately positive relationship between contingent

reward and leadership effectiveness and often weak but positive relationship between

management-by-exception active and effectiveness (Lowe et al., 1996; Yukl, 1994).


The positive association of transactional leadership with transformational leadership

support the “augmentation effect” of the latter over the former. According to Bass and

Avolio (1997), “effective transactional leadership forms a base upon which

transformational leadership builds to achieve higher performance and therefore,

transactional leadership is viewed as an essential component of the full range of

effective leadership”.

Of the transactional leadership scales, only the management-by-exception passive

was regarded negatively both by subordinates and managers as it was rated the

lowest and correlated negatively with leadership outcome. This is in line with Bass and

Avolio’s (1997: 33) argument that “management-by-exception can be perceived as

both a positive or active form of leadership as well as a negative, or passive form.

However, the bottom line is that management-by-exception, used in isolation, is

negatively related to effective performance. Combining corrective action with more

active forms of transactional and transformational leadership results in a more optimal

leadership profile”.

The results also support the generality of findings on this model in different settings.

As Bass and Avolio (1997: 46) conclude “regardless of the setting, transformational

leaders are more effective than those leaders practising contingent reward; contingent

reward is more effective than management-by-exception active which in turn is more

effective than management-by-exception passive”.

The applicability of the model to middle level managers was supported by the results.

The managers, their superiors and their subordinates believe that transformational

leadership is associated more with successful project outcome followed by contingent

reward and management-by-exception active. The results are in line with previous

studies on middle managers (Carless, 1995; Keller, 1992; Beatty & Lee, 1992) and

support Bass and Avolio’s (1990) argument that transformational leadership is not

confined only to top level managers.

One of the major controversies surrounding the model is the construct validity of the

subscales of transformational and transactional leadership. The latest version of the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Form 5X) was tested in the study. Bass

and Avolio (1997) claim that this version satisfactorily resolves the problems


associated with the previous versions of this measurement instrument. This claim is

examined in the next section in the light of the results of this study.

7.4 Construct Validity of Bass & Avolio’s model

A robust measurement instrument is a prerequisite to test any theory. Leadership

researchers have been criticised for not paying enough attention to the measurement

of leadership (Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner and Lankau, 1993). The

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) developed by Bass and Avolio to measure

transformational and transactional leadership has been extensively used over the last

ten years. This survey instrument has been widely criticised for its lack of discriminant

validity with respect to the factors making up the survey and high correlations between

the subscales (Hunt, 1991; Smith and Peterson, 1988; Yukl, 1994 etc.).

In response to the criticisms on the earlier versions (Form 5R) of MLQ, Bass and

Avolio (1993) refined the instrument with a new version (Form 5X) containing nine

scales of leadership. Using confirmatory factor analysis and partial least squares

(PLS) analysis, Bass and Avolio (1997: 60) have justified the factor structure of MLQ

(Form 5X) in a sample of 14 independent studies (n = 1490). The use of confirmatory

factor analysis as against traditional exploratory techniques was justified on the basis

that the MLQ has been in use for more than 10 years and that it provides a more

rigorous test of the underlying factor structure (p. 60). In their study of subordinate

ratings, Bass and Avolio (1997) found generally high and positive intercorrelations

among the five transformational scales and transactional contingent reward. The

average intercorrelation between transformational scales was .83 and between

transformational scales and contingent reward was .71. From this study, Bass and

Avolio (1997: 78) derived a shorter and more robust version of MLQ containing 45

items with 4 items for each of the nine leadership factors that best represented the

meaning of the construct.

In the present study, the new version of MLQ (Form 5X) was used. However, of the

nine factors in the latest version, only seven were chosen for the survey. The factors

omitted were inspirational leadership [as it loads heavily with charisma (Bass and

Avolio, 1997: 34)] and the negative laissez faire leadership. The construct validity of

the seven factors was tested using maximum likelihood factor analysis. The

confirmatory factor analysis, as suggested by Bass and Avolio (1997), could not be

used to analyse the data in this study because of the lack of sample size required.


Joreskog and Sorbom (1989) recommend the use of Weighted Least Squares (WLS)

procedure with asymptotic covariances of a polychoric correlation matrix but this

procedure requires that the listwise sample be 1.5k(k+1), where k is the number of

items or observed variables. In this study, a total of 72 leadership scale items were

tested which meant that to carry out the WLS procedure, a minimum sample size of

7884 was required.

In line with previous studies, Table 5-7 revealed high correlations between the

subscales of transformational leadership. Similarly, between transformational and

transactional scales, contingent reward was highly correlated, management-by-

exception active was moderately correlated and management-by-exception passive

was negatively correlated with transformational scales.

The results of the maximum likelihood factor analysis with Varimax rotation (Table 5-8)

confirmed the factor structure of all the three transactional leadership factors

(contingent reward, management-by-exception active and passive). However, with

regard to transformational leadership scales, due to high correlations between the

scales which ranged from .64 to .79 (Table 5-7), the factor structure of none of these

scales was validated. Idealised influence and intellectual stimulation loaded heavily on

each other and formed a distinct factor whereas individualised consideration was

loaded with part of attributed charisma, transactional contingent reward and intellectual

stimulation. These results, at best, confirmed the factor structure of four of seven

factors of Bass and Avolio’s model, that is, three transactional factors and one

transformational factor being a combination of intellectual stimulation and idealised

influence.

The results fall in line with previous studies where, generally, one to three

transformational factors and two to three transactional factors have typically been

extracted (Curphy, 1990; Bycio et al., 1995). While conceding that the scales are

correlated, Bass and Avolio (1997: 77) argue that “it is probably more useful to assess

these components as individual factors. Instead of limiting future leadership studies to

a global charismatic and/or transformational leadership factor, we ought to continue to

examine separately each of the components that others may see as a unitary factor.

Not only is this important for research purposes, but it also provides the basis for

useful feedback in training programmes, as well as for assessment and evaluation

purposes”.


To conclude, it is possible to argue that the correlations between the transformational

and transactional scales partly justify the augmentation effect. While the Multifactor

leadership questionnaire (MLQ) suffers from psychometric problems with regard to its

construct validity, it should be noted that the full range of leadership and the MLQ

proposed by Bass and Avolio remain the most widely used model and the instrument

to test transformational leadership empirically and have produced an impressive array

of findings (Bryman, 1992). Moreover, all the other theories on charismatic, visionary

and transformational leadership contain the components of inspiration, intellectual

stimulation, and individualised consideration (House, 1995) proposed by Bass and

Avolio.

Having confirmed the applicability of Bass and Avolio’s model to IT projects, it is now

necessary to examine to what extent it captures the key characteristics of technical

leadership. The subsequent sections compare and contrast transformational and

transactional leadership with technical leadership.

7.5 Is There a Technical Leadership Style?

Rosenbaum (1991) argued that since technical professionals are highly specialised,

leading them according to traditional principles may meet with only minimal success.

Considering the unique personality and occupational characteristics of technical

professionals, it may be argued that technical managers need a different leadership

style. Accordingly, a set of leadership behaviours were drawn from the meta analysis

of the literature on technical leadership and after comparing them with the essential

elements of transformational and transactional leadership behaviour as identified by

Bass (1990), a set of 12 items were chosen to construct technical leadership scale

(refer Appendix- 6).

The scale was found to be both reliable and valid. The internal consistency of the

scale (Chronbach’s alpha) was .81 for subordinate ratings and .79 for self ratings. The

next test of the scale was to examine how strongly it was associated with project

success. The results in Table 5-1 clearly pointed out that in the perception of

subordinates, technical leadership behaviour was more strongly associated with more

successful projects than with less successful projects. Similarly, the relationship

between technical leadership scale and outcome (leadership effectiveness) scales

was found to be stronger in more successful projects than in less successful projects


(Table 5-3). Thus, technical leadership was shown to be positively associated with

project success.

Having confirmed that both transformational and technical leadership styles predicted

better project success, the next step was to examine the relative strengths of the two

scales in terms of leadership effectiveness.

7.5.1 Comparing Technical Leadership Ratings with Transformational/ Transactional Leadership Ratings In comparison with transformational and transactional leadership scales, technical

leadership scale was given the highest score by the subordinates of more successful

projects (refer Table 5-1). In the perception of managers, technical leadership scale

had the strongest correlation with outcome scales (.78) as against .75 for

transformational scales and .37 for contingent reward (Table 5-6). Similarly, the senior

managers rated technical leadership as the most ideal leadership behaviour in a

project manager (Table 6-1).

7.5.2 Factor Structure of Technical Leadership Since the items selected for technical leadership scale were specifically derived from

technical leadership literature, it was hypothesised that the scale is uni-dimensional.

However, as shown in Table 5-9, the principal components factor analysis with

Varimax rotation yielded a two factor solution.

The six items which were loaded on factor one conceptually related to the role played

by a manager, as a representative of the organisation, in effectively satisfying the

individual interests of the team members leading to a mutually beneficial relationship.

These items referred to alignment of individual goals with organisational goals,

preventing organisational bureaucracy from interfering with the work of subordinates,

playing the role of a catalyst, facilitating career development by providing challenging

assignments and appropriately rewarding individual contributions.

As against the individual-organisational interface emphasised in factor one, the items

on factor two referred to the personal style of the manager in dealing with the

subordinates. These items pertained to satisfying the desire for autonomy, managing

the process of change by involving subordinates, being open-minded while evaluating

ideas including one’s own, impassionately implementing management’s decisions

irrespective of personal opinion etc.


Thus, conceptually, the technical leadership scale represents two constructs of

leadership behaviour- one the organisational role of a manager, and two the individual

role as a leader.

7.5.3 Distinguishing Technical Leadership from Transformational/ Transactional Leadership It was hypothesised that the technical leadership scale and the transformational and

transactional leadership scales of Bass & Avolio’s model would be distinct and,

therefore, measure different constructs of leadership behaviour. To test this, a

principal components factor analysis was conducted on the four confirmed factors of

Bass and Avolio’s model and the two factors of the technical leadership scale.

The results (Table 5-10) revealed that while the factor structure of one combined

transformational and three transactional scales remained as they were, part of

technical leadership factors (6 out of 12 items) stood out as a separate factor. A

second order factor analysis (Table 5-11) confirmed these factors and accounted for

60.9 % of the variance.

Thus, the factor analysis of transformational, transactional and technical leadership

scales suggested that one transformational, three transactional and one technical

factor measure different constructs of leadership behaviour. The results support the

argument that there could be a technical leadership scale that is distinct from

transformational and transactional scales.

7.6 Towards a Theory of Technical Leadership

The situational context of leadership is well documented in the leadership literature

(Fiedler, 1967; House, 1971). Fiedler’s (1967) contingency theory explored the

suitability or otherwise of task vs. relations orientation depending on how favourable

the situation was to the leader. While Bass and Avolio (1997: 58) emphasise the

universal applicability of their model, they do not rule out situational influence on the

effectiveness of transformational leadership and agree that “the model may require

adjustments and fine-tuning as we move across from one type of sector, organisation,

and culture to another”.

Bass (1985) recognised that mean factor score values and norms would vary in

different organisations. For instance, in this study of IT project managers, intellectual


stimulation came out as a strong predictor of project success and confirmed the

suggestion of Bass and Avolio (1997: 57) that “more intellectual stimulation is likely to

be seen in high-technology firms”. Similarly, contingent reward was regarded more

highly than some of the transformational scales by the respondents in this study.

According to Yukl (1994: 367), “the distinction between transformational and

transactional leadership ignores some important managerial behaviours that were not

identified as components of either category, such as networking, planning, team

building, and informing”. Bass and Avolio (1993: 75) concede that “not all of the

behaviours and characteristics of transformational leadership have been identified.

Much more work needs to be done in the operationalisation of this construct, the

linkage to other constructs, and in terms of how it generalises across organisational-

societal cultures”.

Keeping in view the situational impact on leadership effectiveness, the significance

accorded by the respondents in this study (superiors, self and subordinates) to

technical leadership scale vis-a-vis transformational and transactional leadership

scales, lays a strong foundation to build a leadership model and a measurement

instrument which are better suited to assess technical leadership. The results in this

study have shown that while Bass and Avolio’s model is generally successful in linking

the leadership behaviour of more successful IT project managers to transformational

scales and that of less successful managers to transactional management-by-

exception passive scale, there are certain behaviours, such as organisational catalyst

scale, which are more important in a technical environment like information

technology.

Having dealt extensively with the recruitment, training, appraisal and career planning

of technical professionals, the author feels that traditional leadership models have not

paid enough attention to the special demands placed on the technical professionals by

rapid strides in technology and their impact on the organisational structure of technical

projects. The problem begins with academic teaching of technical courses. According

to Mann, Mayer, Hutton and Cupper (1994: 20), “many academic scientists are

dismissive of the idea that university science education should include training in

management and interpersonal skills to accommodate industry demands”. Upon

joining the industry, the technical professionals realise that technical skills alone are

not sufficient to manage people and to climb the career ladder. They are faced with a


painful dilemma of balancing the need to keep technical skills current and at the same

time learn managerial skills.

The current leadership literature falls short of guiding the technical managers in the

right direction as it ignores the dynamic changes taking place in the work place.

Outsourcing is one such development in the IT projects where a significant portion of

IT project work is contracted out to independent IT contractors who have little or no

organisational loyalty. Global virtual teams is another development where the team

members come from different parts of the world and have no opportunity to meet face

to face, yet are faced with a challenging group task. The work is carried out through

satellite links across the globe and problems are to be sorted out through video

conferencing. An increasing number of IT professionals work from their home office

and exchange memos via email. The traditional leadership models have little

relevance to such dynamic situations.

As pointed out by the senior IT managers in this study, there is no one leadership style

which is suitable for all situations within a technical project environment but there can

be an underlying style with built-in flexibility that can act as a critical success factor in

the execution of technical projects. While the results of this study are confined to

information technology projects, it is possible to broaden its applicability to a general

technical environment as technical professionals have a similar personality profile and

adjustment problems in managerial roles (Davis, 1981; Rosenbaum, 1991) irrespective

of their occupations.

This study has shown that while generic leadership models like that of Bass and Avolio

(1990) are applicable to technical environments, such as IT projects, these models

have limited success in exploring fully the uniqueness of technical situations and

therefore, there is a need to develop additional leadership models which are situation

specific. This study has indicated the direction for further research in building a

conceptually and empirically validated model for technical leadership. Already there

are some efforts in this direction (Stewart and Gable, 1996).

7.7 Implications for Leadership Research

This study made several contributions to leadership research. It added to the body of

knowledge on transformational leadership which is still considered new and in need of


further research (Yukl, 1994; Bass and Avolio, 1997) by testing it in a new

environment. It revealed that the new version of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

of Bass and Avolio (1990) still suffers from high correlations between the subscales of

leadership and needs further refinement. It also pointed out that transactional

contingent reward could be regarded as more important than some of the

transformational leadership behaviours in certain situations, such as IT projects.

While the results in this study were generally in line with previous findings, one of the

main differences was with regard to the level of agreement between the self and

subordinate ratings. The similarities in views was remarkable considering that many

previous studies have found a low level of agreement between self and subordinates

(Bass and Avolio, 1997; Carless, 1995). However, as with previous studies, the self

ratings were not as reliable as subordinate ratings.

This study also made significant contributions to technical leadership research which

has hardly been explored before. For the first time, this study integrated the key

technical leadership characteristics identified by previous studies and compared and

contrasted them with a generic leadership model. In the process, it was revealed that

the dimensions of technical leadership were quite different from the general leadership

models. For example, transactional contingent reward was shown to be as important

as transformational leadership scales in a technical project environment. This

highlights the importance of the clarity of contractual considerations for technical

professionals. Further, the ability to balance organisational and subordinates’ interests

(organisational catalyst) was regarded as the most important leadership behaviour,

ahead of transformational leadership. However, the results are exploratory and need to

be examined further in future studies.

7.8 Research Implications for Organisations

The findings of this study have important implications for organisations and project

teams, particularly in a high-technology environment, such as information technology

projects. Traditionally, technical competence has often been the sole criterion in the

recruitment and promotion of technical professionals to managerial positions (Davis,

1981). Technical knowledge of the leader and the team members was regarded as the

most vital success criterion in the execution of technical projects. While the emphasis

is now slowly shifting to managerial, organisational, and cultural factors, rather than

technological ones (Lowry et al., 1996), there is still a lack of empirical evidence to


justify this shift (Sauer, 1993). This study has provided the empirical justification on the

importance of leadership as a critical success factor in technical projects.

The ratings of the superiors, self (leaders) and subordinates in this study clearly

demonstrate that leadership style has an important bearing on the success of projects.

As pointed out by a senior manager, project leadership can make it a great success

when it would otherwise been a moderate success and can prevent it from being a

complete disaster. This implies that when selecting a project manager, organisations

need to give priority to the leadership abilities of the candidates.

Large IT projects are reported to have a failure rate of 25% (DeMarco and Lister,

1987). Wateridge (1995) quoted a survey which reported that twice as many IT

projects are considered to be ‘less successful’ than are considered to be successful

and lamented lack of research in examining the success factors. Cleland (1995) noted

the limited description of leaders and leadership in the project-management body of

knowledge (PMBOK) and suggested a more expansive discussion of leadership. This

study examines the nature and importance of project leadership and provides

empirical backing to persuade organisations to have a close look at the non-technical

aspects of project management, such as leadership, which have a crucial bearing on

the project outcome.

For technical professionals, the results indicate that, while it is still possible to do the

job and climb the career ladder on the basis of technical competence, failure to learn

important managerial skills will restrict managerial effectiveness and further career

opportunities.

For those technical professionals who want to improve their leadership skills and for

those organisations which want to instil the right skills in their present and prospective

project managers through training programmes, this study provides important clues on

a suitable “role model”. Such desirable leadership qualities include charismatic

influence over followers, capacity for intellectual stimulation, balancing organisational

and individual responsibilities as a leader (organisational catalyst) and clarifying the

rewards corresponding to efforts (contingent reward behaviour).

One of the important findings of this study is that Avolio and Bass’s (1991) full range of

leadership model and its measurement instrument (MLQ) is generally applicable to an

information technology project environment with certain modifications. The model and


the instrument have been successfully used for selection, transfer, and promotion

activities as well as for individual, group, or organisational development and

counselling (Bass and Avolio, 1997: 7).

Since the MLQ leadership scale scores make it possible to identify managers suited to

a particular kind of organisational culture, department, work group, project, or

situation, it can be used to help place managers in positions for which they are best

suited and for which they will require the least amount of training (p.8). For instance, in

this study of IT managers, it was revealed that subordinates regard transactional

contingent behaviour of their managers as more important than their transformational

intellectual stimulation behaviour in terms of leadership outcome. As suggested by

Bass and Avolio (1997: 8), this refers to a situation where “determining with associates

what needs to be accomplished and what they will receive in exchange for successful

completion of a task may require more contingent reward leadership”. The results may

also mean that transformational leadership behaviour is more transparent to

subordinates, while transactional contingent reward behaviour is more overt and

occasional. To be effective, transformational leadership may have to be more subtle,

less overt, ongoing process. Over and above this, the organisational catalyst role has

been shown to be of vital importance in an IT project environment.

The modified leadership instrument proposed in this study can be used to assess the

leadership potential and effectiveness of IT project managers as it clearly spells out

the essential leadership behaviours in an effective manager. Accordingly, appropriate

counselling and training programmes can be arranged and promotion, transfer, and

remuneration policies for project managers can be formulated. Training consultants

have effectively used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to provide

individualised feedback to managers and project leaders concerning desirable

changes in their leadership behaviour (Bass and Avolio, 1997: 8).

Today many training organisations offer leadership development and project

management training programmes for technical employees. The results of this study

show that apart from universally applicable leadership skills emphasised in models

such as Bass and Avolio (1993), there are certain other leadership behaviours which

are as or more important to technical leaders, such as organisational catalyst scale

derived in the study. These training programmes need to be fine tuned and refined to

enhance their applicability and usefulness to technical professionals.


7.9 Limitations of the Study

While the emphasis of this study was on technical leadership, the survey was limited

only to information technology project environment. In order to broaden its applicability

and appeal to all technical professionals, it is necessary to conduct further studies

involving technical specialists from other industries, such as manufacturing, R&D etc.

Keller (1992) demonstrated that transformational leadership predicted higher project

quality and budget/schedule performance ratings in R&D organisations. However,

Keller (1995) also stressed that different leadership behaviours may be required

depending on the type of R&D work performed. Task allocation and coordination

oriented style is more suitable for development projects as against inspiration and

intellectual stimulation orientated style for research projects. The senior IT managers

in this study also agreed that the effectiveness of various leadership styles are

contingent on the size and phase of the projects as well as the skill sets of team

members and the rate of progress. While the general suitability of transformational

leadership to high-technology industries is well tested (Howell and Higgins, 1990;

McDonough and Barczak, 1991; Beatty and Lee, 1992; Brown, 1993), the degree of its

effectiveness depends on several contingencies such as the type of technical work,

size and phase of the project, and profile of team members.

The senior IT managers who acted as coordinators for this study on behalf of their

organisations pointed out that the projects selected for participation in the study were

comparatively large projects and were just completed or about to be completed (refer

section 6.2). Considering that the computer services industry in Australia is

overwhelmingly dominated by small businesses employing less than five persons

(ABS, 1995), the implications of the study are limited to big companies in the industry

and big computer users in other industries.

The sample size of 18 senior managers, 70 project managers and 225 project team

members is a limitation of the study. However, statistically significant differences

between the more and less successful projects on the questionnaire measures (except

for many scales for self ratings) suggest that the findings are quite robust. Since the

subordinates rated both leadership behaviours and their effectiveness, it may seem

that the results suffer from the same source bias; however, the project performance

was independently rated by senior managers before the projects were included in the

survey and therefore, common method variance is not a serious concern in this study.


7.10 Future Research This study tested the suitability of transformational leadership theory in an information

technology project environment which had not been explored before. While the

concept of transformational leadership and Bass’s (1985) model have been in vogue

for the past fifteen years, the theory is “still quite new” (Yukl, 1994) and “much more

work remains to be done regarding the conceptualisation and measurement of its

constructs” (Bass and Avolio, 1993; 1997). Also, large samples are required to employ

advanced analytic techniques such as confirmatory factor analysis to assess the

construct validity of various leadership scales.

This study compared more successful projects with less successful projects. There is

a need to make other valid comparisons. Such comparisons could include scenarios

such as: partially successful projects where part of the project was successful and part

of it was not; managers who oversaw both successful and unsuccessful projects but

used the same leadership style; managers whose styles differ during the life of a

project (eg., transformational style at first when progressing well, then transactional if it

starts to go wrong).

To understand better the nature and importance of technical leadership, much more

work needs to be done by adding a broad spectrum of technical professionals across

different disciplines, incorporating more critical success factors to study their impact on

leadership, using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods of data

collection, and comparing the views of all levels of leaders, their subordinates and

colleagues.

Future studies on IT project leadership also need to include the recent developments

in technology and work methods, such as outsourcing, virtual global teams, working

from home office, project meetings through video conferencing, communication

through email etc.

7.11 Conclusion

Technical professionals are a major source of talent for promotion to management but

their transition often becomes difficult for lack of adequate “role models” in managing

people (Davis, 1981; Rosenbaum, 1991). Despite the proliferation of literature on

leadership, there is widespread scepticism about the lack of agreement on the very

nature of leadership (Stogdill, 1974; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Rost, 1993). Further,


leadership researchers have given scant attention to proposing a model that

incorporates technology as an important tool of organisational interventions (Klenke,

1996).

The role of technical managers is being redefined by changing the emphasis from

technical competence to a broader understanding of leadership functions. In the

domain of information systems (IS), many researchers have highlighted the essential

qualities and skills required in IS managers to ensure project success (Rahn, 1987;

Bander, 1986; Geaney, 1995; Bloom, 1996). The concept of hybrid managers,

combining technical, managerial and business skills is increasingly gaining

prominence (Palmer and Ottley, 1990). However, there is a need for more empirical

work to explore the nature and importance of leadership as a critical success factor in

the execution of IS projects.

This study made several contributions in this regard. First, it established that project

leadership and leadership style have an important bearing on project success. The

organisational catalyst role of the managers was identified as the key element of

successful leadership style. In this role, the successful managers ensure proper

alignment of subordinates’ goals with organisational goals, shield subordinates from

the ill effects of organisational bureaucracy, impassionately implement management

decisions, and facilitate the career development of subordinates by providing

autonomy and challenging assignments. Subordinates are intellectually stimulated

through encouragement of non-traditional thinking. Further, the contingent reward

behaviour of these leaders ensures that subordinates are clear about what is expected

of them and what they can expect in return.

The results indicated that a combination of transformational, transactional and

organisational catalyst behaviours produce better success, both quantitatively and

qualitatively. On the contrary, managers who wait till the subordinates’ work falls below

minimum standards and problems become chronic before taking any action are

considered the least effective leaders. The style and success of leadership vary

depending on the size, life cycle and present performance of the project as well as the

composition of team members.

Apart from leadership, the project needs the strong support of other contingency

factors, such as top management support, clear project mission (including clarity of

customer requirements), and technical resources. There is a broad agreement


between the superiors, managers and subordinates on the nature and importance of

project leadership and other contingency factors influencing project success.

The post-industrial society is dominated by knowledge workers. Effective leadership of

these workers is vital to motivate them to perform to their full potential and beyond

ordinary contractual considerations. This calls for leadership qualities which recognise

the dramatic changes that are taking place in the work place and provide outstanding

leadership that is necessary to stimulate the subordinates to “perform beyond

expectations”. Accordingly, leadership research needs to focus more on the dynamics

of diversity in the workplace. This study is an effort in that direction as it focuses on the

“core employees of the digital information age”, identifies gaps in the current literature

on technical leadership, and suggests a model which builds on the foundations of

transformational leadership.

Bibliography 122

Publications as a Result of This Research • Thite, M. R. (1997). Identifying key characteristics of technical project leadership. Co-

winner of the best paper of the 1997 Kenneth E. Clark Research Award. Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC, USA. To be published in the Leadership Quarterly.

• Thite, M. R. (1997). Nature and importance of leadership in information systems projects.

Proceedings of the 1997 Annual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute (DSI), San Diego, USA.

• Thite, M. R. (1997). Managerial skills in technical professionals- An exploration of IT

project leadership. In B. Barta et al. (Eds.) The Place of Information Technology in Management and Business Education. London: Chapman & Hall.

• Thite, M. and Simmons. P. (1997). An empirical examination of project leadership style in

an information systems environment. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 92-100. Also presented, published and adjudged as one of the best papers in the 7th Australasian conference on information systems (ACIS), 725-734. Hobart: University of Tasmania.

• Thite, M. (1996). In search of leadership style for info. tech. professionals: An empirical

investigation of transformational leadership model. Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Conference of the Australian & New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM). Wollongong: University of Wollongong.

• Thite, M. (1996). Transformational leadership in an information technology project

environment. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the International Association of Management (AIoM). Virginia Beach, Virginia: Maxmillan Press.

Bibliography 123

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abdel-Hamid, Tarek, K. and Stuart, E. (1990). The elusive silver lining: How we fail to learn from software development failures. Sloan Management Review. 32(1): 39-48. Atwater, L. E. and Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45, 141-163. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1995). Computing services industry, Australia 1992-93. Catalogue No. 8669.0. Canberra. Avolio, B. J. and Bass, B. M. (1991). The full range of leadership development. Binghamton, NY: Centre for Leadership Studies. Avolio, B. J., and Howell, J. M. (1992). The effects of leadership behaviour and leader-follower personality congruence on predicting follower satisfaction and consolidated business unit performance. Centre for Creative Leadership’s Second Research Conference on Leadership, Colarado. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M. and Jung, D. I. (1996). Construct validation of the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Binghamton, NY: Center for Leadership Studies. Awani, A. O. (1986). Data processing project management. Princeton, NJ: Petrocelli Books. Bander, D. (1986). Building a better project manager. Computerworld. 20(21): 69-78. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., Walderman, D., Avolio, B. and Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group and Organisational Studies, 12, 73-87. Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press. Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49-80). New York: Academic Press. Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, California: Mind Garden.

Bibliography 124

Bass, B. M. and Yokochi, N. (1991). Charisma among senior executives and the special case of Japanese CEOs. Consulting Psychology Bulletin, Winter/Spring, 1, 31-38. Bates, W. S. (1994). Strong leadership crucial. Computing Canada. 20(22). Beatty, C. and Lee, G. (1992). Leadership among middle managers- An exploration in the context of technological change. Human Relations. 45(9): 957-989. Bennis, W. G. and Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper and Row. Bernard, C. I. (1948). Organisations and management. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Blake, R. R., and Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf. Bloom, N. L. (1996). Select the right IS project manager for success. Personnel Journal. January, 1996. 6-9. Boal, K. B. and Bryson, J. M. (1988). Charismatic leadership: A phenomenological and structural approach. In J. G. Hunt et al. (Eds.). Emerging leadership vistas. Toronto: Lexington Books. Boyd, J. T. (1988). Leadership extraordinary: A cross national military perspective on transactional vs transformational leadership. Doctoral dissertation. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Nova University. Boynton, A. C. and Zmud, R. W. (1984). An assessment of critical success factors. Sloan Management Review. Summer 1984. pp.17-27. Bradford, D. L. and Cohen, H. R. (1984). Managing for excellence. New York: Wiley. Brown, A. D. (1993). Leading technological change. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal. 14(4): 21-26. Brown, S. (1994). Critical success factors in information technology projects. Masters thesis. Melbourne: RMIT. Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organisations. London: Sage. Bryant, M. A. (1990). Relationship between nurse managers’ perceived transformational vs transactional leadership styles and staff nurse turnover. Masters thesis. Akron, OH: University of Akron. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row. Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., and Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass’s conceptualisation of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468-478. Carless, S. A. (1995). Transformational leadership and Australian bank managers. Doctoral dissertation. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

Bibliography 125

Carter, N. (1988). The project manager: An emerging professional. Journal of Information Systems Management. 5(4): 8-14. Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and organisational psychology in a changing world of work. American Phycologist, 50, 928-934. Cash, C. H. and Fox, R. (1992). Elements of successful project management. Journal of Systems Management. 43(9): 10-12. Cleland, D. I. (1995). Leadership and the project-management body of knowledge. International Journal of Project Management. 13(2): 83-88. Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioural theory of charismatic leadership in organisational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647. Conners, E. (1995). MIS 100. Sydney: Strategic Publishing Group. Cowen, S. S. (1990). A study of the relationships between perceived leadership behaviours of presidents at public four-year institutions of higher education in the U.S. and the changes in the FTE enrolment, perceptions of effectiveness, subordinate satisfaction, and other factors of the presidency. Doctoral dissertation, Washington State: Gonzaga University. Crookall, p. (1989). Leadership in the prison industry. Doctoral dissertation. Ontario, Canada: The University of Western Ontario. Crowe, B. J., Bochner, S. and Clark, A. W.(1972). The effects of subordinates’ behaviour on managerial style. Human Relations, 25(3), 215-237. Curphy, G. J. (1990). An empirical study of Bass’s (1985) theory of transformational and transactional leadership. Doctoral dissertation, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Curphy, G. J. (1992). An empirical investigation of the effects of the transformational and transactional leadership on organisational climate, attrition and performance. In K. E. Clark. et al., (Eds.). Impact of leadership. Greensboro, NC: The Centre for Creative Leadership. Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., and Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organisations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, 13, 46-78. Davis, K. (1981). Human behaviour at work. New York: McGraw-Hill. Davis, K. and Blomstrom, R. L. (1975). Business society. New York: McGraw- Hill. Da Silva, W. (1996). Future ‘belongs’ to IT industry. Computer Age dt. 25/06/96. De Marco, T. (1982). Controlling software projects. New York: Yourden Press. De Marco, T. and Lister, T. (1987). Peopleware, productive projects and teams. New York: Dorset House.

Bibliography 126

Deutsch, M. S. (1991). An exploratory analysis relating the software project management process to project success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 38(4): 365-375. Donaldson, H. (1978). A guide to the successful management of computer projects. London: Associated Business Press. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. NY: McGraw-Hill. French, J. R. P., and Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies of Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, pp.150-167. Geaney, M. M. (1995). The right skills for the job. Computing Canada. 21(24). Gottlieb, T. W. (1990). Transactional and transformational leadership styles of chief and associate chief nurses in Department of Veterans’ Affairs Medical Centres: A descriptive study. Doctoral dissertation. New York: Colombia University. Hater, J. J. and Bass, B. M. (1988). Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology. 73, 695-702. Hertel, B. (1976). Minimising error variance introduced by missing data routines in survey analysis. Sociological methods and research. 4, 459-474. Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of organisational behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hicks, R. S. (1990). Effectiveness of transactional and transformational leadership in turbulent and stable conditions. Doctoral dissertation. Claremount, CA: Claremount University. Houghton, J. W., Pucar, M. and Knox, C. (1996). Mapping the information industries. Canberra: Productivity Commission. House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-339. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt and Larson, L. L. (Eds). Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbonade, IL: Southern Illinios University Press. House, R. J. (1988). Leadership research: Some forgotten, ignored, or overlooked findings. In J. G. Hunt et al. (Eds.). Emerging leadership vistas. Toronto: Lexington Books. House, R. J. (1995). Leadership in the twenty-first century: A speculative inquiry. In A. Howard (Ed.). The changing nature of work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., and Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 364-396.

Bibliography 127

Howell, J. M. and Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly. 35, 317-341. Hunt, J. B. (1991). Leadership: A new synthesis. London: Sage. Inkson, K. and Moss, A. T. (1993). Transformational leadership: Is it universally applicable? Leadership and Organisation Development Journal. 14(4). Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7 user’s reference guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software Inc. Kapur, G. (1989). Running in crisis mode? Computerworld. 23(16): 89-93. Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of R&D project groups. Journal of Management. 18(3): 489-501. Keller, R. T. (1995). Transformational leaders make a difference. Research-Technology Management. 38(3): 41-44. Kennedy, L. (1996). The software 50. Annual publication, summer-1996. St. Leonards: IDG Communications. Khandelwal, V. K. and Hosey, W. L. (1996). 1996 Critical success factors for quality IT management. Technical report 10/95. Department of Computing. Nepean: University of Western Sydney. Klenke, K. (1996). Leadership and information technologies: Reciprocal transformations or medusa alliances. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the International Association of Management (AIoM). Virginia Beach, Virginia: Maxmillan Press. Kilne, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge. Koh, W. L. (1990). An empirical validation of the theory of transformational leadership in secondary schools in Singapore. Doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon. Kotter, J. P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York: Free Press. Kouzes, J. M., and Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organisations. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Kunhert, K. W. (1993). Leadership theory in postmodernist organisations. In Golembiewski, R. T. (Ed.) Handbook of organisational theory. New York: Marcel Dekker. Lau, A., Atwater, L., Avolio, B., and Bass, B. (1991). Leadership measurement. Technical report. Center for leadership studies, Binghamton: State University of New York. Laudon, K. C. and Turner, J. (Eds.). (1989). Information Technology and Management Strategy. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Laudon, K. and Laudon, J. (1990). Management information systems: A contemporary perspective. Maxwell Maxmillan.

Bibliography 128

Lowe, K., Kroeck, G., and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 385-426. Lowry, G. R., Morgan, G. W., and FitzGerald, D. G. (1996). Identifying excellence in leading Australian-owned information technology firms: Five emerging themes. 7th Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Hobart: University of Tasmania. Mann, L., Mayer, E., Hutton, G. and Cupper, L. (1994). Developing leaders in R&D. Melbourne: Business/Higher Education Round Table. McClelland, D. C. (1965). N-achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 389-392. McDonough, E. F. and Barczak, G. (1991). Speeding up new product development: The effects of leadership style and source of technology. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8(3), 203-211. Meindl, J. R. (1989). On leadership: An alternative to conventional wisdom. Fourth International Conference on Organisational Symbolism and Corporate Culture, INSEAD. Miner, J. B. (1965). Studies in Management Education. Atlanta: Organisational Measurement Systems Press. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper and Row. Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nicholas, J. M. (1990). Managing business and engineering projects. Prentice- Hall. Onnen, M. K. (1987). The relationship of clergy and leadership characteristics to growing or declining churches. Doctoral dissertation. Louisville, KY: University of Louisville. Palmer, C. and Ottley, S. (1990). From potential to reality, A report by the British Computer Society Task Group on Hybrids, January 1990. Parry, K. W. and Sarros, J. (1994). Transformational leadership in Australia: How different from the U.S.A.? Management papers: A working paper series, University of Southern Queensland. 4(2). Peterson, M. F., Phillips, R. L. and Duran, C. A. (1989). A comparison of Japanese performance maintenance measures with U.S. leadership scales. Psychologica. 32, 58-70. Peterson, R. O. (1987). Managing the systems development function. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Phan, D., Vogel, D. and Nunamaker, J. (1988). The search for perfect project management. Computerworld. September 1988. 95-100. Pinto, J. K. and Slevin, D. P. (1987). Critical factors in successful project implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-34(1).

Bibliography 129

Pinto, J. K. and Prescott, J. E. (1988). Variations in critical success factors over the stages in the project life cycle. Journal of Management. 14(1): 5-18. Pinto, J. K. and Slevin, D. P. (1989). Critical success factors in R&D projects. Research Technology Management. Jan-Feb 1989. 31-35. Pinto, J. K. and Mantel, Jr., S. J. (1990). The causes of project failure. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 37(4): 269-276. Pinto, J. K. and Slevin, D. P. (1992). Project Implementation Profile. New York: Xicom Inc. Power, K. (1995). Making the move to management. Computer World. December 1, 1995. 44-45. Pulk, B. E. (1990). Improving software project management. Journal of Systems and Software. 13(3): 231-235. Rahn, D. (1987). Projects need ‘right stuff’. Computerworld. 21(14): 79-80. Richman, S. L. (1994). The new worker elite. Fortune. August 22, 1994. 46-54. Roberts, N. C. and Bradley, R. T. (1988). Limits of charisma. In Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. N. (Eds.). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organisational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rosenbaum. B. L. (1991). Leading today’s technical professional. Training and Development. 45(10): 55-66. Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger. Ruggiero, M. B. (1989). A comparative analysis: Leader behaviour and industrial project managers as related to organisational authority. Doctoral dissertation. Philidelphia, PA: Temple University. Sadler, P. (1988). Managerial leadership in the post-industrial society. Aldershot: Gower. Sashkin, M., and Fulmer, R. (1988). Toward an organisational leadership theory. In J. G. Hunt et al. (Eds.). Emerging leadership vistas. Toronto: Lexington Books. Sauer, C. (1993). Why information systems fail: A case study approach. UK: Alfred Waller. Schapper, M. et al. (1992). Promoting partnerships. Taskforce Report No. 2. Melbourne: Business and Higher Education Round Table. Schriesheim, C., Powers, K., Scandura, T., Gardiner, C., and Lankau, M. (1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19, 385-417.

Bibliography 130

Seltzer, J., Numerof, R. E. and Bass, B. M. (1989). Transformational leadership: Is it a source of more burnout and stress?. Journal of Health and Human Resource Administration. 12, 174-185. Shamir, B., House, R. J., and Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory. Organisational Science. 4(4). Singer, M. S. (1985). Transformational vs transactional leadership: A study of New Zealand company managers. Psychological Reports. 57: 143-146. Slevin, D.P. and Pinto, J.K. (1986). The project implementation profile: New tool for project managers. Project Management Journal. September 1986. 57-70. Smith, P. B., and Peterson, M. F. (1988). Leadership, organisations, and culture. New York: Sage. Steeh, C. (1981). Trends in non-response rates 1952-1979. Public Opinion Quarterly. 45, 40-57. Stewart, G. and Gable, G. (1996). The matching of IT leadership style to corporate needs: The development of a conceptual model. 7th Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Hobart: University of Tasmania. Stogdill, R. M., and Coons, A. (1957). Leader behaviour: Its description and measurement. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: The Free Press. Thite, M. R. (1997). Managerial skills in technical professionals- An exploration of IT project leadership. In B. Barta, A. Tatnall, and P. Juliff (1997). The place of information technology in management and business education. London: Chapman and Hall. Tichy, N. and Devanna, M. (1986). Transformational leadership. New York: Wiley. Trice, H. M., and Beyer, J. M. (1986). Charisma and its routinisation in two social movement organisations. Research in Organisational Behaviour, 8, 113-164. Tsui, A. and Barry, B. (1986). Interpersonal affect and rating errors. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 586-598. Vroom, Y. H., and Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Wateridge, J. (1995). IT projects: A basis for success. International Journal of Project Management. 13(3): 169-172. Weinberg, G. M. (1986). Becoming a technical leader. New York: Dorset House. Wooldridge, S. (1976). Project management in data processing. New York: Petrocelli/Charter. Yammarino, F. J. and Bass, B. M. (1990a). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects among Naval officers: Some preliminary findings. In K. E.

Bibliography 131

Clark and M. B. Clark (Eds.). Measures of leadership. Greensboro, NC: Center foe Creative Leadership. Yammarino, F. J. and Bass, B. M. (1990b). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human Relations. 43, 975-995. Yukl, G. (1989; 1994). Leadership in organisations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Appendix-1 Date «Title»«FirstName»«LastName» «JobTitle» «Company» «Address1» «City»«State»«PostalCode» Dear «Title»«LastName» RE: Survey on project leadership in an Information Technology environment. We are writing to invite your company’s participation in a survey on leadership behaviour of IT Project Managers in Australia. The study is being conducted under my supervision by Mohan Thite, a full-time Ph.D student who has a background in Human Resource Management in IT companies. We are inviting a sample of IT companies/divisions to participate in this survey. We believe that the excellent performance and experience of your organisation can make a significant contribution to this study. The research is aimed at improving the quality of Australian IT project management by focusing on project leadership and other critical success factors. The results of the survey should be useful to the IT companies/divisions in identifying and developing an appropriate leadership style for their IT managers. We enclose letters of support for the study from the Australian Computer Society Inc., the Australian Information Industry Association and the Australian Institute of Management. In order to participate in the survey, the following steps need to be taken: 1. Please nominate as the co-ordinator for this survey a senior manager to whom your

IT Project Managers report. 2. The co-ordinator will select two recent IT projects in your company to participate

in the survey: one which is more successful in his/her opinion (in terms of quality, cost, deadlines and customer satisfaction) and another which is less successful. Both these projects should be at least half way through their duration (life cycle).

3. The co-ordinator will complete the enclosed “Co-ordinator’s Questionnaire”. 4. The co-ordinator will get the Project Managers in charge of the more successful and

the less successful projects to complete the enclosed “Project Manager’s Questionnaire”.

Appendixes 133

5. The co-ordinator will get the team members of the more successful and the less successful projects to complete the enclosed “Project Team Members’ Questionnaire”. Depending on the number of members in these projects, the co-ordinator is requested to take additional copies of the enclosed questionnaires.

6. The co-ordinator will mail all the completed questionnaires back to us. We estimate that it would take around 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire. We assure complete confidentiality of all the information collected. The results of the survey will be described in a general report without identifying particular companies. On completion of the study, all participant companies will receive a summary of the survey results which will provide them with valuable information about the quality of project leadership in the Australian IT industry. We trust that your company will be able to participate in this important survey. Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact either myself on (03) 9836 6737 or Mohan on (03) 9818 5765 (Tel./Fax) (Email: [email protected]). Thanking you in anticipation. Sincerely, Alfred Clark Professor Emeritus

Appendixes 134

Appendix-2

Survey on Project Leadership in an Information Technology Environment

Co-ordinator’s Questionnaire

This questionnaire is to be completed by a senior manager to whom the IT Project Managers report. (I) General Information 1. Name of the company: 2. Total number of employees: 3. Number of IT employees: 4. Number of current IT projects in your company: 5. Average number of members in each IT project (approx.): 6. Average duration (life cycle) of each IT project (approx.): 7. Organisational Chart of your company: Please attach the organisational chart of your company, if available, which indicates

designations and reporting relationships. 8. Organisational Chart of typical IT projects in your company: Please attach the organisational chart of typical IT projects in your company, if

available, which indicates designations & reporting relationships. (II) Project Performance Ratings To measure leadership effectiveness, we request you to rate project “X” (which you think is more successful) and project “Y” (which you think is less successful) on the following scales. Please circle the number that best reflects your judgement. 1 2 3 4 5

Appendixes 135

Very low Low Average High Very high Performance Measures

Project “X” (more successful)

Project “Y” (less successful)

1. Technical Quality (The extent to which specified quality requirements are satisfied.)

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

2. Cost Performance (The extent to which the project is within the budgeted cost.)

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

3. Deadlines (The extent to which the key milestones are achieved.)

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

4. Customer satisfaction (The extent to which the user is satisfied with the system performance.)

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

5. Overall Project Performance

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

(III) After we analyse the survey results, we would like to conduct interviews with selected respondents to get more detailed information. Would you be willing to participate in this? YES NO (IV) Your Details: Name: Designation: Address: Phone/Fax/Email: Phone: Fax:

Email: Thank you for completing the questionnaire. Your co-operation is greatly appreciated. The data you provided will be kept strictly confidential.

Appendixes 136

Appendix-3


To be Completed by the Senior Manager Co-ordinating the Survey on Behalf of the Respondent Organisation This survey is about the leadership behaviour of IT Project Managers in Australia. It is aimed at improving the quality of Australian IT project management by focusing on project leadership in conjunction with other critical factors in the successful execution of IT projects. We thank your organisation for participating in the survey. You may recall that, on our request, you had selected and involved two IT projects in your company in the survey: one which was more successful in your opinion and another which was less successful. 1. Perhaps, you can begin by describing how you went about selecting these projects. 2. What specific criteria did you adapt in your selection of more and less successful

project?

Appendixes 137

3. When we assess the performance of a project, we realise that the project performance is influenced by several key factors. In your opinion, what factors contribute to the relative success or failure of IT projects?

4. Taking the factors you have just mentioned, can you please rank them in the order

of importance.

Appendixes 138

5. The research indicates that following are some of the critical success factors on project implementation. Please rank them in the order of importance as deemed fit by you.

Success Factors Rank Order • Project Mission -------- • Top Management Support -------- • Project Schedule/Plan -------- • Client Consultation ------- • Personnel -------- • Technical Tasks -------- • Client Acceptance ------- • Monitoring & Feedback ------- • Communication ------- • Trouble Shooting ------- 4. Focusing on project leadership, how do you see it influencing the outcome of IT

projects?

Appendixes 139

5. What, in your opinion, are the essential qualities and skills required in an IT project

manager? 6. Do you think there is a significant difference in the leadership qualities and skills of

more and less successful project managers? If yes, what are they? Please specify.

Appendixes 140

7. Listed below are descriptive statements about leadership behaviour. For each

statement, we would like you to judge how important is each of the behaviour described in an ideal project manager. Please use the following scale by circling the appropriate number. Make no more than one circle for each statement.

1 2 3 4 5 Extremely Very important Important Only slightly Not important important important

Instils pride in subordinates in being associated with him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 Talks to subordinates about his/her most important values and

beliefs. 1 2 3 4 5

Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate.

1 2 3 4 5

Treats each subordinate as an individual rather than just a member of a group.

1 2 3 4 5

Makes clear what subordinates can expect to receive, if their performance meets designated standards.

1 2 3 4 5

Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards.

1 2 3 4 5

Fails to intervene until problems become serious. 1 2 3 4 5 Goes beyond his/her own self-interest for the good of the

group. 1 2 3 4 5

Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. 1 2 3 4 5 Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems. 1 2 3 4 5 Focuses subordinates on developing their strengths. 1 2 3 4 5 Provides his/her assistance in exchange for subordinates’

efforts. 1 2 3 4 5

Spends his/her time looking to “put out fires”. 1 2 3 4 5 Things have to go wrong for him/her to take action. 1 2 3 4 5 His/her actions build subordinates’ respect for him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 Considers the moral and ethical consequences of his/her

decisions. 1 2 3 4 5

Suggests new ways of looking at how subordinates do their jobs.

1 2 3 4 5

Spends time teaching and coaching subordinates. 1 2 3 4 5 Makes sure that subordinates receive appropriate rewards for

achieving performance targets. 1 2 3 4 5

Appendixes 141

Keeps track of subordinates’ mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 Shows he/she is a firm believer in “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix

it”. 1 2 3 4 5

Displays a sense of power and confidence. 1 2 3 4 5 Emphasises the importance of having a collective sense of

mission. 1 2 3 4 5

Gets subordinates to look at problems from many different angles.

1 2 3 4 5

Treats each subordinate as individuals with different needs, abilities, and aspirations.

1 2 3 4 5

Expresses his/her satisfaction when subordinates do a good job.

1 2 3 4 5

Directs his/her attention toward failure to meet standards. 1 2 3 4 5 Problems must become chronic before he/she will take action. 1 2 3 4 5 Encourages champions by acting as a catalyst to convert their

ideas in to actions. 1 2 3 4 5

Takes timely and effective steps to achieve desired quality standards in the project.

1 2 3 4 5

Manages the process of change by involving the subordinates in the implementation of change.

1 2 3 4 5

Facilitates career development of subordinates by providing challenging “stretch” assignments.

1 2 3 4 5

Copyright: Items 1-28 © Bass & Avolio, 1991

Appendixes 142

8. Based on your experience, what advise would you give to somebody who aspires to

be a project manager? 9. Would you like to say anything else with regard to project leadership? 10. Personal Information • Your total experience in IT is ------ years • How many years have you spent as a Project Leader/Manager in IT? ------- • How many IT Project Leaders/Managers report to you currently in your organisation? ----- Thank you for completing the questionnaire. Your co-operation is greatly appreciated. The data you provided will be kept strictly confidential.

Appendixes 143

Appendix-4


“Project Manager’s Questionnaire ”

1. Leadership The following questions are designed to provide a description of your project leadership. For each statement, we would like you to judge how frequently you display the behaviour described. When the item does not apply or where you are uncertain or do not know, leave the answer blank. Please use the following scale by circling the appropriate number. Make no more than one circle for each question. 1 2 3 4 5 Frequently Fairly Sometimes Once in Not at all if not always often awhile

I make personal sacrifices for the benefit of others. 1 2 3 4 5 I talk to those I lead about my most important values and

beliefs. 1 2 3 4 5

It requires a failure to meet an objective for me to take action. 1 2 3 4 5 I focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and

deviations from standards. 1 2 3 4 5

I emphasise the value of questioning assumptions. 1 2 3 4 5 I give those I lead what they want in exchange for their

support. 1 2 3 4 5

I treat those I lead as individuals rather than just members of a group.

1 2 3 4 5

I remain calm during crisis situations. 1 2 3 4 5 The work of those I lead has to fall below minimum standards

for me to try to make improvements. 1 2 3 4 5

I emphasise the importance of being committed to our beliefs. 1 2 3 4 5 I closely monitor the performance of those I lead for errors. 1 2 3 4 5 I make clear to those I lead what they can expect to receive, if

their performance meets standards. 1 2 3 4 5

I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate.

1 2 3 4 5

I listen attentively to the concerns of those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5 * Copyright: Items 1-63 and 76-81 © Bass & Avolio, 1991. Items 82-96 © Xicom Inc., 1992. Reprinted with permission.

Appendixes 144

1 2 3 4 5 Frequently Fairly Sometimes Once in Not at all if not always often awhile

I fail to intervene until problems become serious. 1 2 3 4 5 I instil pride in those I lead in being associated with me. 1 2 3 4 5 I spend my time looking to “put out fires”. 1 2 3 4 5 I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. 1 2 3 4 5 I work out agreements with those I lead on what they will

receive if they do what needs to be done. 1 2 3 4 5

I encourage those I lead to rethink ideas which had never been questioned before.

1 2 3 4 5

I tell those I lead what they have done wrong rather than what they have done right.

1 2 3 4 5

I provide useful advice for the development of those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5 I keep track of the mistakes of those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5 I go beyond my own self-interest for the good of our group. 1 2 3 4 5 I negotiate with those I lead about what they can expect to

receive for what they accomplish. 1 2 3 4 5

I consider the moral and ethical consequences of my decisions.

1 2 3 4 5

Things have to go wrong for me to take action. 1 2 3 4 5 I question the traditional ways of doing things. 1 2 3 4 5 I enforce rules to avoid mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 I focus those I lead on developing their strengths. 1 2 3 4 5 I provide assistance to those I lead in exchange for their

effort. 1 2 3 4 5

I provide reassurance that we will overcome obstacles. 1 2 3 4 5 I display conviction in my ideals, beliefs and values. 1 2 3 4 5 I show that I am a firm believer in “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix

it”. 1 2 3 4 5

My attention is directed toward failure to meet standards. 1 2 3 4 5 I seek differing perspectives when solving problems. 1 2 3 4 5 I tell those I lead what to do to be rewarded for their efforts. 1 2 3 4 5 I spend time teaching and coaching those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5 I display extraordinary talent and competence in whatever I

undertake. 1 2 3 4 5

Problems must become chronic before I will take action. 1 2 3 4 5 I take a stand on difficult issues. 1 2 3 4 5 I search for mistakes before commenting on the performance

of those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5

I make sure that those I lead receive appropriate rewards for achieving performance targets.

1 2 3 4 5

I suggest new ways of looking at how we do our jobs. 1 2 3 4 5

Appendixes 145


I treat each of those I lead as individuals with different needs, abilities and aspirations.

1 2 3 4 5

I motivate those I lead to do more than they thought they could do.

1 2 3 4 5

My actions build respect for me from those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5 Those I lead earn credit with me by doing their tasks well. 1 2 3 4 5 I clarify the central purpose underlying our actions. 1 2 3 4 5 I encourage those I lead to express their ideas and opinions. 1 2 3 4 5 I teach those I lead how to identify the needs and capabilities

of others. 1 2 3 4 5

I display a sense of power and confidence. 1 2 3 4 5 I talk about how trusting each other can help us overcome our

difficulties. 1 2 3 4 5

I heighten the motivation to succeed of those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5 I emphasise the importance of having a collective sense of

mission. 1 2 3 4 5

I get those I lead to look at problems from many different angles.

1 2 3 4 5

I promote self-development among those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5 I behave in ways that are consistent with my expressed

values. 1 2 3 4 5

I encourage non-traditional thinking to deal with traditional problems.

1 2 3 4 5

I give personal attention to those I lead who seem neglected. 1 2 3 4 5 I get those I lead to do more than they expected they could do. 1 2 3 4 5 I express satisfaction when those I lead do a good job. 1 2 3 4 5 I encourage addressing problems by using reasoning and

evidence, rather than unsupported opinion. 1 2 3 4 5

I ensure that the goals of those I lead are similar to the goals of the organisation.

1 2 3 4 5

I satisfy the desire for autonomy of those I lead. 1 2 3 4 5 I manage the process of change by involving those I lead in

the implementation of change. 1 2 3 4 5

I prevent the organisational bureaucracy from interfering with the work of those I lead.

1 2 3 4 5

I encourage champions by acting as a catalyst to convert their ideas into actions.

1 2 3 4 5

I facilitate career development of those I lead by providing challenging “stretch” assignments.

1 2 3 4 5

I encourage those I lead to freely explore the solution to the problem, i.e. hacking.

1 2 3 4 5

Appendixes 146


I remain open-minded while evaluating the ideas of those I lead, including my own.

1 2 3 4 5

I take timely and effective steps to achieve desired quality standards in the project.

1 2 3 4 5

I secure resources to support creative endeavours. 1 2 3 4 5 I ensure that the organisation rewards those I lead

appropriately for their contribution. 1 2 3 4 5

I implement upper management’s decisions with the same enthusiasm, even if I do not completely agree with them.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 Not effective Only slightly effective Effective Very effective Extremely effective

How do you rate the overall effectiveness of your group? 1 2 3 4 5 How effective are you in representing your group to higher authority?

1 2 3 4 5

How effective are you in meeting the job-related needs of those with whom you work?

1 2 3 4 5

How do you rate your effectiveness as a leader? 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 Very Somewhat Neither satisfied Fairly satisfied Very satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied nor dissatisfied

In all, how satisfied are you with the methods of leadership you use to get your group’s assignments completed?

1 2 3 4 5

In all, how satisfied are you with the methods of leadership you use to get your group’s job done?

1 2 3 4 5

2. Contingency Factors Apart from leadership, there are other factors which are critical to the success of IT projects, such as Project Mission, Top Management Support and Technical Tasks. The following questions address these factors. Using the following scale, please circle the appropriate number. 1 2 3 4 5

Appendixes 147

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly agree nor disagree

The goals of the project are in line with the genthe organisation.

eral goals of 1 2 3 4 5

The basic goals of the project were made clear to the project team.

1 2 3 4 5

The results of the project will benefit the parent organisation. 1 2 3 4 5 thusiastic about the chances for success of this project. I am en 1 2 3 4 5 I am aware of and can identify the beneficial consequences to

the organisation of the success of this project. 1 2 3 4 5

Upper management will be responsive to our requests for additional resources, if the need arises.

1 2 3 4 5

Upper management shares responsibility with the project team for ensuring the project’s success.

1 2 3 4 5

I agree with upper management on the degree of my authority and responsibility for the project.

1 2 3 4 5

Upper management will support me in a crisis. 1 2 3 4 5 the necessar

will support our decisions concerning the projecUpper management has granted us y authority and

t. 1 2 3 4 5

Specific project tasks are well managed. 1 2 3 4 5 people are The project engineers and other technical

competent. 1 2 3 4 5

The technology that is being used to support the project works well.

1 2 3 4 5

The appropriate technology (equipment, training programs etc.) has been selected for project success.

1 2 3 4 5

The people implementing this project understand it. 1 2 3 4 5 Personal Information 1. Sex Male Female

---------------------------------------- tal experience in IT is ----- year(s) ----- month(s).

2. Age: 3. My qualification(s) ----------4. My to5. I have been in this project for ------- months. Project-related Information 1. Total number of members in your project : -------------

-------------

ur cooperation is greatly ppreciated. The data you provided will be kept strictly confidential.

2. Start Date of the project: 3. Scheduled End Date of the project: ------------- Thank you for completing the questionnaire. Yoa

Appendixes 148

Appendix-5


“Project Team Members’ Questionnaire ”*

This questionnaire is to be completed by the team members of the project. (Please take additional copies depending on the no. of members in the project). 1. LeadershipThe following questions are designed to provide a description of project leadership. Listed below are the descriptive statements about the leadership behaviour of your Project Manager. For each statement, we would like you to judge how frequently your Project Manager has displayed the behaviour described. When the item does not apply or where you are uncertain or don’t know, leave the answer blank. Please use the following scale by circling the appropriate number. Make no more than one circle for each question. 1 2 3 4 5 Frequently Fairly Sometimes Once in Not at all if not always often awhile

Makes personal sacrifices for the benefit of others. 1 2 3 4 5 Talks to us about his/her most important values and beliefs. 1 2 3 4 5 It requires a failure to meet an objective for him/her to take

action. 1 2 3 4 5

Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards.

1 2 3 4 5

Emphasises the value of questioning assumptions. 1 2 3 4 5 Gives me what I want in exchange for my support. 1 2 3 4 5 Treats me as an individual rather than just a member of a

group. 1 2 3 4 5

Remains calm during crisis situations. 1 2 3 4 5 Work has to fall below minimum standards for him/her to try

to make improvements. 1 2 3 4 5

Emphasises the importance of being committed to our beliefs. 1 2 3 4 5 Closely monitors my performance for errors. 1 2 3 4 5 Makes clear what I can expect to receive, if my performance

meets designated standards. 1 2 3 4 5

Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate.

1 2 3 4 5

Listens attentively to my concerns. 1 2 3 4 5 Fails to intervene until problems become serious. 1 2 3 4 5 * Copyright: Items 1-63 and 76-81 © Bass & Avolio, 1991 Items 82-96 © Xicom Inc., 1992 . Reprinted with permission . 1 2 3 4 5

Appendixes 149

Frequently Fairly Sometimes Once in Not at all if not always often awhile

Instils pride in being associated with him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 Spends his/her time looking to “put out fires”. 1 2 3 4 5 Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. 1 2 3 4 5 Works out agreements with me on what I will receive if I do

what needs to be done. 1 2 3 4 5

Encourages us to rethink ideas which had never been questioned before.

1 2 3 4 5

Tells me what I have done wrong rather than what I have done right.

1 2 3 4 5

Provides useful advice for my development. 1 2 3 4 5 of my mistakes. Keeps track 1 2 3 4 5 Goes beyond his/her own self-interest for the good of our

group. 1 2 3 4 5

Negotiates with me about what I can expect to receive for what I accomplish.

1 2 3 4 5

Considers the moral and ethical consequences of his/her decisions.

1 2 3 4 5

Things have to go wrong for him/her to take action. 1 2 3 4 5 he traditional ways of doing things. Questions t 1 2 3 4 5 Enforces rules to avoid mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 Focuses me on developing my strengths. 1 2 3 4 5 Provides his/her assistance in exchange for my effort. 1 2 3 4 5 Provides reassurance that we will overcome obstacles. 1 2 3 4 5 Displays conviction in his/her ideals, beliefs and values. 1 2 3 4 5 Shows he/she is a firm believer in “if it ain’t broke, don

it”. ’t fix

1 2 3 4 5 Directs his/her attention toward failure to meet standards. 1 2 3 4 5 s differing perspectives when solving problems. Seek 1 2 3 4 5 Tells me what to do to be rewarded for my efforts. 1 2 3 4 5 Spends time teaching and coaching me. 1 2 3 4 5 Displays extraordinary talent and competence in whatever

he/she undertakes. 1 2 3 4 5

Problems must become chronic before he/she will take action. 1 2 3 4 5 ficult issues. Takes a stand on dif 1 2 3 4 5 Searches for mistakes before commenting on my

performance. 1 2 3 4 5

Makes sure that we receive appropriate rewards for achieving performance targets. 1 2 3 4 5

Suggests new ways of looking at how we do our jobs. 1 2 3 4 5 ndividuals with different needs, abilities

and aspirations. Treats each of us as i

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Appendixes 150

Frequently Fairly Sometimes Once in Not at all if not always often awhile

He/she motivates me to do more than I thought I could do. 1 2 3 4 5 His/her actions build my respect for him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 I earn credit with him/her by doing my job well. 1 2 3 4 5 Clarifies the central purpose underlying our actions. 1 2 3 4 5 Encourages me express my ideas and opinions. 1 2 3 4 5 Teaches me how to identify the needs and capabilities of

others. 1 2 3 4 5

Displays a sense of power and confidence. 1 2 3 4 5 Talks about how trusting each other can help us to overcome

our difficulties. 1 2 3 4 5

He/she heightens my motivation to succeed. 1 2 3 4 5 Emphasises the importance of having a collective sense of

mission. 1 2 3 4 5

Gets me to look at problems from many different angles. 1 2 3 4 5 Promotes self-development. 1 2 3 4 5 Behaves in ways that are consistent with his/her expressed

values. 1 2 3 4 5

Encourages non-traditional thinking to deal with traditional problems.

1 2 3 4 5

Gives personal attention to members who seem neglected. 1 2 3 4 5 He/she gets me to do more than I expected I could do. 1 2 3 4 5 Expresses his/her satisfaction when I do a good job. 1 2 3 4 5 Encourages addressing problems by using reasoning and

evidence, rather than unsupported opinion. 1 2 3 4 5

Ensures that my goals are similar to the goals of the organisation.

1 2 3 4 5

Satisfies my desire for autonomy. 1 2 3 4 5 Manages the process of change by involving the project team

members in the implementation of change. 1 2 3 4 5

Prevents the organisational bureaucracy from interfering with my work.

1 2 3 4 5

Encourages champions by acting as a catalyst to convert their ideas into actions.

1 2 3 4 5

Facilitates my career development by providing challenging “stretch” assignments.

1 2 3 4 5

Encourages me to freely explore the solution to the problem, i.e., hacking.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 Frequently Fairly Sometimes Once in Not at all

Appendixes 151

if not always often awhile

Remains open-minded while evaluating the ideas of team 1 2 3 4 5 members, including his/her own.

Takes timely and effective steps to achieve desired quality standards in the project.

2 3 4 5 1

Secures resources to support creative endeavours. 1 2 3 4 5 Ensures that the organisation rewards me appropriately for my

contribution. 1 2 3 4 5

Implements upper management’s decisions with the same enthusiasm, even if he/she does not completely agree with them.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 N ot effective Only slightly effective Effective Very effective Extremely effective

How do you rate the overall effectiveness of your group? 1 2 3 4 5 How effective is your Project Manager in representing his/her

group to higher authority? 1 2 3 4 5 How effective is your Project Manager in meeting the job-

related needs of those with whom he/she works? 2 3 4 5 1

How effective is your Project Manager in meeting the requirements of the organisation?

2 3 4 5 1

1 2 3 4 5 ry Somewhat Neither satisfied Fairly satisfied Ve Very satisfied dis satisfied satisfied dissatisfied nor dis

In all how satisfied are you with the leadership abilities of your Project Manager? 1 2 3 4 5

In all, how satisfied are you with the methods of leadership used by your Project Manager to get your group’s job done?

1 2 3 4 5

2. Contingency Factors A rt frompa leadership, there are other factors which are critical to the success of IT

ission, Top Management Support and Technical Tasks. The ss these factors. Using the following scale, please circle the

projects, such as Project Mfollowing questions addreappropriate number. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly agree

Appendixes 152

nor disagree

The goals of the project are in line with the general goals of the organisation.

1 2 3 4 5

The basic goals of the project were made clear to the project team.

1 2 3 4 5

project will benefit the parent organisation. The results of the 1 2 3 4 5 I am enthusiastic about the chances for success of this project. 1 2 3 4 5 ware of and can identify the beneficial consequences to

the organisation of the success of this project. I am a

1 2 3 4 5 Upper management will be responsive to our requests for

additional resources, if the need arises. 1 2 3 4 5

he project team for ensuring the project’s success. Upper management shares responsibility with t

1 2 3 4 5 egree of my authority

2 3 4 5 I agree with upper management on the dand responsibility for the project.

1

in a crisis. Upper management will support me 1 2 3 4 5 Upper management has granted us the necessary authority and

will support our decisions concerning the project. 1 2 3 4 5

Specific project tasks are well managed. 1 2 3 4 5 The project engineers and other technical people are

competent. 1 2 3 4 5

The technology that is being used to support the project works well.

1 2 3 4 5

riate technology (equipment, training programs etc.) has been selected for project success. The approp

1 2 3 4 5 The people implementing this project understand it. 1 2 3 4 5

sonal InformationPer 1. Sex Male Female

. Age -------

. My qualification(s) -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------

. I have been in this project for ------- months.

hank you for completing the questionnaire. Your co-operation is greatly pt strictly confidential.

2 3 4. My total experience in IT is ----- year(s) ----- month(s). 5 Tappreciated. The data you provided will be ke

Appendixes 153

Appendix-6 Essential Elements of Transformational, Transactional and Technical Leadership Behaviours I. Transformational Leadership Charisma 1. Requisite skills and intellect 2. Energy, self-confidence, self-determination, strong-ego- ideals 3. Ideological articulation of goals and high expectations. 4. Impression management. Inspirational Leadership 1. Providing models for followers 2. Use of persuasive words 3. Emotional appeals to competitiveness 4. Use of persuasive symbols and images Individualised Consideration 1. Mentoring 2. Developmental orientation 3. Individualisation of followers 4. Fostering of one-on-one communication and two-way contact 5. Attention to individual differences in needs 6. Delegation of responsibilities Intellectual Stimulation 1. Competence (general intelligence; cognitive creativity; experience) 2. Orientation (rational; empirical; existential; idealistic) 3. Freedom from conflict with superiors 4. Willingness to delegate 5. Time to think 6. Alertness to threats, challenges, and opportunities 7. Diagnostic skills 8. Solution generation 9. Articulate language and simplification 10. Symbol and image formation II. Transactional Leadership Contingent reinforcement 1. Rewards followers contingent on followers’ compliance 2. Clarifies role expectations and standards of performance 3. Aversely reinforces followers contingent on followers’

negative deviation from standards

Appendixes 154

(Source: Bass, 1985) III. Technical Leadership 1. Ensures the alignment of the project goals with organisational goals 2. Satisfies the subordinates’ desire for autonomy 3. Manages the process of change by involving the subordinates in the implementation

of change 4. Prevents organisational bureaucracy from interfering with the work of the

subordinates 5. Encourages champions by acting as a catalyst to convert their ideas into actions 6. Facilitates career development of subordinates by providing challenging “stretch”

assignments 7. Encourages subordinates to freely explore the solution to the problem, i.e., hacking 8. Remains open-minded while evaluating the ideas of team members, including

his/her own 9. Takes timely and effective steps to achieve desired quality standards in the project 10. Secures resources to support creative endeavours 11. Ensures that the organisation rewards subordinates appropriately for their

contribution 12. Implements upper management’s decisions with the same enthusiasm, even if

he/she does not entirely agree with them.

Appendixes 155

Appendix-7 Swinburne University of Technology

Division of Business, Humanities & Social Sciences Date: xxxx To: xxxxxx Dear xxxxx, RE: Request for participation in the research project on technical leadership in an IT environment We write to invite your participation in a research project looking at leadership in Information Technology companies. The research is aimed at making a significant contribution to the field of technical leadership by drawing on the direct experience of people. We are inviting a sample of IT companies in Australia to participate in this research and are sure that the results of the study will be useful to the respondents. The study is being conducted under my supervision by Mohan Thite, a full-time Ph.D student who has a background in the Human Resource Management in IT companies. Currently, we are finalising the research design. At this stage, Mohan would like to meet you to seek your feedback on the proposed research and your company's interest in participating in the research. If you are happy to co-operate in the project, please convey your consent to Mohan on Tel./Fax 03-9818 5765 and also please indicate a convenient date and time to meet him. Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact either Mohan or myself on 03-9836 6737. Thank you for your co-operation Sincerely, Alfred Clark Professor Emeritus Swinburne Telephone +61 3 214 8911 University of Technology Fax +61 3 819 5454 Hawthorn Campus Address all correspondence to John Street Hawthorn PO Box 218 Hawthorn Victoria, Australia Victoria 3122 Australia

Appendixes 156

Appendix-8

Swinburne University of Technology Division of Business Humanities & Social Sciences Date: To: Michael Hedley Education & Training Manager Australian Information Industry Association Dear Michael, RE: Research project on leadership in Information Technology companies in

Australia On the suggestion of John Gwyther of the Victorian branch of AIIA, we write to inform you that we are conducting research on leadership in IT companies. The research is aimed at making a significant contribution to the field of technical leadership by drawing on the direct experience of IT professionals. We are inviting a sample of Australian IT companies to participate in this research and are sure that the results of the study will be useful to the respondents. The study is being conducted under my supervision by Mohan Thite, a full-time Ph.D student who has a background in Human Resource Management in IT companies. A brief note on the purpose and methodology of the project is enclosed. We will be contacting the IT companies shortly in this regard. At this stage, we would like your support in encouraging the IT companies to participate in the research. We would be grateful if you could provide us with a letter of support . We would then forward this with our covering letter and questionnaire to the IT companies. We are confident that your active support would enhance the response rate to our survey significantly . It was also suggested to us that you may be able to publicise the research in your bulletin/news letter to your members. Should you require any further information on this research, please do not hesitate to contact either Mohan on 03-9818 5765 (Tel./Fax) (Email: [email protected]) or myself on 03-9836 6737. Please address your correspondence to Mohan Thite at 20/49, Robinson Road, Hawthorn, VIC-3122. Thank you for our co-operation. Sincerely Alfred Clark Professor Emeritus

Appendixes 157

Transformational Leadership in the Management of Technical Professionals - An Exploration of Leadership Behaviour in an Information Technology Environment

Mohan Thite Division of Business, Humanities & Social Sciences

Swinburne University of Technology TEL/FAX: (03) 9818 5765; Email: MThite buster.swin.edu.au

Purpose To examine the nature of technical leadership in an Information Technology environment Sample Design The target population is IT companies and IT divisions of major companies in Australia. The sampling frame consists of the first three managerial levels, namely, team leader (first level of supervision), project manager (second level) and divisional manager (third level). The technical subordinates of these IT managers will be the respondents to the survey. They will indicate the nature of the leadership style of their superior and their satisfaction with and the perceived effectiveness of the style. Research Instruments The Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass and Avolio, 1993) will be used to examine leadership style. It contains 80 items to measure leadership characteristics and their effectiveness. In addition, semi-structured interviews of senior IT managers will be conducted, wherever feasible, to collect qualitative data to strengthen the understanding of the styles of technical leadership, major personality components of better-suited styles and how to develop them in technical leaders. Leadership effectiveness will be measured further by examining the project group performance data maintained by the respondent organisations, including timeliness, quality, budget and cost performance, value to the company, and overall project performance. Complete confidentiality of data is assured (Managers and Projects can be identified as A,B,C etc.) and the results will be described in a general report without identifying particular companies. This report will be made available to participating companies.

Appendixes 158

Appendix-9

Australian Computer Society

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN The Australian Computer Society Inc. is pleased to support the research being conducted by Swinburne University of Technology to examine the nature of project leadership in an Information Technology environment in Australia.

The research is aimed at exploring the suitability of Transformational Leadership Model, a new paradigm in leadership research, in successfully leading information technology professionals.

ACS supports such research projects and encourages your participation. Clearly a high response rate from the companies approached to participate is highly desirable and we are happy to encourage members to participate. Jo Moylan Victorian Branch Chair

Victorian Branch. Locked Bag 36, South Melbourne Victoria 3205, Australia Telephone- (03) 9690 8000 Facsimile: (03) 9690 0201 Email: [email protected]

A member of IFIP - The International Federation for Information Processing

Appendixes 159

AUSTRALIAN INFORMATION INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION LIMITED 18 August 1995 Mr Mohan Thite Swinburne University of Technology Hawthorn Vic 3122 Dear Mr Thite Thank you for contacting the Association in respect to your research. The following words may be used to support our work. The Australian Information Industry Association is pleased to support the Research Project on project leadership in IT companies in Australia. This research being conducted by Swinburne University of Technology to examine the nature of project leadership in an information technology environment in Australia. The research is aimed at making a significant contribution to the field of technical leadership by exploring whether transformational leadership behaviour, a new paradigm in leadership research, is better suited to manage technical professionals. We understand that the concept is being tested for the first time in an Australian IT environment. The Association supports such research projects as it would be useful to IT companies in identifying, encouraging and developing a better-suited leadership style for their managers. The Association is happy to encourage its member companies to participate. We commend the study and trust that you will decide to participate in the project. Yours sincerely, Michael Hedley Manager, Education and Training

12 Cornpion Street Deakin ACT PO Box 246 Deakin West 2600

Appendixes 160

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT September 1995

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN The Australian Institute of Management is pleased to support the research being conducted by Swinburne University of Technology to examine the nature of leadership in an Information Technology environment in Australia. Considering the increasing importance of IT in today's business world, we need to look at the quality of IT project leadership. The results of the study will be useful to all the IT-oriented organisations and the Institute is happy to encourage those invited to participate in the survey to respond positively. PETER F SHELDRAKE FAIM Chairman - Executive Committee National Office, Australian Institute of Management ACN 004 525 017 181 Fitzroy Street St Kilda 3182 PO Box 112 St Kilda Victoria 3182 Telephone (03) 534 8181 Facsimile (03) 534 5050 State Divisions-. Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Hobart, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney Member Asian Association of Management Organisations (AAMO) - The Regional Body of the World Council of Management (CIOS)

Appendixes 161

Appendix-10 17th February 1996 «Title»«FirstName» «LastName» «JobTitle» «Company» «Address1» «Address2» «City», «State»«PostalCode» Dear «Title»«LastName», RE: Survey on Project Leadership in an Information Technology Environment I am writing to draw your kind attention to my letter sent you nearly a month ago inviting your company’s participation in a survey on leadership behaviour of IT Project Managers in Australia. The research is aimed at improving the quality of Australian IT project management by focusing on project leadership and other critical success factors. The research, the first of its kind in Australia, is being actively supported by the Australian Computer Society Inc. (ACSI), The Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA) and the Australian Institute of Management (AIM). We believe that the excellent performance and experience of your organisation can make a significant contribution to this study. Your participation is vital to the success of this survey. I trust that despite the busy schedule your company will be able to participate in this important survey. It would take only around thirty minutes for the Co-ordinator, Project Managers and the project team members to complete the questionnaire. On completion of the study, all participant companies will receive a summary of the survey results which will provide them with valuable information about the quality of project leadership in the Australian IT industry. I would be grateful if you could confirm that you would be participating in the survey. Should you require any further information or another set of questionnaire, please do not hesitate to contact either myself on (03) 9836 6737 or Mr. Mohan Thite on Tel./Fax: (03) 9818 5765; Email: [email protected]. Sincerely, Alfred Clark Professor Emeritus School of Management

Appendixes 162

Appendix-11 5th March 1996 «Title»«FirstName» «LastName» «JobTitle» «Company» «Address1» «Address2» «City», «State» «PostalCode» Dear «Title»«LastName», RE: Survey on Project Leadership in an Information Technology Environment I am writing to draw your kind attention to my letter sent you in January, 1996 inviting your company’s participation in a survey on leadership behaviour of IT Project Managers in Australia. A reminder letter was also sent in February, 1996. Since many companies have informed that they have not received the original letter, I am sending a copy to all those who are yet to respond to our survey. The research is aimed at improving the quality of Australian IT project management by focusing on project leadership and other critical success factors. The research, the first of its kind in Australia, is being actively supported by the Australian Computer Society Inc. (ACSI), The Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA) and the Australian Institute of Management (AIM). We believe that the excellent performance and experience of your organisation can make a significant contribution to this study. Your participation is vital to the success of this survey. I trust that despite the busy schedule your company will be able to participate in this important survey. It would take only around thirty minutes for the Co-ordinator, Project Managers and the project team members to complete the questionnaire. On completion of the study, all participant companies will receive a summary of the survey results which will provide them with valuable information about the quality of project leadership in the Australian IT industry. I would be grateful if you could confirm that you would be participating in the survey and also indicate the likely date of completion so as to plan our analysis work. Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact either myself on (03) 9836 6737 or Mr. Mohan Thite on Tel./Fax: (03) 9818 5765 Email: [email protected]. Sincerely, Alfred Clark Professor Emeritus, School of Management

Appendixes 163

Appendix-12: List and Profile of Participating Organisations No. Name of Total IT No. of IT Avr. no. Avr. durtn/ company Employees Employees projects per project project- months 1 Telstra (Corporate 8982 530 156 6 8 & Govt.) 2 EDS 600 400 18 12 6 3 ISSC (IBM) 2300 2000 100 20 7 4 QCOM 80 65 8 6 6 5 Fujitsu 1200 1000 40 10 12 6 Qantas 29000 650 200 25 12 7 Technix 12 10 4 3 6 8 DMR 400 350 12 13 10 9 Moldflow 110 50 20 2 12 10 Unichema 129 4 10 1 6 11 RHO 35 32 5 10 13 12 KAZ 70 65 5 5 6 13 Wizard 232 189 29 5 12 14 NAB 23000 740 40 10 6 15 Wacher 72 58 6 4 7 16 Megatec 63 35 11 2 3 17 CSIRO- IT 120 80 30 2 9 18 BHP IT 1800 1800 200 7 6 19 CO-CAM 160 140 300 NA 7 20 Technology One 55 50 7 7 12 21 Digital 2000 88 20 3 9 22 PA Consulting 82 NA NA 3 NA 23 Australian Water 3500 230 100 3 3 Technologies, Sydney 24 Roads & Traffic 7000 120 20 NA NA Authority 25 Aust. Broadcasting 4500 130 7 6 6 Corporation 26 Dept. of Justice, 4700 105 4 4 9 Victoria 27 NCOM 409 409 80 3 12 28 Commonwealth 36000 1500 81 9 10 Bank of Australia 29 Queensland 9000 120 10 5 6 DEVITER 30 SAP Australia 120 80 25 4 8 31 Unisys 1100 500 40 13 12 32 Midas Kapiti Intl. 45 34 10 3 3 33 Queensland Health NA NA 7 7 6 34 DST International 180 80 20 3 2 35 Dun & Bradstreet S/W 145 140 17 4 4

Appendix-12: List and Profile of Participating Organisations No. Name of Total IT No. of IT Avr. no. Avr. duration/ company Employees Employees projects per project project-months 1 Telstra (Corporate 8982 530 156 6 8 & Govt.) 2 EDS 600 400 18 12 6 3 ISSC (IBM) 2300 2000 100 20 7 4 QCOM 80 65 8 6 6 5 Fujitsu 1200 1000 40 10 12 6 Qantas 29000 650 200 25 12 7 Technix 12 10 4 3 6 8 DMR 400 350 12 13 10 9 Moldflow 110 50 20 2 12 10 Unichema 129 4 10 1 6 11 RHO 35 32 5 10 13 12 KAZ 70 65 5 5 6 13 Wizard 232 189 29 5 12 14 NAB 23000 740 40 10 6 15 Wacher 72 58 6 4 7 16 Megatec 63 35 11 2 3 17 CSIRO- IT 120 80 30 2 9 18 BHP IT 1800 1800 200 7 6 19 CO-CAM 160 140 300 NA 7 20 Technology One 55 50 7 7 12 21 Digital 2000 88 20 3 9 22 PA Consulting 82 NA NA 3 NA 23 Australian Water 3500 230 100 3 3 Technologies, Sydney 24 Roads & Traffic 7000 120 20 NA NA Authority 25 Aust. Broadcasting 4500 130 7 6 6 Corporation 26 Dept. of Justice, 4700 105 4 4 9 Victoria 27 NCOM 409 409 80 3 12 28 Commonwealth 36000 1500 81 9 10 Bank of Australia 29 Queensland 9000 120 10 5 6 DEVITER 30 SAP Australia 120 80 25 4 8 31 Unisys 1100 500 40 13 12 32 Midas Kapiti Intl. 45 34 10 3 3 33 Queensland Health NA NA 7 7 6 34 DST International 180 80 20 3 2 35 Dun & Bradstreet S/W 145 140 17 4 4

relationship between leadership and information technology ... · leadership. while there may be no...

Documents