Complex Leadership Styles And Success Management Essay
Leadership style is too complex to limit to a simple formula, although there are some personality traits that are effective for becoming a successful leader. Some of these belong to leadership, while others are used in project management. Some general characters are common in most of the leaders such as: creativity, intelligence and courage. However, there are two opposite traits among leaders especially in critical situation which can determine whether the leader will be successful or not. Some leaders tend to blame others and avoid responsibility, while other leaders accept the failure and believe that outcomes depend on their decision and also their actions.
Today, being an effective project manager is one of the most important issues in each organisation. This chapter will demonstrate the gist of activities which have been done about leadership so far. It will demonstrate the differences between management and leadership within the project environment.
Leadership can be expressed in terms of the ability to build the instruction of project, motivate the members and maintain the performance of different groups in the organisation. In general, managers should deal with complexities and leaders should focus on changes. Leadership is related to conflict management and soft skills but management is related to formulating, monitoring and processing. Accepting failure but not defeat, considering the past mistakes during the project, and being the optimistic person should be considered for leaders to overcome the problems and direct the project in the proper way.
It is difficult to establish a certain instruction for becoming an effective project manager although many different leadership and management styles have been built to develop the project accurately. All of the leadership styles and management technologies have been made in order to finish the project on time, precisely and satisfactorily.
Effective leaders should first find out the purpose of their leadership (George, 2006).
Leadership has been considered more than any other aspect of human behaviour in the project management study. Leadership is the ability to bring people together to attain the results over time. Leadership is the long-term process and it needs years of progress and hard working. The leadership for 21st century becomes more complex and should be redefine in order to achieve the great goals (George, 2006).
Many investigations have been carried out in leadership studies so as to find an appropriate leadership theory. For instance, Bass (1985) has had a great impact on leadership theory. He identified different types of characteristics, behaviours, and leadership styles. In spite of that, the science of leadership does not have certain factors which can be applied for all of projects in the world. Measuring and assessing projects in different places are not the same due to different situations. Therefore, many aspects of leadership still stay theoretical and cannot be practical (Gehring, 2007, Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
All general leadership theories such as transformation, transaction and path-goal indicate that the project managers should own the required traits to lead a project effectively. In other words, effective project managers should recognise which approach is appropriate for applying to project leadership. Pinto et al. (1998) stated that “Any project manager’s ability to lead effectively is augmented by his or her understanding of alternative approaches to leadership”. Therefore, leaders should extract the skills of their employee and apply them to the project in order to lead the project accurately (Gehring, 2007).
History of theories
Theory of leadership like other theories has the history of formation. The first one was called “superior individual” and related to ancient Egyptians kings. The second was the “great man theory” which made by developing the first theory and indicated that a great man could determine the history of his country. The third one was “the man of the hour” and it was the modern form of the great man theory. This theory expanded and made the basic recorded leadership theory that called trait theory. After this time leadership was broadly modelled due to impact of great leaders on history such as Napoleon, Frederick, Churchill, Roosevelt and etc (Gehring, 2007).
Generally, traits are concerned with personal characteristics such as courage, intelligence, creativity and appearance. Trait theory has remarkable mistakes due to its limitations. The reason is that it is difficult to determine which leader can be known as a successful leader. Also, many trait lists have been made for leadership; therefore it is not easy to make a trait list as a reference. In addition, leaders who only possess the trait list cannot be called as successful leaders. Finally, by the end of 20th century, this theory is replaced by modern theories which concerned by behaviour of leader rather than traits (Gehring, 2007) .
This theory indicates that effective leaders are born, not made. It supposes that effective leaders have almost the same traits. Three major factors are considered in this type of theory: personal appearance, personality, and abilities. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) found the main traits of effective leaders; intelligence, technical knowledge, self-confidence, influence, ambition, and integrity. This classification for effective project managers is different. It includes problem-solving and negotiating abilities, initiative, orientation, communication, perspective and self-confidence (Turner, 1999, Turner, 2005).
The authentic leaders should have the five main traits for leading the organisations such as: showing self-discipline, making connected relationship, leading with both hearts and heads, training solid value, and encouraging their purpose with passion (George, 2006).
Unfortunately, the leadership terms such as: leadership trait, leadership attribute, leadership style and leadership competence have very narrow definition. Therefore, sometimes these terms have been used in an incorrect position. However, it should be noted that in the modern project, all of these terms should be considered in order to evaluate leadership success (Gehring, 2007).
According to trait theory, some researchers believe that the effective leaders have the common inherent competencies. Although, this idea is just for inherent competencies and the personal competences can be learned as well as personal characteristics during the work (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
Some authors believe that all of people have the power of leading in them; some of them in government, some of them in business, and etc. This power as series of competencies should be discovered in a certain time by themselves to serve others (George, 2006).
Projects need project management competencies in order to be accomplished successfully. Competence can be defined in terms of skills (including intelligence, management and problem-solving skills), knowledge, traits, aptitude, behaviour, and motive. The competencies have been identified by the project manager competency development (PMCD) framework: knowledge, performance and personal. The personal one also has been classified into six major competencies: (1) personal effectiveness, (2) influence, (3) Managerial, (4) cognitive, (5) human service and (6) accomplishment (Gehring, 2007).
Many taxonomy have been made for the competency, although, one of the comprehensive one was made by Dulewicz and Higgs (2003). They defined fifteen leadership competencies for three types of leadership: intellectual, managerial skill and emotional. See table 2.1(Dulewicz and Higgs, 2003).
Table 2.1: Fifteen leadership competencies and the competencies profiles of their styles of leadership (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2003).
The competency leadership theory was made in 1990 in order to recognise the competencies of effective leaders. It shows that effective leadership can be obtained only by learning. Different combination of competencies can make different styles of leadership; therefore, they can be useful in different situations. Accordingly, Bass (1990) stated that certain leaders are more suitable for stable circumstance and others are suited to an unstable circumstance (Turner, 2005).
It should be noted that the leaders in certain industry can very rarely to be effective in other industries where they have not enough experience. Thus, the structure of industry can impact on competence of leaders (Groysberg et al., 2006).
Major leadership theories
Many leadership theories lists have been identified over the last century. One of the significant of these lists is classified into six theories: (1) trait theory, (2) competency theory, (3) behavioural or style theory, (4) contingency theory, (5) visionary or charismatic theory, and (6) emotional intelligence theory (Turner, 2005).
The behavioural or style theory is related to behaviours and assumes that effective leadership can be obtain during the life and effective leaders are not born naturally.
The Cognitive theory assumes that an effective leader can be made in a special environment. Path-goal theory is made through cognitive theory. In pas-goal theory leaders should help members to find their path to their goal. This theory determines four leadership behaviours: directive, supportive, participative and achievement-oriented (House, 1971, Turner, 2005).
The visionary or charismatic theory appeared in 1980 when business leaders changed their strategy due to critical situation. Two leadership types of this theory are transformational (people-focused) and transactional (task-focused) which are made by Bass (1985). Later, Bass and Avolio (1995) developed these transformation and transaction leadership styles and found that transformation style has greater influence on the project than transaction one. The transformational one is usually for high difficulty circumstance and the transactional one is usually for low difficulty circumstance. However, the appropriate one is the combination of both types which can be useful in diverse condition (Turner, 2005, Bass and Avolio, 1990).
The emotional intelligence theory indicates that the leader’s emotional intelligence is more effective than the leader’s intellectual ability for the project. The main areas of emotional intelligence are as followed: visionary, coaching, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting, and commanding (Turner, 2005, Goleman, 2002).
Firelighter and fire-fighter
There are two general styles of leadership in project management: fire-fighter and firelighter. The leaders who pay more attention to anticipate and even prevent problems are known as proactive leaders or firelighter, although, the leaders who tackle immediate problems are known as reactive leaders or fire-fighter. There should be a linkage between proactive decision and reactive decision to control the project accurately. Therefore, recognizing the necessary skills for the project manager is vital in order to make the shift in leadership style. However, it is obvious that project leadership which tends to be proactive in controlling projects is more effective (Barber, 2005).
Proactive decision affects the direction of project and reactive decision solves the existing problems of project. These two leadership styles might be known as transformational leadership model or firelighter and transactional leadership model or fire-fighter. Transformational leadership is about lighting the fires of stakeholder’s motivation and creativity. In contrast to the transformational style is transactional leadership style which indicates the reactive behaviour of leadership (Barber, 2005).
Bass and Avolio (1990) pointed out that “there are times when leaders may need to apply a more reactive transactional style and be fire-fighters, but the main outcomes for success depend on the leader’s capacity for being a firelighter”.
Active and effective leader combines leadership style (how the leader affects) and best practices (the best day to day working behaviours). The best practices for effective leadership style include parameters such as: vision, credibility, collaboration, communication, action-orientation, feedback and recognition, and accountability. In addition, the research has proved that the most popular leadership style for running safety and creating high-performance culture is transformational one (Krause, 2007).
Transactional leadership style might be passive or active, although both approaches stay reactive. Fire-fighter leaders who just take action when they face to the problem are known as passive and other fire-fighters who trace deviation from standards tools and react to problems are known as active (Barber, 2005).
The firelighter leadership style is more complex than the fire-fighter style. The fire-fighter style is overcoming the inertia of reactive leadership. Many different fire-fighter-firelighter models have been built to control the project precisely. One of these models separates the transactional style into three parts; maintenance, reactive and avoidant. Figure 2.1 (Barber, 2005) illustrates this model. Maintenance comprises initiating structure, emotional consideration and contingent reward. This part can prepare the requirements to transform the fire-fighter leadership style to firelighter one. In other words, the maintenance behaviours make a bridge to the transformational leadership style (Barber, 2005).
The reason for that is the forming of credibility and trust of leadership which enable the leader to be accepted among team members as the firelighter leader. The firelighter part of this model combines the maintenance behaviour and the transformational behaviour. The contribution of this model is to expand understanding of the importance of the firelighter role in project management (Barber, 2005).
The significant point of this model is the active transactional behaviour. It can provide a bridge to firelighter style for project managers who are confused by reactive fire-fighting style. Maintenance behaviours explain the tasks, assign responsibilities, identify rewards for attempt and observe the personal requirement of the team members (Barber, 2005).
Bass (2003) indicated that contingent reward is the capability to establish fundamental objective and to present bonus to project members accordingly. It indicates a combination of task oriented and stakeholder’s supportive manners. In the initiating structure, the leader should clarify contingent rewards, direction of the project and assignment for the team members. Emotional consideration is related to team structure, personal requirement and ambitions (Barber, 2005).
Leadership in project management
Figure 2.1: The fire-fighter-firelighter model of leadership (Barber, 2005).
The leader should defuse conflict between the team members and provide an appropriate environment for the team members. Bass (2003) expressed that firelighter leaders should persuade the team members to be inventive and imaginative by searching new assumptions, reframing problems, and applying new approaches. They also define four vital elements for transformational leadership; idealised influence, inspirational motivation, individualised consideration and intellectual simulation (Bass, 2003).
Firelighter leader should enhance the understanding of the advantages of the project among the stakeholders. They should persuade their members to think about their action beyond simply “what is in it for them”. In other words, they should raise the consciousness of followers and move the focus of follower away from their self-interests (Bass, 2003).
In addition, Bennis and Nanus (1985) asserted that the effective leader can manage changes and unpredictability by encouraging members to be innovative to overcome the difficulties. Therefore project managers are known as fire-fighter due to continually solving the problem and put out fires.
Project manager and leadership style
Project managers should trace the progress of their project and anticipate any problems before they will occur in the future. So, it is wise that project managers can be proactive and forestall the problems rather than being reactive and solve the problems. Project managers who focus on proactive leadership style will be more successful in completing projects accurately. Thus, project managers are known as fire-fighter due to continually solving the problem and put out fires (Barber, 2005).
A project manager is a businessman, a psychologist, an accountant, and a technician. The project management institute (PMI) has developed classification; the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK) which identifies eight main management competencies: scope, time, cost, risk, quality, contract, communication and human resource. Project managers should be highly effective people. They should possess knowledge of the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to obtain the goals by leading the project team effectively (Barber, 2005).
It should be noted that there is not only a comprehensive leadership style for leading a project successfully. However, using different leadership styles for each stage of a project can be more appropriate (Frame, 1987).
Project managers’ leadership style affect their implementations, although, they usually tend to be task-oriented rather than people-oriented. They should create an appropriate environment for their project members. Therefore, their competencies are evaluated in terms of their success in leading the projects. In addition, it should be mentioned that in multiple-cultural projects, project managers should use particular leadership styles (Turner, 2005).
Leaders with any leadership styles should be careful with the hazards of leadership in order to prevent to lose their way such as: being an imposter, being a shooting star, being a loner, being a glory-seeker, and being a rationaliser (George, 2008).
Implication of the fir-fighter-firelighter model
The fire-fighter-firelighter model builds a combination of firelighter and fire-fighter styles. It is useful for different styles of managing especially those which need remarkable changes in the project management environment (Barber, 2005).
Firelighter leaders encourage the team members to use their creativity and adopt the requisite manners to deal with the problems. They demonstrate a combination of transformational and transactional behaviours. Nevertheless, they tend to be active leader and rely on transformational behaviour rather than reactive behaviours of management by exception. Thus, It is essential that the leader tend to be proactive in order to conquer the forthcoming problems (Barber, 2005).
Software tools in project management by monitoring past data can strengthen a reactive leadership style. The leader who trusts on monitoring software tools would be the reactive fire-fighter through the project cycle. The concept and control of forthcoming problems is the most important ability for being an effective leader in project management (Barber, 2005).
Integrating leading and managing
Leading versus managing
Many different rules have been established for differentiating the leading and managing so far. However, it is difficult to determine the role of them in succeeding of a system. Some researchers state that the competences and traits of leaders and managers should differ from each other in order to perform their tasks successfully.
Managers’ tasks are related to effectiveness, direct and stability of the project, although, leaders’ tasks are related to adaptation, innovation and flexibility of the project. In other words, managers are practical, critical, and logical, while leaders are imaginative, inventive, and sensitive (Yukl and Lepsinger, 2005).
There are diverse views about managing and leading. Some people who are more pessimistic about managing would like to have leaders in their systems. Some people who are more optimistic about managing would like to have both manager and leader in their systems. The other attitude is to having one person as a both leader and manager in a system. Nevertheless, it is very rare that someone can perform both managing and leading tasks in an organisation. It should be considered that in any of these perspectives, too much attention on leading or managing makes an organisation to be unsuccessful (Yukl and Lepsinger, 2005).
If a system is more complicated, then a managing role is more important and if a system has an active atmosphere with much uncertainty, then a leading role is more significant. In other words, a system which needs more changes requires a leader rather than manager and a system which needs more process and orders requires a manager rather than leader. Herein, the significant point is to inter-relate the leading and managing roles in an organisation. Therefore, if any organisation can establish this joint properly, then it would have the better performance and successful project accordingly (Yukl and Lepsinger, 2005).
There have been different approaches for definition of managing and leading. This debate is still continuing due to complexity of appreciation of these contexts. The first approach is to make a coequal role for both leading and managing and defined each of them more broadly. The second approach is to define a leading role as the previous definition but add it to managerial roles. The third approach is to establish a set of roles without identifying as leading or managing roles. The most appropriate approach should be defined in terms of the performance determinants in the flexible leadership model. In spite of that the best approach is still unknown and further research is needed to obtain it (Yukl and Lepsinger, 2005).
The Flexible leadership model
Three determinant of organisational performance can be recognised by the flexible leadership model; (1) effectiveness and popularity, (2) invention and changeability, and (3) human resources and relations. Each of these determinants is more important in an especial situation. Human resources and relations are more important when replacing skilled members is difficult. Organisations which consider this determinant are more likely to have effective employee skills. The example of this is General Electric Co. which has been identified as the best organisation in training employees. The reason is that, it uses sequence plan to prepare employees for empty key positions (Yukl and Lepsinger, 2005).
There are many kinds of leadership behaviours that can affect the performance determinants such as task-oriented which are related to efficiency, change-oriented related to changeability, and relations-oriented related to human resources. Table 2.2 (Yukl and Lepsinger, 2005) illustrates these leadership behaviours (Yukl and Lepsinger, 2005).
Management programs and systems
Management is an essential work for any organisation. Organisations prepare their members to be effective in all levels. However, there is not a certain code of conduct for management. The lack of common acceptable knowledge, skill and practice lead to management as a practice rather than profession. However, with enhancing the technology in management some programs and systems cover this problem (Lorsch and Clark, 2009).
Management programs and systems also can influence the performance determinants. They are demonstrated in Table 2.2 (Yukl and Lepsinger, 2005).
One of these systems is benchmarking. It is a systematic program for improving adaptation, services, and products. It should be noticed that in all of organisations, programs and systems should be directed by leaders to ensure that a management system is carried out accurately (Yukl and Lepsinger, 2005)
Table 2.2: Leadership behaviours and management programs and systems (Yukl and Lepsinger, 2005).
Leadership behaviours and management system
Both of these ways can affect the performance determinants and they act as supplementary for each other. The leadership behaviour can be applied in an organisation to develop new programs. For instance, if manager persuade employees to attend a new training programs and apply them to their job, then this program would be more successful. In the other hand, management program also can improve the effect of leadership behaviour. Employees cannot be innovative without programs. In spite of that in some cases the application of leadership behaviours are limited by management programs (Yukl and Lepsinger, 2005).
Each of performance determinants can affect the other determinants. Sometimes this affection leads to improve the other determinants and sometimes it leads to degrade the others. Therefore, it is not easy to build a certain formula for enhancing all aspects of performance determinants simultaneously. However, the right balance among performance determinants can be useful for improving the organisational effectiveness (Yukl and Lepsinger, 2005).
Project success factors
In the 1970s, project success factors have been determined in terms of developing system, improving of implementation, and evaluating time, cost and process. In the 1980s, critical success factors (CSF) was brought up in terms of the quality of the implementation, stakeholder’s activities and organisational objectives (Turner, 2005).
Many efforts have been done for establish the comprehensive project success factors. One of the most popular lists was made by Pinto and Slevin (1988). See Table 2.3 (Pinto and Slevin, 1988) .
Table 2.3: Project success factors (Pinto and Slevin, 1988).
The other important list which covers the previous efforts was made by Turner (1999). This list includes five main factors for project success: context, attitude, sponsorship, definition, people, system, and organisations. See Figure 2.2 (Turner, 1999).
Figure 2.2: The seven forces model for project success (Turner, 1999).
Project manager’s leadership competencies and project success
Project manager competencies
The six main schools of leadership have been recognised by Higgs (2003): trait, behaviour, contingency, visionary, emotional intelligence, and competency. Leadership is defined in terms of these schools as a combination of personal characteristic and competencies (i.e. skills and knowledge). This combination can create different leadership styles which are suitable for different situation. Moreover, competency school has been identified as the most important school of leadership in project management. Therefore, more studies on this school is required for leadership of project management (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
Personal characteristics and competencies of leaders can influence skills, knowledge and effectiveness of projects accordingly. Thus, assessing the leadership competencies is essential for any organisation. Many efforts have been undertaken for assessing leadership competencies such as multi leadership questionnaire (MLQ) made by Bass and Avolio (1995). However, the documentation has shown that they are still not trusted by all of organisation(Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
Goleman (1996) asserted that two factors are very important for success of projects: emotional intelligence (EI) and intellectual aptitude (IQ). In accordance with this idea, EI model has been made and used by organisations as the most important factors due to its variation in the performance of project. In general, four key competencies have the major role in leadership performance such as: emotional, cognitive, behavioural, and motivational. Intellectual competencies (IQ), managerial competency (MQ), and social and emotional competencies (EI) are the significant elements of leadership competencies (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2000b, Dulewicz and Higgs, 2000a, Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
Project competence and success of project management are closely interconnected. Many competencies lists for project managers have been determined such as: knowledge (qualification), skills (ability to do diverse tasks as: technical, administrative, planning, budgeting, leadership), and core personality characteristics. The effective project leaders should have the basic characteristics such as: credibility, problem solving, tolerance, flexible and communication. However, the researchers have not been able to make a certain link between project manager leadership competencies and project success (Pinto, 1998, Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
There have been many measurement tools for assessing the project success in terms of time, cost and function. The common tool of evaluating project success is critical success factors (CSFs). These days, the modern instrument can take into accounts the parameters such as: client satisfaction, stakeholder’s ideas, product and service success, business and commercial success, performance improvement, and system benefit. Nevertheless, there are some hazards in projects which can delay the process of implementations. These can be appeared in planning, controlling, and performing of tasks (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
There is a close connection between the project manager’s concept of project success and his or her competence. Some researchers have defined this relationship in terms of people, project strategy, leadership style, teamwork, and industrial relations. Although, others have been defined it in terms of cost, time and quality of project and ignore the influence of people on projects. According to project success, Jugdev (2005) found the four key parameters as follows: (1) The project sponsor should have enough desire to carry out the project, (2) The working relationship between project sponsor and project manager should be adjusted accurately, (3) A project manager should tackle complexity and uncertain situations, and (4) Stakeholder’s idea should be taken into the success criteria (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
Today, managers can measure their performance by an intangible variable based more on perceptions rather than factual proof. It includes the quality of management and the status of relationship with the leaders, colleagues and employees. Geoghegan and Dulewicz (2008) identified that ” there is a statistically significant relationship between a project manager’s leadership competencies and project success”. They used two different types of questionnaire to approach their idea. The first one is the leadership dimensions questionnaire (LDQ) made by Dulewicz (2005) and the second one is the project success questionnaire (PSQ) made by Pinto (1986) (Budd Jr and Marx, 1999).
This tool has been worked in terms of respondent’s leadership competencies that evaluated on fifteen aspects of leadership. It includes seven EQ competencies five MQ competencies, and three IQ competencies. It has been known as one of the most popular instruments and has been used in diverse public organisations such as: the Royal Air Force, the Home Office, the Royal Navy and private organisation such as DHL. Each dimensions of this tool can be acceptable by reaching the reliable level (i.e. Cronbach’s alpha > 0.7) (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
The example of LDQ questionnaire that has been filled out by 80 project managers is shown in table 2.4(Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008). Project managers work in different parts of company such as IT tasks (75%), finance (4%), general management (5%) and other tasks (16%) (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
In accordance with Table 2.4, for each leadership dimensions, the mean, standard deviation (SD) of the sten (standard 10-point scale) and t-test are used, in order to compare the LDQ results with Norm Group. The Norm Group is the equivalent scores from the LDQ standard sample. Herein, sten scores are defined by mean of 0.5 and SD of 2. The significant leadership dimensions are mostly in EQ section except vision and imagination in IQ section. Conscientiousness dimension has the highest rank with mean of 5.98 and after that self-awareness and sensitivity with 5.92. The lowest one is vision and imagination with mean of 4.37 (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
Table 2.4: Comparisons with LDQ norm group between LDQ sten scores using one-sample t-test (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
This short tool has been created based on project implementation profile (PIF) questionnaire which made by Pinto (1986). PIF works in terms of project success and has two main conditions: the project should be technically carried out accurately, and client’s idea should be taken into account by the team members. It can provide the basic measures in terms of time, cost and the function. It can also take into account the client satisfaction and the influence of the project on the organisation. Thus, it has been developed and used as a basic project manager success measure. It should be noted that for its alpha coefficient, different factors have been identified from 0.8 to 0.12 (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
The example of PSQ method is demonstrated in Table 2.5 (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008). Factor analysis is used in this method to simplify the procedure of analysis data. Factor 1 is usability; factor 2 is value of project outcome to users; and factor 3 is project delivery. Although, factor 3 is not concerned with project management and therefore, it is not used in this theme. These factors are loaded by 12 success questions (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
Table 2.5: Component matrix of PSQ items (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
Correlation between LDQ and PSQ
Table 2.6 (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008) demonstrates the correlation between the leadership dimensions of LDQ and factors of PSQ.
Table 2.6: Significant correlation between LDQ dimensions and Factor 1 and 3 items (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
It shows that one of IQ leadership dimensions, four EQ and five MQ has the positive link with project variables. Of the five MQ dimensions, three links have the high level of correlation (0.005), and of the four EQ dimensions, one link has the high level of correlation (0.01) (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
The summary of the researching on the correlation between factors and leadership dimensions are illustrated in Table 2.7 (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).Of these ten dimensions, five are MQ, four are EQ, and one is IQ. Therefore, MQ leadership dimension play a more significant role compared with other dimensions. Thus, enhancing the leadership dimensions by certain models can lead to increase success in aspects of project management (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
Table 2.7: Summary of significant correlation between LDQ dimensions and Factors 1 and 3 (Geoghegan and Dulewicz, 2008).Order Now