the effect of leadership styles on workplace spirituality...

International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research117

The Effect of Leadership Styles on Workplace Spirituality, Teamwork and Project Performance

Ahmad Hery Sultoni1, Margono Setiawan2, Siti Aisjah2 and Rofiaty2

1Chevron Indonesia Company, East Kalimantan, Indonesia2Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia

AbstrAct

The research’s objectives are to examine and analyze effect of leadership style on project performance; examine and analyze effect of leadership style on workplace spirituality, examine and analyze effect of leadership style on teamwork, examine and analyze effect of workplace spirituality on teamwork and examine and analyze effect of workplace spirituality on project performance and examine effect of teamwork on project performance. This study is a survey research conducted involving 67 respondents from offshore deepwater installation, a floating production unit, West Seno, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Sample was a saturated sample. Measurement used Likert’s scale 1 to 5. Partial Least Square (PLS) was used to analyze the collected data. Findings show that (1) the effect of leadership style on project performance is significant; (2) the effect of spirituality at workplace on project performance is not significant; (3) there is a significant impact of leadership style on teamwork; (4) leadership style has significant impacts on workplace spirituality; (5) teamwork has no significant impacts on project performance; (6) workplace spirituality has significant impacts on teamwork. The practical implication of the research is to provide insights to the project manager on conceptual use of the most dominant leadership style that enables the success of project management executed in deepwater environment. The originality of research is to use Islamic leadership style as part of two other’s intrinsic leadership styles, i.e. transformational and spiritual leadership to examine leadership style’s impact on project performance conducted in deepwater upstream petroleum industry in East Kalimantan, Indonesia.

Keywords: Leadership Styles, Workplace Spirituality, teamwork, Project Performance, PLS (Partial Least square).

IntroductIon1.

In the highly competitive era, the best companies are constantly looking for proven practices that offer competitive advantages (Yang et. al., 2013). These companies typically apply practices that offer proven

International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research

ISSN : 0972-7302

available at http: www.serialsjournal.com

„ Serials Publications Pvt. Ltd.

Volume 15 • Number 5 • 2017

Ahmad Hery Sultoni, Margono Setiawan, Siti Aisjah and Rofiaty

International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research 118

added values to achieve higher organizational requirements, such as increased production efficiency, lower cost, faster project, higher quality of product, and safer and cleaner working environment. These organizational requirements result in an importance of leadership factor of manager and leader including project manager (Yang et. al., 2013). Several studies have shown that project manager is a critical role to project success. Green (2005) showed that an effective project leader is good at managing relationship across organizational functions and boundaries to break through organization inertia and bureaucracy. Sauer (1993) showed that management, organization, and culture are associated with project success. Prior studies have demonstrated that managing relationships is critical to project success (Acharya et. al., 2006a; 2006b; Le-Hoai et. al., 2010; Lewis, 1993). Turner and Müller (2005) stated that studies on project success factors have largely ignored the effect of project managers and their leadership on project success. Further study suggested that leadership style has no significant impact on project performance (Turner and Müller, 2005). Studies in disciplines other than construction context suggested that leadership style is becoming cititical to project performance, but research on the construction context is limited (Giritli and Civan, 2008; Sunindijo et. al., 2007;Ozorovskaja et. al., 2007; Chinowsky et. al., 2007; Wong et. al., 2007; Giritli and Oraz, 2004; Fellows et. al., 2003).

Despite adoption of practices, empirical study is limited to examine and analyze the effects of leadership style on project performance. Comprehensive studies on effect of leadership style on workplace spirituality, teamwork and project performance have not been performed. This limited information on leadership benefit and the competitive advantage of team, managers are reluctant to develop different leadership styles (Yang et. al., 2013).

This research has objectives to: (1) examine and analyze effect of leadership style on project performance; (2) examine and analyze effect of leadership style on workplace spirituality; (3) examine and analyze effect of workplace spirituality on teamwork; (4) examine and analyze effect of workplace spirituality on teamwork; (5) examine and analyze workplace spirituality on project performance: (6) examine and analyze effect of teamwork on project performance. A data collection tool was used examine and analyze leadership style, workplace spirituality, teamwork and performance of both capital and non-capital facility projects in floating production unit, West Seno, East Kalimantan, Indonesia

LItErAturE rEVIEW, HYPotHEsEs, And concEPtuAL ModEL2.

Literatures’ review in this research discusses the study of theory for the theoretical foundation that includes:

2.1. Leadership styles

DuBrin (2004) defines leadership as the accomplishment of goals through communication with others. Prior studies on leadership stressed the importance of leadership style (Yang et. al., 2013). Six schools of leadership have been developed over the past decades. The visionary school determined two types of leadership: transformational and transactional. Transformational leadership (Burns, 1978) stressed the leader role to motivate team members to perform their responsibilities. Transformational leadership enables leader to define and communicate as well as articulate the organization’s vision, and team members accept and respect leader’s credibility. The main character for transformational ia able to act as change agent for organization to create new strategies for relevant organization development. Hater and Bass (1988) states



that the dynamic of transformational leadership involve strong personal identification with the leader, joining in a shared vision of the future, or going beyond the self-interest exchange of rewards for compliance. In addition, transformational leadership provides inspiration and intellectual stimulation, motivates followers by having high expectations and modeling appropriate behaviors, and challenges followers with new ideas and approaches (Bass, 1990). Keller (1992) found that transformational leadership can be a predictor of project performance in R&D organization. Concept of transformational leadership integrates ideas on traits, style, and contingency (Burns, 1978). This transformational leadership (Bass, 1996) has four dimensions: idealized influence, inspired motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration. Idealized influence states that leader helps followers achieve outstanding objectives. Transformational leaders demonstrate confidence, strengthen important personal values, and connect personal values to organizational goals and ethical consequences of decision. Bass (1996) further states that inspired motivation type of leader articulates future vision and challenges followers with higher goals. Leaders exhibit optimism and the necessary steps that will need to be done. Intellectual stimulation (Bass, 1996) is the ability of a leader to challenge assumptions, stimulate new approach and innovation to do something new. They support followers to think creatively and work on current and future challenges. Individual consideration is ability of leader to provide assistance to followers and listen to their needs. Leaders also coach and develop.

Keegan and Den Hartog (2004) stated that transformational leadership is more suitable for project managers; however, no significant link was determined. In addition, Bass (1985) suggested that today’s environment requires subordinates to perform beyond ordinary expectations. Meanwhile, leaders with a transformational style appear to be more effective to subordinates and superiors (Fiol et. al., 1999; Lowe et. al., 1996). Furthermore, certain studies have investigated the interaction of a project manager’s leadership style with the project type. Müller and Turner (2007) concluded that different leadership styles are appropriate for various types of projects. Frame (1987) and Turner (1999) also suggested that different leadership styles are appropriate at different phases of the project life cycle. Higgs and Dulewicz (2004) showed a preference for transformational leadership style for complex projects and transactional leadership style for simple projects. These studies suggested that transformational and transactional leadership can be effective styles for project managers. While these studies examined leadership styles, other studies have also been active in analyzing the impacts of manager leadership on the performance of organizations and companies (Yang et. al., 2013). Prior studies have also shown a correlation between a manager’s leadership style and successful performance in business. Elenkov (2002) concluded that leadership can directly and positively predict organizational performance. Leadership behaviors are also considered crucial in creating effective performance among subordinates (Tsai et. al., 2009; Ogbonna and Harris, 2000; McColl- Kennedy and Anderson, 2002; Berson et. al., 2001; Zacharatos et. al., 2000). Furthermore, Ahearn et. al., (2004) demonstrated the effects of leadership skills on team performance.

Yang et. al., (2010) concluded that project type has a moderating impact on relationship between teamwork and project performance. However, previous studies stated that many project managers did not recognize their leadership style as contributor to project performance (Müller and Turner, 2005). Yang et. al., (2013) suggested that a number of studies have attempted to identify project success factors; however, prior studies have neglected project managers’ leadership style to project performance. Yang et. al., (2012) stated that transformational and transactional leaderships of project manager have a significant impact on project performance in Taiwan. Kissi et. al., (2012) and Serrador and Turner (2014) showed in their research that leadership style has an impact on project performance.



In addition of transformational leadership style, this research also examines impacts of spiritual and Islamic leaderships on project performance. Spiritual leadership theory (Fry, 2003; Fry, 2005) is a cause and effect relationship to transform and create organization that is internally motivated. Spiritual leadership theory is developed under a motivation model that incorporates vision, hope/faith, altruistic love, workplace spirituality theories, and spiritual well-being. Spiritual leadership’s goal is to include basic needs of leaders and followers to achieve spiritual continuity/welfare through membership and calling to create individual vision and values, team, organizational level to maintain not only higher psychological welfare and wellbeing but also productivity and organization commitment (Fry, 2003). Spiritual values has resulted in leaders who are seen more effective, and proven to improve job satisfaction, motivation, productivity and profit (Reave, 2005). Fry and Matherly (2006) in their exploratory research stated that spiritual leadership has significant impact on organization commitment and performance. Duchon and Plowman (2005) found that spiritual leadership has significant positive impact on organization performance. Fry et. al., (2011) stated that spiritual leadership has significant impact on military army performance in the United States.

Islamic leadership theory is founded by spiritual traits and practices (Aabed, 2005). It is generally based on the primary and secondary resources of shariah (Al Qur’an and Sunnah). Furthermore, ensuring essential elements such as cohesion, improved welfare of society, and smooth performance are important aspects of a leader’s responsibility (Ali, 2009). Rashid and Mamat (2013) emphasizes that quality of Islamic leadership consisting of four main attributes, namely (1) truthfulness (al-sidq), (2) trust (amanah), (3) knowledge (fathonah), and (3) communication (tabligh) was useful for every Muslim leader as well as non-Muslim leader. Wan Daud et. al., (2014) stated that Islamic leadership with dimension of truthfulness (al-sidq), trust (amanah), knowledge (fathonah) and communication (tabligh) is able to improve organization performance in financial institution in Malaysia. Hakim (2012) found that Islamic leadership has an impact on organization performance to achieve objectives. Previous research on transformational, spiritual and Islamic leadership support that leadership styles have a significant impact on performance. Thite and Simmons (1997) found that transformational leadership has a significant impact on information and technology project performance in Australia. Hakim (2009), Mansyur (2012) and Wan Daud et. al., (2014) stated that Islamic leadership has positive impacts on performance. Fry et. al., 2011 state that spiritual leadership has significant impact on performance. Arshad and Abbasi (2014) mentioned in his research that spiritual leadership was able to improve commitment and productivity. Usman and Danish (2010) stated that spiritual leadership also has a significant impact on performance bank in Pakistan. Daniel (2010) found on his research that workplace spirituality had significant impact on team work performance. Isabel et. al., (2013) stated their research that workplace spirituality measured by sense of community had significant impacts on teamwork. Asrun et. al., (2012) found that leadership style measured by spiritual leadership had significant impacts to improve workplace spirituality. Yang et. al., (2012) reviewed studies showing that the adoption of leadership style for teamwork enhancement has been supported. Earlier studies showed that leaders’ behavior can be positively related to team interaction and cohesion (Zaccaro et. al., 2001; Wang et. al., 2005; Bass, 1990). Based on empirical studies of leadership style effects on workplace spirituality, teamwork and project performance, the research hypothesis can be drawn as follows:

H1: Leadership style has significant impacts on project performance

H2: Leadership style has significant impacts on workplace spirituality

H3: Leadership style has significant impacts on teamwork



2.2. Workplace spirituality

Petchsawanga and Duchon (2012) suggested that transformation can begin in the workplace when organizations open themselves to the cultivation of their own employess’ spirituality. Dehler and Welsh (2003) stated that addressing employees as whole human beings in terms of their physical, mental, emotional, and spirit needs support to cultivate employees’ spirituality.

Ashmos and Duchon (2005) defined workplace spirituality as confession that officials have inner life which grows and is maintained by meaningful work in the context of community. Focusing on the spiritual qualities of meaningful at work and joy at work, organizations have found improved work performance (Duchon and Plowman, 2005). Empirical research also found that organization becomes more productive by allowing employees carrying out their spirituality in workplace (Petchsawanga and Duchon, 2012). Nick and Milliman (1994) and Whiit (1997) found from their research that workplace spirituality had positive impacts on performance.

Previous empirical research proved that the more workplace allows employee to practice spirituality, the more benefits organization can be gained in organization performance or productivity (Habibollah, 2012 and Asrun, 2013). Geigle (2012) stated that workplace spirituality has a positive impact on commitment, employee satisfaction, and performance. Neck and Milliman (1994) and Biberman and Whiit (1997) also confirmed theoretical assumption stating that workplace spirituality has a positive impact on performance. Dudung A. and Mulyasari, A.P. (2011) and Asrun et. al., (2012) suggested that spiritual leadership has a significant impact on workplace spirituality. Daniel (2010) found that workplace spirituality has a significant impact on performance. Isabel et. al., (2013) showed that workplace spirituality has a significant impact on teamwork. Neck and Milliman (1994) suggested that workplace spirituality had positive impacts to improve teamwork and employees’ commitment. Habibollah (2012) found that vision influences sense of working; altruistic love influences sense of community; faith/hope influences sense of working and inner life of worker. Ali et. al., (2012) and Petchsawanga and Duchon (2012) found that workplace spirituality had significant impacts on organization performance. Based on previous empirical studies on the effect of workplace spirituality on teamwork and project performance, the research hypothesis can be drawn as follows:

H4: Workplace Spirituality has significant impacts on teamwork

H5: Workplace Spirituality has significant impacts on project performance

2.3. teamwork and Project Performance

In addition to the research on leadership style on project performance, some research focused on discussion of the team interaction such as team communication and collaboration (Yang et. al., 2010). Communication is a process for disseminating information to other team members (Lussier, 2003).Team communication can be brought of as the extent to which members exchange thoughts and opinions with others to complete a mission. Collaboration is also critical to the group environment (Yang et. al., 2010). Collaboration consists of working together with one or more others, especially in a joint intellectual effort. Collaboration can improve relationship between team members (Nelson and Cooprider, 1996). Team cohesion refers to the degree to which team members desire to remain on the team (Cartwright, 1968). Mullen and Cooper (1994) distinguished between three forces of cohesion: (1) interpersonal attraction of team members,



(2) commitment to the team task, and (3) group pride team spirit. Yang et. al., (2012) reviewed studies showing that the adoption of leadership style for teamwork enhancement has been supported. Earlier studies showed that leaders’ behavior can be positively related to team interaction and cohesion (Zaccaro et. al., 2001; Wang et. al., 2005; Bass, 1990). Yang et. al., (2012) also suggested that previous studies showed correlation between teamwork and team performance; team interaction and cohesion are identified as factors influencing team performance; therefore, they can result in the uniformity and effectiveness of team members. Previous studies showed that team interaction and cohesion were associated with a critical determinant of team performance (Kotlarsky and Oshri, 2005; Thamain, 2004; Wang et. al., 2005).

The Project Managers use the triple constraint, namely scope, schedule and quality to measure project performance (Project Management Book of Knowledge, 2004). Previous research by Murphy et. al., (1974) found that there were 23 factors that contributed to the project success. Hughes et. al., (2004) defined project success by focusing on construction projects with success dimension including cost, schedule, quality, performance, and health, environment and safety (HES). Han et. al., (2012) suggested that there are several dimensions to define project success. These dimensions are categorized as (1) pre-completion project success including schedule, cost and other projects’ constraints, (2) short-term objectives that consist of functional performance compliance, technical specifications, impacts on customer and others, (3) mid-term targets that consists of business and commercial successes, and (4) long-term targets that consist of creation of new jobs, new market and others. Al-Tmeemy et. al., (2012) categorized project success into three (3), namely (1) project management success, (2) product success, and (3) market success. Project management success includes cost, schedule, and project quality fulfillments. Product success includes customer satisfaction, functional requirements compliance, and technical specification for product. Market success includes benefits, shares, reputation, and competitive advantages. This research used schedule, cost, quality, and health, environment and safety (HES) to measure project performance. Yang et. al., (2012) and Prabhakar (2008) stated that teamwork had a positive impact on project performance. Hoegl and Gemuenden (2007) found that teamwork measured by communication, coordination, balance support, efforts and cohesion had impacts on performance. Chiocchio et. al., (2011) stated that collaboration had positive impacts on performance. Based on theory and previous empirical studies on the effects of teamwork on project performance, the research hypothesis can be drawn as follows:

H6: Teamwork has impacts on project performance

2.4 research concept Framework

Based on the description of the gap of research on previous research and theories that support the concept of research, framework concept of research can be described in Figure 10.1 below.

rEsEArcH MEtHods3.

3.1. Population and sample

The population of this research was employees involving in deepwater projects in Chevron Makassar Limited. Total population was seventy seven employees (77) from various departments. This study used a saturated sample technique. The respondents were project managers, planners, engineers, operations and maintenance, contract engineer and health, environment and safety specialist.



Figure 10.1: conceptual Framework of research Source: conceptual Framework of research by sultoni et. al., (2016)

3.2. research data collection

A survey instrument was used to measure the project’s manager leadership style, workplace spirituality, teamwork, and project performance in the Chevron Makassar Limited. The survey was composed of four sections: (1) the project manager’s leadership style, (2) workplace spirituality, (3) teamwork, and (4) project performance. This research employed an e-mail survey methodology for data collection. The sample for this study focuses on Chevron Makassar Limited. The survey questionnaire was sent to 77 employees involving on deepwater project in Chevron Makassar Limited from May to July, 2015. Of 77 questionnaires sent, 67 were returned.

Study participants were asked to identify a recent capital project that they were familiar with for assessment the project’s manager leadership style, workplace spirituality, teamwork and project performance.

3.3. research Variables

This study has four (4) variables: (1) one independent variable, namely leadership style (Y1), and (2) three dependent variables consisting of workplace spirituality (Y1), teamwork (Y2), and project performance (Y3)

3.4. data Analysis Method

3.4.1. Descriptive Statistics Analysis

The analysis aims at interpreting the description of the arguments from respondents to the selection of statement, and statement frequency distribution of respondents from collected data. In this study, respondents were categorized into five categories using a Likert scale. Each scale has gradation ratings of strongly disagree to strongly agree as outlined in the answer choice of questionnaires.

3.4.2. Method of Inferential Statistics

Inferential statistical methods which were used in this study are Partial Least Square (PLS) version 2.0. Development of SEM for nonlinear relationships spearheaded by Kenny and Judd (1984) by writing an



article entitled “Estimating nonlinear and Interactive Effects of Latent Variables” stating that simply SEM can be seen as an analytical technique that involves two procedures is factor analysis and multiple regression conducted jointly. While PLS 2..0 software as a tool for processing nonlinear and linear relationship was initially developed by Wold (1985) which has the advantage can identify nonlinear relationships between latent variables and correct the path coefficient value based on the relationship.

rEsuLts And dIscussIon4.

4.1. the characteristics of respondents

In this study, the sample was 77 employees involving in capital and operating expenses projects at Chevron Makassar Limited and collected data was 67. The results of analysis for respondents showed that 81% respondents were from Operations and Maintenance function. 66% respondents had working experiences between 11 and 15 years. 72% respondents held bachelor degree. 42% surveyed projects had a project nominal value between USD 1,000,000 and 5,000,000. 63% of respondent had ages between 31 and 40 years old. Under the conditions of the age of respondents, this indicated that most of the project stakeholders were expected to have the physical ability to work and to act effectively and efficiently in the use of project success factors to improve project performance. The characteristics of respondents by sex showed that all of respondents are male sex.

No female employee was able to compete with male employee during hiring selection in year 2003 when floating production unit and tension leg platforms were installed offshore Makassar Strait.

4.2. construct Validity test for Variables

Loading factors for leadership styles are 0.897, 0.952 and 0.936 for transformational leadership, spiritual leadership and Islamic leadership respectively. These loading factors are bigger than 0.6 meaning that dimensions of leadership styles are valid. Spiritual leadership has the biggest loading factor implying that spiritual leadership is the most dominant leadership to form leadership variable (X1). Loading factors for spirituality at workplace are 0.858, 0.831 and 0.857 for dimension of inner life, meaningful work and sense of community respectively. All loading factors are bigger than 0.6, and can be concluded that workplace spirituality dimensions are valid. Loading factors for teamwork are 0.836, 0.925 and 0.685 for dimensions of communication, collaboration and cohesiveness respectively. All loading factors are also bigger than 0.6 meaning that teamwork dimensions are valid. Meanwhile, loading factors for project performance measured by schedule, cost, quality and health, environment and safety (HES) are 0.707, 0.825 and 0.863 respectively. Al loading factors are also bigger than 0.6 meaning that project performance dimensions are valid.

4.3. Linearity test

Linearity test is required in PLS analysis to perform path coefficient interpretation. Test used SPSS software, and if significant linearity (p) < 0.05, linearity assumption is met. Linearity tests were performed to examine variables’’ relationship between leadership style and project performance, leadership style and workplace spirituality, leadership style and teamwork, workplace spirituality and teamwork, workplace spirituality and project performance and teamwork and project performance. Analysis using SPSS showed that all relationships among variables have p-value of 0.000 so linearity tests for PLS analysis is met.



4.4. Evaluation of Goodness-of-Fit structural Model

A feasible model was selected using the Goodness-of-Fit (GOF) measures recommended by Chau (1997). The chi-square statistic for the full measurement model was non-significant (p > 0.05). The model in this study is said to be fit if the model is supported by empirical data and meet the criteria of goodness-of-fit structural model. Predictive relevance value is goodness of fit model in partial least square (PLS) analysis. Calculation is based on determination coefficient value. Based on PLS analysis, the value of Predictive relevance is 0.7859. It is concluded that model is good and has a predictive ability of 78.59%

4.5. direct Impact Hypothesis testing

Testing hypothesis in PLS uses resampling bootstrap method with test statistic t. Results of test hypothesis show that relationship between variables has p-value less than 0.05 except variable relationship between workplace spirituality and project performance, and teamwork and project performance that have p-value 0.146 and 0.371 respectively. This can be concluded that relationship between workplace spirituality and project performance, and team work and project performance are not significant.

The test of H1, H2, H3, H4, H5 and H6 was based on the direct effects (structural coefficients) among the constructs. From PLS analysis, H1 showed a positive relationship between project manager’s leadership style and project performance. This hypothesis was supported because the path coefficient was 0.349 and p-value was 0.026 that was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Path coefficient is positive and p-value is less than 0.05, showing that a higher level of leadership style is associated with higher level of project performance. H2 showed a positive relationship between project manager’s leadership style and workplace spirituality. This hypothesis was supported because the path coefficient was 0.562 and p-value was 0.000 that was statistically significant (p < 0.05). H3 showed a positive relationship between leadership style and teamwork. This hypothesis was supported by a path coefficient of 0.589 and p-value of 0.000 (p < 0.05). H4 showed a positive and significant relationship between workplace spirituality and teamwork. This hypothesis was supported by a path coefficient of 0.204 and p-value of 0.05 (p < 0.05). H5 showed a positive relationship between workplace spirituality and project performance with a path coefficient of 0.179. However, p-value for this relationship variable was 0.146 (p < 0.05), which does not support H5, showing that a higher level of workplace spirituality is not associated with a higher level of project performance. H6 showed a positive relationship between teamwork and project performance with a path coefficient of 0.144. However, p-value for this relationship variable was 0.371 (p < 0.05), which does not support H6, showing that a higher level of teamwork is not associated with a higher level of project performance.

rEsEArcH IMPLIcAtIons5.

Study shows that leadership styles had impacts on performance. This support previous theory developed by Yang et. al., (2011), Zehir et. al., (2011), Serrador and Turner (2014), and Kissie et. al., (2012) stating that leadership styles influenced project performance. This finding also strengthens theory developed by Fry et. al., (2011), Duchon and Plowman (2005), Arshad and Abbasi (2014), and Givens (2008) stating that spiritual leadership had significant impacts on performance. Findings of study also reinforce previous research by Wan Daud et. al., (2014), Majeed et. al., (2011), Mansyur et. al., (2013), and Hakim (2011) stating that Islamic leadership had significant impacts on performance. This study also found that leadership styles had significant impacts on workplace spirituality. This supports previous research by



Asrun et. al., (2012) stating that spirituality leadership had impacts on workplace spirituality. Study findings also found that leadership styles had significant impacts on teamwork which strengthens previous study by Yang et. al., (2011), Chou et. al., (2013), and Zaccaro et. al., (2001) saying that leadership styles influenced teamwork.

Teamwork was not able to provide significant impacts on project performance. The use of teamwork’s dimensions, i.e. communication, collaboration and cohesiveness was not able to yield significant impact on project performance. This research’s finding does not support previous research by Serrador and Turner (2014), Yang et. al., (2011), Chiocchio et. al., (2011), Bass et. al., (2003), and Hoegl and Gemuenden (2001) stating that teamwork had significant impacts on project performance. This research finding shows that strong teamwork does not always result in improving project performance.

Findings of this study on impacts of workplace spirituality on project performance does not strengthen previous research by Ali et. al., (2012), Petchawanga and Duchon (2012), Habibollah, J. (2012), Usman and Danish (2010), and Duchon and Plowman (2005) stating that workplace spirituality had influences on teamwork. Meanwhile, study findings on relationship between workplace spirituality and teamwork support previous research by Daniel (2010), Isabel et. al., (2013), and Neck and Milliman (1994) stating that spirituality in workplace had influences on teamwork.

rEsEArcH contrIbutIons6.

This research is expected to contribute to the development of insight into the conceptual and theory regarding the implementation of leadership styles, workplace spirituality and teamwork in efforts to improve the performance of both capital and operating expenses projects in Chevron Makassar Limited

These research findings contribute to the theory of dependent an independent variables, namely (1) independent variable for relationship between leadership stiles to project performance, dependent variables for relationship between workplace spirituality and teamwork to project performance, and (3) dependent variables for relationship between workplace spirituality and teamwork.

rEsEArcH orIGInALItY7.

Findings from this study provide a configuration in the development of structural models for the effects of leadership styles on workplace spirituality, teamwork and project performance using PLS. Intrinsic motivation-based leadership, i.e. transformational, spiritual and Islamic leaderships was used to examine and analyze its effects on workplace spirituality, teamwork and capital and operating expenses project in upstream oil and gas industry.

rEsEArcH LIMItAtIon8.

This study has limitations: (1) the research’s object is limited to the upstream offshore project with internal samples consisting of project managers, project members and stakeholders of only one oil and gas company in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Thus, the results can only be generalized to the upstream offshore oil and gas company in East Kalimantan, Indonesia, and (3) data analysis is only based on survey data that is presented by one point in time (cross sectional), and therefore, the results are only valid on the condition of the time.



concLusIon9.

The study concludes: (1) leadership styles have a significant impact on deepwater project performance at Chevron Makassar Limited, (2) leadership style have a significant impact on workplace spirituality, (3) leadership styles have a significant impact on teamwork, (4) workplace spirituality has a significant impact on teamwork, (5) workplace spirituality has no significant impact on project performance, and (6) teamwork has no significant impact on project performance.

ReferencesAabed, A. (2005), A study of Islamic Leadership Theory and practice in K-12 Islamic schools in Michigan (Unpublished doctoral

thesis). University of Brigham Young, United States. Retrieved http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1407&context=etd.

Acharya, N.K., Lee, Y.D., and Choi, S.D. (2006a), “Key Attitude Indicators (KAI) for measuring attitude of contractors in construction projects.” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 151-163.

Acharya, N.K., Lee, Y.D., and Kim, J. K. (2006b), “Critical construction conflicting factors identification using analytical hierarchy process.” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 165-174.

Ali, A.J. (2009), Islamic perspectives on leadership: A model. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 160-180.

Al-Tmeemy, S., Abdul-Rahman, H., and Harun, Z. (2011), Future criteria for success of building projects in Malaysia. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29, pp. 337-3.

Asrun, Djumilah Zain, Ubud Salim, Armanu Thoyib. (2012), Spiritual Leadership: The Influence Due to Workplace Spirituality, Satisfaction, and Deviant Behavior (Case Study at City Government of Kendari). Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research. Vol. 2(12), pp. 11978-1198.

Bass, B.M. (1990), “From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision.” Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 19-31.

Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B.J., and Popper, M. (2001), “The relationship between vision strength, leadership style and context.” The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 53-73.

Burns, J.M. 1978. Leadership. In Choi, Y. and Mai-Dalton, R.R. (1998), On the leadership function of self-sacrifice. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 4, pp. 475-502.

Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., Higgs, A.C. (1993), Relations between workgroup characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Pers. Psychol. Vol. 46, pp. 823-825.

Chau, P. (1997), “Re-examining a model for evaluating information center success using a structural equation modelling approach.” Decision Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 309-334.

Chinowsky, P., Molenaar, K., and Realph, A. (2007), “Learning organizations in construction.” Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 27-34.

Chou Huey-Wen, Lin Yu-Hsun, Chang Hsiu-Hua, Chuang Wen-Wei. (2013), Transformational Leadership and Team Performance The Mediating Roles of Cognitive Trust and Collective Efficacy. The Leadership Querterly. Vol. 24(1), pp. 270-283.

Daniel Jose Luis. (2010), The effect of workplace spirituality on team effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 442-456.



Deris, S.M. (2012), Commentary on seerah and history. Retrieved November 26, 2013, from http://smderis.blogspot.com/2012/05/muhammad-intelligent-prophet-four.html.

DuBrin, A.J. (2004), Leadership research findings, practice, and skills, 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, Indianapolis, USA.

Duchon, D. and Plowman, D.A. (2005), Nurturing the spirit at work: Impact on work unit performance, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16(5), pp. 807-833.

Dudung, Abdurrahman and Mulyasari, A.P. (2011), Hubungan Kepemimpinan Spiritual dan Spiritualitas Tempat Kerja. Prosiding Sosial,Ekonomi, dan Humaniora Vol. 2, No. 1.

Elenkov, D.S. (2002), “Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies.” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, No. 6, pp. 467-480.

Fellows, R., Liu, A., and Fong, C.M. (2003), “Leadership style and power relations in quantity surveying in Hong Kong.” Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 21, No. 8, pp. 809-818.

Fiol, C.M., Harris, D., and House, R.J. (1999), “Charismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social change.” Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 449-482.

Frame, J.D. (1987), Managing projects in organizations, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, California, USA.

Fry, W., (2003), ‘Towards a theory of spiritual leadership’, The Leadership Quarterly Vol. 14, pp. 693-727.

Fry, L.W., and Matherly, L. (2006), Spiritual leadership and organizational performance. Paper presented at the 2006 Academy of Management Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Fry Louis W., Hannah Sean T., Noel Michael, Walumbwa Fred O. (2011), Impact of spiritual leadership on unit performance. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 259-270.

Giritli, H. and Civan, I. (2008), “Personality study of construction professionals in the Turkish construction industry.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134, No. 8, pp. 630-634.

Giritli, H. and Oraz, G.T. (2004), “Leadership styles: Some evidence from the Turkish construction industry.” Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 253-262.

Givens, R.J. (2008), Transformational Leadership: The Impact on Organizational and Personal Outcomes. Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 1, , pp. 4-24.

Green, S. (2005), “Strategic project management from maturity model to star project leadership.” Project Management Practice, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 12-14.

Habibollah, J. (2012), The impact of spirituality on work performance. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1961-1066.

Hakim Abdul. (2012), The Implementation of Islamic Leadership and Islamic Organizational Culture and Its Influence on Islamic Working Motivation and Islamic Performance PT Bank Mu’amalat Indonesia Tbk. Employee in the Central Java. Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 17(1), pp. 77-90.

Han, W.S., Yusof, A.M., Ismail, S., and Aun, N.C. (2012), Reviewing the Notions of Construction Project Success. International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 7(1), pp. 90-101.

Hater, J.J., and Bass, B.M. (1988), Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73(4), pp. 695-702.

Higgs, M.J. and Dulewicz, S.V. (2004), “Design of a new instrument to assess leadership dimensions and styles.” Selection and Development Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 7-12.



Hughes, S.W., Tippett, D.D., and Thomas, W.K. (2004), Measuring Project Success in the Construction Industry. Engineering Management Journal. Rolla. Vol. 16, Iss. 3; pp. 31-3.

Isabel Faro Albuquerque, Rita Campos Cunha, Luís Dias Martins, Armando Brito Sá. (2014), Primary health care services: workplace spirituality and organizational performance, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 27 Iss 1 pp. 59-82.

Keegan, A.E. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2004), “Transformational leadership in a project based environment: a comparative study of the leadership styles of project managers and line managers.” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp. 609-618.

Keller, R.T. (1992), “Transformational leadership and the performance of R&D project groups.” Journal of Management, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 489-501.

Kissi, J., Dainty A.R.J., and Tuuli, M.M. (2013), Examining the role of transformational leadership of portfolio managers in project performance. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 31 (4), pp. 485-497.

Kotlarsky, J. and Oshri, I. (2005), “Social ties, knowledge sharing and successful collaboration in globally distributed system development projects.” European Journal of Informational Systems, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 37-48.

Le-Hoai, L., Lee, Y.D., and Son, J.J.(2010), “Partnering in construction: investigation of problematic issues for implementation in Vietnam.” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 731-741.

Lewis, J.P. (1993), How to build and manage a winning project team, American Management Association, New York, USA.

Lowe, K.B., Kroek, G.K., and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), “Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature.” Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 385-425.

Lussier, R.N. (2003), Management Fundamentals: Concepts, Application, Skill Development, 2nd edition. South Western, Mason, OH.

Majeed Yasir, Khalid Zulqarnain and Aslam Khan Muhamamd. (2011), Far East Journal of Marketing and Management. Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 54-65.

Mansyur, Ahmad Yasser, Abd. Saman and Ahmad. (2013), Gaya Kepemimpinan Prophetik Sebagai Model Peningkatan Produktivitas Kerja Karyawan Dan Outcomes Organisasi Secara Intrinsik Pada Lembaga Ekomomi Syariah. Laporan Penelitian strategis Nasional, DIKTI.

Mullen, B., Cooper, C. (1994), The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psych. Bull., Vol. 115, No. 2, pp. 210-227.

Nelson, K.M., Cooprider, J.G. (1996), The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group performance. MIS Q, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 409-432.

Neck, C. P., and Milliman, J. F. (1994), Thought Self-leadership: Finding Spiritual Fulfillment in Organizational Life. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 9(6), pp. 9-16.

Project Management Institute, 2004. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.

Reave, L. (2005), Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 655-687.

Sauer, C. (1993), Why information system fail: A case study approach, Alfred Waller Ltd, Oxford, UK.

Serrador, P., dan Turner, J.R. (2014), The Relationship between Project Success and Project Efficiency. Procedia - Social and Behavior Sciences. Vol. 119, pp. 75-84.



Thamain, H. (2004), “Linkages of project environment to performance: Lessons for team leadership.” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, No. 7, pp. 533-544.

Turner, J.R. and Müller, R. (2005), “The project manager’s leadership style as a success factor on projects: A literature review.” Project Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 49-61.

Usman, A. and Danish, R.Q. (2010), Leadership Spirituality and Organizational Commitment among Bank employees’, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5(3), pp. 185-193.

Wan Daud, W.N., Abdul Rahim, M., Zainoel, F.A., and Ismail, A.G. (2014), Developing a Model of Islamic Leadership Quality Using Multiple Case Studies for Takaful Performance. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(24), pp. 67-75.

Wang, E., Chou, H.W., and Jiang, J. (2005), “The impacts of charismatic leadership style on team cohesiveness and overall performance during ERP implementation.” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 173-180.

Wold, H. (1985), Partial Least Square. In S Kotz, NL Johnson (eds.), Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, Vol. 6, pp. 581-591, John Willy & Sons, New York.

Wong, J., Wong, P.N.K., and Heng, L. (2007), “An investigation of leadership styles and relationship cultures of Chinese and expatriate managers in multinational construction companies in Hong Kong.” Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 95-106.

Yang, L.R., Wu, K.S., Huang, C.F. (2013), “ Validation of a Model Measuring the Effect of a Project Manager’s Leadership Style on Project Performance.” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 271-280.

Yang, L.R., Huang, C.F., and Wu, K.S. (2010), “The association among project manager’s leadership style, teamwork and project success.” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 258-267.

Zaccaro, S.J., Rittman, A.L., and Marks, M.A. (2001), Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 12(4), pp. 451-483.

Zehir, C., Ertosun, O.G., Zehir, S. and Muceldili, B. (2011), The Effects of Leadership Styles and Organizational Culture over Firm Performance: Multi-National Companies in Istanbul, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 24(1), pp. 1460-1474.

the effect of leadership styles on workplace spirituality...

Documents