Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Through the lens of social cognitive theory (SCT), we formulated hypotheses and tested the mediating role of psychological empowerment (PE) in linking transformational leadership (TL) to project success (PS). A structured questionnaire was used to gather responses from 356 team members, project managers, and stakeholders. Our findings demonstrated that PE and TL had a substantial influence on PS. Furthermore, we determined that PE partially mediates the relationship between TL and PS. This study sought to give insights into this relationship and identified PE as a precondition for TL effectiveness. These findings have implications for theorists and practitioners because they assert that the association between TL and PS may be explained by psychological empowerment as the underlying mechanism. By demonstrating how leaders inspire their followers to become leaders themselves, we elucidate how these findings add to the literature on leadership. We also go into further detail about the use of leadership training.

Keywords

leadership project management public sector transformational leadership psychological empowerment project success

Introduction

Project success (PS) has gotten unprecedented attention due to rapid and new technology transforming economies (Huemann & Silvius, 2017). “Every year, around $48 trillion is invested in projects. Yet, according to the Standish Group, only 35 percent of projects are considered successful” (Rodriguez, 2021, p. 55). The number of projects in several industries, including security, IT, the social sector, and construction, has increased due to globalization and industrial expansion (Yatim et al., 2009). According to Harvard Business Review Project Management Handbook, “the value of project-oriented economic activity worldwide will grow from $12 trillion (in 2013) to $20 trillion by 2027” (Rodriguez, 2021). Large sums of money are annually invested in public projects by management in both high- and low-income nations (Flyvbjerg, 2014). Global economic data demonstrate a significant and expanding global use of project management (PM) systems (Anantatmula, 2008). “The pace of the project economy is only going to accelerate. According to recent research, the value of project-oriented economic activity worldwide will grow from $12 trillion (in 2013) to $20 trillion by 2027” (Rodriguez, 2021, p. 5). These increasing numbers represent the requirement for better, more profitable, and more efficient projects, and as this demand increases, project managers face more challenges in completing projects (Anantatmula, 2008). To what extent have the project’s aims and objectives been met—which differ by industry—can be used to measure PS (Banki et al., 2008; Chan et al., 2002). Researchers have studied and analyzed what they believe to be factors that directly impact project success (Albert et al., 2017; Bayiley & Teklu, 2016; Joslin & Müller, 2016a, 2016b). According to researchers, the project manager determines whether it succeeds or fails (Drouin et al., 2018; Raziq et al., 2018). “Effective project managers have to be true leaders” (Rodriguez, 2021, p. 42).

“It is quickly becoming accepted wisdom that it is people who deliver projects, not processes and systems” (Cooke-Davies, 2002, p. 189), and researchers claim that “people matter more than processes” (Rodriguez, 2021, p. 42). Flexible and motivated people can deliver successful projects (Boehm & Turner, 2005), and “projects will always need motivated people to execute them” (Rodriguez, 2021, p. 42). Project management literature informs that ineffective leadership is the cause of 80% of project failure (Maqbool et al., 2017; Naeem & Khanzada, 2017; Srića, 2008). In PM’s context, there is a deficiency of empirical work, even though leadership has been in the spotlight for academicians and practitioners (Söderlund, 2011; Turner & Müller, 2005; Tyssen et al., 2014). It is well known that transformational leaders have an influence on public administration (Trottier et al., 2008; Vogel & Masal, 2015); yet, one of the critical success factors (CSF) is the effective use of TL in projects (Raziq et al., 2018). TL is a leadership approach that can be ideal in a project environment (Kissi et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2011).

Fetching better moods and motivating project team members affects project outcomes (Sy et al., 2005). Burke et al. (2006) state that project managers using a transformational leadership style enhance team cooperation and reliability, they encourage the team to participate in discussions and opinion building, and they also encourage the progress of self-organization and leadership abilities in following team members (Khan, Malik, & Saleem, 2020). Psychological empowerment is a prerequisite for effective transformational leadership behavior in innovative behavior and performance (Appelbaum et al., 2015; Pieterse et al., 2010). Motivating and inspirational leaders directly (Fareed & Su, 2022) and indirectly (through psychological empowerment) influence PS (Khan, Jaafar, et al., 2020). Psychologically empowered and motivated employees are imperative for PS (Khan, Malik, & Saleem, 2020). Effective project managers “lead and empower the team members to perform at their best” (Rodriguez, 2021).

SCT provides a structure in which “personal factors, such as moral thought and affective self-reactions, moral conduct, and environmental factors all operate as interacting determinants that influence each other in determining outcomes” (Bandura, 1986). Bass (1995) stated, “truly empowered followers are more likely to have a transformational leader, and empowered followers typically perform better and have better personal development.” TL is a leadership style that raises followers beyond their own interests by altering morale, ideals, values, and interests and encouraging followers to do superior than anticipated primarily (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1999). TL consists of several components; for example, a component idealized influence (II) serves as a role model, forfeiting self-interest for the collective benefit and inspiring team members to follow their leaders. Inspirational motivation (IM) includes articulating an inspiring vision. Inspiring team members to express intellectual stimuli (IS) to challenge the status quo and individual consideration (IC) of the ultimate factor involves supporting the follower’s individual developmental needs (Pieterse et al., 2010). What is most beneficial with high psychological empowerment is not just the leaders’ behavior but the TL itself (Pieterse et al., 2010). Nevertheless, there is limited literature about the effects of mediator variables on the TL’s effects (Bass, 1998).

Although researchers acknowledge the crucial significance of project success in project management, its interaction with transformational leadership and psychological empowerment has never been investigated before. Therefore, two questions remained unanswered. First, numerous scholars have investigated how TL directly impacts PS; however, does transformational leadership indirectly (e.g., psychological empowerment) influence project success? Second, psychological empowerment affects innovative behaviors and employee performance, and does psychological empowerment influences project success? Besides, limited literature is accessible in developing countries like Pakistan due to the fact that most research has been carried out in a Western settings (Fareed & Su, 2022; Fareed et al., 2021). Therefore, this study empirically investigates TL’s indirect (through psychological empowerment) and direct influence on project success in Pakistan’s public sector context.

We specifically contend that PE may act as a mediator in the interaction between TL and project manager behaviors conforming to the principles of SCT. We contend that transformational leaders should be more likely to inspire and empower those they lead (Bakker et al., 2022; Kark et al., 2003). We, therefore, assume that more psychological empowerment will ultimately result in tremendous project success in terms of high levels of work engagement (Gong et al., 2020; Meng & Sun, 2019; Monje Amor et al., 2021), satisfaction, and recognition (Hill et al., 2014). Accordingly, Khan, Malik, and Saleem (2020) and Khan, Jaafar, et al. (2020) have linked psychological empowerment and project success. We further point out that TL has been shown to be an antecedent to PE by Schermuly et al. (2022) and Joo and Lim (2013). In our research, we expand on these conclusions by looking more closely at the factors involved in a study of public sector projects. A literature review revealed that no research has looked at the mediating relationships between these variables in the context of public sector projects.

We claim that there are three ways in which our research adds to theory and practice. First, a model of TL’s impacts on a sample of team members and managers engaged in public projects is created and put to the test in an experimental setting. We then look at some ways that a transformational project manager could influence project success factors. Second, we add to the corpus of research on the psychological, emotional, and attitude consequences of TL in public projects. The following section will continue a short literature review on project success, psychological empowerment, and transformational leadership. We next go through the research model and hypotheses before moving on to the research methods. Finally, the research findings, theoretical and practical ramifications, and limits are discussed.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Project Success

Researchers and project management professionals progressively realize that the time, budget, and quality “iron triangle” success criteria are imperfect (Andersen, 2014; Atkinson, 1999; Baccarini, 1999; PMI, 2016; Rodriguez, 2021). Additionally, according to Shenhar and Dvir (2007), the concept of PS may be more complex than the two outcomes of failure and success. The Hubble Telescope and the Sydney Opera House serve as examples of how a project may be poor in terms of yield effectiveness yet successful in terms of investment efficiency (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). Even if a project successfully completes its goals within the established limits of quality, budget, and schedule, it does not guarantee that the investment is profitable (PMI, 2016).

The definitions of “success” and “failure” of a project might differ depending on the situation. Leaving a project unfinished due to changes in the business environment, for instance, does not always indicate failure. These factors mean that there is a possibility that the existing method of calculating the success percentage of a project does not provide a fair picture (Jenner, 2015; Zwikael & Smyrk, 2012). Albert et al. (2017) read much on PS in the literature. According to them, the success elements were time, performance, cost, economic success, and quality. Stakeholder benefits, customer or particular client issues, and the traditional dimensions of quality, time, and money are the three new metrics Davis (2016) has developed to gage project success. Over time, approaches for determining and attaining project success have changed. Iron triangles were mostly utilized in the literature to evaluate projects before the first success framework and a CSF list were introduced (Tam et al., 2020).

Transformational Leadership and Project Success

Transformational leaders increase awareness of the numerous uncertainties and allied project challenges that deserve change initiatives. Transformational leaders provide a clear vision for the project’s future, encourage meetings amongst key players, and pave the way for project success (PS) (Kissi et al., 2013; Maqbool et al., 2017). Transformational leaders set thrilling objectives for team members to accomplish inspiring project objectives (Munyeki & Were, 2017). When applied to a project, TL fosters an unprecedented degree of unity, dedication, and cooperation among team members, hence validating the PS (Aga et al., 2016; Kissi et al., 2013; Raziq et al., 2018). TL has a constructive effect on teams and promotes moral behavior. Raise the spirits and motivate the team to achieve the set goals (Pieterse et al., 2010).

According to Robbins and Judge (2013), TL is among the century’s most influential theories. A large body of research indicates that the TL style is more effective than the transactional leadership (TS) style in achieving project and organizational goals (Abbas & Ali, 2021; Conger, 1999; Dubinsky et al., 1995; Yammarino et al., 1993). Based on their research into various styles of leadership, Zareen et al. (2015) and Gardner and Stough (2002) concluded that TL is more successful and impactful than TL.

Teams are more likely to give their all for PS when led by transformational leaders who create an inspiring atmosphere (Burke et al., 2006). The leader or manager has the primary responsibility to facilitate their followers and give an approachable culture where they can develop and improve their abilities, take on modern challenges, and contribute to PS (Anantatmula, 2010). Piccolo et al. (2010) indicated a positive relationship between TL and PS. TL and its various dimensions are crucial elements in refining employee performance, teamwork, and persuading followers to complete assigned tasks. Therefore, the projects’ success rate is greater (Amin et al., 2016).

Hassan et al. (2017) argue that the qualities of the project manager are critical to the achievement of project goals. Workers will work hard to achieve their objectives if the project manager is helpful and cooperative. Still, if the manager is strict and uncooperative, employees will feel pressured, which will impede them from accomplishing their goals (Hassan et al., 2017). The project manager’s competencies and TL positively correlate with PS (Fareed et al., 2021; Maqbool et al., 2017). The TL style is crucial to the team’s success, as it motivates members to follow the leader’s direction and accomplish their goals. To put it simply, when led by a transformational leader, a team will flourish and adopt new ideas and creative methods that will make its members more productive and loyal to the company as a whole, which will, in turn, assure the success of the project at hand (Tabassi et al., 2017).

Project managers following the TL approach are more likely to provide a safe and healthy workplace for their staff. When project manager learns to become transformational leader, they gain the trust and respect of their team members, improve morale, and speedily complete their projects (Boamah et al., 2018; Fareed, Su, Almutairi, et al., 2022). The leader motivates the followers, who guide them toward accomplishing the organization’s aims and objectives and the employees themselves. In the presence of motivation, project success chances are 90%, and the project’s failure is definite in the absence of motivation (Andriani et al., 2018). We postulate, considering the prior research and the setting of the research

H1: Transformational leadership positively significantly influences project success.

Psychological Empowerment and Project Success

PE may be referred to as “intrinsic task motivation reflecting a sense of self-control in relation to one’s work and an active involvement with one’s work role” (Seibert et al., 2011, p. 981). PE is a motivational construct that stems from the ability to choose to initiate and regulate behavior, do the job well, and influence the environment and the employee’s perception of the meaning of work (Spreitzer, 1995). Some recent studies’ findings showed a significant association between PE and PS (Khan, Malik, & Saleem, 2020; Zaman et al., 2019).

In general literature, researchers argue that when employees psychologically feel empowered, it enhances their performance (Siegall & Gardner, 2000; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Wall et al., 2004); it is also proved in project management literature that team members’ psychological empowerment positively correlates with project performance and success (Khan, Jaafar, et al., 2020; Khan, Malik, & Saleem, 2020; Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009). Employee performance is positively correlated with PE (Sigler & Pearson, 2000; Yao et al., 2013), employees and team performance ultimately contribute to project and organization success (Badir et al., 2012; Erikson, 2002; Maylor, 2003).

Empowering employees psychologically in their work environment can significantly improve communication, knowledge sharing, and project efficiency (Tung & Chang, 2011). PS is positively linked with the PE of leaders and followers in information systems projects (Parolia et al., 2007), while other studies (Badir et al., 2008, 2012) argued that PE is associated with PS in new product development projects. High psychological empowerment leads to efficient project management and success in a virtual setting (Nauman et al., 2010). Consequently, we have our second hypothesis

H2: Psychological empowerment positively influences project success.

The Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment

PE is “increased intrinsic task motivation manifested in a set of four cognitions that reflect an individual’s orientation to his or her work role: meaning/status, competence, self-determination, and impact” (Spreitzer, 1995, p. 1443). According to SCT, “If people receive realistic encouragement, they will be more likely to exert greater effort and to become successful” (Wood & Bandura, 1989, p. 365). Transformational leaders’ stimulating and motivational nature should be most effective for project success when team members feel more capable of proactively influencing their part and work environment—that is, when PE is high (Pieterse et al., 2010; Yukl, 1999). Dvir et al. (2002) concluded in a field study cognizance of TL increases employee cognizance of empowerment, and this sagacity of empowerment is also positively associated with “innovation, positive impact, and effectiveness” (Cyboran, 2005).

TL defines a class of behaviors endorsed by a leader comprised of four subscales: IS (i.e., taking new approaches to problems and challenging the status quo), II or charisma, IM (i.e., energizing team members by articulating a fascinating vision), and IC (i.e., mentoring, supporting, empowering, and ripening team members) (Bass, 1985). By engaging in IS, sharing vision, motivating, and empowering, for followers transformational leaders serve as models (Gong et al., 2009). As transformational leaders are inspirational and charismatic, followers are likely to hearken to and learn from such leaders (Gong et al., 2009). Individuals pick up new skills and knowledge via imitation, observation, and modeling of the actions of others around them, as described by the social learning theory (Middleton et al., 2019). From the lens of SCT (Bandura, 1986, 1997), TL characterizes a critical external factor in followers learning (Gong et al., 2009). As a result of individualized consideration, transformational leaders express empathy, consideration, and assistance for employees, which empowers team members, leading to performance (Gong et al., 2009). Transformational leaders empower and delegate employee autonomy and use their great experience and knowledge to develop their protégés (Avolio & Gibbons, 1988; Bass, 1985; Dvir et al., 2002).

According to SCT, human behavior is the outcome of a blend of internal belief (self-determination), internal motivation (meaning), and contextual constraints/resources (environment) (Lin et al., 2020). “Project managers have a leadership role in creating an effective working environment for the project team” (Turner & Müller, 2005, p. 57), although many factors within organizations bind them. To a great extent, this can influence team members’ sense of psychological empowerment due to the manager’s transformational leadership. Psychologically empowered people are competent, significantly influence their work and work environment, promote positive behavior, act proactively, and become independent (Avey et al., 2008; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Consequently, team members must feel psychologically empowered to act on the encouragement of TL (Appelbaum et al., 2015; Avolio et al., 2004). Hence, we state our last proposition as follows

H3: Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and project success.

We get to the exploratory paradigm and the hypotheses in Figure 1 as a result of the debate that came before it.

Figure 1.

Research model.

Method

Post-positivism philosophical objective is used in this study to examine theoretical models. As post-positivism “assumes that the world is mainly driven by generalizable (natural) laws, but their application and results are often situational dependent. Postpositivist researchers therefore identify trends, that is, theories which hold in certain situations, but cannot be generalized” (Biedenbach & Müller, 2011, p. 87). The post-positivist philosophy has emerged as the dominant framework for quantitative social science research because it works well with this discipline (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Cross-sectional quantitative data was gathered using a survey design.

Sample and Procedure

To avoid common source bias, data is gathered from many sources (project managers, team members, and stakeholders) using a time-lagged technique (CSB) (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Officers in Pakistan’s public sector firms get management and leadership training from Pakistan Manpower Institute, located in Islamabad. We obtained the contact information of project managers from the Pakistan Manpower Institute and contacted them for our research. Project managers engaged in several national public projects received letters, emails, and 600 printed surveys. The respondents work for various public sector institutions. Nonetheless, most were from the Ministry of Information Technology, National Highways Authority, National Institute of Health, Pakistan Post, Oil and Gas Development Company Limited, Pak Public Works Department, Water and Power Development Authority, National Telecom Corporation, Pakistan Housing Authority, and different universities. The projects the respondents worked on included engineering, construction, information technology, education, and environment.

We collected data over the course of around 7 months. It was made sure that the same respondents rated at three different time points and evaluated the same project. We guaranteed anonymity and explained there are no wrong or right answers. At time 1, we wished project managers to assess transformational leadership and psychological empowerment and give their demographics. After 3 months, we wished leaders, subordinates, and stakeholders to rate PS as recommended by Stuckenbruck (1986). At the third time point, we asked for demographic information and team members’ assessments of their leaders’ TL and PE. We used a t-test to check the response difference among groups, as Muller et al. (2016) recommended.

According to social sciences research, the aggregate response rate of 59.3% from the 356 completed surveys we got is satisfactory (Baruch, 1999) and project management research (Pesämaa et al., 2021). To estimate the CMB, Harman’s single factor (HSF) was applied (Pesämaa et al., 2021). Recent studies revealed that it is a very meaningful tool for evaluating CMB (Babin et al., 2016; Pesämaa et al., 2021). After performing the HSF test, a single component emerges from the factor analysis; if it accounts for more than 50% of the variation, this may suggest the potential of a CMB (Eichhorn, 2014). In accordance with Aga et al. (2016), we also utilized the respondents’ age, gender, experience, and education as control variables. Researchers have recommended the use of control variables for endogeneity issues, especially for omitted variables (Pesämaa et al., 2021). Statistical analysis was performed with the AMOS-21 and SPSS-21. The data was thoroughly examined before the statistical analysis for missing data, multi-collinearity, outliers, and normality. We found all variance inflation factor (VIF) values were smaller than 3. Table 1 presents demographic information.

Table 1.

Demographic Data.

Characteristics	Category	Frequency	Cumulative percent
Gender	Male	288	80.9
Gender	Female	68	100.0
Education	Less than 16 years	8	2.2
	16 years (BS)	70	21.9
	18 years (MS)	198	77.5
	Above 18 years (PhD)	80	100.0
Age group	25–30	104	29.2
	31–35	53	44.1
	36–40	46	57.0
	41–45	80	79.5
	46–50	26	86.8
	51–55	35	96.6
	56–60	2	97.2
	61 and above	10	100.0
Experience	1–5	152	42.7
	6–10	20	48.3
	11–15	20	53.9
	16–20	46	66.9
	21–25	90	92.1
	26–30	24	98.9
	31 and above	4	100.0
Position	Project manager	120	33.7
	Team member	119	67.1
	Stakeholder	117	100.0

Research Instrument

This study involved a predictor variable, mediator, and criterion variable. The predictor variable is TL, PE is a mediator, and the criterion variable is PS. We used 5-point Likert Scale (1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree).

The following is a description of the measuring tools for each variable.

Independent Variables

This study used Aga et al. (2016) scales to measure transformational leadership. Aga et al. (2016) have espoused Bass and Avolio (2000) scales to rate TL, as this is one of the most used scales. This scale has 13 items.

Mediator

Spreitzer (1995) scales were used to measure psychological empowerment, and this scale has 11-item.

Dependent Variable

“There are few topics in the field of project management that are so frequently discussed and yet so rarely agreed upon as that of the notion of project success” (Pinto & Slevin, 1988). It is not clearly elucidated how the PM assesses a public project’s success in the literature (Koops et al., 2015). We used Müller and Turner (2010) scales to measure project success, focusing on stakeholder satisfaction. The four dimensions of PS are time, budget, quality, and stakeholder satisfaction. This scale has been shown to be valid and reliable in several studies (Maqbool et al., 2017; Müller & Turner, 2010). This scale has nine items.

Reliability and Validity

To verify the analytical data, Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) CFA model was applied. All constructs demonstrated acceptable convergent validity, and factor loadings were up to a 5% level (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Values of CFI and TLI more than .90, as well as RMSEA values between .03 and .08, indicate a satisfactory model fit, as suggested by Hair et al. (2010) (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Model Fit.

CMIN/Df	TLI	GFI	CFI	RMSEA
2.085	.929	.937	.963	.055

The validity of the construct was examined using EFA. The factor loading was barely larger than 0.5, and all of the constructs had eigenvalues over 1. The KMO value has to be greater than 0.60 (presented in Table 3), the results of Barlett’s Test of Sphericity must be substantial (p < .001), and variable correlation must be greater than .30 as proposed by Hair et al. (2010).

Table 3.

KMO.

Variable	KMO	Bartlett’s test of sphericity	DF	p-Value	Cronbach’s α
PE	0.744	1,383.169	55	.000	.826
TL	0.805	1,717.906	78	.000	.824
PS	0.712	1,017.354	36	.000	.805

Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR)

Through the application of AVE and CR, we have verified the discriminatory and convergent validities (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Our data analysis proved the discriminatory and convergent validities.

Results

Hypotheses were tested by correlation and hierarchical regression analysis (HRA).

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation

We observed that PE, TL, and PS all presented stable constancy. The PE, TL, and PS confirmed a significant low to moderate correlation among the variables. Furthermore, kurtosis and skewness values were also adequate. Therefore, it can be concluded that data analysis results are within the acceptable range and statistically significant (p < .05), as displayed in Table 4.

Table 4.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation.

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Gender	1.19	0.39	1
Education	3.09	1.19	−.14**	1
Age group	2.98	0.71	.04	−.06	1
Experience	2.97	1.92	.01	.06	.07	1
PE	3.28	0.74	.06	.05	.10*	.03	1
TL	3.39	0. 91	.06	.04	.06	.07	.45**	1
PS	3.78	0. 75	.02	.11*	.03	.04	.52**	.55**	1

Correlation is significant at the .05 level.

Correlation is significant at the .01 level.

Mediation Analysis

To investigate PE’s potential mediating role in the interactions between TL and PS, we used a four-step mediation analysis approach. The approach was first created by Baron and Kenny (1986) and summarized by Hayes (2013). The criteria and predictor variables’ link is verified in the first phase; this relationship must be substantial. In the next step, the predictor variable must be associated with the mediator variable. Third, the mediator variable must be directly linked with the criterion variable. Lastly, the correlation between the predictor and the criterion variable should be significantly reduced (partial mediation) or insignificant (complete mediation) when a mediator is used to control. The final two steps are accomplished at the same time in hierarchical regression analysis. Hayes and Preacher (2014) described the Sobel test to confirm the independent variable’s indirect effects. The Sobel test was also used to check the indirect effects of the independent variable.

Following the procedure, hypotheses were tested. First, the result presented in Table 5, regression analysis, indicated that TL significantly impacts PS (β = .656, p < .001). The first stage confirms that TL and PS are connected. In the second stage, the association between the TL and PE is verified. The regression analysis in Table 5 shows a strong correlation between TL and PE (β = .650, p < .001), demonstrating the second step of mediation analysis.

Table 5.

Mediation Analysis.

Model	Variable	B	S.E.	β	T values	Sig.
1	TL–PS	0.543	0.033	.656	16.351	.000
2	TL–PE	0.534	0.034	.650	16.082	.000
3	PE–PS	0.521	0.045	.517	11.470	.000

We have completed the third and fourth steps in model 3 in Table 5. The values (β = .517, p < .001) displayed in Table 5 support that PE is significantly associated with PS. Additionally, it demonstrates that when PE is employed as a control variable in regression, it reduces TL’s impact on PS from β = .656 to β = .320 finishing the final step; this also displays a decrease of 33.6%. Using the unstandardized regression coefficients and standard errors for paths c, a, b, and c′ from Table 5, mediation analysis results have been demonstrated in Figure 2. Sobel’s test was used to verify the indirect effect of TL. Unstandardized regression and standard error coefficients for path a and path b were used. The Sobel’s Test (T = 9.319, SE = 0.029, p < .001) has demonstrated that the TL indirectly affects PS by a considerable amount via PE. Consequently, It can be established that PE partially mediates the relationship between TL and PS.

Figure 2.

Unstandardized coefficients and standard error represent the mediating effect of PE.

Discussion

Hypothesis Testing

H1: “Transformational leadership positively significantly influences project success” is also accepted. The PM’s transformational leadership behavior is significantly correlated with PS (Aga et al., 2016; Burke et al., 2006; Fareed et al., 2021; Kissi et al., 2013; Maqbool et al., 2017; Naeem & Khanzada, 2017; Zaman et al., 2019). Inspirational motivation, a construct of TL, has a substantive effect on PS (Fareed & Su, 2022; Fareed, Su, & Naqvi, 2022). While achieving project objectives, a project manager who practices transformational leadership recognizes the needs of his team members, caters to them, comprehends what drives them, and supports their well-being (Barling et al., 2000). Effective transformational leaders may substantially influence their followers’ performance by fostering higher levels of satisfaction and trust (Fareed, Su, Almutairi, et al., 2022).

H2: “Psychological empowerment positively influences project success” is also accepted. It is aligned with prior studies (Appelbaum et al., 2015; Khan, Jaafar, et al., 2020; Khan, Malik, & Saleem, 2020; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Lee et al., 2014; Liu & Fang, 2006; Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009). As a result of psychological empowerment, there is an increase in the desire to perform since it gives one the drive to succeed (Dust et al., 2018). Employees’ sense responsibility and high motivation levels when they are given autonomy, find their work meaningful and believe their contribution is important to the unit’s success. They execute at a high level in reaction to the inspiration, which boosts organizational performance (Khan, Malik, & Saleem, 2020).

H3: “Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and project success” is accepted.

Theoretical Implications

The key goals of the study were to observe PE and TL’s effects on PS and PE’s mediating effect. Our empirical findings revealed a strong relationship between predictor variables (TL and PE) and the criterion variable (PS). Empirical evidence on the relationship between TL, PE, and PS in developing countries is scarce. The research aimed to give insights into these relationships by observing the PE of followers as mediators. Our findings validate that PE mediates the relationship between TL and PS. Our research makes a number of theoretical and scholarly contributions.

First, the results emphasize the possibility of generalizability of the effects of empowerment in the context of non-Western culture. Literature has shown consistent results on the relationship between performance and leadership in Western culture, but limited research has demonstrated the application of empowerment and project success in developing countries. This research displays a similar pattern of the empowerment process and its impact on PS compared to that seen in the western context, allowing generalizability of the findings grounded on the western sample.

Second, this research’s findings establish the boundary conditions (i.e., PE) for TL’s effectiveness to yield the project’s success. The findings proved our propositions that followers should feel empowered to act on transformational leadership’s exciting appeal (Bass, 1985). Therefore, this research approves the hypothesis that TL can produce the project’s success; the proposed condition underlies transformational leadership theory, while psychological empowerment realizes this positive relationship (Pieterse et al., 2010).

Finally, the findings of this research illustrate that TL appears to be effective only through high psychological empowerment. As Rodriguez (2021) claimed, “People’s competencies and behavior are among the main drivers of successful project management,” PE appears to be a prerequisite for PS. Our findings are aligned with prior research that underlined the significance of PE for the project’s success and indicated the leadership’s influence on the success of psychologically empowered people (Fjendbo, 2021; Sun et al., 2012; Trottier et al., 2008). Transformational leaders empower team members, which can nurture followers’ capability for independent and critical thinking (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990). Recent studies have underscored the importance of psychological safety and recognition for the success of projects (Rodriguez, 2021).

Practical Implications

Consistent with the literature, our results suggest that public organizations should consider their followers’ psychological empowerment and encourage the transformational leadership style (Sun et al., 2012). Awareness of project teams’ psychological empowerment can be made through management development programs. Leaders can recognize they should pay more attention to encouraging psychological empowerment by stimulating transformational leadership. Generally, it appears more valuable to encourage both PE and TL of followers. Organizations can use transformational leadership more effectively for success in their projects through empowerment programs (Sun et al., 2012; Trottier et al., 2008). Transformational leaders support team members to develop themselves through their mentorship (Bass, 1985). Research suggests that transformation leadership training programs have been developed and can be learned (Baird & Wang, 2010). Efforts to improve followers’ PE can be accompanied by leadership development efforts that enhance TL.

“According to Ziyad Cassim and his colleagues at McKinsey & Company, governments announced $10 trillion in reconstruction funds just in the first two months of the crisis—three times more than the entire response to the 2008–2009 financial crisis” (Rodriguez, 2021, p. 268). These post-Covid-19 rehabilitation funding are designated for millions of projects that will need millions of project managers. The world needs effective project managers with extraordinary leadership skills to execute these projects successfully. Therefore, future project managers need to develop leadership skills, strong soft skills, business acumen, and strategic thinking.

Limitations and Future Research

We understand that our study has certain limitations. Firstly, our research does not allow conclusions about causality and utilizes cross-sectional surveys that do not entirely comprehend the vibrant nature of the behavioral relationship between followers and leaders. Research using various methods, such as laboratory and field experiments, and replicating vertical design findings could be of great value. This study used a public sector context and was done in a single country. Even though the respondents were working in several departments and projects, the generalizability of these results could be limited. Second, the study sample is public sector employees and may have limited PE by limiting follower autonomy and their impact on others.

Nevertheless, this weakens the relationship under investigation and is likely to make the current test relatively conservative. Still, using the same model in another setting or environment will be fascinating. Third, the composition of this study was measured by subjective evaluation. We have also applied HSF to confirm and avoid CSB by applying follower and leader ratings. However, duplicating the findings more objectively will increase confidence in the findings. Lastly, although data were collected from multiple sources at three different times, respondents worked on various projects. We have used control variables. Yet omitted variables and reverse causality bias are serious issues for cross-sectional research design (Ritz et al., 2016; Wright & Grant, 2010).

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study sought to provide insights relationship between TL, PE, and PS and identified that PE is a precondition for effectiveness in TL. TL is correlated with project success only when the follower’s psychological empowerment is high. Moreover, public sector organizations should invest in project management training to create an appropriate leadership culture, allowing current and future project managers to improve and develop specific skills beyond their capabilities. Organizations must promote leadership training, emphasizing leadership qualities, primarily transformational leadership, as research has shown them to be critical to the public enterprise and an organization’s success.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Muhammad Zeeshan Fareed

References

Abbas

Ali

(2021). Transformational versus transactional leadership styles and project success: A meta-analytic review. European Management Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.10.011

Aga

D. A.

Noorderhaven

Vallejo

(2016). Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating role of team-building. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5), 806–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.012

Albert

Balve

Spang

(2017). Evaluation of project success: A structured literature review. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10(4), 796–821.

Amin

Kamal

Sohail

(2016). The relationship between transformational leadership and project team performance: Assessing the mediating role of a project team management education. Apeejay Journal of Management Sciences and Technology, 3(3), 1–12.

Anantatmula

V. S.

(2008). The role of technology in the project manager performance model. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 34–48.

Anantatmula

V. S.

(2010). Project manager leadership role in improving project performance. Engineering Management Journal, 22(1), 13–22.

Andersen

E. S.

(2014). Value creation using the mission breakdown structure. International Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 885–892.

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Andriani

Kesumawati

Kristiawan

(2018). The influence of the transformational leadership and work motivation on teachers performance. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 7(7), 19–29.

10.

Appelbaum

S. H.

Karasek

Lapointe

Quelch

(2015). Employee empowerment: Factors affecting the consequent success or failure (Part II). Industrial and Commercial Training, 47(1), 23–30.

11.

Atkinson

(1999). Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17, 337–342.

12.

Avey

J. B.

Hughes

L. W.

Norman

S. M.

Luthans

K. W.

(2008). Using positivity, transformational leadership and empowerment to combat employee negativity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29(2), 110–126.

13.

Avolio

B. J.

Gibbons

T. C.

(1988). Developing transformational leaders: A life span approach. In Conger

J. A.

Kanungo

R. N.

(Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 276–308). Jossey-Bass.

14.

Avolio

B. J.

Zhu

Koh

Bhatia

(2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951–968.

15.

Babin

B. J.

Griffin

Hair

J. F.

(2016). Heresies and sacred cows in scholarly marketing publications. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3133–3138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.001

16.

Bass

B. M.

(1995). Transformational leadership redux. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 463–478.

17.

Baccarini

(1999). The logical framework method for defining project success. Project Management Journal, 30(4), 25–32.

18.

Badir

Y. F.

Buchel

Tucci

(2008). The role of communication and coordination between “network lead companies” and their strategic partners in determining NPD project performance. International Journal of Technology Management, 44, 269.

19.

Badir

Y. F.

Büchel

Tucci

C. L.

(2012). A conceptual framework of the impact of NPD project team and leader empowerment on communication and performance: An alliance case context. International Journal of Project Management, 30, 914–926.

20.

Baird

Wang

(2010). Employee empowerment: Extent of adoption and influential factors. Personnel Review, 39(5), 574–599.

21.

Bakker

A. B.

Hetland

Kjellevold Olsen

Espevik

(2022). Daily transformational leadership: A source of inspiration for follower performance? European Management Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.04.004

22.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice-Hall.

23.

Bandura

(1997). Editorial. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12(1), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.8

24.

Banki

M. T.

Hadian

Niknam

Rafizadeh

(2008). Contractor selection in construction projects based on a fuzzy AHP method [Conference session]. Proceedings Annual Conference-Canadian Society for Civil Engineering.

25.

Barling

Slater

Kevin Kelloway

(2000). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: An exploratory study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21, 157–161.

26.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

27.

Baruch

(1999). Response rate in academic studies: A comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52(4), 421–438.

28.

Bass

B. M.

(1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.

29.

Bass

B. M.

(1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Erlbaum.

30.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. In Woodman

R. W.

Pasmore

W. A.

(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 4, pp. 231–272). JAI Press.

31.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(2000). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Mind Garden.

32.

Bayiley

Y. T.

Teklu

G. K.

(2016). Success factors and criteria in the management of international development projects: Evidence from projects funded by the European Union in Ethiopia. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(3), 562–582.

33.

Biedenbach

Müller

(2011). Paradigms in project management research: Examples from 15 years of IRNOP conferences. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4, 82–104. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371111096908

34.

Boamah

S. A.

Spence Laschinger

H. K.

Wong

Clarke

(2018). Effect of transformational leadership on job satisfaction and patient safety outcomes. Nursing Outlook, 66(2), 180–189.

35.

Boehm

Turner

(2005). Management challenges to implementing agile processes in traditional development organizations. IEEE Software, 22(5), 30–39.

36.

Burke

C. S.

Stagl

K. C.

Klein

Goodwin

G. F.

Salas

Halpin

S. M.

(2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 288–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.007

37.

Chan

A. P. C.

Scott

Lam

E. W. M.

(2002). Framework of success criteria for design/build projects. Engineering Management Journal, 18(3), 120–128.

38.

Conger

J. A.

(1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 145–179.

39.

Cooke-Davies

(2002). The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 185–190.

40.

Cyboran

V. L.

(2005). The influence of reflection on employee psychological empowerment: Report of an exploratory workplace field study. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(4), 37–49.

41.

Davis

(2016). A method to measure success dimensions relating to individual stakeholder groups. International Journal of Project Management, 34(3), 480–493.

42.

Drouin

Müller

Sankaran

Vaagaasar

A. L.

(2018). Balancing vertical and horizontal leadership in projects: Empirical studies from Australia, Canada, Norway and Sweden. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(4), 986–1006.

43.

Dubinsky

A. J.

Yammarino

F. J.

Jolson

M. A.

Spangler

W. D.

(1995). Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 15, 17–31.

44.

Dust

S. B.

Resick

C. J.

Margolis

J. A.

Mawritz

M. B.

Greenbaum

R. L.

(2018). Ethical leadership and employee success: Examining the roles of psychological empowerment and emotional exhaustion. The Leadership Quarterly, 29, 570–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.02.002

45.

Dvir

Eden

Avolio

B. J.

Shamir

(2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 735–744.

46.

Eichhorn

B. R.

(2014). Common method variance techniques. Cleveland State University.

47.

Erikson

(2002). Entrepreneurial capital: The emerging venture’s most important asset and competitive advantage. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 275–290.

48.

Fareed

M. Z.

(2022). Transformational leadership and project success: A mediating role of public service motivation. Administration & Society, 54, 690–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211040466

49.

Fareed

M. Z.

Almutairi

Munir

Fareed

M. M. S.

(2022). Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating role of trust and job satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 954052. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.954052

50.

Fareed

M. Z.

Awan

A. A.

(2021). The effect of emotional intelligence, intellectual intelligence and transformational leadership on project success; an empirical study of public projects of Pakistan. Project Leadership and Society, 2, 100036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2021.100036

51.

Fareed

M. Z.

Naqvi

N. A.

(2022). The impact of emotional intelligence, managerial intelligence, and transformational leadership on multi-dimensional public project success. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 50, 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1109/emr.2022.3200408

52.

Fjendbo

T. H.

(2021). Leading employees of different genders: The importance of gender for the leadership–motivation relationship. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41, 651–673.

53.

Flyvbjerg

(2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview. Project Management Journal, 45(2), 6–19.

54.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

55.

Gardner

Stough

(2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23, 68–78.

56.

Gong

Huang

J.-C.

Farh

J.-L.

(2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765–778. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.43670890

57.

Gong

Huang

Yan

Luo

(2020). Psychological empowerment and work engagement as mediating roles between trait emotional intelligence and job satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 232. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00232

58.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Pearson Education. https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=SLRPLgAACAAJ

59.

Hassan

M. M.

Bashir

Abbas

S. M.

(2017). The impact of project managers personality on project success in NGOs: The mediating role of transformational leadership. Project Management Journal, 48(2), 74–87.

60.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

61.

Hayes

A. F.

Preacher

K. J.

(2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451–470.

62.

Hill

N. S.

Kang

J. H.

Seo

M.-G.

(2014). The interactive effect of leader–member exchange and electronic communication on employee psychological empowerment and work outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 772–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.04.006

63.

Huemann

Silvius

(2017). Projects to create the future: Managing projects meets sustainable development. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1066–1070.

64.

Jenner

(2015). Why do projects ‘fail’ and more to the point what can we do about it? The case for disciplined, ‘fast and frugal’ decision-making. PM World Journal, 4(3), 1–18.

65.

Joo

B.-K.

Lim

(2013). Transformational leadership and career satisfaction: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(3), 316–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051813484359

66.

Joslin

Müller

(2016a). The impact of project methodologies on project success in different project environments. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(2), 364–388.

67.

Joslin

Müller

(2016b). The relationship between project governance and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 613–626.

68.

Kark

Shamir

Chen

(2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.246

69.

Khan

Jaafar

Javed

Mubarak

Saudagar

(2020). Does inclusive leadership affect project success? The mediating role of perceived psychological empowerment and psychological safety. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(5), 1077–1096.

70.

Khan

Malik

Saleem

(2020). The impact of psychological empowerment of project-oriented employees on project success: A moderated mediation model. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 33(1), 1311–1329.

71.

Kirkman

B. L.

Rosen

(1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58–74.

72.

Kissi

Dainty

Tuuli

(2013). Examining the role of transformational leadership of portfolio managers in project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 31, 485–497.

73.

Koops

Coman

Bosch-Rekveldt

Hertogh

Bakker

(2015). Public perspectives on project success – Influenced by national culture? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 194, 115–124.

74.

Lee

Park

J. G.

(2014). Exploring the impact of empowering leadership on knowledge sharing, absorptive capacity and team performance in IT service. Information Technology and People, 27(3), 366–386.

75.

Lin

C.-P.

Liu

C.-M.

Liao

W.-S.

(2020). Being excellent: Predicting team performance based on social cognitive theory and social identification theory. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 31(11–12), 1363–1380. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1485483

76.

Liu

A. M. M.

Fang

(2006). A power-based leadership approach to project management. Construction Management and Economics, 24(5), 497–507.

77.

Maqbool

Sudong

Manzoor

Rashid

(2017). The impact of emotional intelligence, project managers’ competencies, and transformational leadership on project success: An empirical perspective. Project Management Journal, 48(3), 58–75.

78.

Maylor

(2003). Project management (3rd ed.). Pearson.

79.

Meng

Sun

(2019). The impact of psychological empowerment on work engagement among university faculty members in China. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 12, 983–990. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S215912

80.

Middleton

Hall

Raeside

(2019). Applications and applicability of Social Cognitive Theory in information science research. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(4), 927–937. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000618769985

81.

Monje Amor

Xanthopoulou

Calvo

Abeal Vázquez

J. P.

(2021). Structural empowerment, psychological empowerment, and work engagement: A cross-country study. European Management Journal, 39(6), 779–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.01.005

82.

Müller

Turner

Andersen

E. S.

Shao

Kvalnes

. (2016). Governance and ethics in temporary organizations: The mediating role of corporate governance. Project Management Journal, 47(6), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281604700602

83.

Müller

Turner

(2010). Leadership competency profiles of successful project managers. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 437–448.

84.

Munyeki

Were

D. S.

(2017). Influence of transformational leadership on the performance of project based organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 1(3), 41–60.

85.

Naeem

Khanzada

(2017). Impact of transformational leadership in attainment of project success: The mediating role of job satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 8, 9.

86.

Nauman

Mansur Khan

Ehsan

(2010). Patterns of empowerment and leadership style in project environment. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 638–649.

87.

Parolia

Goodman

Jiang

J. J.

(2007). Mediators between coordination and IS project performance. Information Management, 44, 635–645.

88.

Pesämaa

Zwikael

Hair

J. F.

Huemann

(2021). Publishing quantitative papers with rigor and transparency. International Journal of Project Management, 39, 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.03.001

89.

Piccolo

R. F.

Greenbaum

Hartog

D. N. D.

Folger

(2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2–3), 259–278.

90.

Pieterse

A. N.

Van Knippenberg

Schippers

Stam

(2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 609–623.

91.

Pinto

J. K.

Slevin

D. P.

(1988). Project success: Definitions and measurement techniques. Project Management Journal, 19(1), 67–73.

92.

PMI. (2016). Delivering value: Focus on benefits during project execution.

93.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569.

94.

Raziq

M. M.

Borini

F. M.

Malik

O. F.

Ahmad

Shabaz

(2018). Leadership styles, goal clarity, and project success: Evidence from project-based organizations in Pakistan. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(2), 309–323.

95.

Ritz

Brewer

G. A.

Neumann

(2016). Public service motivation: A systematic literature review and outlook. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 414–426.

96.

Robbins

S. P.

Judge

T. A.

(2013). Organizational behavior (Vol. 4). Pearson Education.

97.

Rodriguez

A. N.

(2021). Harvard business review project management handbook: How to launch, lead, and sponsor successful projects. Harvard Business Publications.

98.

Schermuly

C. C.

Creon

Gerlach

Graßmann

Koch

(2022). Leadership styles and psychological empowerment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 29(1), 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518211067751

99.

Seibert

S. E.

Wang

Courtright

S. H.

(2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003.

100.

Shenhar

A. J.

Dvir

(2007). Reinventing project management: The diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Harvard Business School Press.

101.

Siegall

Gardner

(2000). Contextual factors of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review, 29, 703–722.

102.

Sigler

T. H.

Pearson

C. M.

(2000). Creating an empowering culture: Examining the relationship between organizational culture and perceptions of empowerment. Journal of Quality Management, 5, 27–52.

103.

Söderlund

(2011). Pluralism in project management: Navigating the crossroads of specialization and fragmentation. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 153–176.

104.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.

105.

Srića

(2008). Social intelligence and project leadership. The Business Review, 9(2), 189–200.

106.

Stuckenbruck

(1986). Who determines project success [Symposium]. 18th Annual Seminar/Symposium.

107.

Sun

L.-Y.

Zhang

Chen

Z. X.

(2012). Empowerment and creativity: A cross-level investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 55–65.

108.

Côté

Saavedra

(2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 295–305.

109.

Tabassi

A. A.

Roufechaei

K. M.

Bakar

A. H. A.

Yusof

(2017). Linking team condition and team performance: A transformational leadership approach. Project Management Journal, 48(2), 22–38.

110.

Tam

Moura

E. J. D. C.

Oliveira

Varajão

(2020). The factors influencing the success of on-going agile software development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 38, 165–176.

111.

Teddlie

Tashakkori

(2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. SAGE Publications Inc.

112.

Thomas

K. W.

Velthouse

B. A.

(1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An interpretive model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666–681.

113.

Trottier

Van Wart

Wang

(2008). Examining the nature and significance of leadership in government organizations. Public Administration Review, 68, 319–333.

114.

Tung

Chang

(2011). Effects of empowering leadership on performance in management team: Mediating effects of knowledge sharing and team cohesion. Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management, 2(1), 43–60.

115.

Turner

J. R.

Müller

(2005). The project manager’s leadership style as a success factor on projects: A literature review. Project Management Journal, 36, 49–61.

116.

Tuuli

M. M.

Rowlinson

(2009). Empowerment in project teams: A multilevel examination of the job performance implications. Construction Management and Economics, 27(5), 473–498.

117.

Tyssen

A. K.

Wald

Heidenreich

(2014). Leadership in the context of temporary organizations: A study on the effects of transactional and transformational leadership on followers’ commitment in projects. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 376–393.

118.

Vogel

Masal

(2015). Public leadership: A review of the literature and framework for future research. Public Management Review, 17, 1165–1189.

119.

Wall

T. D.

Wood

S. J.

Leach

D. J.

(2004). Empowerment and performance. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 19, 1–46.

120.

Wood

Bandura

(1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4279067

121.

Wright

B. E.

Grant

A. M.

(2010). Unanswered questions about public service motivation: Designing research to address key issues of emergence and effects. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 691–700.

122.

Yammarino

F. J.

Spangler

W. D.

Bass

B. M.

(1993). Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 81–102.

123.

Yang

L.-R.

Huang

C.-F.

K.-S.

(2011). The association among project manager’s leadership style, teamwork and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 29, 258–267.

124.

Yao

Chen

Cai

(2013). How internal marketing can cultivate psychological empowerment and enhance employee performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 41(4), 529–537.

125.

Yatim

Bredillet

C. N.

Ruiz

(2009). Investigating the deployment of project management: A new perspective based on the concept of certification. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(3), 445–454.

126.

Yukl

(1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285–305.

127.

Zaman

Nawaz

Tariq

Humayoun

A. A.

(2019). Linking transformational leadership and “multi-dimensions” of project success: Moderating effects of project flexibility and project visibility using PLS-SEM. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13, 103–127.

128.

Zareen

Razzaq

Mujtaba

B. G.

(2015). Impact of transactional, transformational and laissez-faire leadership styles on motivation: A quantitative study of banking employees in Pakistan. Public Organization Review, 15, 531–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-014-0287-6

129.

Zwikael

Smyrk

(2012). A general framework for gauging the performance of initiatives to enhance organizational value. British Journal of Management, 23, S6–S22.

Transformational Leadership and Project Success: The Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Project Success

Transformational Leadership and Project Success

Psychological Empowerment and Project Success

The Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment

Method

Sample and Procedure

Research Instrument

Independent Variables

Mediator

Dependent Variable

Reliability and Validity

Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR)

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation

Mediation Analysis

Discussion

Hypothesis Testing

Theoretical Implications

Practical Implications

Limitations and Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References