Linking transformational leadership and work outcomes in temporary organizations: A social identity approach

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 543 – 556 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Linking transformational leadership and work outcomes in temporary organizations: A social identity approach Xiang Ding a , Qian Li b , Haibo Zhang a,⁎, Zhaohan Sheng b , Zeya Wang c a

b

School of Government, Nanjing University, 163 Xianlin Rd, Nanjing, China School of Management & Engineering, Nanjing University, 22 Hankou Rd, Nanjing, China c Economics Department, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

Received 12 April 2016; received in revised form 24 January 2017; accepted 6 February 2017 Available online xxxx

Abstract Following the call to investigate whether the theory of leadership could be applicable in temporary organizations, this research examined the associations among transformational leadership (TFL), subordinate work engagement (WEG) and project turnover intention (PTI) in project settings. In addition, a subordinate's identification with the project is proposed as a social identity mechanism through which transformational project managers exert influence on subordinate work outcomes. The model is tested based on the data collected from a sample of 162 employees working in infrastructure projects located in China. Transformational leadership is found to positively relate to subordinates' work engagement and negatively relate to subordinates' project turnover intentions. Furthermore, project identification completely mediates the TFL-WEG relationship, whereas it partially mediates the TFL PTI relationship. These findings contribute to literature by extending the extant transformational leadership approaches in the context of temporary organization, and by broadening the leadership research in conjunction with social identity theory. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. Keywords: Temporary organization; Transformational leadership; Work outcome; Social identification

1. Introduction Research regarding transformational leadership has gained considerable academic attention in the past two decades (Dvir et al., 2002; Lowe et al., 1996; Qu et al., 2015; Strom et al., 2013). Defined as “charismatic, visionary, and inspirational actions that influence followers to broaden their goals and perform beyond the expectations specified in their formal work roles and job descriptions” (Qu et al., 2015, Page 286), transformational leadership is found to contribute to ‘team-supporting behaviors’ (Zhang et al., 2011) within organizations and act as a crucial enabler of improved employee work outcomes, including attitude, behavior, and performance (Avolio et al., 2004; Bono ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (X. Ding), [email protected] (Q. Li), [email protected] (H. Zhang), [email protected] (Z. Sheng), [email protected] (Z. Wang).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.005 0263-7863/00 © 2017 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

and Judge, 2003; Yammarino et al., 1993; Zhu and Akhtar, 2014a). Although extant research has helped us to develop a good understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the transformational leadership process, most of this research is conducted within permanent organizational structures and therefore rests on the assumption that leader-follower constellations are stable and continuous (Antonakis et al., 2003; Shamir, 2011). There is an emerging argument that, where leader-follower constellations are not stable and continuous, transformational leadership may not necessarily be applicable (Bakker, 2010; Lundin and Steinthórsson, 2003). Temporary organization, defined as “a set of organizational actors working together on a complex task over a limited period (Bakker, 2010, Page 468),” is considered to be an increasingly common form of organization, due to the current ‘fast-change’ business environment (Lundin and Steinthórsson, 2003). As Chen et al. (2004) and Tyssen et al. (2013) state, the characteristics of temporary organizations pose

544

X. Ding et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 543–556

specific challenges to leadership. Projects are a popular form of temporary organization in which members of the project (usually staff members) are seconded by their affiliated organizations (generally firms) as they carry out specific, project-oriented tasks. The leader-follower relationship between a project manager and his/her subordinate may only last for a very limited period of time. Besides, project managers often feel that an ‘authority gap’ exists while they administrate and lead the project teams, as their subordinates have multi-roles outside the project in question (Tyssen et al., 2014a). Further, many scholars argue that transformational leadership within the context of a project is expected to explain additional variance, aside from that which is within the context of permanent organizations, as projects' unique characteristics are not considered by general leadership research (Gundersen et al., 2012; Kissi et al., 2013; Müller and Turner, 2010). Accordingly, leadership research regarding temporary organizations may require approaches that differ from those used in the research of permanent organizations (Tyssen et al., 2013). Specifically, transformational leadership, which has been proven to be an effective approach in stimulating and inspiring high level engagements, needs to be revised, taking into account its influence on temporary organizations (Gundersen et al., 2012). One factor that has received particular attention within transformational leadership research is organizational identification (Epitropaki and Martin, 2005; van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). A great deal of empirical studies support the notion that organizational identification is related to leadership and/or work outcomes (van Dick et al., 2004; van Knippenberg and Sleebos, 2006). However, as far as we know, previous studies have predominantly considered people's identification with the organization as a whole and these studies therefore tell only a partial story (Cicero and Pierro, 2007; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Generally, people will classify themselves as various social entities based on different types of organization membership; they are able to have multiple foci of identification (Huettermann et al., 2014) and thus the salience of an individual's multiple identities is relative to the given situation (Ashforth and Johnson, 2001). As “we cannot assume that the factors found to influence organizational identification would similarly influence identification with other foci” (Olkkonen and Lipponen, 2006), it is necessary to shed more light on the factors that influence one's identification with their immediate organization (Kreiner et al., 2006; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Researchers argue that transformational leadership stimulates subordinates' performance by fostering their organizational identification (Bass, 1985; Kark et al., 2003); however, to our best knowledge, empirical studies scrutinizing the mediating role of subordinates' identification with their immediate organization (such as a project) in the transformational leadership process is still tenuous (Liu et al., 2010). To address these gaps in the literature, the current study develops a model (Fig. 1.) in order to elucidate the role of the individual's identification with a temporary organization, taking into account the transformational leadership process

within the context of temporary organizations. Specifically, this article focuses on projects as a research context, as projects are a typical form of temporary organization that are widely adopted primarily by modern companies on a regular basis (Engwall, 2003). We will use the terms projects and temporary organizations interchangeably throughout the rest of this article. This research also examines the extent to which the individual's identification with a project (hereafter referred to as project identification) mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and work outcomes, specifically work engagement and turnover intention. Work engagement has been defined as “a positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2006) and turnover intention refers to one's perceived likelihood of staying with or leaving the current organization (Bigliardi et al., 2005). As for the project team members who are skilled professionals seconded by the parent organizations for a limited time, the project is their directly current organization. Given the definition in a broad wide, turnover intention in the project settings (hereafter referred to as project turnover intention) can be understood as the people's intention to quit the roles/profiles/types of professions in the project organization. Work engagement and project turnover intention offer positive and negative reorientations of an individual's behavior and attitude, and have been found in organizational behavior research to be associated with leadership (Breevaart et al., 2014; Miao et al., 2012). This study aims to make several contributions to the field. First, there is a repeated call to undertake leadership research within a specific organizational context (Avolio et al., 2009; Dinh et al., 2014; Porter and McLaughlin, 2006), this study echoes this call and extends the investigation of transformational leadership and its effects to a previously understudied context for leadership, that is, the temporary organization. Our focus is on a project that typifies a temporary organization. Organizations react to environmental dynamism and uncertainty by using temporary structures such as projects. In this way, they show how they play a vital role in promoting social and economic development. Thus, we extend the previous findings on the applicability of transformational leadership in different organizational contexts by examining this leadership behavior in the context of temporary organizations (i.e., projects). Second, we theoretically analyze in detail the characteristics of these settings and their effects on the relationship between transformational leadership and subordinates work outcomes. Third, some researchers believe that leaders can impact followers' psychological attachment to their work unit (Kark et al., 2003), while others think that individual identification with the organization can improve their work outcomes. However, the two notions have not been integrated thus far. By providing empirical evidence to elucidate the underlying mechanism of project identification in the relationship between transformational leadership and subordinate work outcomes, this study brings new insight to the psychological process in project leadership research.

X. Ding et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 543–556

545

Work engagement H1

H4 Mediation H3

Transformational leadership

Project identification

H5 Mediation H2

Project turnover intention

Fig. 1. Theoretical model.

2. Theory and hypotheses 2.1. Transformational leadership and work outcomes in temporary organizations In contrast to the way in which permanent organizations are defined by vision, survival, and continual development (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995), temporary organizations generally carry out overloaded and time-limited tasks, and entail the completion of a developed product (Savelsbergh et al., 2012). As Tyssen et al. (2014a) summarize, the main characteristics of temporary organizations (as opposed to permanent organizations) are: a “limited and predefined duration”, “nonroutine work content”, “higher uncertainty and risks”, and “interdivisional collaboration of heterogeneous teams”. Due to these characteristics, project participants work in extremely complex, uncertain, and ambiguous environments (Keegan and Den Hartog, 2004), and are considered to be “less committed to their tasks than the employees of permanent organizations” (Tyssen et al., 2014a). In other words, leaders of temporary organizations face challenges (Chen et al., 2004). For example, the short-term orientation with the focus on immediate deliverables poses a time-horizon challenge for project leaders to develop ways to include long-term visions into short-term projects (Tyssen et al., 2013). Accordingly, more needs to be known about the effectiveness of transformational leadership in particular organizational contexts. Following established literature (Avolio et al., 2004; Dvir et al., 2002; Zhu et al., 2009), this study adopts Bass's (1985) full-range conceptual model of transformational leadership to help explain the underlying mechanisms through which transformational leaders may be effectively influencing their subordinates' work outcomes in temporary organizations. This conceptual model contains four components, including: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration. Idealized influence enables project managers to adopt charismatic behaviors in order to influence followers” commitment and willingness to work on behalf of the project organization (Wang and Zhu, 2011). As already noted, the project team generally

consists of individuals stemming from different organizations (Zwikael and Unger-Aviram, 2010), resulting in different expectations on an individual level and dependence upon other organizational contexts outside the project in question (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). When people's expectations and organizational ideologies vary, conflict and controversy are expected to occur within the project organization (Tekleab et al., 2009). According to Tuckman's (1965) stage model, teams have to pass though different stages (for example, forming, storming) to reach a cohesive, mature stage of team development. In other words, project participants need time to interact effectively. However, as “business is moving faster and faster” (Lundin and Steinthórsson, 2003), the duration of projects is limited and generally short in the current information era. A competent project manager must develop effective ways to lead and motivate their subordinates as a whole if they are to achieve the shared purpose of the project (Braun et al., 2013), and in order to reduce conflict and controversy quickly (Zhang et al., 2011). As leaders are organizational representatives, idealized influence provides project managers with “soft methods” (such as inspiring subordinates' identification, self-esteem, and trust in leaders), which may encourage project participants to follow the vision and mission of the project. This in turn leads to a low level of competitive conflict orientation but a high level of cooperative conflict orientation (Zhang et al., 2011). Accordingly, in a cooperative and cohesive work environment, project participants are likely to work effectively and are unlikely to resign (Miao et al., 2012; Strom et al., 2013). Inspirational motivation refers to project managers' ability to motivate subordinates with appealing and inspiring goals, convince them of the need for transformation, and explain why transformation is imperative (Blomme et al., 2015). Projects' organizational environments are usually complex, uncertain, and ambiguous (Tyssen et al., 2014b); project team members are therefore more likely to become overloaded within their roles and/or perceive job stress than those working in permanent organizations (Jones et al., 2007), which leads to absenteeism and lower enthusiasm in regard to their employment (Ivancevich, 1985). Project managers must find ways to eliminate these negative emotions and reduce stressors within the project teams (Savery and Luks, 2001). By creating and expressing attractive

546

X. Ding et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 543–556

visions and missions, inspirational motivation seems to be particularly useful for project managers in regard to generating optimism and enthusiasm in a team, and in causing their subordinates to regard their current job as a meaningful component of the project as a whole (Moriano et al., 2014). Positive attitudes and psychological identification as subordinates undertake jobs are especially important to the success of short-term projects and could ultimately reduce the outcomes of subordinates' negative behavior. (Chi and Huang, 2014; Wang and Howell, 2010; Zhu et al., 2009). Intellectual stimulation assists project managers in encouraging subordinates to challenge the status quo and in stimulating innovative thoughts (Chi and Huang, 2014). As risk and uncertainty are inherent in project-based organizations (Hobday, 2000), projects usually require distinct and novel practices to effectively fulfill fixed goals (Tyssen et al., 2014b). By encouraging subordinates to both reexamine their traditional methods for carrying out the job in question and adopt creative ways of dealing with novel situations, transformational project managers can motivate and encourage subordinates to become more involved with their job, which in turn leads to subordinates adopting a positive attitude toward the job; this enhances their commitment to the organization (Miao et al., 2012). Additionally, organizational processes in projects are non-routine rather than standard processes (Brockhoff, 2006), which require project managers to encourage autonomous decisions. Furthermore, intellectual stimulation encourages project managers to empower subordinates with some degree of independence, so that they are better equipped to solve problems (Morgeson, 2005). Intellectual stimulation also helps subordinates to cope with the emotional demands of working and aids them in staying energized during working hours (Bakker and Bal, 2010). Intellectual stimulation thereby fosters subordinates' work engagement and weakens their project turnover intention. Individual consideration advocates that project managers provide a supportive climate in which they identify and address the differing needs, competencies, and ambitions of each subordinate (Blomme et al., 2015; Northouse, 2013). As previously mentioned, the relationship between project managers and subordinates who are from different departments is unstable at the very beginning and time for project managers to build relationships with their subordinates is scarce. By offering individualized mentoring, coaching, and career development opportunities, individual consideration fosters a one-on-one relationship with each subordinate, which can increase subordinates' commitment to the project (Tyssen et al., 2014a). Therefore, individual consideration, which can enhance the leader-follower relationship and cultivate subordinates' commitment to the project, seems to be effective in increasing work engagement and decreasing turnover intention in a project setting. In summary, the four components of transformational leadership discussed above suggest that transformational leadership may perform well in regard to influencing subordinates' level of work engagement and project turnover intention within the context of a project, even though the temporary organizing norm challenges leadership actions (Tyssen et al., 2014b). Empirical research, while still limited, supports such a notion. For example, based on data

collected from international projects, Gundersen et al. (2012) found that transformational leadership acts as a reliable predictor of work adjustment and job satisfaction. Taking the above discussions into account, we propose the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1. Transformational leadership is positively and directly related to subordinate work engagement. Hypothesis 2. Transformational leadership is negatively and directly related to subordinate project turnover intention. 2.2. Project identification In respect to the social identity process (Kark et al., 2003), organizational identification has the potential to form strong ties between both an individual and their colleagues, and their organization (Ruggieri and Abbate, 2013). Additionally, organizational identification motivates individuals to behave in accordance with the collective interest and goals of the organization (Edwards and Peccei, 2007). Based on these arguments, previous studies suggest that organizational identification acts as an antecedent to individuals' work outcomes (Brammer et al., 2014; He et al., 2014; Tangirala and Ramanujam, 2008; van Dick et al., 2004). However, these predictions are to some extent inaccurate and oversimplified; such studies have mostly focused on individuals' identification with the entire rather than just their immediate organization. van Knippenberg and van Schie (2000) argue that there is a distinction between identification with the entire organization and identification with the immediate organization. Furthermore, they provide empirical evidence that the effect of individuals' identification with the immediate organization on their outcomes, such as job motivation, job involvement, and turnover intention, is stronger than that of individuals' identification with the entire organization. Cicero and Pierro (2007) and Walumbwa et al. (2008) also regard social identification as context-based, and they select individual identification with work-groups and work-units as research objects. Accordingly, this paper asserts that, in the context of temporary organizations, an individual's identification with the project with which they are participating more adequately reflects their social category than their identification with the parent organization. 2.3. Transformational leadership and project identification The extant research on the nexus between transformational leadership and outcomes is mainly based on social exchange theory (Wang et al., 2005), yet some scholars suggest that other mechanisms should be considered (Tse and Chiu, 2014). This study recommends social identity theory as an alternative, with which to better our understanding of the transformation process, on the basis of self-conception and self-categorization rather than exchange and reciprocity. Social identity theory postulates that the perception of oneness with or belonging to a specific social category, such as an organization or a group, can intrinsically motivate individuals to achieve collective good (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Based on this notion, project identification can be evoked when a project participant has the desire to share the

X. Ding et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 543–556

collective vision and mission of the project (Gu et al., 2015). Priming subordinates' collective identity is essential for project managers if they wish to pursue positive outcomes from the subordinates in question (Solansky, 2011). It is argued that transformational leadership helps to foster the important social-psychological needs of self-esteem, self-enhancement, and self-worth (Epitropaki and Martin, 2005; Tse and Chiu, 2014), which in turn lead to subordinates strongly perceiving psychological attachment to the organization and subsequently including organizational membership in their social identity (Epitropaki and Martin, 2005). According to Hogg's (2001) social identity of leadership theory, the essence of leadership is to “set agenda, define identity, and mobilize people to achieve collective goals”. Transformational leaders who are proactive and innovative can be expected to stimulate their subordinates to create greater identification with their colleagues and organizations (Walumbwa et al., 2008). In a similar vein, Kark et al. (2003) found evidence that transformational leadership not only predicts subordinates' personal identification with their direct leaders, but also their social identification with their work unit. From the perspective of self-concept theory, Walumbwa et al. (2008) and Cregan et al. (2009) also confirm the positive effect of transformational leadership on subordinates' organizational identification. Furthermore, the behavior norms (Bass, 1985) of transformational leadership, with its emphasis on a leader's proactivity, change-orientation, innovation, and inspiration (Hogg, 2001), are found to be effective at establishing a cohesive, trustworthy, and supportive environment (Prati et al., 2003), where subordinates are more likely to evoke the notion of self-concept and recognize that they share the collective vision and mission of the organization (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Huettermann et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2010). Through inspirational motivation, transformational project managers are said to describe an interesting picture of the future, and their subordinates' collective identity and commitment to the organization can be enhanced in this way (Joshi et al., 2009; Tse and Chiu, 2014). Moreover, van Knippenberg et al. (2004) posit that specific characteristics of transformational leaders (such as self-sacrifice and self-confidence) positively influence their subordinates' collective identification. Finally, both charisma (in terms of idealized influence and inspirational motivation) and individual consideration are empirically demonstrated as being antecedents to organizational identification (De Cremer and Van Knippenberg, 2002; Paul et al., 2001). Based on the above discussion, transformational leadership can also be expected to enhance subordinates' identification with their immediate organization in the context of a project. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 3. Transformational leadership is positively and directly related to project identification.

547

few exceptions (Liu et al., 2010; Wang and Howell, 2012), the extant literature sheds little light on this notion. Yet, there are limitations in these particular studies. For example, Wang and Howell (2012) did not find empirical support to demonstrate the mediation effect of individuals' identification with the working group on the relationship between transformational leadership and group performance. Following this notion, we further propose that project identification mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement and project turnover intention. According to social identity theory, subordinates will label themselves as members of a project and feel psychological attachment toward the project when transformational project managers encourage and motivate them to make their project membership their salient social category for self-concept and self-esteem (Huettermann et al., 2014; van Knippenberg and Ellemers, 2003). Through project identification, transformational leadership enables subordinates to view and internalize the success of the project in association with their own personal pride, fulfillment, and self-realization (Correia de Sousa and Dierendonck, 2014; He et al., 2014). Accordingly, subordinates tend to fully engage with their work role for the purpose of achieving a high level of “mutually-related personal and organizational performances” (He et al., 2014). Indeed, several studies also provide empirical evidence of the positive relationship between organizational identification and work engagement (Correia de Sousa and Dierendonck, 2014; Hansen et al., 2014; He et al., 2014). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 4. Project identification mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement. Project identification can influence subordinates' project turnover intention in several ways. Project participants who strongly identify with a project will pursue intensive connections with the project organization which, in turn, enhance their sense of self-concept in regard to the project itself (van Dick et al., 2004). According to self-concept theory, these people are less likely to resign from the project because quitting then involves a loss of part of their selves (Cho et al., 2014). Similarly, Cole and Bruch (2006) argue that highly perceived organizational identification may shield subordinates from “construing problematic events as being problematic, which might otherwise increase one's intention of quitting the organization”. Additionally, both Cicero and Pierro (2007) and Shen et al. (2014) demonstrate that the negative relationship between organizational identification and turnover intention is significant. Based on the above discussion, we propose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 5. Project identification mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and project turnover intention. 3. Method

2.4. Project identification as a mediator 3.1. Sample and research design Previous research suggests that transformational leaders positively affect subordinates' outcomes by enhancing their identification with the organization (Tse and Chiu, 2014). With

We collected data from a sample of employees working for construction companies in the Chinese infrastructure industry.

548

X. Ding et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 543–556

These companies are qualified as Grade A, according to the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development of the People's Republic of China (MOHURD). This particular study is part of a larger data collection project, which aims to examine project governance mechanisms in the Chinese infrastructure industry. We contacted companies which located in Yangtze River Delta Region as it is the most developed region with many construction projects in China. Yet, 36 companies showed interesting in this survey. The target respondents were project managers' direct subordinates (for example, senior managerial staff, including directors of departments), as they worked closely with project managers and were in a good position to respond to the questionnaire. Each company provided us a name list of 5–10 senior managerial staffs from different projects, and finally we got 300 potential respondents. Assisted by the human resources departments in these companies, we contacted 300 senior managerial staff from different projects; 169 accepted our invitation to participate in the survey, representing a 56.3% response rate. The survey was administrated on two occasions, seven weeks apart. On the first occasion, we asked the 169 respondents to complete a survey regarding their project managers' transformational leadership and their background information. On the second occasion, we asked the same respondents to answer a survey measuring their project identification, work engagement, and project turnover intention. Of the 169 participants, seven were discarded since they did not respond to the second survey. Ultimately, the data from 162 participants in the survey was available for this study. Table 1 provides a statistical summary of respondents' answers. 3.2. Measures 3.2.1. Transformational leadership We developed a 15-item scale with which to evaluate project managers' transformational leadership. The items stem from a validated Chinese version (Gong et al., 2009) of the “Multifactor Table 1 Summary statistics of respondents. Variable

Category

Number

% of respondents

Organizational tenure Organizational tenure Organizational tenure Organizational tenure Educational background Educational background

3 years and below 4–6 years 7–9 years More than 10 years Doctorate Masters (including MBA and ME) Bachelors Junior college or below Manager Director of department Team leader 99 employees and below 100–299 employees 300–499 employees More than 500 employees

23 73 49 17 3 53

14.2% 45.06% 30.25% 10.49% 1.85% 32.72%

84 22 42 61 59 9 33 58 62

51.85% 13.58% 25.93% 37.65% 36.42% 5.56% 20.37% 35.80% 38.27%

Educational background Educational background Position Position Position Firm size Firm size Firm size Firm size

Leadership Questionnaire Form 5x-short (MLQF-5x)”, (Bass and Avolio, 1994). Subordinates rated the extent to which they agreed with statements such as: “My project manager gets me to look at problems from many different angles”, using a five-point scale (“one = not at all” to “five = frequently, if not always”). 3.2.2. Project identification We assessed participants' project identification by using five items from an adapted scale that was originally developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992) and is still widely used in organizational behavior research (Schaubroeck et al., 2012; van Knippenberg and Sleebos, 2006). Sample items for this variable include: “It feels like a personal insult when someone criticized this project” and “I care about others' comments on this project.” Responses were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale (“one = strongly disagree” to “five = strongly agree.”) 3.2.3. Work engagement Using a nine scale developed by Rich et al. (2010) and adopted by He et al. (2014), we assessed subordinates' work engagement with a composite score consisting of nine items, which pertained to three categories: physical engagement (three items), emotional engagement (three items), and cognitive engagement (three items). Sample items from this scale include: “I try my hardest to perform well on my job” and “I am excited about my job”. Responses were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale (“one = strongly disagree” to “five = strongly agree”). 3.2.4. Project turnover intention As mentioned before, the construct of project turnover intention connotes to resigning the role/profile/type of profession in the project organization. We argue that people's turnover intention with the project does not equal to the turnover intention with their parent organization, and project turnover intention does not connote to resigning from the parent organization. People's turnover intention with the project represents the willingness to change the current workplace, the project. Based on Konovsky and Cropanzano (1991) and Cole and Bruch (2006), we developed a three scale to measure project turnover intention. A sampled item is “I intend to look for a job outside of this project within the next year”. Responses were rated on a four-point Likert-type scale (“one = very unlikely” to “four = very likely”). 3.3. Data analytical procedures SmartPLS (Ringle et al., 2005), a recent software implementation that utilizes the Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach, was employed as the primary data analysis technique in the study, to estimate both theoretical models and hypothesized relationships. Compared with co-variance based structural equation modeling (SEM), PLS is considered to be a “softer” modeling method with fewer stringent requirements (including multivariate normality, measurement levels of manifest variables, large samples, and so on) (Bernroider et al., 2014). Our survey data did not conform to normal distribution through one-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Besides, our sample size was small and did not meet the

X. Ding et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 543–556

requirement of other SEM approach. The low constructto-sample size ratio made PLS more suitable for this research. The advantage of testing both measurement and structural models also makes PLS preferable to multiple regression analysis (Palanski et al., 2011). Following Hair et al. (2011), we adopted a two-stage analytical procedure. In the first stage, the measurement model (also known as the outer model in PLS) was assessed to confirm its validity and reliability. In the second stage, the structural model (also known as the inner model in PLS) was tested to confirm direct and indirect interaction relationships in the hypothesized model. 4. Results 4.1. Common method bias Both independent and dependent variables were collected from a common source and, based on the self-report method, it is therefore possible that common method bias may affect the associations among variables in this research. Following Podsakoff et al. (2012), procedural and statistical remedies were adopted in this research to minimize the threat of common method bias. Data for independent and dependent variables was collected separately in two surveys and there was an interval of seven weeks between the first survey and second survey. This interval aims to minimize consistency motifs and, in turn, reduce the likelihood of potential sources leading to common method variance (Schaubroeck et al., 2012). Furthermore, ambiguous or unfamiliar terms were removed and questions were designed to be as simple as possible. Vague concepts and double-barreled questions were also avoided in the questionnaires. Harman's single-factor test was employed to examine whether or not there is an existing common or single method factor to account for the majority of the covariance among variables (Zhu et al., 2009). The test results showed that the general factor explained only 32.83% of the overall variance, suggesting that common method bias was less likely to be a serious concern. Additionally, a well-established rigorous analysis proposed by Podsakoff et al. (2003) and tailored to the PLS analysis by Liang et al. (2007) was further employed to test for common method bias. The results indicate that trait factors (e.g., the proposed constructs) explained 66.8% of the variance, whereas the method factors explained only less than 1% of the variance, indicating that common method bias was not a critical issue in the present study. 4.2. Measurement model According to PLS researchers (Hair et al., 2014; Palanski et al., 2011; Ringle et al., 2005), the measurement model test includes two primary parts: (1) convergent validity and (2) discriminant validity. Convergent validity examines whether or not indicators were sharing a high proportion of variance and convergence within the same concept, while discriminant validity compares different constructs and indicators to confirm whether or not they are distinct and unique (Hulland, 1999).

549

4.2.1. Convergent validity To test convergent validity, it is common to assess individual item reliability, internal consistency reliability and average variance extracted (AVE). We conducted these tests by performing the PLS Algorithm, implemented in Smart PLS. Table 2 reports the test results. Firstly, we assessed individual item reliability by examining outer loadings, since the accepted items should have more explanatory power than error variance (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As a rule of thumb, the accepted cutoff of item loadings is 0.70 or greater (Palanski et al., 2011). All factor loadings were equal to or greater than the recommended cutoff value; thus, individual item reliability was significantly robust in this study. Secondly, unlike individual item reliability reflecting convergent validity at the level of the indicator, we examined AVEs to assess the convergent validity of measurement models at the level of the construct. Huang and Jiang (2012) suggest that the threshold value of AVE should be 0.5. As seen in Table 2, the AVEs for each construct are greater than 0.5, again indicating good convergent validity. Finally, both Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability were examined to assess internal construct consistency (Hair et al., 2014). Cronbach's alpha should be at least 0.70 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), while the accepted range of composite reliability should be between 0.60 and 0.95 (Hair et al., 2014). All constructs in the study met these two criterions. Taken together, the test results of transformational leadership (AVE = 0.53, CR = 0.94, α = 0.94), organizational identification (AVE = 0.65, CR = 0.90, α = 0.87), work engagement (AVE = 0.56, CR = 0.92, α = 0.90), and project turnover intention (AVE = 0.64, CR = 0.84, α = 0.72) show that the measurement model possessed adequate convergent validity. 4.2.2. Discriminant validity Following Chin (2010) and Huang and Jiang (2012), the Fornell-Larcker mode of analysis was employed to examine discriminant validity. That is, the square root of the AVE of a construct should be greater than all the correlation levels between that construct and other constructs in the model (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Table 3 (in which the square roots of AVEs are located in parentheses along the diagonal axis) shows that the square root of the AVE for each construct was greater than the respective correlation values, indicating that constructs in this study exhibited good discriminant validity (Bock et al., 2005). We also performed heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations test following Henseler et al. (2015). Table 4 reports that the values of HTMT ratio are below 0.9, therefore discriminant validity assessment has been passed between latent variables in this study. 4.2.3. Predictive relevance Stone-Geisser's Q-square test (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974)was performed to validate the predictive relevance of the research model. Blindfolding procedure implemented in the Smart PLS software reported the Q-square results. There are two styles of Q-square: cross-validated redundancy and

550

X. Ding et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 543–556

Table 2 Factor loadings, AVE, CR, and Cronbach's alpha of items in this study. Constructs and measurements

Outer loadings

Transformational leadership Item 1: My project manager talks optimistically about the future Item 2: My project manager talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished Item 3: My project manager articulates a compelling vision of the future Item 4: My project manager expresses confidence that goals will be achieved Item 5: My project manager re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate Item 6: My project manager seeks differing perspectives when solving problems Item 7: My project manager gets me to look at problems from many different angles Item 8: My project manager suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments Item 9: My project manager spends time coaching for us. Item 10: My project manager treats me as an individual rather than just a member of a group Item 11: My project manager considers me as having different needs, abilities and aspirations from others Item 12: My project manager helps me to develop strengths Item 13: My project manager acts in the way that builds my respect Item 14: My project manager displays a sense of power and confidence Item 15: My project manager goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group Project identification Item 16: It feels like a personal insult when someone criticizes this project Item 17: It feels like a personal compliment when someone makes positive remark on this project Item 18: I care about others' comment on this project Item 19: When I talk about this project, I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they’ Item 20: I felt successful when the project succeed in performance Work engagement Item 21: I work with intensity on my job Item 22: I devote a lot of energy to my job Item 23: I try my hardest to perform well on my job Item 24: I am enthusiastic in my job Item 25: I am excited about my job Item 26: I am proud of my job Item 27: My mind is focused on my job at work Item 28: I focus a great deal of attention on my job at work Item 29: I am absorbed by my job Project turnover intention Item 30: I often think about quitting the job from this project Item 31: I will probably look for a new job outside this project Item 32: I have taken interest in recruitment information in the media

AVE

CR

α

0.53

0.94

0.94

0.65

0.90

0.87

0.56

0.92

0.90

0.64

0.84

0.72

0.77 0.72 0.77 0.70 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.72 0.75 0.72 0.70 0.75 0.70 0.75 0.71 0.82 0.85 0.79 0.78 0.81 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.72 0.73 0.77 0.71 0.81 0.72 0.86 0.78 0.77

CR = composite reliability, α = Cronbach's alpha.

cross-validated communality. Generally, cross-validated redundancy can be validated for prediction. We can see from the Fig. 2 that all of the cross-validated redundancy value is greater than 0, which means the research model has a well predictive relevance.

package were employed to evaluate the structural model. The standardized path coefficient β was obtained from the PLS algorithm, while the statistical significance of each path was determined by the t-value for a given bivariate relationship based on bootstrapping function with 2000 iterations (Palanski et al., 2011). Specifically, critical t-values are 1.65, 1.96, 2.58, and 3.29, which represent p b 0.10, p b 0.05, p b 0.01, and p b 0.001, respectively. In the leadership literature, follower's population characteristics (e.g., gender, age, education background) are usually important

4.3. Structural model Following Palanski et al. (2011), the function of the PLS algorithm and bootstrapping implemented in the Smart PLS Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and variable correlations. Variables

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 Organizational tenure 2 Educational background 3 Firm size 4 Transformational leadership 5 Project identification 6 Work engagement 7 Project turnover intention

2.35 2.80 3.07 3.50 3.58 3.63 2.38

0.87 0.69 0.90 0.44 0.52 0.47 0.55

− − 0.10 0.01 0.02 − 0.07 − 0.12 0.12

– − 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.11 − 0.02

− − 0.07 − 0.11 − 0.13 − 0.04

(0.73) 0.46 0.27 − 0.34

(0.81) 0.57 − 0.41

(0.75) − 0.26

(0.80)

X. Ding et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 543–556 Table 4 Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) test results. Path from

To

Original sample

Sample mean

Standard deviation

TFL TFL PID PID TFL WEG

PID PTI PTI WEG WEG PTI

0.502 0.404 0.501 0.632 0.284 0.314

0.491 0.396 0.494 0.634 0.307 0.332

0.096 0.127 0.101 0.084 0.072 0.073

TFL = transformational leadership, PID = Project identification, WEG = work engagement, PTI = project turnover intention.

control variables (Keller, 1992; Wang et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2011). Three control variables are tested in this study, including organizational tenure, educational background, and firm size. We validated the control variables together in the structural model. The test result of control variables can be seen in Table 5. Hypotheses 1 and 2 propose that transformational leadership is positively related to subordinates' work engagement and project turnover intention. These hypotheses are actually prerequisite conditions for testing the mediation in Hypotheses 3 and 4 (Tims et al., 2011). After removing the mediation variable (project identification), the direct paths from independent variable (transformational leadership) to dependent variables (work engagement and project turnover intention) were evaluated. As shown in Table 6, our test results support the significant positive effect of transformational leadership on work engagement (β = 0.28, p b 0.001). Moreover, transformational leadership was found to negatively affect project turnover intention (β = − 0.35, p b 0.01). Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2 are confirmed. To test the mediation hypotheses, we adopted the analysis procedure developed by Preacher and Hayes (2008). The mediation analysis suggests initial focus should be on the significance of the independent variable for predicting the dependent variable (which was already completed in Hypotheses 1 and 2 test in Table 6), but not for decision making on the mediation effect. Secondly, in the full SEM model, we have to test whether the path coefficients from independent variable to mediation variable and from mediation variable to dependent variable are significant. As

seen in Fig. 3. and Table 6, the significant influence of transformational leadership on project identification (β = 0.46, p b 0.001) and the significant influence of project identification on work engagement (β = 0.56, p b 0.001) reveal that it has passed the second procedure of the mediation test. Similarly, the path coefficient from project identification to project turnover intention (β = − 0.32, p b 0.001) also shows that the mediation test of project identification on the relationship between transformational leadership and turnover intention has fulfilled the requirement of Preacher and Hayes' second procedure. Thirdly, whether the mediation effect is full or partial is decided by the path significance from independent variable to dependent variable in the mediation model. We can see from Fig. 3. that, transformational leadership does not exert significant influence on work engagement (β = 0.01, NS), while transformational leadership still has a significant, albeit weaker, influence on project turnover intention (β = − 0.20, p b 0.1). According to Preacher and Hayes (2008), Hypothesis 3 is fully supported, whereas Hypothesis 4 is only partially supported. 5. Discussion Transformational leadership has been demonstrated as an effective leadership style in motivating subordinates' work-related outcomes in permanent organizations (Walumbwa et al., 2004). However, until recently, the effectiveness of transformational leadership had not been examined in temporary organizations, where project durations, work content, constitution, and other organizational characteristics are typically different from those in permanent organizations (Gundersen et al., 2012). As the temporary form of organization brings challenges to an overall organization, Avolio et al. (2009) call for more empirical studies on leadership in different organizational contexts, and Tyssen et al. (2013) specifically calls upon the field to examine the impact of transformational leadership on individual outcomes in temporary settings. We followed these calls and have added to the empirical base of leadership research by illuminating the associations among transformational leadership, project identification, work engagement, and project turnover intention in the context of temporary organizations.

Work engagement

Transformational leadership

551

Project identification

Project turnover intention

Fig. 2. Q-square test. Cv Red means cv-Redundancy.

552

X. Ding et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 543–556

Table 5 Control variables test results. Path From

To

Path Coefficient (β)

Standard Deviation

T Statistics (bootstrapping n = 1000)

Organizational tenure

PID WEG PTI PID WEG PTI PID WEG PTI

− 0.08 − 0.07 0.09 − 0.02 0.08 − 0.07 − 0.08 − 0.07 − 0.09

0.07 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07

1.12 1.14 1.35 0.24 1.20 1.11 1.39 1.23 1.37

Educational background

Firm size

PID = project identification, WEG = work engagement, PTI = project turnover intention.

As expected, we found that transformational leadership has a significant impact on both subordinates' work engagement and project turnover intention in project settings. More importantly, we found that transformational leadership increased subordinates' engagement with their work by encouraging subordinates to define themselves in terms of the attributes of the projects (project identification). Additionally, the influence of transformational leadership on subordinates' intentions to resign from their work is found to be partially mediated by subordinate project identification. The reason why project identification exerts partial effect on leadership-outcome dynamics is that there could be other mediators such as trust also exist. 5.1. Theoretical and practical implications Corroborating research on leadership and social identification on a general level, this study focuses on the importance of project managers enhancing their subordinates' identification with their projects in an effort to improve work outcomes. The findings of the current study have several implications for theory. Firstly, this study extends previous findings on the applicability of transformational leadership in different organizational contexts by examining leadership behavior in the context of temporary organizations (i.e., projects). To be more precise, in line with previous studies examining the relationship between transformational leadership and work outcomes in terms of work engagement (Strom et al., 2013; Vincent-Höper et al., 2012) and turnover intention (Tse et al., 2013) in permanent organization settings, this study confirms that transformational leadership still affects subordinates' work engagement and turnover intention in project settings. Specifically, respondents who perceived higher levels of transformational leadership are more likely to exhibit vigor, dedication, and absorption at work, and are less likely to resign. As work engagement and turnover intention are important predictors of individual performance (Rich et al., 2010; van Dick et al., 2004), this finding not only suggests that project managers should develop transformational leadership behavior, but also provides an important criterion in selecting project managers, as well as in developing training programs for project managers, to enable them to develop an effective leadership style.

Secondly, this research provides new insight in regard to explaining the psychological dynamics through which transformational leadership exerts influence on work outcomes by adopting the social identity approach. In particular, extant research suggests that transformational leadership positively relates to subordinates' organizational identification (Huettermann et al., 2014), and organizational identification positively relates to work engagement (He et al., 2014) and negatively relates to turnover intention (Cho et al., 2014); however, we are aware of no prior study that has documented the role mediation plays in organizational identification and the associations among these constructs. This study is among the first to examine project identification as an important underlying mechanism in the relationship between transformational leadership and subordinate work outcomes. We thereby directly respond to the repeated calls to explore how social identity affects leadership processes (Tse and Chiu, 2014; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). In addition, our mediation findings suggest that project managers should adopt different approaches in order to stimulate different work outcomes more effectively. In general, if the project managers aim to promote subordinates' work engagement, they should focus more on stimulating subordinates' identification with the project. However, if project managers see a need to reduce subordinates' turnover intention, they should not only focus on subordinates' project identification, but also put emphasis on other factors that could affect turnover intention. As a result, our findings serve as guidance for project managers as to where, in attempting to achieve beneficial effects, they should allocate their resources in order to enhance subordinates' social identity as “project citizenship” (Braun et al., 2012). Thirdly, as “projects are becoming increasingly complex, requiring multi-disciplinary teams comprising of specialists and consultants from different organizations” (Keegan and Den Hartog, 2004, Page 610), whether these specialists and consultants from different organizations (e.g., firms, institutes) feel they belong in their immediate organization or project, has become one of the most common and important challenges in the construction industry. This study posits that by inspiring a shared vision and commitment to project goals, transformational leaders foster collective values and norms that are conducive to subordinates' sense of belonging in the project. Therefore these empirical findings will help scholars and practitioners appreciate the effect of leadership style on solving subordinates identification problems. Finally, by examining identification in the context of projects, we add an important social category to existing social identity literature. Giving projects as the situational context, individuals are likely to consider their project identities as the salient social category for self-concept because projects are their immediate work-group (van Knippenberg and van Schie, 2000). Although some socio-psychological factors, such as trust and project commitment, have been shown to have important effects on project outcomes (Gundersen et al., 2012; Tyssen et al., 2014a), little empirical research has scrutinized the effects of project identification. This paper proposes and validates the construct of project identification, which exhibits a good explanatory power (r2 = 0.21) in the structural model

X. Ding et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 543–556

553

Table 6 Hypotheses test results. Hypothesis

1 2 3

4

Path from

TFL TFL TFL PID TFL TFL PID TFL

To

WEG PTI PID WEG WEG PID PTI PTI

Path coefficient (β)

Standard deviation

0.28*** − 0.35** 0.46*** 0.56*** 0.01 NS 0.46*** − 0.32*** − 0.20†

0.06 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.11

Confidence intervals 2.5%

97.5%

0.201 − 0.545 0.271 0.417 − 0.148 0.271 − 0.461 − 0.415

0.438 − 0.137 0.626 0.713 0.183 0.626 − 0.159 0.063

T Statistics (bootstrapping n = 1000) 4.50 3.02 5.63 7.38 0.15 5.63 4.11 1.75

NS = non-significance, †p b 0.10, **p b 0.01, ***p b 0.001 (two tailed). TFL = transformational leadership, PID = project identification, WEG = work engagement, PTI = project turnover intention.

(see Fig. 3.). In so doing, this article can be seen as an extension of research conducted by Walumbwa et al. (2008), who concluded that transformational/charismatic leadership affects several individual outcomes by activating subordinates' membership and identification with their immediate organization. As the organizational form of project is increasingly being adopted by the global market, it is important for companies and leaders alike to stimulate employees to associate their sense of self with the project organization in order to enhance their project identification, which, in turn, significantly benefits both individual and organizational outcomes. Furthermore, this study was conducted in the projects, locating in the Yangtze River Delta Region which is the most developed region for construction projects in China. These empirical findings may inform western practitioners and scholars about the managerial implications of transformational leadership in China, which “has undergone massive economic reforms in the past three decades" (Zhu and Akhtar, 2014b, Page 2767). Particularly, constructs validated in our research seem not to be culturally specific and our hypothesized relationships are similar to those reported in western studies (e.g., Vincent-Höper et al., 2012; Gundersen et al., 2012). In other words, transformational

leadership plays a vital role in employee work outcomes across cultures.

5.2. Limitations and future research directions Aside from implications for theory and practice, this study is subject to some limitations. Firstly, due to the cross-sectional survey, the causal inferences about the hypothesized relationships are based on the structural coefficients and nomological relationships between constructs. It is feasible to suggest that subordinates with close personal relationships with their project managers will tend to rate high levels of transformational leadership. Further experimental and longitudinal field studies should be conducted to determine causal directions. Secondly, although the proposed structural model linking transformational leadership and subordinates' work outcomes through project identification was supported, we did not control for other styles of leadership, such as ethical leadership (Walumbwa et al., 2011), empowering leadership (Srivastava et al., 2006), or humble leadership (Owens and Hekman, 2011). These leadership behaviors may also be effective in temporary

Work engagement (r2=0.32)

0.01NS

Transformational leadership

0.46***

0.56***

Project identification (r2=0.21)

-0.20†

-0.32*** Project turnover intention (r2=0.20)

Fig. 3. Path coefficients of the mediation model. †p b 0.1, ***p b 0.001 (two tailed).

554

X. Ding et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 543–556

organizations; future studies may test and compare the influence different leadership styles exerts on work outcomes. Lastly, we strategically selected turnover intention and work engagement to reflect individual-level outcomes. Future researchers may extend selections such as these to incorporate a broader range of work-related outcomes, including employees' in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior. 6. Conclusions Research regarding temporary organizational forms is still in its infancy and much can still be learned by examining various variables in this context. Differing from permanent forms of organization, the temporary form brings new challenges to the entire staff involved and thereby has significant effects on the leadership process. Our study has empirically accumulated additional evidence for these effects and has indicated that project identification is an essential mechanism in explaining why transformational project managers encourage subordinates to exert more effort in regard to their work and facilitate subordinates to further desire the retaining of project membership. These findings represent a promising and intriguing step toward a better understanding of how to improve leadership effectiveness. Project managers can learn how to better leverage the effect of project identification in inspiring and motivating their subordinates. Conflict of interest The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists. Acknowledgements This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 71271107, 71390521, 71471077, 71471082, 71571098, and 71671080), the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 13AGL009), and the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (Grant no. NCET-13-0284). The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for the insightful comments and suggestions on this paper. References Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J., Sivasubramaniam, N., 2003. Context and leadership: an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Leadersh. Q. 14, 261–295. Ashforth, B.E., Johnson, S.A., 2001. Which Hat to Wear? The Relative Salience of Multiple Identities in Organizational Contexts. Psychology Press, Philadelphia, Pa. Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., Bhatia, P., 2004. Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. J. Organ. Behav. 25, 951–968. Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O., Weber, T.J., 2009. Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60, 421–449. Bakker, R.M., 2010. Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: a systematic review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 12, 466–486.

Bakker, A.B., Bal, M.P., 2010. Weekly work engagement and performance: a study among starting teachers. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 83, 189–206. Bass, B.M., 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., 1994. Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership. Sage Publications, California, US. Bernroider, E.W.N., Wong, C.W.Y., Lai, K.-h., 2014. From dynamic capabilities to ERP enabled business improvements: the mediating effect of the implementation project. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32, 350–362. Bigliardi, B., Petroni, A., Ivo Dormio, A., 2005. Organizational socialization, career aspirations and turnover intentions among design engineers. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 26, 424–441. Blomme, R.J., Kodden, B., Beasley-Suffolk, A., 2015. Leadership theories and the concept of work engagement: creating a conceptual framework for management implications and research. J. Manag. Organ. 21, 125–144. Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.-G., Lee, J.-N., 2005. Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Q. 29, 87–111. Bono, J.E., Judge, T.A., 2003. Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Acad. Manag. J. 46, 554–571. Brammer, S., He, H., Mellahi, K., 2014. Corporate social responsibility, employee organizational identification, and creative effort: the moderating impact of corporate ability. Group Org. Manag. Braun, T., Müller-Seitz, G., Sydow, J., 2012. Project citizenship behavior? – an explorative analysis at the project-network-nexus. Scand. J. Manag. 28, 271–284. Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., Frey, D., 2013. Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: a multilevel mediation model of trust. Leadersh. Q. 24, 270–283. Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O.K., Espevik, R., 2014. Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 87, 138–157. Brockhoff, K., 2006. On the novelty dimension in project management. Proj. Manag. J. 37, 26–36. Chen, G., Donahue, L.M., Klimoski, R.J., 2004. Training undergraduates to work in organizational teams. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 3, 27–40. Chi, N.-W., Huang, J.-C., 2014. Mechanisms linking transformational leadership and team performance: the mediating roles of team goal orientation and group affective tone. Group Org. Manag. 39, 300–325. Chin, W.W., 2010. How to Write Up and Report PLS Analysis. Springer, US. Cho, B., Lee, D., Kim, K., 2014. How does relative deprivation influence employee intention to leave a merged company? The role of organizational identification. Hum. Resour. Manag. 53, 421–443. Cicero, L., Pierro, A., 2007. Charismatic leadership and organizational outcomes: the mediating role of employees' work-group identification. Int. J. Psychol. 42, 297–306. Cole, M.S., Bruch, H., 2006. Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment and their relationships to turnover intention: does organizational hierarchy matter? J. Organ. Behav. 27, 585–605. Correia de Sousa, M.J., Dierendonck, D., 2014. Servant leadership and engagement in a merge process under high uncertainty. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 27, 877–899. Cregan, C., Bartram, T., Stanton, P., 2009. Union organizing as a mobilizing strategy: the impact of social identity and transformational leadership on the collectivism of union members. Br. J. Ind. Relat. 47, 701–722. De Cremer, D., Van Knippenberg, D., 2002. How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness. J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 858–866. Dinh, J.E., Lord, R.G., Gardner, W.L., Meuser, J.D., Liden, R.C., Hu, J., 2014. Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. Leadersh. Q. 25, 36–62. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J., Shamir, B., 2002. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: a field experiment. Acad. Manag. J. 45, 735–744. Edwards, M.R., Peccei, R., 2007. Organizational identification: development and testing of a conceptually grounded measure. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psycol. 16, 25–57.

X. Ding et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 543–556 Engwall, M., 2003. No project is an island: linking projects to history and context. Res. Policy 32, 789–808. Epitropaki, O., Martin, R., 2005. The moderating role of individual differences in the relation between transformational/transactional leadership perceptions and organizational identification. Leadersh. Q. 16, 569–589. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 39–50. Geisser, S., 1974. A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika 61, 101–107. Gong, Y., Huang, J.-C., Farh, J.-L., 2009. Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: the mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Acad. Manag. J. 52, 765–778. Gu, Q., Tang, T.L.-P., Jiang, W., 2015. Does moral leadership enhance employee creativity? Employee identification with leader and leader– member exchange (LMX) in the Chinese context. J. Bus. Ethics 126, 513–529. Gundersen, G., Hellesoy, B.T., Raeder, S., 2012. Leading international project teams: the effectiveness of transformational leadership in dynamic work environments. J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 19, 46–57. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2011. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 19, 139–151. Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2014. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publication, US. Hansen, A., Byrne, Z., Kiersch, C., 2014. How interpersonal leadership relates to employee engagement. J. Manag. Psychol. 29, 953–972. He, H., Zhu, W., Zheng, X., 2014. Procedural justice and employee engagement: roles of organizational identification and moral identity centrality. J. Bus. Ethics 122, 681–695. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 43, 115–135. Hobday, M., 2000. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Res. Policy 29, 871–893. Hogg, M.A., 2001. A social identity theory of leadership. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 5, 184–200. Huang, C.C., Jiang, P.C., 2012. Exploring the psychological safety of R&D teams: an empirical analysis in Taiwan. J. Manag. Organ. 18, 175–192. Huettermann, H., Doering, S., Boerner, S., 2014. Leadership and team identification: exploring the followers' perspective. Leadersh. Q. 25, 413–432. Hulland, J., 1999. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strateg. Manag. J. 20, 195–204. Ivancevich, J.M., 1985. Predicting absenteeism from prior absence and work attitudes. Acad. Manag. J. 28, 219–228. Jones, E., Chonko, L., Rangarajan, D., Roberts, J., 2007. The role of overload on job attitudes, turnover intentions, and salesperson performance. J. Bus. Res. 60, 663–671. Joshi, A., Lazarova, M.B., Liao, H., 2009. Getting everyone on board: the role of inspirational leadership in geographically dispersed teams. Organ. Sci. 20, 240–252. Kark, R., Shamir, B., Chen, G., 2003. The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment and dependency. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 246–255. Keegan, A.E., Den Hartog, D.N., 2004. Transformational leadership in a project-based environment: a comparative study of the leadership styles of project managers and line managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22, 609–617. Keller, R.T., 1992. Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. J. Manag. 18, 489–501. Kissi, J., Dainty, A., Tuuli, M., 2013. Examining the role of transformational leadership of portfolio managers in project performance. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31, 485–497. Konovsky, M.A., Cropanzano, R., 1991. Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 76, 698–707. Kreiner, G.E., Hollensbe, E.C., Sheep, M.L., 2006. Where is the “me” among the “we”? Identity work and the search for optimal balance. Acad. Manag. J. 49, 1031–1057.

555

Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., 2007. Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Q. 31, 59–87. Liu, W., Zhu, R., Yang, Y., 2010. I warn you because I like you: voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. Leadersh. Q. 21, 189–202. Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G., Sivasubramaniam, N., 1996. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the mlq literature. Leadersh. Q. 7, 385–425. Lundin, R.A., Söderholm, A., 1995. A theory of the temporary organization. Scand. J. Manag. 11, 437–455. Lundin, R.A., Steinthórsson, R.S., 2003. Studying organizations as temporary. Scand. J. Manag. 19, 233–250. Mael, F.A., Ashforth, B.E., 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. J. Organ. Behav. 13, 103–123. Miao, Q., Newman, A., Lamb, P., 2012. Transformational leadership and the work outcomes of Chinese migrant workers: the mediating effects of identification with leader. Leadership 8, 377–395. Morgeson, F.P., 2005. The external leadership of self-managing teams: intervening in the context of novel and disruptive events. J. Appl. Psychol. 90, 497–508. Moriano, J.A., Molero, F., Topa, G., Lévy Mangin, J.-P., 2014. The influence of transformational leadership and organizational identification on intrapreneurship. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 10, 103–119. Müller, R., Turner, R., 2010. Leadership competency profiles of successful project managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 437–448. Northouse, P.G., 2013. Leadership: Theory and Practice. 6 ed. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA. Olkkonen, M.-E., Lipponen, J., 2006. Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 100, 202–215. Owens, B.P., Hekman, D.R., 2011. Modeling how to grow: an inductive examination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Acad. Manag. J. 55, 787–818. Palanski, M.E., Kahai, S.S., Yammarino, F.J., 2011. Team virtues and performance: an examination of transparency, behavioral integrity, and trust. J. Bus. Ethics 99, 201–216. Paul, J., Costley, D.L., Howell, J.P., Dorfman, P.W., Trafimow, D., 2001. The effects of charismatic leadership on followers' self-concept accessibility. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 31, 1821–1842. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P., 2012. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63, 539–569. Porter, L.W., McLaughlin, G.B., 2006. Leadership and the organizational context: like the weather? Leadersh. Q. 17, 559–576. Prati, L.M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G.R., Ammeter, A.P., Buckley, M.R., 2003. Emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 11, 21–40. Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 40, 879–891. Qu, R., Janssen, O., Shi, K., 2015. Transformational leadership and follower creativity: the mediating role of follower relational identification and the moderating role of leader creativity expectations. Leadersh. Q. 26, 286–299. Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A., Crawford, E.R., 2010. Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 429–446. Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Will, A., 2005. SmartPLS 2.0 (Beta). University of Hamburg Press, Hamburg, Germany. Ruggieri, S., Abbate, C.S., 2013. Leadership style, self-sacrifice, and team identification. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 41, 1171–1178. Savelsbergh, C., Gevers, J.M.P., van der Heijden, B.I.J.M., Poell, R.F., 2012. Team role stress: relationships with team learning and performance in project teams. Group Org. Manag. 37, 67–100.

556

X. Ding et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 543–556

Savery, L.K., Luks, J.A., 2001. The relationship between empowerment, job satisfaction and reported stress levels: some Australian evidence. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 22, 97–204. Schaubroeck, J.M., Peng, A.C., Hannah, S.T., 2012. Developing trust with peers and leaders: impacts on organizational identification and performance during entry. Acad. Manag. J. 56, 1148–1168. Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., Salanova, M., 2006. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 66, 701–716. Shamir, B., 2011. Leadership takes time: some implications of (not) taking time seriously in leadership research. Leadersh. Q. 22, 307–315. Shen, Y., Jackson, T., Ding, C., Yuan, D., Zhao, L., Dou, Y., Zhang, Q., 2014. Linking perceived organizational support with employee work outcomes in a Chinese context: organizational identification as a mediator. Eur. Manag. J. 32, 406–412. Solansky, S.T., 2011. Team identification: a determining factor of performance. J. Manag. Psychol. 26, 247–258. Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M., Locke, E.A., 2006. Empowering leadership in management teams: effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 49, 1239–1251. Stone, M., 1974. Cross-Validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 36, 111–147. Strom, D.L., Sears, K.L., Kelly, K.M., 2013. Work engagement: the roles of organizational justice and leadership style in predicting engagement among employees. J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 21, 71–82. Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C., 1979. An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. Brooks-Cole, Monterey, CA. Tangirala, S., Ramanujam, R., 2008. Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice: the effects of personal control and organizational identification. Acad. Manag. J. 51, 1189–1203. Tekleab, A.G., Quigley, N.R., Tesluk, P.E., 2009. A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group Org. Manag. 34, 170–205. Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., Xanthopoulou, D., 2011. Do transformational leaders enhance their followers' daily work engagement? Leadersh. Q. 22, 121–131. Tse, H.H.M., Chiu, W.C.K., 2014. Transformational leadership and job performance: a social identity perspective. J. Bus. Res. 67, 2827–2835. Tse, H.H.M., Huang, X., Lam, W., 2013. Why does transformational leadership matter for employee turnover? A multi-foci social exchange perspective. Leadersh. Q. 24, 763–776. Tuckman, B.W., 1965. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol. Bull. 63, 384–399. Tyssen, A.K., Wald, A., Spieth, P., 2013. Leadership in temporary organizations: a review of leadership theories and a research agenda. Proj. Manag. J. 44, 52–67. Tyssen, A.K., Wald, A., Heidenreich, S., 2014a. Leadership in the context of temporary organizations: a study on the effects of transactional and transformational leadership on Followers' commitment in projects. J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 21, 376–393. Tyssen, A.K., Wald, A., Spieth, P., 2014b. The challenge of transactional and transformational leadership in projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32, 365–375. van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C., Hauptmeier, M., Höhfeld, C., Moltzen, K., Tissington, P.A., 2004. Should I stay or should I go? Explaining turnover intentions with organizational identification and job satisfaction. Br. J. Manag. 15, 351–360. van Knippenberg, D., Ellemers, N., 2003. Social Identity and Group Performance: Identification as the Key to Group-Oriented Effort. Psychology Press, New York, US.

van Knippenberg, D., Hogg, M.A., 2003. A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 25, 243–295. van Knippenberg, D., Sleebos, E., 2006. Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes. J. Organ. Behav. 27, 571–584. van Knippenberg, D., van Schie, E.C.M., 2000. Foci and correlates of organizational identification. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 73, 137–147. van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., Hogg, M.A., 2004. Leadership, self, and identity: a review and research agenda. Leadersh. Q. 15, 825–856. Vincent-Höper, S., Muser, C., Janneck, M., 2012. Transformational leadership, work engagement, and occupational success. Career Dev. Int. 17, 663–682. Walumbwa, F.O., Wang, P., Lawler, J.J., Shi, K., 2004. The role of collective efficacy in the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 77, 515–530. Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., 2008. How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance: the role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Pers. Psychol. 61, 793–825. Walumbwa, F.O., Mayer, D.M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., Christensen, A.L., 2011. Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: the roles of leader–member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 115, 204–213. Wang, X.H., Howell, J.M., 2010. Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership on followers. J. Appl. Psychol. 95, 1134–1144. Wang, X.-H., Howell, J.M., 2012. A multilevel study of transformational leadership, identification, and follower outcomes. Leadersh. Q. 23, 775–790. Wang, P., Zhu, W., 2011. Mediating role of creative identity in the influence of transformational leadership on creativity: is there a multilevel effect? J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 18, 25–39. Wang, H., Law, K.S., Hackett, R.D., Wang, D., Chen, Z.X., 2005. Leadermember exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and Followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 48, 420–432. Wu, J.B., Tsui, A.S., Kinicki, A.J., 2010. Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 90–106. Yammarino, F.J., Spangler, W.D., Bass, B.M., 1993. Transformational leadership and performance: a longitudinal investigation. Leadersh. Q. 4, 81–102. Zhang, X.A., Cao, Q., Tjosvold, D., 2011. Linking transformational leadership and team performance: a conflict management approach. J. Manag. Stud. 48, 1586–1611. Zhu, Y., Akhtar, S., 2014a. How transformational leadership influences follower helping behavior: the role of trust and prosocial motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 35, 373–392. Zhu, Y., Akhtar, S., 2014b. The mediating effects of cognition-based trust and affect-based trust in transformational leadership's dual processes: evidence from China. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 25, 2755–2771. Zhu, W., Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O., 2009. Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group Org. Manag. 34, 590–619. Zwikael, O., Unger-Aviram, E., 2010. HRM in project groups: the effect of project duration on team development effectiveness. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 413–421.