Thesis Proposal

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjcm20

Download by: [New York University] Date: 19 April 2016, At: 16:06

International Journal of Construction Management

ISSN: 1562-3599 (Print) 2331-2327 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20

Identifying critical leadership styles of project managers for green building projects

Xianbo Zhao, Bon-Gang Hwang & Hong Ning Lee

To cite this article: Xianbo Zhao, Bon-Gang Hwang & Hong Ning Lee (2016) Identifying critical leadership styles of project managers for green building projects, International Journal of Construction Management, 16:2, 150-160, DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2015.1130602

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2015.1130602

Published online: 08 Jan 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 73

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Identifying critical leadership styles of project managers for green building projects

Xianbo Zhao a *, Bon-Gang Hwang

b and Hong Ning Lee

c

a School of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland University, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia;

b Department of Building,

National University of Singapore, 117566, Singapore; c MINDEF Depot Road Camp, 109680, Singapore

In recent years, green building construction has been earning a significant place in Singapore’s construction industry. The success of a green building project is inevitably associated with the leadership of the project manager. This study attempts to identify the leadership characteristics and styles of project managers in Singaporean green building projects. Conducting a questionnaire survey with 30 project managers experienced in green construction, this study identified 13 leadership characteristics, among which ‘strive for work performance and productivity’ was ranked top. Additionally, the 13 characteristics were categorized into two groupings: (1) directive and task-oriented leadership and (2) relationship-oriented leadership. The results indicated that the leadership style of the project managers was more towards directive and task- oriented leadership but did not overlook their relationships with subordinates. Therefore, this study provides an understanding of leadership characteristics and styles of project managers in green building projects for both practitioners and researchers.

Keywords: project manager; leadership; characteristics; green building; Singapore

Introduction

Global climate change, caused by concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Huang et al. 2015), seems to be the most

significant environmental issue for human development in recent years (Zuo et al. 2013; Wu et al. 2014a). The building

and construction industry contributes to the increase of GHG emissions (Wu et al. 2014b; Zuo et al. 2015). The World

Green Building Council (WorldGBC 2013) reported that buildings are responsible for one-third of GHG emissions in the

world, and thus represent a major and cost-effective way to reduce GHG emissions. This has resulted in a need for green

construction across the world. According to the US Green Building Council (USGBC 2007), a green building is a building

that has been carefully designed, constructed, and operated to boost environmental, economic, and productivity perfor-

mance, as compared to conventional buildings. To put it in simpler terms, green buildings are designed and built in such a

way that they use less energy and resources than conventional buildings and attempt to minimize the impacts on the envi-

ronment (Yudelson 2008). With the increasing global concern about the environment, Singapore has shifted its focus to

making sustainable development a national priority (Hwang et al. 2015c), and has been recognized as a leader in advocat-

ing sustainability in the building and construction industry with its up-to-date and efficient green strategies and initiatives

(WorldGBC 2013).

The construction industry has played a key role in the economy of Singapore. According to the Building and Con-

struction Authority (BCA 2015), Singapore’s construction output was about S$37.7 billion in 2014, and was estimated

to reach between $29 billion to $36 billion in 2015. The Singapore government has set up a target to make at least

80% of buildings green by 2030 (BCA 2009), and various efforts have been directed toward constructing new green

buildings and retrofitting existing buildings (Hwang et al. 2015b). To attain the completion of more green building

construction, the leadership of project managers is essential. In every construction project, a project manager usually

takes charge of all matters of the project. The relationship between achieving project success and project management

competencies has been confirmed in the construction industry (Ahadzie et al. 2008). Frank (2002) indicated that the

project manager had direct influence over 34�47% of project success. Therefore, project managers play a vital role in project success (Turner & M€uller 2005).

In the construction industry, a project manager can be deemed a leader because he/she has the authority to delegate

work tasks to his/her project team and to make important decisions on site. Every project manager has his/her own style of

working and this depends a great deal on his/her leadership style. In other words, different project managers have different

leadership styles, and the leadership style used can affect the project performance either positively or negatively. Leader-

ship has been recognized as one of the essential skills of project managers (Edum-Fotwe & McCaffer 2000; Odusami

2002), which is also the case for green building projects (Hwang & Ng 2013).

*Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]

� 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

International Journal of Construction Management, 2016

Vol. 16, No. 2, 150�160, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2015.1130602

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ew

Y or

k U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 16

:0 6

19 A

pr il

2 01

6

The objective of this study is to identify the leadership characteristics and styles of project managers in green building

projects in Singapore. Most previous studies on the leadership styles of project managers were based on traditional build-

ing and construction projects and few have been focused on green projects. As there has been a significant rise in green

projects, it is important to identify appropriate leadership styles for project managers in these projects, which will help

ensure the smooth progress of the projects and their success.

Background

Green building projects in Singapore

In Singapore, a building is considered green as long as it meets the requirements stipulated under the Green Mark Scheme

(GMS), which was launched by the BCA in 2005. Under the GMS, developers and building owners can submit their applica-

tion for Green Mark (GM) certification. Their buildings were assessed on the five key areas, namely energy efficiency, water

efficiency, environmental protection, indoor environmental quality and other green features and innovations (BCA 2014b).

As long as the minimum score for GM certification was attained, their buildings would be considered GM-certified.

In December 2006, the BCA formulated the first Green Building Masterplan to encourage, enable, and engage industry

stakeholders to increase their efforts in environmental sustainability. As sustainable development remains a key national

priority going forward, the second Green Building Masterplan and the Sustainable Development Blueprint were unveiled

in 2009, and one of the key targets is to make at least 80% of buildings green by 2030 (BCA 2009). The key initiatives of

the second Green Building Masterplan included getting the public sector to take the lead in achieving GM certification,

encouraging the private sector to attain higher GM ratings through the provision of additional gross floor area, stepping up

the development of green building technologies through more R&D and pilot projects, building industry capability through

training, profiling of Singapore as a hub for green building development and imposing minimum standards (BCA 2009).

After December 2010, all new buildings should comply with a higher GM standard. This essentially translates into an addi-

tional 10% in energy savings and the minimum standard is also 28% higher than that released in 2005. To speed up the process

of going green, the BCA has launched the third Green Building Masterplan, focused on building capability in the industry,

engaging the tenants and occupants for closer partnership between the people, private, and public sectors, driving adjustments

in consumption behaviour, as well as developing an environment that addresses the well-being of the people (BCA 2014a).

Leadership theories

Robbins (2003) defined leadership as the ability to influence a group towards the achievement of goals. Leadership is dif-

ferent from management because the possession of a formal managerial rank in an organization does not necessarily enable

a manager to lead effectively and the ability to influence may arise outside the formal structure of an organization. In gen-

eral, there have been three categories of leadership theories, namely trait, behavioural, and contingency theories (Robbins

& Coulter 2007).

Trait theories focus on the traits of leaders, and consider that personal qualities and characteristics differentiate leaders from

non-leaders (Robbins 2003). Some studies revealed strong evidence of an identifiable set of personality and cognitive traits that

are expected to characterize successful leaders. For example, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) summarized six key traits: drive,

leadership motivation, honesty and integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability, and knowledge of the business; and Turner

(1999) identified seven traits of effective project managers: problem-solving ability, results orientation, energy and initiative,

self-confidence, perspective, communication, and negotiating ability. Obviously, trait theories of leadership have some limita-

tions. Traits appeared to predict leadership in selective situations (Robbins 2003) and trait theories involve subjective judge-

ments in determining who is a so-called good or successful leader (Mullins 2007). Indeed, leadership is the combination of

traits, skills, and behaviours that leaders use when they interact with their team members (Achua & Lussier 2013).

Behavioural theories of leadership posit that specific behaviour differentiates leaders from non-leaders (Robbins 2003).

The Iowa Studies established three major leadership styles: the autocratic, the democratic, and the laissez-faire leadership

styles (Lewin et al. 1939). Specifically, autocratic leaders provided clear expectations for what needed to be done, when it

should be done, and how it should be done; democratic leaders offered guidance to group members, but encouraged partic-

ipation of employees in decisions; and laissez-faire leaders offered little or no guidance to group members and left deci-

sion-making up to group members.

Additionally, in the Ohio State Studies, which began at Ohio State University in the late 1940s (Stogdill & Coons

1951), two major dimensions of leadership behaviour were found: (1) initiating structure and (2) consideration. Initiating

structure refers to the extent to which a leader is likely to define and structure his or her role and those of subordinates in

the search for goal achievement, while consideration describes the extent to which a leader is likely to have job

International Journal of Construction Management 151

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ew

Y or

k U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 16

:0 6

19 A

pr il

2 01

6

relationships characterized by mutual trust and respect for group members’ ideas and feelings. The two dimensions are

independent of each other, and can co-exist at the same time.

Moreover, the studies undertaken at the University of Michigan proposed two dimensions of leadership behaviour: (1)

employee-oriented and (2) production-oriented (Likert 1961). Employee-oriented leaders, also known as person-oriented

leaders, emphasized interpersonal relations and cared about the needs of their employees, while production-oriented lead-

ers, also known as task-oriented leaders, tended to be more concerned with the accomplishment of tasks. In this theory, the

two dimensions affect each other, meaning that when the leader is highly employee-oriented, he/she would be less produc-

tion-oriented and vice versa (Northouse 2013).

Furthermore, Blake and Mouton (1964) proposed a managerial grid based on the styles of concern for people and con-

cern for production. These styles represent the dimensions of consideration or employee-oriented leadership and initiating

structure or employee-oriented leadership, identified from the Ohio State Studies and University of Michigan Studies. The

managerial grid presents five typical leadership styles: authority-compliance, country-club, team, middle-of-the-road, and

impoverished styles.

Contingency theories of leadership propose that what makes an effective leader would depend on the situation. Certain

situations and certain follower types need certain leadership styles (Mills et al. 2009). One of the most popular and widely

known contingency models is the situational leadership theory developed by Hersey and Blanchard (1974, 1993), who

argued that the right leadership style should be contingent on the ability and willingness of the followers. Situational lead-

ership theory consists of two parts: (1) the leadership style, which is dependent on the directive and supportive behaviour,

and (2) the development level of followers. Therefore, situational leadership theory presents four leadership styles: (1)

directing (low supportive behaviour, high directive behaviour, low development of followers); (2) coaching (high support-

ive behaviour, high directive behaviour, moderate development of followers); (3) supporting (high supportive behaviour,

low directive behaviour, moderate development of followers); and (4) delegating (low supportive behaviour, low directive

behaviour, high development of followers).

Another contingency theory is the path-goal theory developed by House (1971, 1996). This theory maintains that it is

the leaders’ job to assist followers in achieving their goals and to provide the necessary direction and/or support to ensure

that their goals are compatible with overall organization objectives. House (1996) identified four leadership styles: (1) the

directive leader gives specific guidance of performance to followers; (2) the supportive leader is friendly and shows con-

cern for the needs of followers; (3) the participative leader consults with followers and considers their suggestions before

making decisions; and (4) the achievement-oriented leader sets high goals and expects followers to have high-level perfor-

mance. House (1996) assumed that leaders are flexible and that the same leader can practise different types of behaviour at

different times in varying situations.

This study identified 16 characteristics of leadership from previous studies on leadership (Robbins & Coulter 2007;

Achua & Lussier 2013; Northouse 2013). They are elaborated in the section of results and discussion.

Influence of leadership on project performance and success

In the project management area, there have been several studies that investigated the relationship between project

managers’ leadership style and project performance. Odusami et al. (2003) indicated a significant relationship

between project managers’ leadership styles and project performance in the Nigerian construction industry. This find-

ing was consistent with that of Mustapha and Naoum (1998), who found the significant association between preferred

management styles of the site managers and their level of effectiveness. The role of project managers’ leadership has

also attracted attention from academia. Lee-Kelley and Leong (2003) reported the influence of project managers’

leadership style on their perception of project success. Turner and M€uller (2005) performed a comprehensive litera- ture review and recognized project managers’ leadership as a success factor for projects. Using both quantitative and

qualitative studies, M€uller and Turner (2007) confirmed the influence of project managers’ leadership style on project success and disclosed that different leadership styles were appropriate for different project types. In addition, conduct-

ing a questionnaire survey, Geoghegan and Dulewicz (2008) reported that the British project managers’ managerial

competency leadership dimensions significantly influence project success. Moreover, Ozorhon et al. (2008) advocated

the transformational leadership style and reported that project managers’ transformational leadership style was posi-

tively associated with subordinates’ work performance in the Thai construction industry. Furthermore, in the Taiwa-

nese construction industry, Yang et al. (2011) found that increases in project managers’ leadership enhanced

relationships among team members, whilst team work was positively related to project performance and success.

Because the performance and success of green building projects are crucial for the implementation of the green strate-

gies in Singapore, this study attempts to identify the critical leadership styles adopted by project managers in green

building projects.

152 X. Zhao et al.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ew

Y or

k U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 16

:0 6

19 A

pr il

2 01

6

Method and data presentation

The literature review helped obtain a better understanding of leadership styles of project managers and collect information

to develop the survey questionnaire used for data collection in this study. A pilot study was conducted with three project

managers experienced in green construction to validate the questionnaire. In the finalized survey questionnaire, prior to

the main body, the introduction letter provided the relevant definitions and objectives of this study. The first section cap-

tured demographic data of the respondents, their companies and projects. Then, the characteristics of leadership were pre-

sented, and the respondents were asked to rate their attitudes towards the adoption of these characteristics in their green

construction projects, using a five-point Likert scale (1 D strongly disagree; 3 D neutral; and 5 D strongly agree). Accord- ing to the responses, it is possible to identify the leadership styles adopted by the project managers.

The population of this study was all the project managers with experience in green construction. A list of project manag-

ers certified with the Green Mark Manager (GMM) and Green Mark Professional (GMP) schemes was obtained from the

BCA, and served as the sampling frame of this study. These project managers were from either developers or contractors. A

total of 90 questionnaires were personally delivered, and the researcher clearly explained to the respondents that they should

answer the questions based on their experience in green building projects. Finally, 30 responses were received, representing

a response rate of 33%. The response rate was reasonable compared with the norm of 20‒30% for most questionnaire sur- veys in the construction industry (Akintoye 2000; Hwang et al. 2015a). Also, statistical analysis could still be conducted as

the central limit theorem holds true with a sample size greater than 30 (Ott & Longnecker 2001; Ling et al. 2009).

Although Likert scale data have been recognized as ordinal data, a number of studies advocated that Likert data could

be analysed using parametric statistical methods, such as t-test (Binder 1984; Hwang et al. 2014) and factor analysis (Cari-

fio & Perla 2008; Deng et al. 2014; Shan et al. 2015). Nunnally (1975) believed that the results from parametric methods

with ordinal data were recognized as reasonably reliable, whilst other statistics studies argued that parametric methods for

interval variables could be used for ordinal variables. This was because the power and flexibility obtained from parametric

methods can outweigh the small biases that they may entail (Allan 1976; O’Brien 1979), and conclusions and interpreta-

tions of parametric methods might be easier and provide more information (Allen & Seaman 2007). Therefore, the one-

sample t-test and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were used to analyse the data in this study.

Table 1 shows the profile of the respondents, their companies and projects: 37% of the respondents were contractors

and the remaining 63% were developers. In addition, 83% of the respondents had over five years’ experience in the con-

struction industry. Also, 60% had less than three years’ experience in green construction because the GMS had only been

mandatory in the construction industry since 2008, when the Building Control (Environmental Sustainability) Regulations

were enacted. Furthermore, the responses were based on 44 green building projects. The majority of these projects were

residential and commercial building projects, and worth less than S$100 million.

Table 1. Profile of companies, respondents, and projects.

Characteristics N %

Companies (N D 30) Contractors 11 37 Developers 19 63

Respondents (N D 30) Experience in green construction �3 years 18 60 4�6 years 8 27 > 6 years 4 13

Experience in the construction industry �5 years 5 17 6�10 years 18 60 11�15 years 4 13 16�20 years 2 7 >20 years 1 3

Project (N D 44) Project type Residential 20 45 Commercial 21 48

Mixed development 3 7

Project size (S$) <20 million 5 11

20�40 million 8 18 40�60 million 16 36 60�80 million 5 11 80�100 million 2 5 >100 million 8 18

International Journal of Construction Management 153

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ew

Y or

k U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 16

:0 6

19 A

pr il

2 01

6

Results and discussion

Leadership characteristics in green building projects

The data on the perception of the respondents on leadership characteristics in green projects received a Cronbach’s alpha

of 0.879, indicating high reliability of the data. This study adopts a one-sample t-test to check whether the respondents sig-

nificantly agreed on the 16 leadership characteristics. As shown in Table 2, the results indicated that 13 characteristics

with p-values below 0.05 and mean scores above 3 received significant agreement from the project managers.

C13, ‘strive for work performance and productivity’, was ranked top (mean D 4.37), suggesting that work performance and productivity were emphasized by project managers in green building projects. Project managers take the responsibility

for achieving project objectives, and the extent to which they achieve project objectives is considered as their performance

and linked to their bonuses. In some Singaporean firms, project managers have signed accountability pledges, where they

formally announce their responsibility for achieving the expected project performance (Zhao et al. 2014). In addition,

some efforts have been made to develop a standardized performance measurement system for projects in Singapore

(Hwang et al. 2015d). Examples are the Buildable Design Appraisal System (BDAS) (BCA 2005a), and the Construction

Quality Assessment System (CONQUAS) (BCA 2005b). Furthermore, it is not surprising that project managers strive for

project productivity in Singapore because the BCA has come up with several initiatives, such as the Construction Produc-

tivity Roadmap (CPR) and the Constructability Appraisal System (CAS), to enhance the construction productivity.

C07, ‘have high concern for work tasks’, received the second position (mean D 4.13), indicating that work tasks were highlighted by project managers in green building projects. This could be due to the fact that projects are highly goal-ori-

ented (Frame 2003). The high rank of this characteristic was also consistent with the high rank of C13 because both of

them were related to project objectives. In reality, no matter whether in traditional or green building projects, project

objectives are highlighted because the achievement of these objectives represents project success in most cases (Ling et al.

2009).

C06, ‘direct subordinates with clear roles and goals’, was ranked third (mean D 4.10), indicating that the project man- agers tended to direct their subordinates with clear roles and goals so that subordinates know their role in the project. In

addition, with clear roles and goals, subordinates are able to understand what the project manager expects of them. Addi-

tionally, in most cases, there are various groups of people working on site in a construction project because different work

activities have to be conducted (Turner 2009). Hence, it is appropriate for the project manager to direct his/her team with

clear roles and goals to prevent any confusion.

C05, ‘work closely with subordinates to determine what needs to be done’, occupied the fourth position (mean D 4.07), which was consistent with the democratic leadership style in the University of Iowa Studies because democratic leaders

would like to actively engage their subordinates, seek their participation and work with them to determine what needs to

be done (Achua & Lussier 2013). In addition, green technologies tend to require complicated techniques and construction

Table 2. Leadership styles of project managers in green projects.

Code Characteristics of leadership Mean Rank p-value

C01 Make all the decisions without discussing with subordinates 2.50 16 0.000 �

C02 Tell subordinates clearly what to do and how to do it 4.00 6 0.000 �

C03 Closely supervise the work of subordinates 4.00 6 0.000 �

C04 Encourage subordinates to shares their ideas and opinions 3.77 9 0.000 �

C05 Work closely with subordinates to determine what needs to be done 4.07 4 0.000 �

C06 Direct subordinates with clear roles and goals 4.10 3 0.000 �

C07 Have high concern for work tasks 4.13 2 0.000 �

C08 Be sensitive to the feelings of subordinates 3.43 13 0.001 �

C09 Look out for subordinates’ welfare 3.60 11 0.000 �

C10 Focus on getting the job done without paying any regard to subordinates’ welfare and feelings 2.57 15 0.003 �

C11 Develop and maintain good relationships with subordinates 3.77 9 0.000 �

C12 Encourage two-way communication 4.07 4 0.000 �

C13 Strive for work performance and productivity 4.37 1 0.000 �

C14 Have high concern for people 3.53 12 0.000 �

C15 Empower subordinates with freedom or autonomy in making decisions 3.13 14 0.293

C16 Delegate work responsibilities to subordinates 3.93 8 0.000 �

� The one-sample t-test result is significant at the 0.05 level.

154 X. Zhao et al.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ew

Y or

k U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 16

:0 6

19 A

pr il

2 01

6

processes (Zhang et al. 2011), with which staff may not be familiar. Because of the unfamiliarity of green technologies, a

project manager should work more closely with the subordinates to determine the work tasks and clarify any issues

(Hwang & Ng 2013).

C12, ‘encourage two-way communication’, was ranked fourth as well (mean D 4.07), indicating that project man- agers in green building projects also highlighted two-way communication within project teams. According to the Proj-

ect Management Institute (PMI 2008), project communication management has been one of the nine areas of the

Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), which shows the important role of communication in projects.

In green building projects, communication skills allow the project managers to disseminate information and work pro-

cedures among diverse project participants. Additionally, because of the unfamiliarity with green technologies and

complexity of green building projects, project managers should communicate regularly with project participants

(Hwang & Ng 2013) and clarify work tasks, reducing the likelihood of erroneous work and rework.

C02, ‘tell subordinates clearly what to do and how to do it’, was ranked sixth (mean D 4.00), suggesting that the survey project managers preferred to use the directive leadership style in path-goal theory as well as the directing style in situa-

tional leadership theory. The high mean score of this characteristic was consistent with the usual practice in construction

projects. Project managers should give their subordinates clear instructions on work tasks and construction methods.

C03, ‘closely supervise the work of subordinates’, was also ranked sixth (mean D 4.00). Close supervision of a project manager can help ensure that a project is on the right track and that work is being carried out correctly. In Singapore, proj-

ect managers usually conduct daily site walkabouts to check the work progress. Another reason for the close supervision

of project managers was that not everyone in the industry had the relevant knowledge and skills, especially those relating

to green technologies. The lack of close supervision from project managers would result in erroneous work and rework.

Moreover, C16, ‘delegate work responsibilities to subordinates’, was ranked eighth (mean D 3.93), suggesting that the surveyed project managers tended to allocate some responsibilities to the subordinates appropriate for the work. C04,

‘encourage subordinates to shares their ideas and opinions’, was ranked ninth (mean D 3.77). This result indicated that project managers encouraged the participation of their subordinates in decision-making, consistent with the participative

leadership style in path-goal theory and the democratic leadership style in the University of Iowa Studies. C11, ‘develop

and maintain good relationships with subordinates’, also occupied the ninth position (mean D 3.77). This was in accor- dance with the middle-of-the-road leadership style in the managerial grid model. In the context of Singapore, project staff

are usually from different countries with various national cultures (Hwang et al. 2013). Hence, cultural differences should

be highlighted when project managers handle their relationships with subordinates (Low & Shi 2002).

Furthermore, both C01 and C15 were related to decision-making, with low mean scores. As some respondents

revealed, in the Singapore construction industry, project managers had to make decisions all the time. In most cases, proj-

ect managers did not discuss with their subordinates when making minor decisions. However, when making major deci-

sions, they discussed these with their subordinates to garner more opinions and viewpoints.

Leadership characteristic groupings

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

EFA identifies a relatively small and manageable set of underlying factor groupings that can be used to represent the corre-

lations among a large set of interrelated variables. EFA requires two essential stages: (1) factor extraction, which deter-

mines the initial number of groupings underlying a set of variables, and (2) factor rotation, which makes the groupings

more interpretable and determines the final number of the underlying groupings (Norusis 1992). In this study, EFA was

used to categorize the 13 leadership characteristics that received significant agreement from the surveyed project manag-

ers. The ratio of the sample size to the number of variables was 2.31. MacCallum et al. (1999) concluded that factor analy-

sis can produce correct solutions, even with samples that would traditionally have been determined to be too small for

meaningful factor analysis. In addition, some previous studies using the EFA technique had a ratio below 5 ‒ e.g. 2.48 in Koksal and Arditi (2004); 3.39 in Li et al. (2005); and 1.59 in Shen and Liu (2003).

The appropriateness of the factor analysis for the factor extraction was assessed in various ways. The Kaiser‒Meyer‒ Olkin (KMO) value was 0.745, indicating an acceptable degree of common variance among the characteristics. The value

of the test statistic for Bartlett’s sphericity was large (chi-square D 302.908) and the p-value was 0.000, suggesting that the population correlation matrix was not an identity matrix. Hence, it can be concluded that the data were appropriate for

EFA.

As for factor extraction, principal component analysis was used to identify underlying grouped factors. In terms of the

number of factors to be extracted, Horn’s parallel analysis (Horn 1965) was adopted because this has been seen as the

most accurate method to determine the number of factors to retain (Pallant 2010).

International Journal of Construction Management 155

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ew

Y or

k U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 16

:0 6

19 A

pr il

2 01

6

Factor rotation can be orthogonal or oblique. In this study, the oblique rotation was applied because the orthogonality

of factors is often an unrealistic assumption. In almost all areas of social science, any factor is more or less related to other

factors, and arbitrarily forcing the factors to be orthogonal may bias the reality. Even if the factors are indeed uncorrelated,

the orthogonality should be empirically verified and demonstrated via EFA with an oblique rotation method (Matsunaga

2010; Zhao et al. 2013). In this study, promax rotation was adopted. The promax method begins with a varimax solution

and then raises the factor loadings to a stated power called kappa (k). Thus, loadings of small magnitude will approach 0

while large loadings, although reduced, are still substantial (Zhao et al. 2015).

The principal component analysis with promax rotation was performed and the result indicated two components with

eigenvalues over 1. Then, the two eigenvalues were compared with the criterion values from the parallel analysis using the

computer program developed by Patil et al. (2007). The number of components to retain is the number of eigenvalues that are

larger than the corresponding random eigenvalues (i.e. criterion values). As Table 3 shows, the number of components from

the parallel analysis is two, consistent with that from the principal component analysis. The two leadership characteristic group-

ings explained approximately 68.8% of the variance, higher than the guideline of 60% recommended by Malhotra (2006).

The factor loading value reflects the degree of contribution of individual variables to each underlying grouping. All the

characteristics obtained the factor loadings above the threshold of 0.45 (Comrey 1973). Thus, the 13 characteristics were

categorized into two groupings. Each grouping was labelled by considering the characteristics with high loadings and

what they had in common.

Grouping 1: Directive and task-oriented leadership

Grouping 1 was interpreted as ‘directive and task-oriented leadership’. The two characteristics with highest factor loadings

were C06, ‘direct subordinates with clear roles and goals’, and C02, ‘tell subordinates clearly what to do and how to do it’.

Both are consistent with the directive leadership style in path-goal theory and the directing style in situational leadership

theory. In addition, both highlight the role and goals of subordinates. Achieving the goal of each subordinate can collec-

tively contribute to the achievement of the project task.

C07, ‘have high concern for work tasks’, C13, ‘strive for work performance and productivity’, and C03, ‘closely super-

vise the work of subordinates’, are indeed task-oriented leadership. In other words, the concern for work task, performance

Table 3. Leadership characteristic groups.

Grouping

Code Characteristics of leadership 1 2

C06 Direct subordinates with clear roles and goals 0.976

C02 Tell subordinates clearly what to do and how to do it 0.935

C07 Have high concern for work tasks 0.823

C13 Strive for work performance and productivity 0.759

C03 Closely supervise the work of subordinates 0.796

C16 Delegate work responsibilities to subordinates 0.694

C05 Work closely with subordinates to determine what needs to be done 0.631

C14 Have high concern for people 0.887

C11 Develop and maintain good relationships with subordinates 0.885

C08 Be sensitive to the feelings of subordinates 0.880

C09 Look out for subordinates’ welfare 0.869

C04 Encourage subordinates to shares their ideas and opinions 0.727

C12 Encourage two-way communication 0.542

Eigenvalue 6.677 2.269

Criterion value from parallel analysis �

2.337 1.929

Variance (%) 51.4 17.4

Grouping mean 4.09 3.70

Grouping 1 D Directive and task-oriented leadership; Grouping 2 D Relationship-oriented leadership. � The criterion values were obtained via the computer program developed by Patil et al. (2007). The ‘number of variables’ D 13 (i.e. the number of leader-

ship characteristics). Sample Size D 30.

156 X. Zhao et al.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ew

Y or

k U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 16

:0 6

19 A

pr il

2 01

6

and productivity indicates that leaders need to pay great attention to the final fulfilment of the project’s objective. To

ensure that a project is performed smoothly, project managers tend to closely supervise the work of subordinates. The close

supervision of project managers can also represent their high concern for the work tasks as well as project performance and

success.

To ensure project success, project managers also need to encourage the participation of their subordinates. Thus, C16,

‘delegate work responsibilities to subordinates’, and C05, ‘work closely with subordinates to determine what needs to be

done’, were also included in Grouping 1. It should be noted that the participation of the subordinates does not mean that

they are empowered to make decisions, as suggested by the relatively low mean score of C15, ‘empower subordinates

with freedom or autonomy in making decisions’.

Grouping 2: Relationship-oriented leadership

Grouping 2 was labelled as ‘relationship-oriented leadership’. Four leadership characteristics (C08, C09, C11, and C14)

received high factor loadings of over 0.800. C14, ‘have high concern for people’, received the highest factor loading. High

concern for the subordinates contributes to the development of relationships within the project team. C08, ‘be sensitive to

the feelings of subordinates’, and C09, ‘look out for subordinates’ welfare’, can be seen as specific examples of high con-

cern for subordinates. Thus, a good relationship between a project manager and subordinates can be gradually developed

and maintained. These four leadership characteristics are in accordance with the supportive leadership style in path-goal

theory.

C04, ‘encourage subordinates to shares their ideas and opinions’, was also included in Grouping 2. This characteristic

aligns with the participative leadership style in path-goal theory and the democratic leadership style in the University of

Iowa Studies. Encouraged by project managers, subordinates would like to share their ideas and opinions about projects

that they are engaged in. This also indicates that project managers respect the ideas and opinions of subordinates, which

contributes to the relationship between project managers and subordinates. Additionally, C12, ‘encourage two-way

communication’, was included in Grouping 2 because communication could help resolve disputes or disagreement, con-

tributing to a good relationship.

Comparison between the two groupings

As shown in Table 3, the mean scores of Groupings 1 and 2 are 4.09 and 3.70, respectively. The mean score of a grouping

was measured as the average value of all the mean scores of the leadership characteristics under this grouping.

The result suggested that the leadership style of project managers in green building projects was more towards

‘directive and task-oriented leadership’. It had been only five years since the GMS became mandatory in Singapore’s con-

struction industry. Hence, it was not uncommon that many staff were still unfamiliar with green technologies and construc-

tion processes, which were usually more complicated than those of traditional projects (Zhang et al. 2011; Hwang & Ng

2013). The project managers, who were certified with the GMM and GMP schemes and were knowledgeable about green

technologies and construction processes, should provide directions for their subordinates and try to avoid any erroneous

work. In addition, the BCA has set up a target that at least 80% of buildings will have been certified by the GMS by 2030

(BCA 2009). Thus, the green building projects under construction should be completed successfully, which contributes to

the achievement of this target. Project managers, who are accountable for their projects, should highlight the achievement

of project objectives, thus being more task-oriented.

However, the project managers did not overlook their subordinates’ roles. The project managers still cared about the

feeling, welfare and opinions of their subordinates. When dealing with their relationships with subordinates, the project

managers adopted participative and democratic leadership styles. Indeed, a harmonious relationship within a project can

greatly contribute to the project’s success (Chua et al. 1999).

Therefore, project managers in green building projects should be not only directive and task-oriented, but also relation-

ship-oriented. These two leadership styles should not be separated because the relationships within a project team inevita-

bly influence project performance and productivity, whilst the interaction between a project manager and subordinates

facilitates establishing relationships.

Conclusion and recommendation

Leadership has been recognized as one of the essential skills of project managers in green building projects (Hwang & Ng

2013), and is crucial to the success of these projects. The objective of this study is to identify the leadership characteristics

and styles of project managers in green building projects in Singapore. The results of the analysis indicated that 13

International Journal of Construction Management 157

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ew

Y or

k U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 16

:0 6

19 A

pr il

2 01

6

leadership characteristics drew significant agreement from the project managers in the Singaporean green building proj-

ects. Among these characteristics, ‘strive for work performance and productivity’, ‘have high concern for work tasks’, and

‘direct subordinates with clear roles and goals’ occupied the top three positions. Additionally, the 13 characteristics were

categorized into two groupings via EFA: (1) directive and task-oriented leadership and (2) relationship-oriented leadership.

The leadership style of the project managers was more towards directive and task-oriented leadership. However, project

managers should not neglect their relationships with subordinates. In reality, the two leadership styles should be adopted

together. Although the task and project performance should be highlighted, the interpersonal relationships within a project

team are also worth attention because these relationships also influence project performance and productivity.

Although the objectives were achieved, there were some limitations to the conclusions that may be drawn from the

results. First, as the sample size in this study was small, one should be cautious when the results are interpreted and gener-

alized. Also, the 16 leadership characteristics from the literature review may not be exhaustive. Additionally, the single-

source data are very likely to cause common method biases (Jiang & Wang 2014; Jiang & Jiang 2015), which is a common

limitation of studies using questionnaire surveys. Lastly, the findings from this study were well interpreted in the context of

Singapore, which may be different from the context of other countries. Nonetheless, this study still provides an understand-

ing of leadership characteristics and styles of project managers in the Singaporean green building projects for both practi-

tioners and researchers. In addition, it provides the theoretical rationale behind the various leadership characteristics of

project managers. Thus, this study expands the existing literature relating to leadership and green building projects.

For future studies, it would be of interest to conduct in-depth case studies disclosing how project managers lead green

building projects and compare their leadership styles with those of traditional projects. Also, it is recommended to identify

the factors influencing the leadership styles in green building projects and investigate the theoretical rationale behind these

factors using organizational behaviour theories. Lastly, motivation and learning issues associated with implementing green

strategies can be explored in future studies to further nourish the existing body of knowledge for managing green construc-

tion projects.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Xianbo Zhao http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0153-5173

References

Achua CF, Lussier RN. 2013. Effective leadership. 5th ed. Mason, OH: Cengage South-Western. Ahadzie DK, Proverbs DG, Olomolaiye P. 2008. Towards developing competency-based measures for construction project managers:

Should contextual behaviours be distinguished from task behaviours? Int J Proj Manag. 26:631�645. Akintoye A. 2000. Analysis of factors influencing project cost estimating practice. Constr Manag Econ. 18:77�89. Allan GJB. 1976. Ordinal-scaled variables and multivariate analysis: comment on Hawkes. Am J Sociology. 81:1498�1500. Allen IE, Seaman CA. 2007. Likert scales and data analyses. Qual Prog. 40:64�65. BCA. 2005a. The code of practice on buildable design [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bca.gov.sg/BuildableDesign/others/copbd

sep05.pdf BCA. 2005b. CONQUAS 21. Available from [Internet]: http://www.bca.gov.sg/Professionals/IQUAS/others/CON21.pdf BCA. 2009. 2nd green building masterplan. Singapore: Building and Construction Authority. BCA. 2014a. 3rd green building masterplan. Singapore: Building and Construction Authority. BCA. 2014b. BCA Green Mark assessment criteria and online application [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bca.gov.sg/Green

Mark/green_mark_criteria.html BCA. 2015. Public sector projects to sustain construction demand in 2015 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bca.gov.sg/Newsroom/

pr08012015_BCA.html Binder A. 1984. Restrictions on statistics imposed by method of measurement: some reality, much mythology. J Crim Justice.

12:467�481. Blake RR, Mouton JS. 1964. The managerial grid: key orientations for achieving production through people. Houston, TX: Gulf. Carifio J, Perla R. 2008. Resolving the 50-year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Med Educ. 42:1150�1152. Chua D, Kog Y, Loh P. 1999. Critical success factors for different project objectives. J Constr Eng Manag. 125:142�150. Comrey AL. 1973. A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press. Deng X, Low SP, Li Q, Zhao X. 2014. Developing competitive advantages in political risk management for international construction

enterprises. J Constr Eng Manag. 140:04014040. Edum-Fotwe F, McCaffer R. 2000. Developing project management competency: perspectives from the construction industry. Int J Proj

Manag. 18:111�124.

158 X. Zhao et al.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ew

Y or

k U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 16

:0 6

19 A

pr il

2 01

6

Frame JD. 2003. Managing projects in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Frank T. 2002. The superior project manager. New York: Marcel Dekker. Geoghegan L, Dulewicz V. 2008. Do project managers’ leadership competencies contribute to project success? Proj Manag J 39:58�67. Hersey P, Blanchard KH. 1974. So you want to know your leadership style? Training Devel J 28:22�37. Hersey P, Blanchard KH. 1993. Management of organizational behavior: utilizing human resources. 6th ed. Englewood Cliffs (NJ):

Prentice-Hall. Horn JL. 1965. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30: 179�185. House RJ. 1971. A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Admin Sci Q. 16:321�339. House RJ. 1996. Path goal theory of leadership: lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory. Leadership Q. 7:323�352. Huang C, Li F, Ding T, Jin Z, Ma X. 2015. Second-order cone programming-based optimal control strategy for wind energy conversion

systems over complete operating regions. IEEE Trans Sust Energy. 6:263�271. Hwang BG, Ng WJ. 2013. Project management knowledge and skills for green construction: overcoming challenges. Int J Proj Manag.

31:272�284. Hwang BG, Zhao X, Goh KJ. 2014. Investigating the client-related rework in building projects: the case of Singapore. Int J Proj Manag.

32:698�708. Hwang BG, Zhao X, Ng SY. 2013. Identifying the critical factors affecting schedule performance of public housing projects. Habitat Int.

38:214�221. Hwang BG, Zhao X, Ong S. 2015a. Value management in Singaporean building projects: implementation status, critical success factors,

and risk factors. J Manag Eng. 31:04014094. Hwang BG, Zhao X, See YL, Zhong Y. 2015b. Addressing risks in green retrofit projects: the case of Singapore. Proj Manag J.

46:76�89. Hwang BG, Zhao X, Tan LLG. 2015c. Green building projects: schedule performance, influential factors and solutions. Eng Constr Arch

Manag. 22:327�346. Hwang BG, Zhao X, Yu GS. 2015d. Risk identification and allocation in underground rail construction joint ventures: contractors’ per-

spective. J Civ Eng Manag. 10.3846/13923730.2014.914095. Jiang Z, Jiang X. 2015. Core self-evaluation and life satisfaction: the person‒environment fit perspective. Person Indiv Diff. 75:68�73. Jiang Z, Wang Z. 2014. Entrepreneurial intention and outcome expectancy: evidence from South Korea and China. Contemp Manag Res.

10:251�270. Kirkpatrick SA, Locke EA. 1991. Leadership: do traits mater? Acad Manag Exec. 5:48�60. Koksal A, Arditi D. 2004. Predicting construction company decline. J Constr Eng Manag. 130:799�807. Lee-Kelley L, Leong L. 2003. Turner’s five-functions of project-based management and situational leadership in IT services projects. Int

J Proj Manag. 21:583�591. Lewin K, Lippitt R, White RK. 1939. Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created ‘social climates’. J Soc Psych.

10:269�299. Li B, Akintoye A, Corresponding PJE, Hardcastle C. 2005. Critical success factors for PPP/PFI projects in the UK construction industry.

Constr Manag Econ. 23:459�471. Likert R. 1961. New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ling FYY, Low SP, Wang SQ, Lim HH. 2009. Key project management practices affecting Singaporean firms’ project performance in

China. Int J Proj Manag. 27:59�71. Low SP, Shi Y. 2002. An exploratory study of Hofstede’s cross-cultural dimensions in construction projects. Manag Decision. 40:7�16. MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Zhang S, Hong S. 1999. Sample size in factor analysis. Psych Methods. 4:84�99. Malhotra NK. 2006. Marketing research: an applied orientation. 5nd ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson/Prentice-Hall. Matsunaga M. 2010. How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. Int J Psych Res. 3:97�110. Mills JH, Dye K, Mills. AJ. 2009. Understanding organizational change. New York: Routledge. M€uller R, Turner JR. 2007. Matching the project manager’s leadership style to project type. Int J Proj Manag. 25:21�32. Mullins LJ. 2007. Management and organisational behaviour. 8th ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall Financial Times. Mustapha F, Naoum S. 1998. Factors influencing the effectiveness of construction site managers. Int J Proj Manag. 16:1�8. Northouse PG. 2013. Leadership: theory and practice. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications. Norusis MJ. 1992. SPSS for Windows, professional statistics, release 5.0. Chicago (IL): SPSS. Nunnally JC. 1975. The study of change in evaluation research: principles con-concerning measurement, experimental design and analy-

sis. In: Streuning EL, Guttentag M, editors. Handbook of evaluation research. Beverly Hills (CA): Sage; p. 101�138. O’Brien RM. 1979. The use of Pearson’s R with ordinal data. Am Sociol Rev. 44:851�857. Odusami K. 2002. Perceptions of construction professionals concerning important skills of effective project leaders. J Manag Eng.

18:61�67. Odusami KT, Iyagba RRO, Omirin MM. 2003. The relationship between project leadership, team composition and construction project

performance in Nigeria. Int J Proj Manag. 21:519�527. Ott RL, Longnecker M. 2001. An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. Duxbury (MA): Pacific Grove. Ozorhon B, Arditi D, Dikmen I, Birgonul MT. 2008. Implications of culture in the performance of international construction joint ven-

tures. J Constr Eng Manag. 134:361�370. Pallant J. 2010. SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. 4th ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Patil VH, Singh SN, Mishra S, Donavan DT. 2007. Parallel analysis engine to aid determining number of factors to retain. Available

from: http://smishra.faculty.ku.edu/parallelengine.htm PMI. 2008. A guide to the project management body of knowledge. Newtown Square (PA): Project Management Institute. Robbins SP. 2003. Organizational behavior. 10th ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice-Hall. Robbins SP, Coulter M. 2007. Management. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Prentice-Hall.

International Journal of Construction Management 159

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ew

Y or

k U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 16

:0 6

19 A

pr il

2 01

6

Shan M, Chan AP, Le Y, Hu Y. 2015. Investigating the effectiveness of response strategies for vulnerabilities to corruption in the Chi- nese public construction sector. Sci Eng Ethics. 21:683�705.

Shen Q, Liu G. 2003. Critical success factors for value management studies in construction. J Constr Eng Manag. 129:485�491. Stogdill RM, Coons AE. 1951. Leader behavior: its description and measurement. Columbus (OH): Ohio State University and Bureau of

Business Research. Turner JR, M€uller R. 2005. The project manager’s leadership style as a success factor on projects: a literature review. Proj Manag J.

36:49�61. Turner R. 1999. Handbook of project-based management: improving the processes of achieving strategic objectives. London: McGraw-

Hill. Turner R. 2009. Handbook of project-based management: leading strategic change in organizations. 4th ed. London: McGraw-Hill. USGBC. 2007. A national green building research agenda. Washington (DC): US Green Building Council. WorldGBC. 2013. The business case for green building: a review of the costs and benefits for developers, investors and occupants.

London: World Green Building Council. Wu P, Xia B, Pienaar J, Zhao X. 2014a. The past, present and future of carbon labelling for construction materials ‒ a review. Build

Environ. 77:160�168. Wu P, Xia B, Zhao X. 2014b. The importance of use and end-of-life phases to the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of concrete ‒

a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 37:360�369. Yang L-R, Huang C-F, Wu K-S. 2011. The association among project manager’s leadership style, teamwork and project success. Int J

Proj Manag. 29:258�267. Yudelson J. 2008. The green building revolution. Washington (DC): Island Press. Zhang X, Shen L, Wu Y. 2011. Green strategy for gaining competitive advantage in housing development: a China study. J Clean Prod.

19:157�167. Zhao X, Hwang BG, Low SP. 2013. Critical success factors for enterprise risk management in Chinese construction companies. Constr

Manag Econ. 31:1199�1214. Zhao X, Hwang BG, Low SP. 2014. Investigating enterprise risk management maturity in construction firms. J Constr Eng Manag.

140:05014006. Zhao X, Hwang BG, Low SP, Wu P. 2015. Reducing hindrances to enterprise risk management implementation in construction firms. J

Constr Eng Manag. 141:04014083. Zuo J, Pullen S, Palmer J, Bennetts H, Chileshe N, Ma T. 2015. Impacts of heat waves and corresponding measures: a review. J Clean

Prod. 92:1�12. Zuo J, Read B, Pullen S, Shi Q. 2013. Carbon-neutral commercial building development. J Manag Eng. 29:95�102.

160 X. Zhao et al.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ew

Y or

k U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 16

:0 6

19 A

pr il

2 01

6