Unwrapping IT Project Success in China: Examining the Role of Empowering Leadership,Workforce Agility and Top Management Support in IT Project Success

Abstract

Information technology (IT) projects frequently struggle to fulfill their potential in today’s rapidly evolving technological landscape. Empowering leadership (EL) has emerged as a critical factor for project success; however, the underlying mechanisms of how and why EL is linked to IT project success remain largely unknown. This study aims to fill this gap by investigating the mediating and moderating roles of workforce agility (WA) and top management support (TMS) in the EL-IT project success relationship. Purposive sampling was used to collect data from 328 IT professionals in the main cities of Fujian Province, China. The data were analyzed using SPSS 24 and SmartPLS 3.2.9. The results indicate that EL is positively and significantly related to IT project success and WA, respectively. Consequently, WA has a significant and positive relationship with IT project success. The results also supported the mediating role of WA in the relationship between EL and IT project success. The study also revealed that TMS positively moderated the relationship between EL and WA. Theoretically, this study expands the project management literature by applying self-determination theory (SDT) and conservation of resource (CoR) theory to demonstrate the crucial role of EL in IT project success, particularly in the Chinese context. By focusing on the mediating and moderating effects of WA and TMS, this study provides valuable insights into the complex mechanisms underlying EL’s impact on IT project success.

Keywords

empowering leadership IT project success workforce agility top management support project management

Introduction

Since the 1980s, businesses worldwide have invested in IT projects to remain competitive, lower operational costs, and meet business needs (Gemünden et al., 2018; Lei et al., 2020). However, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unprecedented surge in the importance of IT projects (Khattak et al., 2022). In 2023, government IT spending worldwide is expected to reach $588.9 billion, a 6.8% increase from 2022 (Gartner, 2022). Despite the significance of IT projects, some scholars argue that they remain risky and intricate (Lei et al., 2020). Cost overruns and schedule delays continue to plague most IT projects globally, with only 16.2% completed within the allotted time and budget and 31% of projects being abandoned (Khan et al., 2022a). For several decades, scholars and practitioners have attempted to identify the critical success factors that contribute to project success (Ahmadabadi & Heravi, 2019; Chow & Cao, 2008; Chua et al., 1999; Ika et al., 2012; Kaufmann & Kock, 2022; Khattak et al., 2022; Mata et al., 2023; Müller & Jugdev, 2012; Pinto & Slevin, 1987, 1989; Wateridge, 1995; Westerveld, 2003). One of the vital success factors for project success is project leadership support (Aga et al., 2016; Ali et al., 2021; Mubarak et al., 2021). However, few studies have investigated which leadership style is most effective in achieving project success (Fareed et al., 2021; Khan et al., 2020).

Project management scholars have recognized the need for new leadership styles (Müller & Klein, 2020; Khan et al., 2022b). Although EL has gained increasing attention as an emerging leadership style in the project management domain (Capaldo et al., 2021), its application in the context of IT initiatives remains understudied (Ahmad et al., 2022). Bhatti et al. (2022) argue that the modern world’s increasing globalization and technological advancement require a decentralized corporate structure and flexible leadership style to facilitate rapid change. EL is considered particularly suitable for achieving employee acceptance and effectively managing organizational changes (Frick et al., 2021). EL is a leadership style that empowers employees by delegating authority, encouraging self-directed and independent decision-making, providing coaching, sharing information, and soliciting input (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015). This approach is considered an integral part of managing organizational transformation by gathering ideas from followers (Kundu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2016) and facilitating self-autonomy and self-control (Srivastava et al., 2006). Despite its potential benefits, empirical research on EL has yielded mixed and incongruent findings, highlighting the need to examine further mediators and moderators that underlie its effect (Cheong et al., 2019).

The present inquiry proposes WA as a mediator between EL and triumph in IT projects. As defined by Breu et al. (2002) and Muduli (2013), WA denotes the capacity to adapt, innovate, and respond swiftly to unforeseen situations while displaying sufficient competencies throughout project execution. Attributes such as resilience, adaptability, and proactivity are the main constituents of WA (Cai et al., 2018). Prior research underscores the importance of leadership in fostering agile individuals (Muduli, 2013; Stoker et al., 2019), whereas empowered workers tend to become more agile (Cyfert et al., 2022; Patil & Suresh, 2019). In addition, employees with WA have been found to significantly enhance organizational success in technological ventures (Patil & Suresh, 2019). Consequently, this study posits that agile project personnel can aid EL in realizing success in IT projects.

The characteristics of a project manager who empowers their team can be a valuable asset, but it may not always be enough to ensure project success and maintain an agile workforce without the help of TMS (Ahmed & Azmi Bin Mohamad, 2016; Ali et al., 2020; Das et al., 2022). Research suggests that both TMS and leadership are crucial for ensuring project success and maintaining an agile workforce (Ahmed & Azmi Bin Mohamad, 2016; Ali et al., 2020; Das et al., 2022). Despite the importance of TMS and leadership in successful project completion (Ong & Bahar, 2019), previous studies have rarely investigated their role in ensuring successful project completion and workforce agility (Ali et al., 2020). Besides, for an organization’s strategy to be effective, top management must understand the business environment in-depth (Ali et al., 2020). Therefore, it is predicted that TMS may moderate the impact of EL on WA.

In sum, this study proposes a model (Figure 1) predicting the indirect effect of EL on IT project success through WA moderated by TMS.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Empowering Leadership, Workforce Agility and IT Project Success

EL is a leadership style that involves delegating power to subordinates, allowing them to make independent judgments and decisions (Al Otaibi et al., 2022). This leadership style has been shown to increase motivation, responsibility, and authority among followers while reducing conventional organizational practices (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014; van Dijke et al., 2012). Besides, EL encompasses accountability, authority, information sharing, self-directed decision-making, coaching, and innovative performance skill development (Konczak et al., 2000) and positively impacts employee outcomes, particularly goal achievement (Lee et al., 2018). To effectively implement EL, research suggests that leaders must exhibit relational behaviors, such as respect, trust, concern, and support (Kim et al., 2018).

In the context of project management, EL is particularly relevant because the distribution of power and autonomy inherent in this leadership style can increase the significance of project work, boost participants’ perceptions of their competence, and inspire job obligations and performance (Cheong et al., 2016). Encouraging project staff to confront uncertainty, challenges, and unexpected events to achieve project objectives is a key feature of EL (Zheng et al., 2022). Leaders who foster empowerment among their followers encourage self-reliance, self-assurance, self-control, and openness to constructive criticism (Ahmad et al., 2022). Xue et al. (2011) suggested that such leaders use empowerment to improve communication and assist project workers in completing tasks and achieving their goals. Furthermore, EL can foster communication and information exchange within project contexts, assisting followers in managing complex situations (Zheng et al., 2021). Self-determination theory (SDT) also explains the impact of EL on IT project success and workforce agility. This theory posits that empowering leaders who support their followers’ basic need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness can promote positive attitudes, enhance workforce agility, and improve performance (Lu et al., 2017; Saputra et al., 2023). The SDT explains that followers who perceive advantageous settings created by empowered leaders can build trust, demonstrate positive attention to their leaders, and improve their overall performance due to these interactions (Deci et al., 2017; Gao & Jiang, 2019). In summary, EL gives employees greater autonomy and freedom to share information and knowledge (Ahmad et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2022). Based on SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and related literature, we propose the following hypothesis:

H₁: EL is positively related to IT project success.

H₂: EL is positively related to workforce agility.

Workforce Agility as a Mediating Mechanism

Workforce agility (WA) is defined as the ability to respond quickly and flexibly to changes in the work environment (Breu et al., 2002; Dyer & Shafer, 2003). Pro-organizational employee characteristics, such as proactivity, adaptation, and resilience, are critical elements of WA (Petermann & Zacher, 2021). Proactivity involves anticipating and solving problems, whereas adaptation entails being open to learning and changing how one interacts with others (Das et al., 2022). Adaptability refers to the ability to adjust to changing circumstances without compromising performance (Petermann & Zacher, 2021). In the context of IT projects, agile workforces are crucial for successful change management, and scholars have emphasized the importance of worker adaptability (Bender et al., 2016; Patil & Suresh, 2019; Petermann & Zacher, 2021).

Prior research has shown that leaders significantly promote WA by encouraging creative and critical thinking among their followers (Ajgaonkar et al., 2021; Cyfert et al., 2022; Das et al., 2022). Additionally, EL fosters workers’ agility by improving their adaptability and promoting effective communication between leaders and subordinates (Grass et al., 2020; Saputra & Patrick, 2022). By promoting followers’ intrinsic motivation and emotional intelligence, EL encourages their proactive goal-seeking behavior and task mastery ((Deci et al., 2017; Ohly & Fritz, 2007) and enables them to sustain resilient behavior (Nguyen et al., 2016). As previously asserted by (Saputra & Patrick, 2022), there is a high probability that EL will enhance workforce agility, ultimately generating successful IT project outcomes. In parallel, self-determination theory (SDT) advocates that WA is a mediating element that complements effective leadership in achieving IT project success. As successful IT projects rely on workers demonstrating high intrinsic motivation, EL can incite intrinsic motivation and superior WA to increase the likelihood of project success (Deci et al., 2017). Thus, it is speculated that:

H₃: Workforce agility is positively related to IT project success.

H₄: Workforce agility mediates the linkages between EL and IT project success.

Top Management Support as a Moderating Mechanism

According to Chatterjee et al. (2022), a moderator is a variable that can either strengthen or weaken the relationship between two variables. In the current context, TMS acts as a moderator and may play a critical role in changing the relationship between EL and IT project success and WA. Scholars acknowledge that TMS is crucial in determining a project’s success or failure. Therefore, project leaders should seek the assistance of senior management to improve their performance and that of their teams (Ali et al., 2021; Young & Poon, 2013). TMS encompasses a range of elements, such as structure, resources, communication, expertise, and authority (Ahmed & Azmi Bin Mohamad, 2016). It involves offering financial, material, and human support to a project team, such as appointing a project manager, creating an encouraging environment, developing strategies, allocating resources, and establishing procedures (Ahmed & Philbin, 2022; Zwikael, 2008).

Based on the conservation of resources (CoR) theory (Hobfoll et al., 2018; Hobfall & Freedy, 2017), scholars have argued that TMS provides a working environment for leaders who can help project managers efficiently produce and utilize organizational resources (Ali et al., 2021). The concept of TMS constitutes the availability of financial and human resources to help project employees achieve their goals (Ahmed & Azmi Bin Mohamad, 2016; Yusof et al., 2017). TMS can be expanded to incentivize project employees to attain incredible accomplishments, such as adding new facilities and resources and recruiting highly experienced project personnel (Ahmed & Philbin, 2022; Ali et al., 2020). Thus, in line with the CoR theory, an employee’s capacity to develop and preserve their pool of resources primarily depends on external factors such as TMS (Hobfoll et al., 2018; de Jong et al., 2019). Effective management systems that foster a positive working environment can provide human resources, dispute resolution mechanisms, operational resources, and the ability to make group-led decisions, thereby creating “caravan resource corridors” that promote and enhance individual, group, and workforce resources (Hobfoll, 2011). By perceiving TMS as a supportive mechanism, leaders and the workforce can potentially increase WA and the likelihood of successful project completion. Based on the discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H₅: TMS moderates the linkage between EL and workforce agility such that higher TMS strengthens the association between EL and workforce agility.

Methodology

Sample and Population

The data for this study was collected from Fujian province in China for the following reasons. First, the Fujian province IT industry has experienced tremendous growth due to the “Internet Plus” strategy that promotes the integration of the Internet and traditional industries. Second, this strategy has helped the IT industry in Fujian flourish, and in 2019, the added value of the IT industry reached 470.1 billion yuan (approximately 72 billion USD), accounting for 12.8% of the province’s GDP. Third, the software and information technology services sector is one of the fastest-growing industries in Fujian.

We used purposive sampling to select the respondents of the study. This sampling technique was used to carefully select target respondents, events, and settings to provide essential information that cannot be gathered from other sources (Maxwell, 2012). The target respondents of the study were employees of IT companies in Fujian, China. Furthermore, we used a three stages time-lagged questionnaire-based survey with a time interval of 4 weeks for data collection. The initial stage included questionnaires related to demographics and TMS. Respondents were asked questions about the independent variable (EL) in the second stage. Finally, questionnaires related to the mediating variable (workforce agility) and dependent variable (IT project success) were asked in the last stage of data collection. Out of the 435 questionnaires distributed, 328 complete responses were received. Demographic details are listed in Table 1 below.

Table 1.

Demographic Detail.

Demographic details	Frequency	Percentage
Age
20–30	81	25
31–40	141	43
41–50	60	18
51 and above	46	14
Gender
Male	208	63
Female	120	37
Education
Undergraduate	164	50
Master	107	33
PhD	57	17
Experience
1–3	124	38
4–6	142	43
Above 6	62	19
Type of project
Software development,	184	56%
Mobile app development,	66	20%
Web development,	46	14%
Other IT services.	32	10%
Project sector
Healthcare	115	35%
Finance	82	25%
Education	52	16%
Retail	46	14%
Other sectors.	33	10%
Type (4G, 5G):
4G	197	60%
5G	131	40%
Range of project costs (in number):
0–50,000 USD	155	(47%),
50,001–100,000 USD	82	(25%),
100,001–150,000 USD	59	(18%),
150,001–200,000 USD	32	(10%).

Measures and Methods

A ten-item scale by Vecchio et al. (2010) was used to solicit feedback from respondents concerning EL, with items such as “my leader encourages me to find solutions to my problems without his/her direct input.” Respondents rated their feedback on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The agility of the workforce was evaluated using a seven item scale developed by Muduli (2017), with the following example item: “I am flexible to quickly change from task to task, job to job, and place to place.” TMS was measured using a twenty-two-item scale developed by Ahmed and Philbin (2022), with a sample item like “provided sufficient resources for instituting organizational change to facilitate effective system implementation.” Aga et al.'s (2016) Fourteen-item scale was used to obtain participant feedback on IT project success, with one of the sample items asking respondents if “the project was completed on time.” Many researchers have used the same scale for the measurement of project success in the IT industry (Khanet al., 2022a).

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed in two steps. First, IBM SPSS 24 was used for the descriptive analysis (mean, standard deviation, and correlation) of the data (Hayes et al., 2017). Second, Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was applied for data analysis using SmartPLS 3.2.9 software. PLS-SEM is a nonparametric technique that does not assumes normality or linearity of the data and can deal a small sample size. Two main stages were performed for data analysis using SmartPLS 3.2.9. First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to evaluate whether the observed variables measured the same underlying construct (Kline, 2015). In the second stage, we used bootstrapping (5,000 sub-sample) to assess the structural model and estimate the path coefficients between different variables of interest.

Results and Findings

Descriptive Analysis

The results of the descriptive analysis presented in Table 2 reveal that EL has a positive and significant correlation with WA, TMS, and IT project success. The correlation of WA with TMS and IT project success is also positive and significant. Likewise, the mean of the study variables ranged between 2.74 and 3.26.

Table 2.

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Correlations.

Variable	Mean	SD	EL	WA	TMS	IT PS
EL	3.26	0.93	1
WA	2.73	0.89	0.386**	1
TMS	3.19	0.83	0.497**	0.603**	1
IT PS	2.92	0.84	0.403**	0.605**	0.515**	1

Note. EL = empowering leadership; WA = workforce agility; TMS = top management support; IT PS = IT project success.

p < .01 (two-tailed).

Measurement Model Analysis

Measurement model analysis involves the assessment of the items and constructs’ validity and reliability. The measures of the measurement items and constructs’ reliability and validity are factor loadings, composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE). Items reliability requires items factor loadings and composite reliability to be greater than 0.70. AVE values greater than 0.50 is mandatory for convergent validity. As shown in Table 3 and Figure 2, the results of the measurement model reveal that the values of factor loadings, composite reliability, and AVE exceeded their minimum thresholds of 0.60, 0.70, and 0.50, respectively (Bryne, 2010; Hair Jr et al., 2014)). These results suggest that all items and variables of the study are reliable.

Table 3.

Results of the Measurement Model.

Constructs	Items	Factor loadings	Cronbach alpha	Composite relaibility	Average variance extracted
Empowering leadership	EL1	0.719
	EL10	0.82
	EL2	0.783
	EL3	0.757
	EL4	0.732
	EL5	0.728	0.929	0.940	0.609
	EL6	0.844
	EL7	0.841
	EL8	0.78
	EL9	0.791
Project success	PS1	0.668	0.925	0.934	0.505
	PS10	0.752
	PS11	0.654
	PS12	0.72
	PS13	0.753
	PS14	0.73
	PS2	0.654
	PS3	0.733
	PS4	0.704
	PS5	0.718
	PS6	0.704
	PS7	0.75
	PS8	0.745
	PS9	0.651
Top management support	TM1	0.684	0.957	0.959	0.530
	TM10	0.75
	TM11	0.714
	TM12	0.706
	TM13	0.735
	TM14	0.631
	TM15	0.698
	TM16	0.74
	TM17	0.759
	TM18	0.742
	TM19	0.651
	TM2	0.693
	TM20	0.773
	TM21	0.735
	TM22	0.754
	TM3	0.711
	TM4	0.778
	TM5	0.755
	TM6	0.658
	TM7	0.776
	TM8	0.78
	TM9	0.76
Workplace agility	WA1	0.787	0.878	0.905	0.577
	WA2	0.792
	WA3	0.736
	WA4	0.78
	WA5	0.748
	WA6	0.724
	WA7	0.748

Figure 2.

Measurement model results.

Concerning discriminant validity, we used the Fornell-Larcker criterion. This criterion assumes that a construct is discriminantly valid if the square root of the AVE of each construct is greater than its correlation with other constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The results shown in Table 4 indicate that the square root of AVE of each construct is greater than its correlation with other constructs.

Table 4.

Fornell-Larcker Criterion.

Construct	EL	IT PS	TMS	WA
EL	0.781
IT PS	0.393	0.711
TMS	0.508	0.507	0.728
WA	0.398	0.635	0.608	0.76

Structural Model Assessment

Structural model assessment involves the estimation of path coefficients, t-statistics, and p-values. The results of the structural model (Table 5 and Figure 3) revealed that EL has a positive and significant impact on IT project success (β = .211, p < .05). As seen in Table 5 EL significantly predicted WA (β = .183, p < .05). The impact of WA on IT project success was also positive and significant (β = .530, p < .05). The significance of paths a, b, and c justify the presence of a mediating variable between EL and IT project success.

Table 5.

Structural Model Results.

Hypotheses	β	T Statistics	P Values
EL -> IT PS	.211	2.94	.003
EL -> WA	.183	2.976	.003
WA -> IT PS	.530	7.394	.000
EL*TMS -> WA	.099	2.174	.003

Figure 3.

Structural model results.

Mediation Analysis: Workforce Agility as an Explanatory Mechanism

To examine the WA as a mediating variable between EL and IT project success, we used bootstrapping method with 5,000 samples (Hayes & Scharkow, 2013). The findings indicate that the indirect effect of EL on IT project success via WL was positive and significant (β = .097; 95% CI [0.032, 0.168], thus providing support for H4. The beta coefficients for H1 were statistically significant in the presence of indirect effects of EL on IT project success. Thus, this result indicates the WA partially mediated the relationship between EL and IT project success.

Moderating Analysis: Top Management Support as a Key Determinant

We used a repeated indicator approach to test the moderating role of TMS between EL and WA (Hair et al., 2021). For the said purpose, we created an interaction of EL * TMS. We then obtained results through bootstrapping, and the results revealed that TMS positively moderated the impact of EL on WA (β = .099; 95% CI [0.005, 0.183]). The graphical analysis (Figure 4) also shows that the impact of EL on WA is higher when TMS support is present. In simple words, the data reflected that WA is strengthened with increased TMS input while an upsurge in EL upgraded the WA. Also, the EL-TMS interaction significantly predicted WA. These findings demonstrated the importance of considering TMS in the relationship between EL and WA.

Figure 4.

Moderation analysis.

Discussion and Conclusion

The present study delved into the significance of EL in IT project success, focusing on the mediating and moderating effects of WA and TMS, respectively. First, of the four hypotheses tested, the results established a positive relationship between EL and IT PS, which is consistent with Ahmad et al. (2022) and can be attributed to empowering leaders’ use of recognition and incentives to enhance creativity in the workplace (Al Otaibi et al., 2022). Second, previous studies have linked EL to worker proactivity (Singh & Rangnekar, 2020), suggesting that EL enhances work mindfulness and reconciles bureaucratic restraints, enabling project employees to work confidently toward positive results (Zheng et al., 2021). This study also empirically validated that WA partially mediates the relationship between EL and IT PS, which has not been tested before.

Third, the results affirmed that TMS moderates the link between EL and WA, supporting Kanwal et al.'s (2017) claim that TMS moderates project leadership and performance. The study found that EL prioritizes TMS to ensure project success, highlighting the importance of top-level support for project managers (Ali et al., 2020; Yusof et al., 2017). This finding suggests that TMS is pivotal to enhancing WA, an essential factor in achieving IT project success. Conjointly, it is concluded that EL provisioning for TMS is perceived as more effective by followers in mobilizing WA toward successful IT project completion.

Theoretical Implication

The present research study significantly contributes to the field of project management. Firstly, the study utilizes the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to elucidate how EL can facilitate the successful completion of an IT project. This theoretical framework enables a deeper understanding of the role of EL in project management, shedding light on the motivational factors that contribute to project success (Van den Broeck et al., 2019). Moreover, the study employs the lens of the Conservation of Resources (CoR) theory, contributing to the project management domain. The findings emphasize the critical role of TMS in developing workforce agility, thereby ensuring project success. This finding is consistent with previous research that underscores the importance of TMS in project management (Eskerod & Huemann, 2013; Hong & Kim, 2002). Secondly, this study is the first to examine workforce agility as a mediator for EL in the project context. By introducing workforce agility as a mediator, the research fills a critical gap in the literature and emphasizes the importance of agility in project management. This finding resonates with recent research on the critical nature of agility in project management, particularly in uncertain and dynamic environments (Ajgaonkar et al., 2021; Kerzner et al., 2021; Patil & Suresh, 2019). The extension of previous work expands the scope of the findings, providing insights into how workforce agility can be leveraged to achieve project success within an organizational context (Almahamid,2019).

Thirdly, this study adds to the CoR theory by introducing TMS as a moderator in the EL and WA nexus for the first time. The findings suggest that TMS plays a crucial role in enhancing workforce agility and thereby reinforcing the impact of EL on project success. Overall, this study provides new insights into the role of EL, workforce agility, and TMS in project management, highlighting the theoretical underpinnings of these constructs and their practical implications for project success. These findings are critical for project managers and organizational leaders seeking to improve project outcomes and increase organizational agility in dynamic and uncertain environments.

Practical Implications

The current study has significant practical implications for the IT business that should not be overlooked. First and foremost, organizations operating in the IT sector of Fujian should promote and educate their executives about the benefits of EL to improve the success rate of IT projects. By embracing EL, leaders can improve project outcomes by creating an environment that fosters creativity and innovation (Al Otaibi et al., 2022). Second, leaders in IT organizations should alter their style and approach to guide their team members. Encouraging team members to take the initiative, involving them in decision-making, and supporting them during uncertain situations can boost their overall performance and contribute to the project’s success (Zheng et al., 2021). Third, the study findings highlight the crucial role of TMS in project success and WA, implying that project leaders must receive top-level support from management to ensure they can effectively lead their teams and complete projects. While the study results assert that project leaders in China and other countries encourage their followers to work with greater enthusiasm and dedication, they simultaneously stress the role of TMS as an essential element in providing critical support to project leaders (Ali et al., 2020).

In a real-life industry context, Chinese tech giants such as Huawei and Tencent have recognized the importance of empowering leadership in driving innovation and achieving success. For instance, Huawei’s founder and CEO, Ren Zhengfei, has emphasized the importance of empowering employees to foster innovation and has implemented a “wolf culture” that encourages employees to take risks and challenge the status quo. Similarly, Tencent has adopted a “meritocracy” culture that values talent, creativity, and innovation, encouraging its employees to be entrepreneurial (The Economist, 2022). In other words, organizations are encouraged to create an environment that fosters creativity, innovation, and agility by promoting EL. At the same time, embracing new leadership models, enriching and altering conventional leadership style inventory, and providing TMS, could ultimately lead to successful project outcomes.

Future Recommendation

The presently offered research has a great deal of room for improvement. For instance, one of the limitations is the use of a cross-sectional research technique, which reduces the reliability of our causal conclusions (Ali et al., 2020). Longitudinal research may be conducted to provide more robust evidence for the proposed causal conclusions. In addition, the current study only addressed EL; however, in the future, researchers may investigate the influence transformational leadership has on the success of IT projects. As various scholars have pointed out, project management experts need to do more empirical studies on transformational leadership, particularly in the information technology industry; this is necessary because more than 80% of projects fail due to inadequate leadership (Kabore et al., 2021).

Moreover, the current study uses TMS as the only moderator variable; however, a future study may incorporate top management methods for WA as a moderator. According to several researchers, the absence of WA methods among top management is the primary factor contributing to the failure of organization transformation initiatives (Evangelist-Roach, 2020; Patil & Suresh, 2019; Tessarini Junior & Saltorato, 2021). Additionally, future research can explore other potential moderator variables, such as project complexity or team size, to better understand their impact on the relationship between EL, workforce agility, and project success (Ajgaonkar et al., 2021; Kabore et al., 2021). Beyond that, future studies can also focus on some of the following other undermined areas: the role of emotional intelligence in EL and IT project success (Wang & Yang, 2021); the impact of cultural diversity on WA in IT projects and its mediation effect on the relationship between EL and IT project success (Chen et al., 2024); the relationship between EL and IT project success in the context of digital transformation and its potential implications for project management in the IT industry (Sambasivan & Veeraraghavan, 2022); the role of technology readiness in moderating the relationship between EL and IT project success, and its potential implications for the IT industry (Choi et al., 2021); the impact of team trust on the relationship between EL and workforce agility in IT projects and its potential implications for project success (Kim & Ko, 2021).

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.

Ethical Statement

All potential procedures were adhered to safeguard compliance with national and international ethical standards. All procedures in this study involving human participants comply in strict accordance with the Belmont Report, and Nuremberg Code, and 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. A consent form was signed by all individuals who participated in this study.

ORCID iD

Muhammad Anwar Khan

Data Availability Statement

The data analyzed in this research are available upon request from the corresponding author.

References

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.

Ahmadabadi

A. A.

Heravi

(2019). The effect of critical success factors on project success in public-private partnership projects: A case study of highway projects in Iran. Transport Policy, 73, 152–161.

Ahmad

M. K.

Abdulhamid

A. B.

Wahab

S. A.

Pervaiz

A. N.

Imtiaz

(2022). Direct and indirect influence of project managers’ contingent reward leadership and empowering leadership on project success. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 14, 18479790211073443.

Ahmed

Azmi Bin Mohamad

(2016). Exploring the relationship between multi-dimensional top management support and project success: An international study. Engineering Management Journal, 28(1), 54–67.

Ahmed

Philbin

S. P.

(2022). It takes more than the project manager: The importance of senior management support for successful social sector projects. Project Leadership and Society, 3, 100042.

Ajgaonkar

Neelam

N. G.

Wiemann

(2021). Drivers of workforce agility: A dynamic capability perspective. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(4), 951–982.

Ali

Haider

Khan

Mohi

Din

(2021). Does humility of project manager affect project success? Confirmation of moderated mediation mechanism. Management Research Review, 44(9), 1320–1341.

Ali

Khan

Shah

S. J.

Ullah

(2020). Linking humble leadership and project success: The moderating role of top management support with mediation of team-building. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 14(3), 545–562.

Almahamid

(2019). The influence of ERP system usage on agile capabilities: Examining the mediating role of users’ psychological empowerment in Jordanian commercial banks. Information Technology and People, 32(6), 1633–1656.

10.

Al Otaibi

S. M.

Amin

Winterton

Bolt

E. E. T.

Cafferkey

. (2022). The role of empowering leadership and psychological empowerment on nurses’ work engagement and affective commitment. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 36(9), 272–287. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-11-2021-3049

11.

Amundsen

Martinsen

Ø. L.

(2014). Empowering leadership: Construct clarification, conceptualization, and validation of a new scale. Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 487–511.

12.

Bender

Müller

Söllner

(2016). Agile project management in the context of IT project portfolios. Journal of Information Technology, 31(2), 139–154. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/jit.2015.20.

13.

Bhatti

S. H.

Hussain

W. M. H. W.

Khan

Sultan

Ferraris

(2022). Exploring data-driven innovation: What's missing in the relationship between big data analytics capabilities and supply chain innovation? Annals of Operations Research, 333(2–3), 799–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04772-7

14.

Breu

Hemingway

C. J.

Strathern

Bridger

(2002). Workforce agility: The new employee strategy for the knowledge economy. Journal of Information Technology, 17(1), 21–31.

15.

Bryne

B. M.

(2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(1), 148–161.

16.

Cai

Huang

Liu

Wang

(2018). Improving the agility of employees through enterprise social media: The mediating role of psychological conditions. International Journal of Information Management, 38(1), 52–63.

17.

Capaldo

Capone

Babiak

Bajcar

Kuchta

(2021). Efficacy beliefs, empowering leadership, and project success in public research centers: An Italian–polish study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13), 6763.

18.

Chatterjee

Chaudhuri

Vrontis

(2022). Does remote work flexibility enhance organization performance? Moderating role of organization policy and top management support. Journal of Business Research, 139, 1501–1512.

19.

Cheong

Spain

S. M.

Yammarino

F. J.

Yun

(2016). Two faces of empowering leadership: Enabling and burdening. Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 602–616.

20.

Chen

Zhang

Huang

(2024). Crafting a Job among Chinese Employees: The Role of Empowering Leadership and the Links to Work-Related Outcomes. Behavioral Sciences, 14(6), 451.

21.

Cheong

Yammarino

F. J.

Dionne

S. D.

Spain

S. M.

Tsai

C. Y.

(2019). A review of the effectiveness of empowering leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 34–58.

22.

Choi

Mattila

A. S.

Bolton

L. E.

(2021). To err is human (-oid): how do consumers react to robot service failure and recovery?. Journal of Service Research, 24(3), 354–371.

23.

Chow

Cao

D. B.

(2008). A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects. Journal of Systems and Software, 81(6), 961–971.

24.

Chua

D. K. H.

Kog

Y. C.

Loh

P. K.

(1999). Critical success factors for different project objectives. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(3), 142–150.

25.

Cyfert

Szumowski

Dyduch

Zastempowski

Chudziński

(2022). The power of moving fast: Responsible leadership, psychological empowerment and workforce agility in energy sector firms. Heliyon, 8(10), e11188.

26.

Das

K. P.

Mukhopadhyay

Suar

(2022). Enablers of workforce agility, firm performance, and corporate reputation. Asia Pacific Management Review, 28(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2022.01.006

27.

de Jong

J. P.

Wilkin

C. L.

Rubino

(2019). The association between perceived personal power, team commitment and intrinsic motivation for permanent and temporary workers. Economic and industrial democracy, 40(2), 257–279.

28.

Deci

E. L.

Olafsen

A. H.

Ryan

R. M.

(2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The State of a Science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 19–43.

29.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134.

30.

Dyer

Shafer

R. A.

(2003). Dynamic organizations: Achieving marketplace and organizational agility with people (CAHRS working paper series, 27).

31.

Eskerod

Huemann

(2013). Sustainable development and project stakeholder management: What standards say. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(1), 36–50.

32.

Evangelist-Roach

(2020). Workforce agility strategies for improving the success rate of change initiatives [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University].

33.

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.

34.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.

35.

Frick

N. R. J.

Mirbabaie

Stieglitz

Salomon

(2021). Maneuvering through the stormy seas of digital transformation: The impact of empowering leadership on the AI readiness of enterprises. Journal of Decision System, 30(2–3), 235–258.

36.

Gao

Jiang

(2019). Perceived empowering leadership, harmonious passion, and employee voice: the moderating role of job autonomy. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 1484.

37.

Gartner forecasts worldwide it spending to reach $4.4 trillion in 2022. (2022). Gartner. Retrieved January 02, 2023, from https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2022-12-12-govt-it-spending-forecast-2023.

38.

Gemünden

H. G.

Lehner

Kock

(2018). The project-oriented organization and its contribution to innovation. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 147–160.

39.

Grass

Backmann

Hoegl

(2020). From empowerment dynamics to team adaptability: Exploring and conceptualizing the continuous agile team innovation process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(4), 324–351.

40.

Hair

J. F.

Jr Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.

41.

Hair Jr

Sarstedt

Hopkins

G. Kuppelwieser

L., V.

, (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121.

42.

Hayes

A. F.

Montoya

A. K.

Rockwood

N. J.

(2017). The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equation modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 25(1), 76–81.

43.

Hayes

A. F.

Scharkow

(2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter? Psychological Science, 24(10), 1918–1927.

44.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2011). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 116–122.

45.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Freedy

(eds.) (2017). Conservation of resources: A general stress theory applied to burnout. In Professional burnout (pp. 115–129). Routledge Ebooks.

46.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Halbesleben

Neveu

J. P.

Westman

(2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103–128.

47.

Hong

K. K.

Kim

Y. G.

(2002). The critical success factors for ERP implementation: An organizational fit perspective. Information Management, 40(1), 25–40.

48.

Ika

L. A.

Diallo

Thuillier

(2012). Critical success factors for World Bank projects: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Project Management, 30(1), 105–116.

49.

Kabore

S. E.

Sane

Abo

(2021). Transformational leadership and success of international development projects (ID projects): Moderating role of the project team size. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(4), 517–530.

50.

Kanwal

Zafar

M. S.

Bashir

(2017). The combined effects of managerial control, resource commitment, and top management support on the successful delivery of information systems projects. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1459–1465.

51.

Kaufmann

Kock

(2022). Does project management matter? The relationship between project management effort, complexity, and profitability. International Journal of Project Management, 40(6), 624–633.

52.

Kerzner

Zeitoun

Vargas

R. V.

(2022). Project management next generation: The pillars for organizational excellence. John Wiley & Sons.

53.

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.

54.

Khan

Jaafar

Mubarak

Khan

A. K.

(2022a). Employee mindfulness, innovative work behaviour, and IT project success: The role of inclusive leadership. Information Technology and Management, 25(2), 145–215.

55.

Khan

Mubarak

Khattak

S. A.

Safdar

Jaafar

(2022b). Despotic leadership and IT project efficiency: The role of resilience. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 15(3), 449–468.

56.

Khattak

S. I.

Rizvi

T. H.

Khan

M. A.

(2022). Unwrapping software projects success in Asia: Assessing the role of authentic leadership, psychological empowerment, and job engagement in project success using a serial-mediation approach. Sage Open, 12(2), 21582440221097918.

57.

Kim

Beehr

T. A.

Prewett

M. S.

(2018). Employee responses to empowering leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(3), 257–276.

58.

Kim

E. J.

(2021). The influence of emotional intelligence on team cohesion and the mediating effects of self-efficacy and trust: Time-lagged approach. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 27(7/8), 540–552.

59.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.

60.

Konczak

L. J.

Stelly

D. J.

Trusty

M. L.

(2000). Defining and measuring empowering leader behaviors: Development of an upward feedback instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 301–313.

61.

Kundu

S. C.

Kumar

Gahlawat

(2019). Empowering leadership and job performance: Mediating role of psychological empowerment. Management Research Review, 42(5), 605–624.

62.

Lee

Willis

Tian

A. W.

(2018). Empowering leadership: A meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, mediation, and moderation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 306–325.

63.

Lei

Fang

Rajkumar

T. M.

Holsapple

(2020). Recovering troubled IT projects: The roles of transformational leadership and project complexity. Information Systems Frontiers, 24(1), 233–245.

64.

Liu

Han

Zhang

(2016). Linking empowering leadership and change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: The role of thriving at work and autonomy orientation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29(5), 732–750.

65.

Zhao

Wang

(2017). The impact of empowering leadership on employee creativity in China: The moderating role of psychological capital. Social Behavior and Personality, 45(1), 53–64. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sbp/sbp/2017/00000045/00000001/art00008

66.

Mata

M. N.

Martins

J. M.

Inácio

P. L.

(2023). Impact of absorptive capacity on project success through mediating role of strategic agility: Project complexity as a moderator. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(1), 100327.

67.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage publications.

68.

Mubarak

Khan

Safdar

Muhammad

Riaz

(2021). Ethical leadership in project-based organizations of Pakistan: The role of psychological empowerment and Islamic work ethics. Management Research Review, 45(3), 281–299.

69.

Muduli

(2013). Workforce agility: A review of literature. The IUP Journal of Management Research, 12(3), 55–65.

70.

Muduli

(2017). Workforce agility: Examining the role of organizational practices and psychological empowerment. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 36(5), 46–56.

71.

Müller

Jugdev

(2012). Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin, and Prescott-the elucidation of project success. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), 757–775.

72.

Müller

Klein

(2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and project management research. Project Management Journal, 51(6), 579–581.

73.

Nguyen

Kuntz

J. R.

Näswall

Malinen

(2016). Employee resilience and leadership styles: The moderating role of proactive personality and optimism. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 45(2), 13–21.

74.

Ohly

Fritz

(2007). Challenging the status quo: What motivates proactive behaviour? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(4), 623–629.

75.

Ong

C. H.

Bahar

(2019). Factors influencing project management effectiveness in the Malaysian local councils. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 12(4), 1146–1164.

76.

Patil

Suresh

(2019). Modelling the enablers of workforce agility in IoT projects: A TISM approach. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 20(2), 157–175.

77.

Petermann

M. K. H.

Zacher

(2021). Development of a behavioral taxonomy of agility in the workplace. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 14(6), 1383–1405.

78.

Pinto

J. K.

Slevin

D. P.

(1987). Critical factors in successful project implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 34(1), 22–27.

79.

Pinto

J. K.

Slevin

D. P.

(1989). Critical success factors in R&D projects. Research-Technology Management, 32(1), 31–35.

80.

Sambasivan

Veeraraghavan

(2022). The deskilling of domain expertise in AI development. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–14).

81.

Saputra

Patrick

(2022, August). Digital competence as a mediator for the leadership in empowering workforce agility [Conference session]. 2022 International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech) (pp. 612–617). IEEE.

82.

Saputra

Tuti

R. W.

Satispi

(2023, February). Workforce agility during COVID-19: The effect of teamwork and empowering leadership. In Proceedings of the 3rd Borobudur International Symposium on Humanities and Social Science 2021 (BIS-HSS 2021) (Vol. 667, p. 195). Springer Nature.

83.

Sharma

P. N.

Kirkman

B. L.

(2015). Leveraging leaders: A literature review and future lines of inquiry for empowering leadership research. Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 193–237.

84.

Singh

Rangnekar

(2020). Empowering leadership in hospital employees: Effects on goal orientation, job conditions, and employee proactivity. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 69(7), 1497–1519.

85.

Srivastava

Bartol

K. M.

Locke

E. A.

(2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239–1251.

86.

Stoker

J. I.

Garretsen

Soudis

(2019). Tightening the leash after a threat: A multi-level event study on leadership behavior following the financial crisis. Leadership Quarterly, 30(2), 199–214.

87.

Tessarini Junior

Saltorato

. (2021). Workforce agility: A systematic literature review and a research agenda proposal. Innova, 31(81), 155–167.

88.

The Economist. (2022, August 11). Tencent is a success story bedevilled by the splinternet. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/business/2022/08/11/tencent-is-a-success-story-bedevilled-by-the-splinternet

89.

van Dijke

De Cremer

Mayer

D. M.

Van Quaquebeke

. (2012). When does procedural fairness promote organizational citizenship behavior? Integrating empowering leadership types in relational justice models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 235–248.

90.

Van Den Broeck

Schreurs

Proost

Vanderstukken

Vansteenkiste

(2019). I want to be a billionaire: How do extrinsic and intrinsic values influence youngsters’ well-being? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 682(1), 204–219.

91.

Vecchio

R. P.

Justin

J. E.

Pearce

C. L.

(2010). Empowering leadership: An examination of mediating mechanisms within a hierarchical structure. Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 530–542.

92.

Wang

C. J.

Yang

I. H.

(2021). Why and how does empowering leadership promote proactive work behavior? An examination with a serial mediation model among hotel employees. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 2386.

93.

Wateridge

(1995). IT projects: A basis for success. International Journal of Project Management, 13(3), 169–172.

94.

Westerveld

(2003). The project excellence model^®: Linking success criteria and critical success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 411–418.

95.

Xue

Bradley

Liang

(2011). Team climate, empowering leadership, and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 299–312.

96.

Young

Poon

(2013). Top management support—almost always necessary and sometimes sufficient for success: Findings from a fuzzy set analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 31(7), 943–957.

97.

Yusof

Y. M.

Othman

Talib

S. A.

(2017). Top management support and project success in Malaysian public sector. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 66(7), 927–947.

98.

Zheng

Gou

Zhao

Liu

(2021). The ambidextrous and differential effects of directive versus empowering leadership: A study from project context. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(3), 348–369.

99.

Zheng

Zhang

Xie

(2022). The relationship between empowering leadership and project performance: A resource perspective. Engineering Construction & Architectural Management, 30(7), 2969–2990. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-11-2021-1024

100.

Zwikael

(2008). Top management involvement in project management: Exclusive support practices for different project scenarios. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(3), 387–403.