Week 5 Written Assignment

52 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

The Challenge of Leadership in Temporary Settings The competitive landscape of the 21st century requires corporations to swift- ly adapt to changes in dynamic environments and to constantly develop and implement innovations. One prevalent means for establishing organizational flexibility is temporary forms of organizing, as are projects and programs. Although temporary organizations were originally the domains of project- based industries, such as construction, management consulting, filmmaking, and software engineering, an increasing projectification can be observed in almost any industry today (Sydow et al., 2004; Bakker, 2010). Projects are prevalent means for establishing organizational flexibility, inducing organiza- tional change, generating innovation, and strategy implementation (Whittington et al., 1999). Today, temporary forms of organizing are not solely used for handling extraordinary undertakings, but also represent an increasingly larger share of organizations’ ordinary operations (Engwall, 2003).

Temporary forms of organizing are different from standard organizational processes because they are unique in terms of tasks and have a limited dura- tion and a short-term orientation. Owing to this, temporary organizations are characterized by discontinuous personal constellations and work contents, a lack of organizational routines, and a cross-disciplinary integration of inter- nal and external experts. In many cases, projects are also carried out beyond hierarchical lines of authority and cut across organizational boundaries (Engwall, 2003; Hanisch & Wald, 2011).

The characteristics of temporary organizations pose specific challenges to leadership (Chen et al., 2004), because long-established leadership styles and approaches might not work in temporary settings (Cleland, 1967; Thamhain, 2004). Many theoretical approaches that build on the assumption of fairly stable and continuous organizational environments partly neglect important characteristics of temporary organizations. This is also true for leadership research in general (Shamir, 2011) and especially for contemporary leader- ship theories that conceptualize leadership as a process of complex interac- tions between leader and followers, focusing on relationships, interaction, and subjective perception (Yukl, 2012; Bluedorn & Jaussi, 2008). The same applies to the recent body of research dealing with the cognitive and social construction of leadership, such as shared leadership approaches, which gen- erally focus on the process of leadership emergence (Avolio et al., 2009). Research on leadership in organizations integrates a variety of approaches, ranging from successful leadership skills and character traits, situational lead- ership behaviors, the analysis of leadership emergence between leaders and followers, to the social construction of leadership. Still, most of this research assumes at least fairly stable organizational settings; however, temporary

ABSTRACT ■

Projects and other temporary forms of orga-

nizing are different from standard organiza-

tional processes. As most leadership theories

are based on the assumption of stable orga-

nizational environments, the increase in tem-

porary forms of organizing poses specific

challenges to leadership theories. We evalu-

ate existing leadership theories in terms of

their applicability on temporary environ-

ments and identify theories, which are adapt-

able to temporary settings and therefore may

be the basis for empirical investigations in

this field. On this basis we derive a research

agenda by proposing individual leadership

theories and combinations of different lead-

ership approaches to be further assessed in

research.

KEYWORDS: leadership; leadership theo-

ry; project; team; temporary organization

Leadership in Temporary Organizations: A Review of Leadership Theories and a Research Agenda Ana K. Tyssen, Bosch Security Systems, Frankfurt am Main, Germany Andreas Wald, European Business School Paris, Paris, France Patrick Spieth, EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht, Strascheg Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (SIIE), Oestrich-Winkel, Germany

Project Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 6, 52–67

© 2013 by the Project Management Institute

Published online in Wiley Online Library

(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21380 P

A P

E R

S

December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 53

organizations may require approaches that differ from those used in permanent organizations (Chen et al., 2004; Packendorff, 1995). The importance of leadership in temporary organizations is also substantiated by practitioners. Pro- ject managers and project leaders consider leadership as the dominant deter minant of project success (Zimmerer & Yasin, 1998).

This paper follows the general call for a sounder theoretical foundation of project management research (Hanisch & Wald, 2011). In particular, we seek to analyze the implications of temporary organizations for leadership and pro- vide a systematic review, which relates the specificities of temporary organiza- tions to different leadership theories. We start by elaborating on the specific char- acteristics of temporary organizations, in contrast to permanent organizational set- tings. Based on these characteristics, we evaluate existing leadership theories and theories on leadership in teams in terms of their applicability to each character- istic. We further discuss the possible factors that influence the emergence of leadership in the context of each char- acteristic. As a result, we identify lead- ership theories applicable to temporary settings, which may serve as a basis for future empirical studies. On this basis we suggest a research agenda that builds on individual leadership theo- ries and on combinations of different approaches.

What Is a Temporary Organization? Temporary organizations can be seen as aggregates of individuals temporarily collaborating for a shared cause (Packendorff, 1995). These temporary organizations take the forms of proj- ects, programs, temporary teams, or task forces. We focus our considerations on the challenges people face when working in temporary organizations existing within one permanent organi- zation, although cross-company, inter- national projects exacerbate the chal- lenges on leadership discussed in the

paper at hand. Within temporary orga- nizations, individuals usually team up for a predefined time to work on the tasks set. As shown in Table 1, teams in temporary organizations differ substan- tially from those in permanent organi- zational settings; however, they display certain peculiar similarities. Teams in temporary organizations can also be described as a unit consisting of two or more people who are accountable and having the same purpose, mission, goals, and expectations (Lussier & Achua, 2009). What distinguishes tem- porary teams from non-temporary teams is that they carry out time-limited undertakings and disperse upon com- pletion (Chen et al., 2004). The team’s limited duration is mostly defined from the outset, thus paving the way for a joint course of action with the goal of complet- ing a non-routine task. This is often accompanied by non-routine processes and uncertain working conditions (Pich et al., 2002), whereas complexity in terms of roles and participant backgrounds is often caused by a variety of different experts working together (Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009; Hanisch & Wald, 2011, 2013) and differing (hierarchical) roles outside the temporary organization

(Baccarini, 1996; Packendorff, 1995). This setup denotes higher uncertainty and risk in terms of tasks and processes. The team working on the unique prod- uct outcome is neither a routine nor a well-rehearsed one (Brockhoff, 2006). Most temporary organizations are based on and set up by a permanent organization (Ekstedt et al., 1999).

Although temporary organizations typically denote projects, the use of the term indicates a different underlying concept. The traditional view on proj- ect management highlights the techni- cal challenges, such as the “planning” or “structuring” of temporary undertak- ings (Zwikael & Unger-Aviram, 2009). In turn, the general trend toward organiz- ing business processes by temporary systems draws attention to the social interactions taking place in these under- takings and requiring further study (Ekstedt et al., 1999). This conceptual shift highlights the recognition that these characteristics impact the people working in project environments (Hanisch & Wald, 2011). In this paper, we use the terms “temporary organiza- tion” and “project” interchangeably, although the concept of temporary organizations is broader than that of a

Characteristic Potential Consequences/Challenges

Temporariness Hampers development of positive relations (i.e.,

trust) and shared values/norms

Missing/ambiguous hierarchies Participants mainly obliged to line function, poten-

tial “authority gap” of project leader

Changing work teams

Inter-divisional and hierarchical collaboration ham-

pers teambuilding processes

Frequent changes allow for less time for beneficial

group processes

Difficulties in developing group cohesiveness and

commitment

Heterogeneity of members Coordination and communication across disciplinary

boundaries may be difficult

Unique project-outcome

Individual knowledge not sufficient, limited

recourse on experiences and routines

Higher uncertainty and risk involved, creativity and

autonomous decision making required

Table 1: Characteristics and observed effects of temporary organizations.

A Review of Leadership Theories and a Research Agenda

P

A P

E R

S

54 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

project as it includes programs, tempo- rary teams, and other forms of temporary collaboration.

Effects of Temporary Organizations’ Characteristics on Leadership Five main characteristics of temporary organizations lead to several challenges uncommon in permanent organizations (Table 1). A central question raised in this context is how leadership takes place in these settings.

Temporariness Time and its effects on organizational undertakings have received very little attention in organizational research (Ancona et al., 2001; Jones & Lichtenstein, 2008) and in leadership research (Bluedorn & Jaussi, 2008; Shamir, 2011), whereas temporary set- tings have received almost no attention in this regard (Bakker & Janowicz- Panjaitan, 2009). Taking their cue from permanent teams in organizations, Hoegl et al. (2004) have identified three phases in the development of project teams. The initial ‘‘conception phase” sees the project manager and his or her team focusing on the setting of project goals, course of action to fulfill these goals, and resource planning. In the subsequent ‘‘organizing phase,” the manager and his or her team members establish rules and boundaries, defining relationships, designing the team’s tasks, and securing resources. Shared norms and values are also established. The final ‘‘accomplishment phase” incorporates activities that seek to enable team members to effectively work together to successfully complete the project. Research has shown that leadership influences team perfor- mance throughout these phases (Thamhain & Gemmill, 1974; Zwikael & Unger-Aviram, 2009). In contrast to the acknowledgment of different phases in a project, Gersick (1988) found evidence that the accomplishment of project work is less tied to temporal sequences but to externally imposed deadlines.

This effects team members’ time- horizon: a short-term orientation with a focus on immediate deliverables pre- vails. As a consequence, decisions and actions that require a longer time- horizon, such as investments in knowledge management systems or management control systems, are hindered (Love et al., 2005; Lindner & Wald, 2011).

Unique Outcome As the outcome of a temporary under- taking is unique, the path to realizing such an outcome is often marked by uncertainty (Atkinson et al., 2006). Regarding the processes in temporary organizations, project management methods and standards partly compen- sate for a lack of permanent processes (Hodgson, 2004). However, the newness and complexity of the tasks often require novel approaches. As individual knowl- edge is not sufficient, a variety of experts with vastly different backgrounds col- laborate (Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009). Even though the degree of novelty of projects varies and cannot generally be specified in character or extent (Brockhoff, 2006), it often imposes the need for distinct and novel practices to effectively pursue the project’s final aims. In order to display such behavior, project team members must be able to display creativity. This implies that leading— as merely giving instructions to be followed—is insufficient (Goodman & Goodman, 1976). The impossibility of reverting to routine processes and know- how requires a leader who inspires by providing a vision (Christenson & Walker, 2004) while allowing for learning (Pich et al., 2002) and autonomous decision making (Heinz et al., 2006).

Missing/Ambiguous Hierarchies A temporary undertaking is to some extent autonomous from its host organi- zation’s (line) structures (Sundstrom & DeMeuse, 1990). In addition to a poten- tial conflict of roles of project partici- pants (Jones & Deckro, 1993), this might also lead to a semi-autonomous culture due to the collaboration of people from diverse educational backgrounds and

different organizational units (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Most people working in permanent organizations rely on their functional supervisor, because this person is responsible for promotion, training, and so forth. The leader of a temporary organization, therefore, has little de facto authority and might not be able to display the full range of (hierar- chical) power available in a permanent organization toward his or her subordi- nates. This leads to different mecha- nisms and different effective practices in the personnel management and team development of temporary organiza- tions (Zwikael & Unger-Aviram, 2009).

Heterogeneity of Team Members/ Changing Work Teams Temporary teams often consist of indi- viduals with complementary skills and originating from different departments (Zwikael & Unger-Aviram, 2009). Due to non-routine tasks or lack of availability, several experts might participate in the overall process once, thus implying fre- quent changes of group composition and a lack of time for beneficial group processes (e.g., cohesiveness or com- mitment) to take place (Parker & Skitmore, 2005). In contrast to perma- nent teams, project team members may also be involved in several projects at the same time. This heightens the chal- lenge to develop the team, since mem- bers spend only part of their time on the project in question (Kavadias et al., 2004; Kerzner, 2009; Zwikael & Unger- Aviram, 2009).

Leadership Theories and Their Suitability for Temporary Settings As Yukl (2012) has pointed out, numer- ous definitions of leadership exist. Although these definitions differ in sev- eral aspects, many of them comprise a few common elements, which are reflected in a definition put forward by House et al. (1999, p. 184). They describe leadership as “the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organization . . .” At

December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 55

the core of this definition are the rela- tionship between a leader and the follower(s) and a process of influence. Existing leadership theories differ in their assumptions on who exerts influ- ence and on how the influence is exert- ed. As a consequence, research on lead- ership has developed a range of approaches that differ significantly from each other in explaining the emer- gence and effectiveness of leadership. Therefore, several researchers have undertaken the effort to classify and categorize this body of research. This has either been done according to roughly the time these approaches emerged (e.g., Jago, 1982; House & Aditya, 1997) or according to the focus, conditions, and contexts these approa- ches consider (e.g., Burke et al., 2006; Avolio et al., 2009). As we seek to sys- tematically analyze leadership theory with regard to its suitability in explain- ing leadership in temporary organiza- tions, we chose the former categoriza- tion. We segment leadership theory into three broader categories, namely person-oriented approaches, situation- oriented leadership, and interaction- oriented leadership theories. As cross- functional teams display several of the characteristics of temporary organiza- tions, leadership research dealing with team settings is also taken into account (Oakley, 1999; Grant et al., 2001; Lussier & Achua, 2009).

We analyzed the applicability of the different leadership theories to the characteristics of temporary organiza- tions by considering each characteristic separately. For every characteristic we asked the sequence of questions shown in Figure 1. First, we analyzed if the respective characteristic of temporary organizations is explicitly considered by the leadership theory. If this is not the case, we asked if in principle the leadership theory could be adapted to the characteristic (a) or not (na). If the respective characteristic is considered by the leadership theory, we looked for existing empirical research applying the leadership theory to the context of

temporary organizations (r). Where we found no existing research (nr), the possibilities end with the impact of the characteristic on leadership being deducible (d) or non-deducible (nd) on a theoretical basis. Although the classi- fication is the result of the individual assessment of the three authors, we sought to enhance validity by separately classifying the theories in a first step. In a second step, we compared and cross- checked our classifications and elimi- nated potential inconsistencies. The results of the classifications are shown in the Tables 2 through 5 and serve as a basis for the following discussion.

Person-Oriented Leadership Many leadership theories focus on the individual and his or her role in the leadership process. As these approach- es share an individual perspective of the emergence of leadership, they can be termed person-oriented approaches (Weibler, 2012). These can further be categorized into leader-oriented and follower-oriented approaches. In gen- eral, these theories do not consider project-inherent characteristics such as limited duration (as the focus is on indi- vidual abilities and traits), ambiguous hierarchies (as the focus is on leaders’ abilities, irrespective of their formal position), and changing work teams with heterogeneous backgrounds (as the focus is on dyadic relations, not group phenomena). Still, these approaches are dominant in the litera- ture on leadership in projects, as proj- ect managers’ traits and leadership styles are considered (Gehring, 2007; Pettersen, 1991; Pinto & Slevin, 1991;

Zimmerer & Yasin, 1998). The majority of work on projects focuses on the search for factors that define successful project leaders (Zimmerer & Yasin, 1998), sometimes distinguished bet- ween project types (Müller & Turner, 2007).

Table 2 outlines the most prevalent person-oriented theories (in rows) and temporary organizations’ main charac- teristics (in columns). The entry in a row’s cell intersecting a column con- tains the tag of the theories’ applicabil- ity to the specific characteristics of tem- porary organizations resulting from the procedure described above (see Figure 1). Tables 3 through 5 are structured accordingly.

Following trait theory as a common leader-oriented approach, specific traits such as assertiveness, decisive- ness, persistence, self-confidence, and skills such as cleverness, persuasive- ness, and eloquence have been found to contribute to a leader’s personality (Bass, 1990). Research in this direction is still ongoing (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). Several authors have applied this approach to temporary settings (cf. Table 2). Results indicate that several traits are suitable for project leadership, although these traits are not contrasted to those desirable in permanent set- tings. Zimmerer and Yasin (1998), for example, asked 76 senior-level project managers to rank the most important leadership skills of effective project managers; answers included being a team builder, a good communicator, and a motivator. This could be an indi- cator for the relative importance of skills that enable the temporary group

Figure 1: Procedure for classifying leadership theories.

Characteristic of TO

considered

not considered

research exists (r)

no research (nr)

adaptable (a)

non-adaptable (na)

deducible (d)

non-deducible (nd)

A Review of Leadership Theories and a Research Agenda

P

A P

E R

S

56 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

to become a team. As time is limited and individuals might not share common ground, these skills could be of greater importance than in permanent settings. Pettersen (1991), conducting a litera- ture research on studies that considered leadership skills in project settings, found that the literature contained great conceptual and statistical weaknesses; therefore, he recommended a focus on external validity (generalizability of the results) and called for more statistical rigor.

Several other leadership approaches in this line of research, as well as the concept of emotional intelligence, have been considered in the context of proj- ects (Clarke & Howell, 2010; Côté et al., 2010; Müller & Turner, 2010). Because the ability of a leader to detect, use, understand, and manage emotions

(Côté et al., 2010) is crucial for leading in environments with prevailing author- ity gaps (Hodgetts, 1968), the applicabil- ity of emotional intelligence concepts to temporary settings suggests itself. Although these concepts do not explic- itly investigate project-inherent charac- teristics, they seek out intrinsic motiva- tional aspects (Lussier & Achua, 2009). For example, a project leader with emo- tional intelligence may describe a task in an emotionally appealing way. This can result in a high degree of intrinsic moti- vation of the followers, which may com- pensate for a potential authority gap. However, findings on research using emotional intelligence concepts indi- cate that some emotional intelligence sub-dimensions (influence, motivation, and conscientiousness) are important across all projects, whereas other

aspects vary across project types and characteristics (Müller & Turner, 2010). Research by Clarke indicates a link between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership, which we will discuss later (Clarke, 2010).

Attribution theory forms a link between leader-oriented and follower- oriented approaches by addressing the creation of individual opinions in leader- follower relationships (Winkler, 2009). This theory basically describes the emergence of leadership as a four-step process, in which—in the case of poten- tial followers—the actions of a potential leader and its effects are scrutinized. This process can also be assumed for regarding charismatic leadership theo- ries (Weibler, 2012). Here, the notion of time is implicitly acknowledged but not explicitly accounted for, aggravating the

Characteristic of Temporary Organization

Category/Research Stream/Theory Temporariness

Missing/ Ambiguous Hierarchies

Changing Work Teams

Heterogeneity of Members Uniqueness

Adapted on Context of

Temporary Systems

Leader-oriented            

Great Man Theory a a a a a yes

Trait Theory a a a/r a/r a/r yes

Emotional Intelligence a a a a a yes

Charismatic Leadership a a a r r yes

Follower-oriented            

Attribution Theory a na na a na no

Learning Theories a a a a a no

Note. Adaptable (a), non-adaptable (na), researched (r), not researched (nr), deducible (d), non-deducible (nd). 

Table 2: Person-oriented leadership approaches in the context of temporary environments.

Characteristic of Temporary Organization

Category/Research Stream/Theory Temporariness

Missing/ Ambiguous Hierarchies

Changing Work Teams

Heterogeneity of Members Uniqueness

Adapted on Context of

Temporary Systems

Contingency Theories r r a a r yes

Path-Goal Theory r na na na a yes

Normative Leadership

Theory a a a a a no

Note. Adaptable (a), non-adaptable (na), researched (r), not researched (nr), deducible (d), non-deducible (nd). 

Table 3: Situation-oriented approaches to leadership in temporary settings.

December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 57

estimation of how long this four-step process will take or whether it might even be accelerated in temporary set- tings (Kelley, 1973). Another aspect of attribution approaches that is of impor- tance for temporary settings is the dis- covery of the “fundamental attribution error” (Iles & Hayers, 1997, p. 108), which describes the tendency to over- emphasize one’s character and those of others while underemphasizing the sit- uational influences as reasons for spe- cific behavior. The heterogeneity of team members, the temporariness of the undertaking, and the accompany- ing weak relationship emergence in a project are important situational influ- ences that may either reinforce or reduce the attribution error in the fol- lower’s perception of a project leader.

Learning theory is another follower- oriented approach, which should be scrutinized in terms of its applicability for temporary organizations. Several learning approaches exist : functional approaches, often based on stimulus- response models, prevailed for a long time as so-called classical or behavioral theories. A more recent approach takes on social learning theory, which, in con- trast to older approaches, does not focus on the leader and his or her role as rein- forcer but on the role of social and mental aspects in learning as well as contextual influences, such as environ- mental and behavioral factors (Sims & Lorenzi, 1992; Winkler, 2009). Thus, learning processes are based on obser- vations of the environment, including the behavior and the experience of others. Thereby, the individual learning process can be accelerated and bypassed through participating and imitating others (Manz & Sims, 1981). Although to our knowl- edge this line of reasoning is not followed in research on temporary organizations, some indications exist : a person new to a project might be able to successfully anticipate the characteristics of tempo- rary settings by imitating the project leader and his or her behavior. This underlines the importance of experi- enced project managers, because only

lived-in behaviors will enable followers to successfully learn from a leader.

Situation-Oriented Leadership Several leadership approaches disagree with the idea of universally successful behaviors and styles in leader-follower settings. This stream of thought focuses on specific situations in which leaders are more likely to succeed if their char- acteristics correspond to the situation at hand (Northouse, 2009). Based on trait and behavioral approaches, these contingency theories hold that a leader is most effective if a situation matches his or her leadership style (Lussier & Achua, 2009).

Fiedler (1967) designed a question- naire for his contingency leadership model with which a leader should find the appropriate leadership style in a given situation. This three-step model first addresses the leader-follower rela- tionship, which can be good or poor. Second, it addresses the nature of the task at hand, which is repetitive or non- repetitive. Third, the leader’s power is ranked as strong or weak. Given the nature of most temporary organiza- tions, the first question (concerning the leader-follower relationship) depends on the undertaking’s duration and can involve poor relationships with follow- ers in short activities, but also good relationships in longer-term projects. Second, in most temporary organiza- tions, the tasks at hand are generally non-repetitive, since temporary organi- zations generally seek to accomplish novel tasks (Packendorff, 1995). Evi- dently, several examples can be cited in which task non-repetitiveness is less distinct, given the nature of similar pro- cesses in projects of certain industries (Müller et al., 2012). Third, the leader’s power is likely to be weak, at least weaker than in comparable host organization settings (Jones & Deckro, 1993). Again, there may be differences, for example, in strategic projects, where a project leader might be granted extensive power by senior management. According to Fiedler (1967), these possibilities lead to either

relationship (in the case of good or poor relations, non-repetitive tasks and strong power in the case of weak rela- tions, weak power in the case of strong relations) or task-oriented (in the case of good or poor relations, non-repetitive tasks and strong power in the case of good relations, and weak power in the other case) leadership styles. With this, Fiedler’s contingency theory can be used in temporary settings. As result, either a task or relation-oriented lead- ership style could be the recommended outcome for the respective setting.

One situation-oriented approach in which temporariness plays a key role is Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s (1973) contingency model. Available time is considered one factor that affects the choice for one of seven leadership styles, ranging from autocratic to par- ticipative. The rationale is the simple fact that participative decisions take more time, which means that the short- er an undertaking’s duration, the more appropriate an autocratic leadership style.

Path-goal theory, another situation- al approach, strongly relates to follow- er-oriented approaches because it focuses on follower behaviors and pref- erences (Winkler, 2009). It distinguishes between subordinate factors (i.e., the degree of authority sought by an employee), the control of goal achieve- ment, one’s own abilities, and environ- mental factors. Environmental factors encompass task structure, formal author- ity (both corresponding to Fiedler’s contingency model), and work group environment. Taken together, these factors influence the choice of the appropriate leadership style (e.g., directive-oriented vs. achievement- oriented). Relating the six factors to temporary organizations, complex task structures and low formal authority could be assumed, as discussed in Fiedler’s model. Since the individual’s ability to largely influence a project’s outcome seems to decrease by project size and complexity, a follower’s locus of control might correspondingly be

A Review of Leadership Theories and a Research Agenda

P

A P

E R

S

58 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

perceived as increasingly external. The combination of the six factors deter- mines the appropriate leadership style among four alternatives. For temporary organizations, all of the four leadership styles are potentially feasible.

Although directive-oriented and achievement-oriented leadership styles seem appropriate in few settings, factors leading to supportive and participative leadership styles often prevail in tempo- rary environments. Supportive leader- ship is recommended in situations where followers refuse an autocratic leadership style, have high abilities and an internal locus of control, whereas environmental tasks are simple and for- mal authority is weak. This is a prevalent setting in temporary organizations (Jones & Deckro, 1993). In turn, participative leadership is considered in complex environmental settings with high fol- lower ability and weak authority, where- as followers want to be involved and the locus of control is internal. This seems to be the case in many new product development projects (Akgün et al., 2007; Müller et al., 2012). Directive lead- ership is probably less appropriate, because the combination of strong desire for leader authority and low fol- lower ability with a complex environ- mental task, strong formal authority, and high group member job satisfaction seems rare. The same holds true for an achievement-oriented leadership style, which fits settings with high autocratic leadership and high follower ability, external locus of control, simple envi- ronmental tasks, and strong (formal) leader authority. This constellation can often be found in organizational change projects and consulting projects. In gen- eral, a project categorization framework, as proposed by Dvir et al. (1998) is recommended. The authors structure projects according to their level of com- plexity (management tasks) and novelty (technological uncertainty), which could serve as the underlying basis for the choice of factors from Fiedler’s model.

Normative leadership theory and its models take a specific decision as initial

point. Since one component of the deci- sion tree is time (in contrast to the development-driven model), this app- roach seems to be a good fit for tempo- rary settings. The corresponding models basically address the question of when leaders should take the lead and when they should let the group decide. The possible choice of leadership styles reflects the traditional range between autocratic and democratic (Lussier & Achua, 2009). The constituting factors of this approach are the significance of the decision at hand; the importance of fol- lower commitment ; leader expertise; the likelihood of follower commitment ; group support for objectives ; group expertise; and, overall team compe- tence. The relevance of the individual components varies according to the decisions at hand. Considering the three characteristics of the time-driven model—which comprises focus (effec- tive decisions in minimum time), value (time is money), and orientation (short- term)—the decision situations in tem- porary settings seem well reflected. Similar to Fiedler’s contingency model, seven questions require answering, indicating the appropriate leadership style to be chosen.

For example, group consultation is recommended in settings with high deci- sion significance, high importance of commitment, high leader expertise, but low likelihood of commitment and group support. This setting might be the case in projects where an experienced project manager has to deal with role conflicts among team members, which are caused by their different line functions in the permanent parent organization. A coun- ter-example is a setting with high deci- sion significance, high importance of follower commitment, low leader exper- tise (assuming that several experts are working together with the project leader, who is an expert only in his or her field), high commitment likelihood, and high group support and competence. In such a setting, facilitation is recommended; this involves participation and concurrence by team members in the decision process.

This scenario might occur in highly inno- vative development projects. Generally, normative leadership models seem suit- able for temporary settings, because they incorporate time limitation as well as group characteristics.

In project management research, the situation-dependent suitability of leadership behavior has been acknowl- edged by several authors, who hold that leadership styles also depend on project settings. Hodgetts (1968) found that sev- eral strategies can help overcome the lack of formal (line) authority, depend- ing on the project’s industry. More recently, Müller and Turner (2010) indi- cate that certain leadership behaviors might be suitable for certain projects, while being less effective in others. They underline the argument of Pinto and Slevin (1991), who called for an adapta- tion of the project manager’s leadership style to the individual situations throughout a project.

Interaction-Oriented Leadership For a considerable time, leadership research was focused on the leader, thereby neglecting the impact of follow- ers in the leadership process (Lussier & Achua, 2009). Dyadic approaches focus on the reciprocal influencing process between leader and follower. The implicit time frame needed for interac- tion is of crucial importance for the applicability of these approaches to temporary organizations.

One of the early interaction-oriented approaches is the idiosyncrasy credit theory (Hollander, 1958), which explains how individual group members may become leaders over time and how they are acknowledged as such by their peers. Time is a crucial variable in this context, because the emergence of leadership is constituted by the outstanding pursuit of a group’s norms by one person. This per- son’s willingness to strengthen the group’s cohesion is hence acknowledged by the group members. In turn, this acknowledgment enables the potential leader to deviate from group behavior in order to achieve set goals. If this behavior

December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 59

charismatic leadership to be an element of transformational leadership, which focuses on the mechanisms and interac- tion processes by which leaders exert their influence on follower’s motivation (Avolio et al., 2009). This understanding of charismatic leadership has found broad support (Lussier & Achua, 2009). Since temporary organizations are estab- lished in order to accomplish change (the extreme case being an organizational restructuring project), charismatic lead- ership is likely to play an important role in temporary settings. Charisma is used to describe a form of influence not based on legal authority but on the awareness of followers to the effect that a leader has (Weber, 1920). Charismatic leaders are perceived as bringing higher meaning to the goals to be achieved, thus committing their followers to these goals (Lussier & Achua, 2009). Owing to this, the problem of potential authority gaps and role con- flicts caused by missing or ambiguous hierarchies (Cleland, 1967) could be mas- tered. Wang et al. (2005) investigated the impact of charismatic leadership on team cohesion during enterprise resource planning projects. They found evidence that team cohesion was positively affect- ed by charismatic leadership, underlining the potential importance of charismatic leadership to temporary teams with unfa- miliar and changing team members working outside of their usual authority structures.

upon role responsibilities, including trust, respect, and reciprocal influence (Winkler, 2009).

Research on LMX indicates that some level of quality of the relation- ships forms rather swiftly (i.e., within a few weeks) (van Breukelen et al., 2006). This finding indicates the applicability of this approach to projects. Attention must be drawn to the fact that certain studies highlight the importance of the first encounter of a leader and an indi- vidual member, which is a determinant of the quality of the subsequent rela- tionship. Authors researching teams argue that leaders generally lack the time to establish high-quality relation- ships with all team members (Boies & Howell, 2006). Adapting this to the other characteristics of temporary organiza- tions, it seems crucial for leaders in temporary settings to tend to new team members in order to enable high-quality relationships. Nevertheless, relatively few empirical studies have dealt with the emergence of such high-quality rela- tionships (van Breukelen et al., 2006).

Several authors hold that charismatic leadership is successful in situations of change or even crisis (Bass 1990). Because its success not only depends on the lead- er’s abilities and the situation, but also on the follower’s perception of crisis (Conger & Kanungo, 1987), we considered charis- matic leadership under the aspect of interaction. In addition, we understand

is successful, the other group members will give credit, enabling the person to further display such behavior. Although these assumed coherences underline the importance of time, it is difficult to predetermine a clear time frame. It seems understandable that collabora- tion’s limited duration will not allow the assumed exchange processes to take place. Likewise, no project-related research on the temporal component of these approaches was found (cf. Table 4).

Similarly, general dyadic approaches— as antecedents of Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX)—deal with the development of leadership over time (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In contrast to idiosyncrasy credit theory, dyadic approaches ask how (leader-follower) relationships emerge in organizations, how these relationships stabilize, and which qualities and consequences can be distinguished (Lussier & Achua, 2009). LMX investigates the quality of the exchange relationship between a leader and an individual member in a work unit. The starting point is the assumption that two kinds of relation- ships may exist between a leader and an individual member. While the low- quality leader-member relationship is based on the formal association as con- tained in the official job description and employment contract, the high- quality leader-member relationship is based on adjusted and mutually agreed

Characteristic of a Temporary Organization

Category/Research Stream/Theory Temporariness

Missing/ Ambiguous Hierarchies

Changing Work Teams

Heterogeneity of Members Uniqueness

Adapted on Context of

Temporary Systems

Leader-Member Exchange

Theory d/r a a a na no

Idiosyncrasy-Credit Theory na a na na a no

Transactional Leadership d na d/r d/r d/r yes

Transformational

Leadership r r a r r yes

Note. Adaptable (a), non-adaptable (na), researched (r), not researched (nr), deducible (d), non-deducible (nd). 

Table 4: Interaction-oriented approaches to leadership in temporary settings.

A Review of Leadership Theories and a Research Agenda

P

A P

E R

S

60 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Several approaches investigate the impact of neocharismatic leadership on various organizational settings. Here, “neo” basically indicates that this research has moved on from Weber’s notion of charisma (Winkler, 2009). Studies investigating charismatic lead- ership clearly indicate the positive effect on motivation, commitment, and over- all performance of followers, especially in times of crisis and uncertainty (House & Aditya, 1997).

Charismatic leadership is also the central element of transformational leadership, which focuses on the lead- er’s ability to transform follower needs and behaviors (Bass et al., 2003) and the ability to articulate an attractive vision of a probable future (Keegan & Den Hartog, 2004). While transformational leadership focuses on people and their motivations, beliefs, and behaviors, transactional leadership focuses on tasks and highlights the maintenance of stability, rather than change. The trans- actional leader exchanges benefits that satisfy follower needs and desires for follower-accomplished objectives or duties (Lussier & Achua, 2009). Because temporary organizations contain a broad range of complexity regarding tasks and people, the consideration of transactional and transformational leadership as a more complex approach reflecting task and people orientation seems apt. Owing to this, we follow Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) in arguing that transformational leadership can be seen as actions that affect where instrumen- tal effects of transactional leadership do not work.

Several researchers have considered transformational leadership in projects (cf. Table 4). Barber and Warn (2005)

conceptually link transactional and transformational leadership, highlight- ing the need for project managers to use transformational leadership so as to pro- actively guide project team members. Yang et al. (2011) found that transaction- al and transformational leadership has a positive effect on project performance, although they do not differentiate between potential partial effects of both leadership behaviors. Keller (2006) uses a longitudinal approach and reports a positive influence of transformational leadership on project team outcomes. The findings of Keegan and Den Hartog (2004) indicate that the effect of trans- formational leadership tends to be weaker for employees reporting to proj- ect managers than for those reporting to line managers. Another study reported a negative effect of passive or absent lead- ership on stakeholder satisfaction in contrast to transformational leadership (Strang, 2005). Tyssen et al. (2013) develop a research model on the effects of transactional and transformational leadership in projects. They formulate propositions on the effectiveness of these leadership behaviors, depending on the characteristics of the project. They hypothesize that transactional leadership is particularly effective in projects with strong goal clarity, short duration, clearly defined responsibilities and rather low degrees of task novelty. In contrast, transformational leadership is supposed to be more effective in proj- ects with a long duration, a high degree of task novelty, and ambiguous hierar- chies. Kissi et al. (2013) provided evi- dence for the effectiveness of transfor- mational leadership in more long-term oriented and more stable project envi- ronments. They found transformational

leadership of portfolio managers to have a positive impact on project success. Overall, empirical investigations have focused on individual projects or indus- tries, thus receiving mixed results.

Another research stream highlights the importance of inspiring and vision- ary project leadership (Christenson & Walker, 2004). In this context, several authors have combined different leader- ship research streams regarding people- oriented dimensions, in contrast to more task-oriented leadership behaviors. Recently, elements of transformational leadership have been combined with emotional competences. Results indi- cate the importance of people-oriented behaviors and find evidence for the pos- itive influence of different aspects of person-oriented behavior on team and task characteristics (Ayoko & Callan, 2010; Clarke, 2010; Müller & Turner, 2010).

Team Approaches to Leadership Research covering leadership in teams generally addresses the effectiveness of team work using a team perspective (Morgeson et al., 2010; cf. Table 5). Legare (2001) identifies three types of teams to be covered by team-related lead- ership literature, of which cross-functional teams best reflect the characteristics of temporary organizations: cross-functional teams mostly consist of members from different functional areas in an organiza- tion and seek to perform “unique, uncertain tasks to create new and non- routine products or services” (Legare, 2001), which overlaps with the definition of project teams. Team members are most likely belonging to a functional, product, or service department, thus potentially leading to role conflict

Characteristic of Temporary Organization

Category/Research Stream/Theory Temporariness

Missing/ Ambiguous Hierarchies

Changing Work Teams

Heterogeneity of Members Uniqueness

Adapted on Context of

Temporary Systems

Research on Teams a r r r r yes

Note. Adaptable (a), researched (r). 

Table 5: Team approaches to leadership and its applicability to temporary organizations.

December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 61

(Lovelace et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2001), which is a common problem in tempo- rary organizations (Baccarini, 1996; Packendorff, 1995). The self-managed team as another team type has recently found consideration with regard to tem- porary organization characteristics (Lindgren et al., 2007; Muethel & Hoegl, 2008). Here, the existence of a shared or revolving leadership enables the team to work on tasks without being limited by the formal authority of one person. Project-related research has also considered the phenomenon of distributed leadership and has called for further research in this area (Lindgren & Packendorff, 2009). However, most forms of temporary organizations involve one formal leader who is ultimately responsible for the outcome (Lussier & Achua 2009); there- fore, we have omitted research in this regard.

Overall, team approaches to leader- ship stress the importance of leadership supporting the advantages of accom- plishing organizational tasks in team set- tings, thus taking a functional approach of leadership (Morgeson et al., 2010). Research indicates that aspects of coworker heterogeneity positively influ- ence creativity (Shin & Zhou, 2007) and problem-solving quality in groups (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000). On the other hand, homogeneity in groups promotes higher trust and better communication than in heterogeneous environments (Iles & Hayers, 1997). Here, a leader’s task is to maximize the positive influence of team member heterogeneity and minimize possible negative effects. In this respect, team literature serves as a valuable source regarding effective leadership in temporary organizations. In general, research on teams highlights the impor- tance of leaders’ knowledge of team pro- cesses and of the requirements for the effective functioning of a team (Burke et al., 2006). Cross-functional team leaders inherit a crucial role as they can influence team cohesion and trust as well as mini- mize potential conflict (Lussier & Achua, 2009). In some respect, the leader’s role

can also incorporate being a coach or facilitator (Morgeson et al., 2010), thereby empowering team members and seeking outside help if necessary, rather than dis- playing traditional leadership styles (Williams, 2001).

As projects are widely seen as one kind of team (Devine et al., 1999; Sundstrom, 1999), research on teams has frequently sought to discuss time, although only a few researchers involve time in their studies of social influence in teams (Marks et al., 2001). Instead, several researchers address phenome- na such as group cohesiveness (Beal et al., 2003), social ties (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006), and innovativeness (Heinz et al., 2006) in project teams, but none addresses the emergence of lead- ership. Taggar et al. (1999) assume that working within a time constraint, appropriate team leader role behavior would primarily seek to organize work, work relationships, and goals, rather than developing trust between and regard for other team members. Generally, the four team forming stages of form, storm, norm, and perform are acknowledged, even though some doubt exists as to whether these model stages adequately capture the contin- gencies of team development (Rickards et al., 2001). These stages seem largely congruent with the noted development phases of temporary teams, as identi- fied by Hoegl et al. (2004). Comparing the two variants of team formation, the dilemma of normative goal-setting and struggle for shared norms, which even- tually results in a generally accepted set of rules and norms, is evident.

Lussier and Achua (2009) hold that a participative approach is most suit- able for leading cross-functional teams as it best fits the inherent requirements. They further highlight the leader’s role as advisor or consultant (rather that a commander or manager), which indi- cates the choice of person-oriented leadership styles. These considerations also seem valid for temporary teams, which have similar characteristics (e.g., heterogeneity and task novelty). On the

other hand, this general recommenda- tion may not be sufficient if coordinative tasks with complex interaction and reciprocal adjustment are required (Iles & Hayers, 1997).

Research Agenda As temporary organizing increases, leadership research must pay attention to projects, programs, and temporary teams. Specific characteristics may lead to behaviors that differ significantly from permanent settings. The leader- ship theories discussed in this article cover a long history of research and take on various perspectives. We identified several approaches and factors for fur- ther assessment regarding their contri- bution to understanding leadership in temporary settings.

In the following section, we inte- grate these approaches in a schematic depiction of temporary organizational characteristics (cf. Figure 1). The charac- teristics are grouped into four important elements that constitute a temporary organization, as identified by Lundin and Söderholm (1995): time, team, task, and transition (Figure 2). The characteristics of team heterogeneity and team constellation change are con- tained in the team element, whereas the task element includes the project outcome uniqueness as well as the non-routine work content. Transition is reflected by the three phases of concep- tion, organization, and accomplish- ment, which were introduced earlier in this paper (Hoegl et al., 2004). Limited duration (time) as the unifying element (Bakker & Janowicz-Panjaitan, 2009) is placed in the middle of the diagram.

Combining this schematic diagram with the described leadership app- roaches, several suggestions can be derived for future research on the indi- vidual leadership theories. Along with these, we identify three main research fields that combine findings from the different leadership theories. They could help to advance the research on leadership in temporary organizations. We will address both potential areas for

A Review of Leadership Theories and a Research Agenda

P

A P

E R

S

62 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

research—approaches using single leadership theories (and advancing chronologically in the course of this paper) and combined leadership theo- ries (named research fields).

In the literature focusing on leaders and followers, we found several approaches that have already been applied to temporary settings. A num- ber of leadership character traits and styles were identified. They may have a positive impact on leader effectiveness in temporary settings. Examples of such traits include team-building, communi- cation, and motivation skills, indicating an emphasis on relationship-oriented qualities. Also, task-oriented skills were found to be important in terms of role and task clarification. In turn, the attri- bution error described by attribution theory highlights how important it is for project leaders to consider which situa- tional factors cause what behavior in

order to avoid reluctant follower responses. The potential benefit of hav- ing experienced coworkers has been highlighted by considering learning the- ories. Here, project workers can benefit from such experience by adopting effec- tive skills and behaviors.

Research Field 1: Leadership Aiming at Establishing Relationships in Regard to the Task We suggest research on transactional and transformational leadership as interaction-oriented approaches to be considered jointly in order to test the effectiveness of these leadership con- cepts with respect to a project’s nature and tasks. Interaction-oriented approach- es draw attention to high-quality relation- ships between leaders and followers, which could be established swiftly. This finding is considered very valuable to temporary settings and highlights the

importance of the first encounter between leaders and project members. Furthermore, we consider transforma- tional leadership approaches to be very promising, which is indicated by the growing body of research into transfor- mational leadership in single project types.

In turn, contingency models as situa- tion-oriented approaches account for the project context (i.e., the provision of spe- cific leadership styles, depending on spe- cific project characteristics). This seems particularly beneficial when considering projects with a high degree of complexi- ty, novelty, and authority, among others. It also strengthens the view that effective leadership strongly depends on individu- al project characteristics.

Of particular interest for future re- search is the combination of findings from leader-oriented and follower- oriented leadership approaches (especially

Figure 2: Schematic diagram of identified research clusters.

Task - Unique outcome

- Non-routine

Time - Temporariness

Team - Heterogeneity

- Changing members - Missing hierarchies

Transition - Conceive phase

- Organizing phase - Accomplishment phase

Research field 2: Leadership influencing/accelerating team effectiveness:

- Person-oriented (Attribution T.) - Interaction-oriented (Transformational L.) - Team research

Re se

ar ch

fi el

d 3:

Le ad

er sh

ip re

ga rd

in g

na tu

re o

f

ta sk

a nd

te am

c om

po si tio

n:

- S itu

at io

n- or

ie nt

ed (C

on tin

ge nc

y; N

or m

at iv e

T. )

- T ea

m re

se ar

ch Research field 1:

Leadership aim ing at establishing

relationships in regard to the task:

- Person-oriented approaches (Learning T.)

- Interaction-oriented approaches

December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 63

learning theories) and interaction- oriented approaches to temporary organizations. Such research might yield new insights on how the different project phases could be influenced as well as which behaviors might play cru- cial roles at what stages. Findings from learning approaches could be especial- ly valuable, because they may help in the understanding of how the three phases of conceive, organizing, and accomplishment could be designed in order to increase team work efficiency. The impact of supporting behavior from an experienced leader might also vary according to the nature of project tasks at hand. It is therefore proposed that findings from interaction-oriented approaches be incorporated when searching for suitable and generaliz- able leadership behaviors in temporary organizations.

Research Field 2: Leadership Influencing/Accelerating Team Effectiveness Team-oriented approaches are gener- ally valuable in broadening knowledge on the effect of team composition in temporary settings. Research on teams and the impact of team heterogeneity on task’s accomplishment should focus on the type of task at hand and the type of team heterogeneity. In addition, research should draw upon insights on effective team composition and how a leader can address less-than-ideal team compositions. Here, further research is needed into leadership effectiveness and its correlations with project team heterogeneity, project characteristics, and environmental factors.

Combining interaction-oriented approaches with team research findings might further the understanding of leadership processes in temporary set- tings. We expect deeper insights into the underlying coherences of team characteristics as well as progress through various team phases with regard to effective leadership. In partic- ular, the question as to how temporary

team characteristics (e.g., heterogene- ity, change, and missing hierarchies) can be addressed by which leadership behaviors should receive attention. This will shed light on how to establish high- quality relationships in projects. Furthermore, attribution theory—as a person-oriented approach—could fos- ter a deeper understanding of leader- ship effectiveness throughout different team phases. Here, leadership effective- ness in different phases could be scruti- nized considering potential attribution errors caused by project complexity, which might be caused by the heteroge- neity of project members.

Research Field 3: Leadership Regarding Nature of Task and Team Composition Insights on leadership effectiveness regarding the nature of tasks under a given team could be refined by insights from team research regarding team composition. In particular, insights stemming from different team types (e.g., R&D teams) could bear insights for leadership in temporary organiza- tions with respect to the tasks to be accomplished. On the other hand, find- ings from contingency research could deepen our understanding of the inter- action between leadership, teams, and tasks as well as their characteristics over time.

We suggest further combining find- ings from team research with insights from contingency and normative lead- ership research. This will result in knowledge on effective leadership behaviors in terms of specific project tasks and team compositions. For exam- ple, normative leadership theories pro- vide concrete suggestions on which leadership behavior is suitable in regard to specific task and team characteristics.

Conclusion Leadership in temporary settings is confronted with characteristics that are only partially addressed by established leadership theories. Although research has started investigating the character- istics of temporary organizations and

their implications for leadership, the findings often remain limited to single and specific project settings.

We provided an overview of the existing research on leadership and on teams in project environments and identified several avenues for further research. Aspects requiring further attention in terms of their applicability in temporary settings have been found in all mainstreams of leadership research and team research, including the need to combine these streams. Findings from follower-oriented re- search regarding attribution process aspects might lead to valuable sugges- tions for project settings (i.e., in terms of how leaders could swiftly establish efficient leader–follower relationships). In turn, the application of normative leadership theory to temporary organi- zations could help guide project lead- ers. In addition, further research on contingency approaches might help identify leadership behaviors that are generally appropriate to projects. We have found that LMX approaches might contribute to effective leadership, since research indicates that high-quality leader–member relationships develop swiftly. Transformational leadership has recently received increased atten- tion in the context of temporary set- tings, although with inconsistent find- ings. Lately, several researchers have thus combined transformational behav- ior characteristics with emotional lead- ership approaches, underlining the shift from merely task-oriented leader- ship to the complex sphere of social interaction. What has to be further studied is the combination of these approaches in order to broaden and deepen the knowledge on leadership in temporary settings.

As most research on leadership in temporary organizations has looked for character traits and behavior styles that would benefit project leaders, the appli- cability of other leadership approaches on projects remains largely unexplored. Our proposition of a research agenda

A Review of Leadership Theories and a Research Agenda

P

A P

E R

S

64 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

includes several approaches, which we identified as suited for studying leader- ship in temporary settings and which we would like to see better explored by empirical research. Transformational leadership approaches seem to be of particular interest because they high- light the importance of personal orien- tations that take place under the condi- tions of temporary settings. At the same time, transformational leadership is also strongly and positively affecting fol- lowers in permanent organizations. In conclusion, we propose to build on the encouraging results of existing work on leadership in temporary settings and to further incorporate and combine the various streams research. ■

References Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Lynn, G. S., & Keskin, H. (2007). Team stressors, man- agement support, and project and pro- cess outcomes in new product develop- ment projects. Technovation, 27(10), 628– 639.

Ancona, D. G., Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Time: A new research lens. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 645–663.

Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project man- agement. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 687–698.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 421–449.

Avolio, B. J., Weichun, Z., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational lead- ership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empow- erment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951–968.

Ayoko, O. B., & Callan, V. J. (2010). Teams’ reactions to conflict and teams’ task and social outcomes: The moderat- ing role of transformational and emotion- al leadership. European Management Journal, 28(3), 220–235.

Baccarini, D. (1996). The concept of project complexity: A review. International Journal of Project Management, 14(4), 201–204.

Bakker, R. (2010). Taking stock of tempo- rary organizational forms: A systematic review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 466–486.

Bakker, R., & Janowicz-Panjaitan, M. (2009). Time matters: The impact of “temporariness” on the functioning and performance of organizations. In P. Kenis, P., M. Janowicz-Panjaitan, & B. Cambré (Eds.), Temporary organizations: Prevalence, logic and effectiveness (pp. 121–131). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. (2006). Ties, leaders and time in teams: Strong infer- ence about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management, 49(1), 49–68.

Barber, E., & Warn, J. (2005). Leadership in project management: From firefighter to firelighter. Management Decision, 43(7/8), 1032–1039.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership-theory, research and managerial applications. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit perfor- mance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207–218.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character and the authentic trans- formational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217.

Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989–1004.

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group Organization Management, 27(1), 14–49.

Bluedorn, A. C., & Jaussi, K. S. (2008). Leaders, followers, and time. Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 654–668.

Boies, K., & Howell, J. (2006). Leader- member exchange in teams: An examina- tion of the interaction between relation- ship differentiation and mean LMX in explaining team-level outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 246–257.

Brockhoff, K. (2006). On the novelty dimension in project management. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 26–36.

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behav- iors are functional in teams? A meta- analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 288–307.

Chen, G., Donahue, L. M., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Training undergraduates to work in organizational teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(1), 27–40.

Chiocchio, F., & Essiembre, H. (2009). Cohesion and performance: A meta- analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams, and service teams. Small Group Research, 40(4), 382–420.

Christenson, D., & Walker, D. H. (2004). Understanding the role of “vision” in project success. Project Management Journal, 35(3), 39–52.

Clarke, N. (2010). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to transformational leadership and key project manager com- petences. Project Management Journal, 41(2), 5–20.

Clarke, N., & Howell, R. (2010). Emotional intelligence and projects. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

Cleland, D. I. (1967). Understanding project authority: Concept changes man- ager’s traditional role. Business Horizons, 10(1), 63–70.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismat- ic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637–647.

Côté, S., Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Miners, C. T. (2010). Emotional intelli- gence and leadership emergence in small

December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 65

Iles, P., & Hayers, P. K. (1997). Managing diversity in transnational project teams: A tentative model and case study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12(2), 95–117.

Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management Science, 28(3), 315–336.

Jones, R. E., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2008). Temporary interorganizational projects: How temporal and social embeddedness enhance coordination and manage uncertainty. In S. Cropper, M. Ebers, P. S. Ring, & C. Huxham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations (pp. 231–255). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Jones, R. E., & Deckro, R. F. (1993). The social psychology of project manage- ment conflict. European Journal of Operational Research, 64(2), 216–228.

Kavadias, S., Loch, C. H., & Loch, C. (2004). Project selection under uncertain- ty: Dynamically allocating resources to maximize value. Boston, MA: Springer.

Keegan, A. E., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2004). Transformational leadership in a project-based environment: A compara- tive study of the leadership styles of proj- ect managers and line managers. International Journal of Project Management, 22(8), 609–617.

Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and sub- stitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development proj- ect team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 202–210.

Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128.

Kerzner, H. (2009). Project management: A systems approach to planning, schedul- ing, and controlling. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 48–60.

Kissi, J., Dainty, A., & Tuuli, M. (2013). Examining the role of transformational leadership of portfolio managers in project

project team involvement: Implications for project leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 7(4), 32–42.

Hanisch, B., & Wald, A. (2011). A project management research framework inte- grating multiple theoretical perspectives and influencing factors. Project Management Journal, 42(3), 4–22.

Hanisch, B., & Wald, A. (2013). Effects of complexity on the success of temporary organizations: Relationship quality and transparency as substitutes for formal coordination mechanisms. Scandinavian Journal of Management. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman .2013.08.005

Heinz, U., Baga, T., Gebert, D., & Kearney, E. (2006). Leadership and cooperation as success factors in innova- tive R&D projects on electronic plat- forms. Team Performance Management, 12(3/4), 66–76.

Hodgetts, R. M. (1968). Leadership tech- niques in the project organization. Academy of Management Journal, 11(2), 211–219.

Hodgson, D. E. (2004). Project work: The legacy of bureaucratic control in the post-bureaucratic organization. Organization, 11(1), 81–100.

Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15(1), 38–55.

Hollander, E. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65(2), 117–127.

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409–465.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz- Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., & Gupta, V. (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE. In W.H. Mobley (Ed.), Advances in global leadership, vol. 1 (pp. 171–233). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

groups. Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 496–508.

Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999). Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30(6), 678–711.

Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., Shenhar, A., & Tishler, A. (1998). In search of project classification: A non-universal approach to project success factors. Research Policy, 27(9), 915–935.

Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 26–49.

Ekstedt, E., Lundin, R. A., Söderholm, A., & Wirdenius, H. (1999). Neo-industrial organizing: Renewal by action and knowledge formation in a project- intensive economy. London, England: Routledge.

Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context. Research Policy, 32(5), 789–808.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). Theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw Hill.

Gehring, D. (2007). Applying traits theo- ry of leadership to project management. Project Management Journal, 38(1), 44–54.

Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transi- tion in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9–41.

Goodman, R. A., & Goodman, L. P. (1976). Some management issues in temporary systems: A study of profes- sional development and manpower— The theater case. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3), 494–501.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leader- ship: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

Grant, K. P., Graham, T. S., & Heberling, M. E (2001). The project manager and

A Review of Leadership Theories and a Research Agenda

P

A P

E R

S

66 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

performance. International Journal of Project Management, 31(4), 485–497.

Legare, T. L. (2001). How Hewlett- Packard used virtual cross-functional teams to deliver healthcare industry solu- tions. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 20(4), 29–38.

Lindgren, M., & Packendorff, J. (2009). Project leadership revisited: Towards dis- tributed leadership perspectives in proj- ect research. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 1(3), 285–308.

Lindgren, M., Packendorff, J., & Crevani, L. (2007). Shared leadership: A postheroic perspective on leadership as a collective construction. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(1), 40–67.

Lindner, F., & Wald, A. (2011). Success factors of knowledge management in temporary organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 29(7), 877–888.

Love, P. E. D., Fong, P. S., & Iraní, Z. (2005). Management of knowledge in project environments. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict commu- nications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 779–793.

Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11, 437–455.

Lussier, R. N., Achua, C. F. (2009). Leadership: Theory, application, and skill development. Mason, OH: South- Western.

Manz, C. C., & Sims Jr. H. P. (1981). Vicarious learning: The influence of modeling on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 105–113.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based frame- work and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.

Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A func- tional approach to understanding leader- ship structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5–39.

Müller, A., Wald, A., & Görner, A. (2012). Comparing project management practic- es in new product development: A study in the automotive, aerospace and rail transport industry. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 4(3), 203–217.

Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2007). Matching the project manager’s leadership style to project type. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 21–32.

Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2010). Leadership competency profiles of suc- cessful project managers. International Journal of Project Management, 28(5), 437–448.

Muethel, M., & Hoegl, M. (2008). Shared leadership in dispersed project teams. Proceedings of the 2008 Western Academy of Management Conference, Oakland, CA (pp. 1–37).

Northouse, P. G. (2009). Leadership: Theory and practice. London, England: Sage.

Oakley, J. G. (1999). Leadership process- es in virtual teams and organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 5(3), 3–17.

Packendorff, J. (1995). Inquiring into the temporary organization: New directions for project management research. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(49), 319–333.

Parker, S. K., & Skitmore, M. (2005). Project management turnover: Causes and effects on project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 23(3), 205–214.

Pettersen, N. (1991). What do we know about the effective project manager? International Journal of Project Management, 9(2), 99–104.

Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H., & De Meyer, A. (2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Management Science, 48(8), 1008–1023.

Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). Project leadership: Understanding and con- sciously choosing your style. Project Management Journal, 22(1), 39–45.

Rickards, T., Chen, M.-H., & Moger, S. (2001). Development of a self-report instrument for exploring team factor, leadership and performance relation- ships. British Journal of Management, 12(3), 243–250.

Shamir, B. (2011). Leadership takes time: Some implications of (not) taking time seriously in leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 307–315.

Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1709–1721.

Sims, H. P., & Lorenzi, P. (1992). The new leadership paradigm: Social learning and cognition in organizations. London, England: Sage.

Smith, D. C., Park, C. W., & Sethi, R. (2001). Cross-functional product devel- opment teams, creativity, and the inno- vativeness of new consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 73–85.

Strang, K. D. (2005). Examining effective and ineffective transformational project leadership. Team Performance Management, 11(3/4), 68–103.

Sundstrom, E. (1999). Supporting work team effectiveness: Best management practices for fostering high performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sundstrom, E., & DeMeuse, K. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effective- ness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120–133.

Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L., & DeFillippi, R. (2004). Project-based organizations, embeddedness and repositories of knowledge: Editorial. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1475–1489.

Taggar, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. (1999). Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams: Antecedents and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52(4), 899–926.

December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 67

managers. Project Management Journal, 29(1), 31–38.

Zwikael, O., & Unger-Aviram, E. (2009). HRM in project groups: The effect of project duration on team development effectiveness. International Journal of Project Management, 28(5), 413–421.

Ana K. Tyssen holds a PhD from the EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht, Wiesbaden, Germany. She works as an international project manager for Bosch Sicherheitssysteme GmbH Frankfurt, Germany, and her research focus is on leadership and project management.

Andreas Wald is Dean of Research and Professor of Management and Strategy at the European Business School Paris, France and a Visiting Professor at the Strascheg Institute for Innovation and Entrepre- neurship of the EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht, Wiesbaden, Germany. His research focuses on temporary organi- zations, leadership, and innovation.

Patrick Spieth is an Assistant Professor for Innovation Management at the Strascheg Institute for Innovation and Entrepre- neurship of the EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht, Wiesbaden, Germany. His areas of interest are innovation, innova- tion capability in the aviation industry, inno- vation, and corporate governance.

Weber, M. (1920). The theory of social and economic organization. New York, NY: Martino.

Weibler, J. (2012). Personalführung. München, Germany: Vahlen.

Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S., Fenton, E., & Conyon, M. (1999). Change and complementarities in the new competitive landscape: A European panel study, 1992–1996. Organization Science, 10(5), 583–600.

Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective con- text for trust development. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 377–396.

Winkler, I. (2009). Contemporary leader- ship theories: Enhancing the understand- ing of the complexity, subjectivity and dynamic of leadership. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Yang, L.-R., Huang, C.-F., & Wu, K.-S. (2001). The association among project manager’s leadership style, teamwork and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 29(3), 258–267.

Yukl, G. A. (2012). Leadership in organi- zations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zimmerer, T. W., & Yasin, M. M. (1998). A leadership profile of American project

Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1973). How to choose a leadership pat- tern. Harvard Business Review, 51(May/ June), 162–170.

Thamhain, H. J. (2004). Linkages of project environment to performance: Lessons for team leadership. International Journal of Project Management, 22(7), 533–544.

Thamhain, H. J., & Gemmill, G. R. (1974). Influence styles of project man- agers: Some project performance corre- lates. Academy of Management Journal, 17(2), 216–224.

Tyssen, A. K., Wald, A., & Spieth, P. (2013). The challenge of transactional and transformational leadership in proj- ects. International Journal of Project Management. Retrieved from http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2013.05.010

van Breukelen, W., Schyns, B., & Le Blanc, P. (2006). Leader-member exchange theory and research: Accomplishments and future challenges. Leadership, 2(3), 295–316.

Wang, E., Chou, H.-W., & Jiang, J. (2005). The impacts of charismatic lead- ership style on team cohesiveness and overall performance during ERP imple- mentation. International Journal of Project Management, 23(3), 173–180.