See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233657948

Ineffective leadership: Investigating the negative attributes of

leaders and organizational neutralizers

Article  in  Engineering Construction & Architectural Management · May 2009

DOI: 10.1108/09699980910951663

CITATIONS READS
32 7,118

2 authors:

Shamas-ur-Rehman Toor Stephen O. Ogunlana

Islamic Development Bank, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Heriot-Watt University
29 PUBLICATIONS   1,565 CITATIONS    154 PUBLICATIONS   3,978 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Intelligent solutions for dependable built environment View project

Megaproject management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shamas-ur-Rehman Toor on 24 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


ECAM
16,3
254
Received August 2007
Revised December 2008
Accepted January 2009
Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management
Vol. 16 No. 3, 2009
pp. 254-272
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0969-9988
DOI 10.1108/09699980910951663
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm
Ineffective leadership
Investigating the negative attributes of leaders
and organizational neutralizers
Shamas-ur-Rehman Toor
Toor Concrete Group of Companies, Pakpattan, Pakistan, and
Stephen Ogunlana
School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
Abstract
Purpose – A large portion of the extant literature on leadership focuses only on the positive traits of
leaders. However, the so-called “dark side of leadership”, or negative personal traits of leaders, has
received relatively less attention. Also, in practice, leadership is mostly evaluated in terms of the
positive traits and strengths of leaders, even though certain organizational factors and followers’
characteristics significantly contribute to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of leaders. This paper
aims to examine the negative personal attributes and organizational factors – termed “organizational
neutralizers” – that impede the leadership effectiveness of project managers on construction projects.
Design/methodology/approach – To achieve the research objectives, questionnaire surveys and
interviews are conducted on a large construction project in Thailand. In total, 78 questionnaires and 35
interviews are conducted with project managers, deputy project managers, and other senior managers
working for various stakeholders involved in the construction of the Second Bangkok International
Airport (SBIA).
Findings – Findings reveal that wrongful use of power, poor communication, and low experience are
the leading negative personal factors which make project leaders appear incompetent and ineffective
in the workplace. Also, organizational factors that hinder the leadership performance of project
managers include: lack of resources, lack of planning and control, lack of synergy between
performance and goals, and lack of higher management support.
Practical implications – Practical implications are discussed for the selection and development of
project managers and project staff, personnel performance management, and improvements in
organizational culture, strategy, and approach towards project management.
Original/value – The research findings presented here show that certain negative attributes of
leaders and organizational factors can impede leadership effectiveness and performance. A number of
possible directions are proposed in which future research can be directed to explore what hinders
project managers from performing their leadership roles more effectively in construction projects.
Keywords Personality, Leadership, Organizational culture, Construction industry, Thailand
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Leadership research has largely focused on the traits and behaviors that make leaders
and the leadership process more effective and constructive in organizational settings
(Schaubroeck et al., 2007; Einarsen et al., 2007). However, relatively less attention has
been given to the traits that actually contribute to the ineffectiveness of leaders. In
order to examine the counter-perspective to the facilitating factors of leadership, recent
research has started to examine what contributes to the ineffectiveness of leadership
(see, for example, Den Hartog et al., 1999; Judge et al., 2002; Zaccaro et al., 2004; Ineffective
Kellerman, 2004; Kets de Vries, 2006). The Leadership Quarterly – a leading academic leadership
journal in leadership research – even published a special issue in 2007 that focused
destructive leadership (see Harvey et al., 2007; Harris et al., 2007; Ferris et al., 2007;
Schaubroeck et al., 2007; Padilla et al., 2007; Einarsen et al., 2007; Mumford et al., 2007).
However, this line of inquiry is still at an emerging stage in construction management
research, and therefore few studies have attempted to examine the factors that 255
contribute to the ineffectiveness and incompetence of construction project managers
(see, for example, Hartman, 2000; Powl and Skitmore, 2005).
Researchers argue that exploring the dark side of organizational behavior (Griffin
and O’Leary-Kelly, 2004) and leadership (Conger, 1990; Popper, 2001), negative
personal attributes, and environmental neutralizers of leadership (Kerr and Jermier,
1978) can provide a more holistic view of how leadership can be ineffective (Burke,
2006). In addition, such studies can also help in understanding how leadership
effectiveness can be enhanced by taking remedial measures to reduce the factors
that cause ineffectiveness and incompetence of leadership (Lombardo and Eichinger,
2000; Schaubroeck et al., 2007). Leadership is a critical factor for success of
construction projects (Odusami, 2002; Toor and Ogunlana, 2008a) and it plays a
vital role in achieving the involvement and satisfaction of project stakeholders (Toor
and Ofori, 2008a). Therefore, a detailed examination of negative leadership
attributes and organizational neutralizers will help to improve the performance of
project managers and raise the level of their leadership effectiveness (Mustapha and
Naoum, 1997).
This paper reports on part of a larger study designed to investigate the success
of leadership on large construction projects. In addition to the perceived effective
behaviors and important leadership skills, negative personal attributes and
organizational neutralizers causing the ineffectiveness and incompetence of leaders
were also studied. The goal is to enable researchers to conduct further research on
the subject and to improve the understanding of practitioners regarding the factors
that can undermine the performance of project managers. The objectives of the
study are:
.
to discover the negative personal attributes that make a project manager’s
leadership ineffective and incompetent; and
.
identify the environmental neutralizers affecting the leadership performance of
project managers in large construction projects in Thailand.

Literature review
Recent literature has made attempts to understand the negative personal attributes of
the leader contributing to leadership ineffectiveness. At the lowest level, ineffective
leadership can be regarded as passive or “laissez-faire leadership” where the leader
takes a very passive approach towards leading and does not show interest in fulfilling
his or her responsibilities and duties (Lewin et al., 1939; Bass, 1990; Avolio and Bass,
1995). “Laissez-faire leadership”, in the view of Einarsen et al. (2007), is in clear
violation of organizational interests as it results in poor efficiency and possibly
undermines the motivation, well-being and job satisfaction of subordinates.
At a further level, researchers argue that the leader may become obsessed by power
and personal authority and therefore may resort to narcissism, self-serving and
ECAM self-centered behaviors, wrongful use of power, manipulation, intimidation, coercion
16,3 and one-way communication (see Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Conger, 1989; Howell and
Avolio, 1992; O’Connor et al., 1995; Yukl, 1999). This dimension of the leadership can be
truly regarded as the “dark side of the charisma” (Hogan et al., 1990; Howell and
Avolio, 1992; Padilla et al., 2007) or derailed leadership (Bentz, 1967, 1985, 1987), which
is mostly a result of the absence of positive characteristics and the presence of negative
256 characteristics (Lombardo et al., 1988).
However, at an advanced level, ineffective leadership may also be due to many
negative personal attributes of leaders. Researchers call such attributes negative
attributes or impediments to effective leadership (see Den Hartog et al., 1999), and the
resulting leadership is sometimes termed “toxic” leadership (see Frost, 2004; Padilla
et al., 2007), abusive leadership (Tepper, 2000; Lipman-Blumen, 2005; Harvey et al.,
2007) or destructive leadership (Kellerman, 2004; Schaubroeck et al., 2007; Mumford
et al., 2007). The consequences of laissez-faire leadership, negative leadership, toxic
leadership or destructive leadership can affect followers, organizations, external
stakeholders, and even leaders themselves (House and Howell, 1992; Conger, 1990;
O’Connor et al., 1995; Zaccaro et al., 2004; Kellerman, 2004).
Therefore, followers may suffer from poor psychological health, lack of interest, low
job performance, poor organizational citizenship and low self-confidence, organizations
may suffer from high turnover rates and low productivity, and leaders may suffer from
lack of personal influence, derailment, demotion, and personal psychological suffrage
(see Ashforth, 1994; Padilla et al., 2007; Ashforth, 1997; Tepper, 2000; Harvey et al.,
2007; Lombardo et al., 1988; Bentz, 1967, 1985). Judge et al. (2002) also showed that
individuals with trait negative affectivity (NA) had a lesser chance of emerging as
leaders. Even if they were able to reach leadership positions, they were rated as less
effective leaders. Zaccaro et al. (2004) also noted that destructive personal attributes
contribute to harmful and negative leadership influences.
However, it must be noted that destructive organizational outcomes are not
exclusively due to destructive leaders. Padilla et al. (2007) propose the “toxic triangle”, in
which, in addition to toxic leaders, they note that negative organizational outcomes are
also due to susceptible followers and conducive environments. According to the “toxic
triangle”, the characteristics of destructive leadership include negative charisma,
personalized power, narcissism, negative life themes, and ideology of hate. Susceptible
followers are either conformers – who passively allow bad leaders to assume power
because their unmet needs and immaturity make them vulnerable to such influences – or
colluders – who support destructive leaders as they want to promote themselves in an
enterprise, consistent with their worldview. Finally, favorable environmental factors that
underpin destructive leadership include instability, perceived threat, cultural values, and
absence of checks and balances and institutionalization. This conceptualization of the
“toxic triangle” is fairly similar to what Kerr and Jermier (1978) called the neutralizers of
leadership. Mumford et al. (1993) explained the same focusing more on the interaction of
the leader’s characteristics and the situation. This interaction sometimes promotes
discretionary actions on the part of the leader that harms the well-being of organizational
members and long-term organizational performance (see Mumford et al., 1993).
Therefore, in order to overcome such discretionary actions, organizations must take
appropriate actions to create a working environment that encourages positive behaviors
in organizational members.
Negative personal attributes of leaders Ineffective
Studies have revealed several negative personal traits that lead to ineffectiveness of leadership
leadership. According to McCall and Lombardo (1983), some personal behaviors of
leaders that lead to ineffectiveness and “derailment” in general include both
anti-subordinate behaviors such as intimidating and bullying subordinates, and
anti-organizational behaviors such as laziness, lack of appropriate management skills,
failing to build teams, being unable to think strategically and spending more time 257
occupied with matters other than their work assignments. In a later study, Lombardo
et al. (1988) noted the following characteristics as contributing to the incompetence of
managers:
.
inability to build a cohesive team;
.
over- and under-managing;
.
being overly ambitious;
. not supportive and demanding of subordinates;
.
being overtly emotional;
.
being insensitive, cold, and arrogant;
.
maintaining poor relations with staff; and
.
overriding personality defects.

Researchers of the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness

(GLOBE) project, one of the biggest cross-cultural studies on leadership, found six
attributes that were universally seen as undesirable or impediments to outstanding
leadership (Den Hartog et al., 1999). These attributes include being ruthless, asocial
(self-centered), irritable (malevolent), loner (self-centered), egocentric, non-explicit
(face-saver), non-cooperative (malevolent), and dictatorial (autocratic).
In the view of Shackleton (1995), learning from mistakes and learning to adapt to
higher positions of authority is vital for leaders. Toor and Ogunlana (2008b) note that
competencies such as communication and teamwork, and skills such as flexibility in
decision-making, persistent performance, and a good listening ability, are highly
desirable for project leaders to be successful in cross-cultural construction projects. On
the other hand, a major cause of the failure of leaders is their poor ability to adapt to a
new job, a new environment, and a higher position of authority. According to
Schaubroeck et al. (2007), excessive demands and personal insensitivity of leaders are
seen to interfere with subordinates’ performance and create strain.
Padilla et al. (2007) conceptualized that such personal attributes may comprise the
following factors:
.
charisma;
.
personalized use of power;
.
narcissism;
.
negative life themes; and
.
an ideology of hate.

Others also argue that passive management-by-exception (Bass, 1990), impoverished

management (Blake and Mouton, 1985), supportive-disloyal and tyrannical leadership
ECAM (Einarsen et al., 2007) and derailed leadership (McCall and Lombardo, 1983; Lombardo
16,3 et al., 1988) are the causes that make most leaders ineffective and even destructive for
the organization.

Organizational neutralizers
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines the term “neutralizer” as “a person or
258 thing which neutralizes something” (see www.oed.com), whereas Merriam-Webster’s
dictionary defines the same as “to counteract the activity or effect of: make ineffective”
(see www.merriam-webster.com). Kerr and Jermier (1978) first introduced the concept
of leadership “substitutes” and “neutralizers” in management sciences. According to
their theory, “neutralizers” are the “characteristics which make it effectively impossible
for relationship and/or task-oriented leadership to make a difference” (p. 395). In short,
neutralizers of leadership can be the characteristics of subordinates, the work task, or
the organization.
In their study, Kerr and Jermier (1978) proposed 13 dimensions which they
hypothesized to neutralize the effectiveness of leaders on followers. These dimensions
included:
.
follower’s ability, experience, training, and knowledge;
.
follower’s professional orientation;
.
follower’s indifference to organizational rewards;
.
unambiguous routine, methodologically invariant work tasks;
.
tasks providing feedback concerning accomplishment;
.
intrinsically satisfying tasks;
.
organizational formalization;
.
organizational inflexibility;
.
advisory and staff support;
.
closely knit cohesive work groups;
.
organizational rewards not in the leader’s control;
.
spatial distance between superior and subordinate; and
.
the follower’s need for independence.

Neutralizers of leadership, as Dionne et al. (2002) note, create an “influence vacuum”

and possess such features that make leadership ineffective. Following Kerr and Jermier
(1978), there have been other studies which attempted to study the neutralizers of
leadership. For example, in their study of public sector organizations in Greece,
Bourantas and Papalexandris (1993) assert that leadership quality is not necessarily
the problem in public organizations. However, factors such as bureaucratic controls,
external political influence, and limited positive reward power are the factors that
neutralize the effectiveness of leadership. Results on similar lines were noted by in
other studies (see, for example, Howell et al., 1986; Dionne et al., 2002).

Evidence from construction research

The project manager is arguably the most vital and significant factor in any
construction project (Low and Chuan, 2006). Many argue that effective performance of
the project manager is the single most critical factor affecting success on the Ineffective
construction projects (Hartman, 2000; Powl and Skitmore, 2005). However, similar to leadership
the mainstream research on leadership, works in the construction industry tend to
focus on the factors that lead to the effectiveness of project manager’s leadership.
Obviously, this has resulted in little knowledge about the factors, at personal as well as
environmental level, that hinder the performance of the project manager (Powl and
Skitmore, 2005). However, only few studies have been conducted in the construction 259
industry that examine the factors causing the leaders’ (or “project managers” in the
construction industry) ineffectiveness and incompetence (see Mustapha and Naoum,
1997; Zimmerer and Yasin, 1998; Powl and Skitmore, 2005; Low and Chuan, 2006).
According to Low and Chuan (2006), the top rated factors that can influence a
project manager’s performance include:
.
team relationship;
.
availability of information;
. type of client;
.
time available;
.
salary; and
.
complexity of the project.

Additional factors include the complexity of the project, project size, job satisfaction,
project environment, level of authority, and availability of materials. In their study of
the factors that influence the effectiveness of site managers, Mustapha and Naoum
(1997) found that personal variables and job conditions were significantly correlated
with the managerial effectiveness of site managers. Contrary to the findings of Low
and Chuan (2006), Mustapha and Naoum (1997) did not find any evidence to support
the proposition that project characteristics such as building type, complexity and
project duration have a significant impact on managerial effectiveness.
Powl and Skitmore (2005) noted that staff cuts, high workload, and long working
hours inhibited the ability and motivation of project managers. This could also lead to
withdrawal, resulting in a lack of productive communication as well as creativity and
innovation. In brief, the working environment in the industry hinders project managers
in performing well on construction projects. Zimmerer and Yasin (1998), in their study
of American project managers, discerned the following attributes that were rated as
lowest:
.
desire for power;
.
detail orientation;
.
highly structured behavior; and
.
charismatic personality.

In order to improve performance in projects, it is therefore important that more

attention is given to eliminating or reducing the factors that hamper or neutralize
leadership performance in construction projects. Comprehension of negative personal
attributes and organizational neutralizers can enable organizations to undertake
corrective measures to improve the performance of project managers.
ECAM Method
16,3 In order to investigate the negative personal attributes and organizational neutralizers
that contribute to the ineffectiveness of project leaders, a taxonomy of such factors was
prepared based on a literature review in the relevant domains. In a pilot study,
interviews were conducted with academic and industry experts to improve the
taxonomy prepared from the literature review. The final list included 13 negative
260 personal attributes and 12 organizational factors that neutralize or make leadership
ineffective in large construction projects.
In the next phase, a questionnaire survey was conducted on project managers,
deputy project managers, project engineers, and line mangers working in different
AEC firms involved in the construction of the second Bangkok International Airport.
This approach ensured that all respondents had first-hand experience of working on
large construction projects. Respondents from a range of professional, ethnic, and
cultural backgrounds participated in the questionnaire and interview surveys.
Questions in the questionnaire surveys asked the respondents to rate different personal
attributes and organizational neutralizers of leadership on a five-point Likert-type
scale. The rating scale varied from 1 to 5 (where 1 ¼ “not important at all”, 2 ¼
“somewhat important”, 3 ¼ “important”, 4 ¼ “very important”, and 5 ¼ “extremely
important”).
In addition to the questionnaires, 35 face-to-face interviews were also conducted
with senior managers who had previously participated in the questionnaire survey.
This was done to ensure that all questions were answered and the respondents had a
chance to clarify any doubts with the research team. Interviews were semi-structured
and asked open-ended questions to share interviewees” opinion about the personal
negative attributes of leaders and organizational neutralizers causing ineffectiveness
of leadership in large construction projects.

Sample characteristics
The majority of the respondents were extremely cooperative and helpful in responding
to the questionnaire survey. As a result, 78 questionnaires were received out of 80
questionnaires distributed, yielding a 97.5 percent response rate. The respondents
belonged to five different groups:
(1) group 1 – clients (seven respondents);
(2) group 2 – project management consultants (PMCs; ten respondents);
(3) group 3 – construction supervision consultants (CSCs; 40 respondents);
(4) group 4 – design consultants (DCs; five respondents); and
(5) group 5 – construction contractors (CCs; 16 respondents).

Among the respondents, 14 were project managers, 11 were deputy project managers,
and others were project engineers and line managers (e.g. construction manager,
contracts manager, quality insurance manager, etc.) (see Table I). All respondents were
male, with the majority being civil engineers by training. Over 65 percent of the
respondents had an average working experience of more than six years as a project
manager, while over 35 percent of the respondents had held the position of project
manager for more than ten years in their career. The respondents were of ten different
nationalities, including 48 (61.5 percent) Thai, 12 (15.3 percent) English, five (6.4 Ineffective
percent) Japanese, and four (5.2 percent) American nationals. leadership
Analysis and findings
Reliability and analysis of variance
In order to determine whether the items under the categories “negative personal
attributes” and “organizational neutralizers” were internally consistent, reliability tests 261
were performed and values of Cronbach’s alpha were computed. The items under the
category of “negative personal attributes” generated a Cronbach’s a of 0.819 while
those under the category of “organizational neutralizers” produced a Cronbach’s a of
0.776. Both alpha values are high and show that items under both categories are
internally consistent. As a cross check, all items under both categories (total 25 items)
were combined together, which produced a Cronbach’s a of 0.850, which is even higher
than the values computed from the separate categories. This shows that the items
under each category are consistent and that the scales are internally reliable.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to check the difference in perception
when respondents were divided into various groups based on their firm type (such as
client, consultants, contractors, designers), position in the project organization (such as
project manager, deputy project manager, line manager, etc), past experience as project
manager, and educational background. Results of the ANOVA (listed in Table II) show
that the respondents generally agree in their perception about negative personal
attributes and organizational neutralizers that make the project manager’s leadership
ineffective. Only in four instances does there seem to be a significant difference
(p , 0:05) among the opinions of the respondents. However, the overall results portray
a general agreement.

Rating perception and ranking of negative personal attributes

Table III shows the ratings and rankings of the respondents’ perceptions about
negative personal attributes causing project managers’ leadership of large construction
projects to be ineffective. It is obvious that wrongful use of power, poor communication
ability, lack of experience, lack of capability to control complex situations, and blaming
others for failure were rated as the top five attributes that make project managers’
leadership ineffective. During interviews with some respondents it was noted that
these negative personal attributes make project leaders appear incompetent and less
popular among their colleagues and subordinates. Particularly, excessive use of power
and blaming others for failures cause a lack of trust and confidence among
subordinates, leading to a decline in performance and lack of interest in the job.
Negative attributes also make project managers unable to develop a strong team and

Group Project managers Deputy project managers Project engineers Line managers

Client 1 1 2 3
PMC 1 1 – 8
CSC 7 7 5 21
DC 2 – – 3
CC 3 2 1 10 Table I.
Total 14 11 8 45 Respondents’ positions
 16,3

262

Table II.

(ANOVA)
ECAM

Analysis of variance
Position in Experience as Educational
Firm type organization PM background
Description F Sig. F Sig. F Sig. F Sig.

Negative personal attributes

Sets bad example 2.904 0.027 * 0.440 0.645 0.526 0.756 0.626 0.680
Not self assured 0.687 0.603 0.094 0.910 0.708 0.620 0.982 0.435
Lacks technical expertise 0.692 0.600 0.201 0.819 0.475 0.794 0.945 0.457
Poor communicator 0.149 0.963 2.287 0.109 1.225 0.306 1.082 0.378
Poor motivator 0.785 0.539 0.664 0.518 1.383 0.241 0.612 0.691
Can’t stand up to top management 1.653 0.170 1.089 0.342 1.583 0.176 0.931 0.466
Can’t control complex situations 0.782 0.541 1.384 0.257 1.730 0.139 0.684 0.637
Not experienced 1.446 0.228 0.197 0.822 2.466 0.041 * 0.610 0.692
Uses power wrongly 1.584 0.188 2.809 0.067 2.834 0.022 * 0.846 0.522
Does not consult while making decisions 0.580 0.678 2.192 0.119 1.075 0.382 0.803 0.551
Blames others while facing failures 0.516 0.724 2.299 0.107 0.333 0.891 1.900 0.105
Not a good politician 0.866 0.488 0.906 0.409 1.424 0.226 0.735 0.599
Coming from hierarchical steps and lacks formal education 1.211 0.314 0.149 0.862 1.408 0.232 0.549 0.738
Organizational neutralizers
Lack of resources 0.530 0.714 0.171 0.843 1.043 0.399 1.110 0.363
Lack of upper management support 2.928 0.026 * 0.505 0.605 2.591 0.033 * 1.262 0.290
Inconsistent reward system of organization 1.128 0.350 0.592 0.556 1.594 0.173 1.409 0.231
Lack of planning and control in organization 0.370 0.829 1.870 0.161 0.281 0.922 0.583 0.713
Organizational staff are resistant to change 1.401 0.242 1.253 0.292 0.556 0.733 1.304 0.272
Organizational politics hinders success 0.320 0.863 1.184 0.312 0.543 0.743 1.274 0.285
Diversity of cultures 2.364 0.061 2.857 0.064 0.929 0.468 0.888 0.494
Diversity of languages 0.646 0.632 0.840 0.436 0.457 0.807 1.393 0.237
Organization does not have coordination among several functional departments 0.977 0.425 0.364 0.696 0.770 0.575 1.377 0.243
Organization does not have synergy between performance and strategic goals 0.081 0.988 0.119 0.888 0.997 0.426 0.573 0.720
Organizational staff is incompetent and inexperienced in the relevant field 2.607 0.043 * 1.210 0.304 1.891 0.106 0.605 0.696
Organizational structure, bureaucracy, and hierarchy are barriers to positive
changes 2.268 0.070 0.217 0.805 2.320 0.052 1.687 0.149
Note: *p , 0:05
 Overall
(78a) Client (7) PMC (10) CSC (40) DC (5) CC (16)
Personal factors Mb Rc M R M R M R M R M R

Uses power wrongly 4.74 1 4.29 5 4.40 3 4.30 3 4.60 1 6.31 1

Poor communicator 4.35 2 4.29 4 4.40 2 4.30 2 4.40 3 4.44 2
Not experienced 4.28 3 4.43 3 4.50 1 4.38 1 4.20 6 3.88 8
Cannot control complex situations 4.19 4 4.43 2 4.30 4 4.15 5 3.80 9 4.25 4
Blames others while facing failures 4.17 5 4.00 6 4.10 9 4.25 4 4.40 4 4.00 7
Cannot stand up to top management 4.04 6 4.43 1 4.20 6 3.88 10 3.80 8 4.25 3
Poor motivator 4.01 7 3.57 10 4.20 5 4.05 7 4.00 7 4.00 6
Not self assured 3.99 8 3.57 7 4.10 7 3.95 8 4.20 5 4.13 5
Sets bad example 3.94 9 3.00 12 4.00 10 4.10 6 4.40 2 3.75 9
Does not consult while making decisions 3.83 10 3.57 9 3.80 11 3.95 9 3.80 10 3.69 11
Lacks technical expertise 3.76 11 3.57 8 4.10 8 3.75 12 3.60 12 3.69 10
Coming from hierarchical steps and lacks formal
education 3.63 12 3.43 11 3.70 12 3.83 11 3.60 13 3.19 13
Not a good politician 3.54 13 3.00 13 3.60 13 3.63 13 3.80 11 3.44 12
Notes: aNumber of respondents; bmean; crank
leadership
Ineffective

Negative personal

leaders incompetent and

ineffective
attributes making project
Table III.
263
ECAM unable to form connected relationships with project stakeholders. This situation has a
16,3 direct negative impact on the effectiveness of the project manager’s leadership.
These results are similar to the findings of McCall and Lombardo (1983), who noted
that leaders’ anti-subordinate behavior (such as intimidating and bullying) results in
ineffectiveness and “derailment”. The results in Table III are also in line with several
previous studies which have revealed that leaders who demonstrate attributes such as
264 use of power, poor ability to build a strong team, insensitivity, a cold and arrogant
attitude, poor relations with staff, personalized use of power, narcissism, excessive
demands and personal insensitivity are usually perceived as incompetent by others
(Lombardo et al., 1988; Shackleton, 1995; Schaubroeck et al., 2007; Padilla et al., 2007).
These findings in the mainstream research are also similar to the findings of some
studies in the construction industry where researchers have discerned that team
building, relationships, and communication are the key factors making a project
manager effective in construction projects (see Zimmerer and Yasin, 1998; Fraser, 2000;
Odusami, 2002; Low and Chuan, 2006). Evidently, an absence or lack of these attributes
is associated with ineffectiveness and incompetence.
It is important to note that the ineffectiveness of leadership is not only due to the
presence of negative attributes; it is also due to the absence of positive attributes or
strengths of leadership (Lombardo et al., 1988). Attributes such as lack of experience,
inability to control complex situations, incapacity to stand up to top management and
being a poor motivator are not negative attributes as such; rather, these attributes
reflect the absence of positive professional competencies.
Finally, Table III also reveals that lack of technical expertise, lack of formal
education, and not being a good politician are the lowest ranked factors causing
ineffectiveness of leadership of the project managers. The lower ranking of technical
skills is in line with other studies which support that technical knowledge and
understanding are not largely perceived as being important factors in the competence
and effectiveness of project managers (see Fraser, 2000; El-Sabaa, 2001; Odusami,
2002). However, a lower ranking for formal education is not well supported in the
literature, and most studies argue in favor of formal education (Mustapha and Naoum,
1997; Fraser, 2000; Ogunlana et al., 2002). Lastly, although only a few studies have
emphasized the importance of the political skills of the project leader (see, for example,
Schein, 1977; Pinto, 2000; Sense, 2003), the results in the current study show that being
a poor politician does not make a leader appear incompetent and ineffective.

Rating perception and ranking of organizational neutralizers

Table IV shows the rating perceptions of the respondents about organizational factors
that neutralize or reduce the effect of leadership on large construction projects. The top
factors in this context include lack of resources, lack of planning and control, lack of
synergy between performance and strategic goals, lack of higher management support,
and lack of communication. Hunt et al. (1999) also reported that organizational support
– including adequate time, adequate budgets, adequate resources, and top
management support – can result in a failure of leadership. In their view, leadership
fails in most organizations where the whole organizational structure and system is
redundant to a degree where the project leader finds himself/herself unable to change
the fate of the project single-handedly. Therefore, if organizational support is not
available to the leader, the likelihood of his/her succeeding is small. Other studies also
 Overall
(78a) Client (7) PMC (10) CSC (40) DC (5) CC (16)
Organizational neutralizers Mb Rc M R M R M R M R M R

Lack of resources 4.38 1 4.57 1 4.30 3 4.35 1 4.20 1 4.50 2

Lack of planning and control in organization 4.35 2 4.57 2 4.40 2 4.30 2 4.20 2 4.38 3
Organization does not have synergy between
performance and strategic goals 4.18 3 4.43 3 4.70 1 4.00 4 3.80 6 4.31 4
Lack of higher management support 4.14 4 3.86 6 3.90 8 4.15 3 3.60 7 4.56 1
Lack of organizational communication 4.08 5 4.14 4 4.30 4 3.98 5 3.80 5 4.25 5
Organization does not have coordination among
functional departments 3.92 6 3.86 7 4.00 7 3.93 6 4.00 4 3.88 7
Organizational staff are incompetent and
inexperienced in the relevant field 3.85 7 3.14 11 4.10 5 3.90 7 3.60 8 3.94 6
Organizational politics hinders success 3.82 8 4.00 5 3.90 9 3.78 10 4.00 3 3.75 9
Organizational staff are resistant to change 3.76 9 3.43 9 4.00 6 3.80 8 3.20 10 3.81 8
Inconsistent reward system of organization 3.64 10 3.57 8 3.30 12 3.78 9 3.40 9 3.63 11
Diversity of languages 3.45 11 3.43 10 3.40 11 3.40 11 3.20 11 3.69 10
Diversity of cultures in organization 3.24 12 2.71 12 3.70 10 3.23 12 2.80 12 3.38 12
Notes: aNumber of respondents; bmean; crank

Organizational
leadership
Ineffective

project leaders ineffective

neutralizers making
265

Table IV.
ECAM support that a lack of institutionalization and formalization (explicit plans, goals, and
areas of responsibility), organizational inflexibility (rigid, unbending rules and
16,3 procedures), and characteristics of subordinates (ability, experience, training,
knowledge) can result in ineffectiveness or neutralization of leadership (see Kerr and
Jermier, 1978; Padilla et al., 2007).
These results are also consistent with studies conducted on “success factors” for
266 construction projects. Such studies have frequently emphasized the availability of
resources (Ng and Mo, 1997; Egbu, 1999; Jefferies et al., 2002), adequate project
planning and control (Chua et al., 1999; Phua, 2004), strategic management, top
management support (Yu et al., 2006; Fortune and White, 2006), communication and
coordination among parties (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Nguyen et al., 2004; Phua, 2004), and
competence and experience of the organization’s staff (Nguyen et al., 2004; Belout and
Gauvreau, 2004; Fortune and White, 2006).
It can be seen from Table IV that a diversity of languages and cultures is perceived
as the least significant organizational neutralizer causing ineffectiveness of project
managers’ leadership. Although recent studies in the construction industry have
shown that a diversity of languages and cultures can be a potential challenge in large
construction projects (Wang, 2000), the results of this study show that they do not
impede the effectiveness of project managers’ leadership. This may be because all
those surveyed can speak and understand English.

Practical implications
From the analysis, it is evident that absence of positive attributes as well as presence of
negative attributes on the part of project managers can affect their leadership on
construction projects. This study shows that anti-subordinates behaviors and absence
of certain professional competencies can cause project managers to appear
incompetent and ineffective. The results also illustrate the that leadership
effectiveness of project managers is not solely dependent on their personal
attributes (Low and Chuan, 2006). Sometimes in construction projects, an
ineffectiveness of leadership, leading to poor project performance, is also due to
organizational factors and followers’ attributes. In particular, an unfavorable
organizational working environment can undermine the performance of project
managers (Low and Chuan, 2006). The findings from the current research therefore
carry considerable implications for human resource management and development in
construction organizations. These implications are in the following three dimensions:
(1) the selection and development of project managers and project staff;
(2) personnel performance management; and
(3) improvement in the organizational culture, strategy, and approach towards
project management.
Since large construction projects are highly complex, involve large budgets, and carry
considerable risk, it is important that organizations adopt a careful procedure for the
selection of the project manager and rest of the project team (Padilla et al., 2007;
Schaubroeck et al., 2007). References from previous jobs and organizations should be
taken and validated through established psychometric assessments (such as emotional
and social intelligence, implicit and explicit motives, personality big five, authenticity,
moral and ethical standards, psychological well-being, experiences in close
relationships, attachment style, leadership style, etc). Further help can be gained from Ineffective
the classical leader match concept (Fiedler et al., 1978; Kabanoff, 1981), which has also leadership
been applied in the construction industry to match project managers with projects (see,
for example, Ogunlana et al., 2002; Muller and Turner, 2007).
In terms of human resource development, emphasis should be given to developing
managers’ authenticity, ethical standards, psychological capital and self-esteem (Toor
and Ofori, 2009). In another work, Toor and Ofori (2008b) offer an extensive agenda for 267
developing authentic leaders in construction organizations. They note that authentic
leadership is the antidote for the leadership crisis and ethical meltdowns that the
construction industry faces. Furthermore, assistance should also be taken from
therapeutic procedures to eliminate undesirable behaviors and cultivate more positive
behaviors in project managers. Mumford et al. (1993) noted that such endeavors should
also focus on developing behaviors that engender organizational commitment and
stress the positive use of power for the well-being and service of others. They also
suggested that performance assessment, remuneration, and promotion should be tied
to authority-based norms and organizational norms that emphasize respect for others.
In order to develop effective leadership in project managers, organizations need to
provide a supportive and conducive environment by reducing the organizational
neutralizers and enhancing the factors that contribute positively to effective leadership
development and performance. In this regard, top management should develop and
maintain strong links with the project manager to give full organizational support and
backing. Organizations also need to work continuously on closing the gap between
their goals and their strategies. More focus should be given to effective team building,
resource planning, and tested control mechanisms to achieve better project execution
under the effective leadership of the project manager.

Conclusions
In order to achieve successful outcomes on construction projects, project managers play a
key role as leaders. The effectiveness of their leadership depends largely on their personal
attributes, the readiness of their followers, and various environmental factors (such as the
characteristics of the organization, the characteristics of the project, socio-economic and
cultural variables, etc.). The findings in the current research show that negative personal
attributes (such as wrongful use of power, poor ability to communicate, lack of experience,
lack of ability to control complex circumstances, etc.) as well as organizational
impediments or neutralizers (such as lack of resources, lack of planning and control, lack
of strategic management, lack of top management support, etc.) can be detrimental to the
effectiveness of leadership in construction projects. Therefore, in addition to developing
the positive personal attributes of leadership in project managers, it is also important that
construction organizations pay attention to reducing the factors that negatively affect
their performance and effectiveness. Moreover, evaluation of the performance of project
managers should not only consider their personal attributes but also the organizational
factors that sometime neutralize their leadership.
One word of caution is that the study was conducted in Thailand. It is quite likely that
the perception of negative personal attributes and organizational neutralizers is affected
by local cultural values and other ecological factors (e.g. socio-economic conditions,
maturity and culture of industry, educational system, etc.). Although some
generalizations are plausible, however, the results of this study should be interpreted
ECAM considering the cultural perspective. The results may be different in societies with
16,3 different cultural values and socio-economic structures. For example, developed
countries do not face issues like lack of resources, lack of planning and control, and
incompetence of project staff. On the other hand, such factors are common in
construction projects in developing countries. It should also be noted that the current
study was conducted on a large construction project. Future studies could consider
268 larger sample sizes, more inclusive populations, and different cultural contexts to
examine the factors that contribute to the ineffectiveness of project managers’ leadership.

References
Ashforth, B. (1997), “Petty tyranny in organizations: a preliminary examination of antecedents
and consequences”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 14, pp. 126-40.
Ashforth, B.E. (1994), “Petty tyranny in organizations”, Human Relations, Vol. 47, pp. 755-78.
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1995), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Technical Report, Mind
Garden, Redwood City, CA.
Bass, B.M. (1990), “Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership”, Theory, Research and
Managerial Applications, Vol. 3, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Belout, A. and Gauvreau, C. (2004), “Factors influencing the project success: the impact of human
resource management”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, pp. 1-11.
Bentz, V. (1985), “A view from the top: a thirty year perspective of research devoted to the
discovery, description, and prediction of executive behavior”, Proceedings of the 93rd
Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.
Bentz, V. (1987), “Explorations of scope and scale: the critical determinant of high-level executive
effectiveness”, Technical Report 31, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
Bentz, V.J. (1967), “The Sears experience in the investigation, description, and prediction of
executive behavior”, in Wickert, F.R. and McFarland, D.E. (Eds), Measuring Executive
Effectiveness, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY, pp. 147-206.
Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1985), The Managerial Grid III, Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX.
Bourantas, D. and Papalexandris, N. (1993), “Differences in leadership behavior and influence
between public and private organizations in Greece”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 859-71.
Burke, R.J. (2006), “Why leaders fail. Exploring the dark side”, in Burke, R.J. and Cooper, C.L.
(Eds), Inspiring Leaders, Routledge, London.
Chua, D.K.H., Kog, Y.C. and Loh, P.K. (1999), “Critical success factors for different project
objectives”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 125 No. 3,
pp. 142-50.
Conger, J. (1989), The Charismatic Leader, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Conger, J. (1990), “The dark side of leadership”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 19, pp. 44-55.
Conger, J. and Kanungo, R. (1987), “Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in
organizational settings”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 637-47.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002), “The real success factors on projects”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 20, pp. 185-90.
Den Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J. and Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A. (1999), “Cultural specific
and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of
 charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?”, The Leadership Ineffective
Quarterly, Vol. 10, pp. 219-56.
leadership
Dionne, S.D., Yammarino, F.J., Atwater, L.E. and James, L.R. (2002), “Neutralizing substitutes for
leadership theory: leadership effects and common-source bias”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 454-64.
Egbu, C.O. (1999), “Skills, knowledge and competencies for managing construction
refurbishment works”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 29-43. 269
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M.S. and Skogstad, A. (2007), “Destructive leadership behaviour: a
definition and conceptual model”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 207-16.
El-Sabaa, S. (2001), “The skills and career path of an effective project manager”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Ferris, J.R., Zinko, R., Brouer, R.L., Buckley, M.R. and Harvey, M.G. (2007), “Strategic bullying as
a supplementary, balanced perspective on destructive leadership”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 195-206.
Fiedler, F.E., Chemers, M.M. and Mahar, L. (1978), “Improving leadership effectiveness: the
leader match concept”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 496-505.
Fortune, J. and White, D. (2006), “Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24, pp. 53-65.
Fraser, C. (2000), “The influence of personal characteristics on effectiveness of construction site
managers”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18, pp. 29-36.
Frost, P.J. (2004), “Handling toxic emotions: new challenges for leaders and their organization”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33, pp. 111-27.
Griffin, R.W. and O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. (2004), “An introduction to the dark side”, in Griffin, R.W.
and O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. (Eds), The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 1-19.
Harris, K.J., Kacmar, K.M. and Zivnuska, S. (2007), “An investigation of abusive supervision as a
predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 252-63.
Hartman, F.T. (2000), “The role of trust in project management”, Proceedings of the Project
Management Institute Research Conference, Calgary.
Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W. and Kacmar, C. (2007), “Coping with abusive supervision:
the neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee outcomes”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 264-80.
Hogan, R., Raskin, R. and Fazzini, D. (1990), “The dark side of charisma”, in Clark, K. and Clark,
M. (Eds), Measures of Leadership, Leadership Library of America, West Orange, NJ,
pp. 343-54.
House, R. and Howell, J. (1992), “Personality and charismatic leadership”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 3, pp. 81-108.
Howell, J.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1992), “The ethics of charismatic leadership: submission or
liberation?”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 6, pp. 43-54.
Howell, J.P., Dorfman, P.W. and Kerr, S. (1986), “Moderator variables in leadership research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 82-102.
Hunt, J.G., Boal, K.B. and Dodge, G.E. (1999), “The effects of visionary and crisis-responsive
charisma on followers: an experimental examination of two kinds of charismatic
leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10, pp. 423-48.
ECAM Jefferies, M., Gameson, R. and Rowlinson, S. (2002), “Critical success factors of the BOOT
procurement system: reflections from the Stadium Australia”, Engineering Construction
16,3 and Architectural Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 352-61.
Judge, T., Bono, J., Ilies, R. and Gerhardt, M.W. (2002), “Personality and leadership: a qualitative
and quantitative review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 765-80.
Kabanoff, B. (1981), “A critique of leader match and its implications for leadership research”,
270 Personnel Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 749-64.
Kellerman, B. (2004), Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kerr, S. and Jermier, J.M. (1978), “Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 22, pp. 375-403.
Kets de Vries, M. (2006), “The spirit of despotism: understanding the tyrant within”, Human
Relations, Vol. 59, pp. 195-220.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R.K. (1939), “Patterns of aggressive behaviour in experimentally
created social climates”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 271-301.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005), The Allure of Toxic Leaders, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Lombardo, M.M. and Eichinger, R.W. (2000), The Leadership Machine, Lominger, Minneapolis,
MA.
Lombardo, M.M., Ruderman, M.N. and McCauley, C.D. (1988), “Explanations of success and
derailment in upper-level management positions”, Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 2, pp. 199-216.
Low, S.P. and Chuan, Q.T. (2006), “Environmental factors and work performance of project
managers in the construction industry”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 24, pp. 24-37.
McCall, W. and Lombardo, M. (1983), Off the Track: Why and How Successful Executives Get
Derailed, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
Muller, R. and Turner, J.R. (2007), “Matching the project manager’s leadership style to project
type”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25, pp. 21-32.
Mumford, M., Gessner, T.L., Connelly, M.S., O’Connor, J.A. and Clifton, T.C. (1993), “Leadership
and destructive acts: individual and situational influences”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 115-47.
Mumford, M., Espejo, J., Hunter, S.T., Bedell-Avers, K.E., Eubanks, D.I. and Connelly, S. (2007),
“The sources of leader violence: a comparison of ideological and non-ideological leaders”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 217-23.
Mustapha, F.H. and Naoum, S. (1997), “Factors influencing the effectiveness of construction site
managers”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Ng, L.Y. and Mo, J.K.W. (1997), “Hospital procurement by design and build: a case study in Hong
Kong”, Proceedings of CIB W92 Procurement – A Key to Innovation, Procurement System
Symposium, Manchester, pp. 545-53.
Nguyen, L.D., Ogunlana, S.O. and Lan, D.T. (2004), “A study on project success factors on large
construction projects in Vietnam”, Engineering Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 404-13.
O’Connor, J., Mumford, M., Clifton, T., Gessner, T. and Connelly, M. (1995), “Charismatic leaders
and destructiveness: an historiometric study”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 529-55.
Odusami, K.T. (2002), “Perceptions of construction professionals concerning important skills of Ineffective
effective project leaders”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 61-7.
leadership
Ogunlana, S.O., Siddiqui, Z., Yisa, S. and Olomolaiye, P. (2002), “Factors and procedures used in
matching project managers to construction projects in Bangkok”, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 20, pp. 385-400.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R. and Kaiser, R.B. (2007), “The toxic triangle: destructive leaders, susceptible
followers, and conducive environments”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, 271
pp. 176-94.
Phua, F.T.T. (2004), “Modeling the determinants of multi-firm project success: a grounded
exploration of different participant perspectives”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 22, pp. 451-9.
Pinto, J.K. (2000), “Understanding the role of politics in successful project management”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 85-91.
Popper, M. (2001), “The dark and bright sides of leadership: some theoretical and practical
implications”, in Burns, J.M., Sorenson, G. and Matusak, L. (Eds), Concepts, Challenges,
and Realities of Leadership, Academy of Leadership, College Park, MD.
Powl, A. and Skitmore, M. (2005), “Factors hindering the performance of construction project
managers”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 5, pp. 21-51.
Schaubroeck, J., Walumbwa, F.O., Ganster, D.C. and Kepes, S. (2007), “Destructive leader traits
and the neutralizing influence of an ‘enriched’ job”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 236-51.
Schein, V.E. (1977), “Individual power and political behavior in organizations: an inadequately
explored reality”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 2, pp. 64-72.
Sense, A.J. (2003), “A model of the politics of project leader learning”, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 21, pp. 107-14.
Shackleton, V. (1995), “Leaders who derail”, in Shackleton, V. (Ed.), Business Leadership,
Thomson, London.
Tepper, B. (2000), “Consequences of abusive supervision”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 42, pp. 100-8.
Toor, S.R. and Ofori, G. (2008a), “Leadership vs. management: how they are different, and why!”,
Journal of Leadership and Management in Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 61-71.
Toor, S.R. and Ofori, G. (2008b), “Leadership in the construction industry: agenda for authentic
leadership”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 620-30.
Toor, S.R. and Ofori, G. (2009), “Authenticity and its influence on psychological well-being and
contingent self-esteem of leaders in Singapore construction sector”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 299-313.
Toor, S.R. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2008a), “Leadership skills and competencies for cross-cultural
construction projects”, International Journal of Human Resources Development and
Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 192-215.
Toor, S.R. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2008b), “Critical COMs of success in large-scale construction
projects: evidence from Thailand construction industry”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 420-30.
Wang, Y. (2000), “Coordination issues in Chinese large building projects”, Journal of
Management in Engineering, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 54-61.
ECAM Yu, A.T.W., Shen, Q., Kelly, J. and Hunter, K. (2006), “Investigation of critical success factors in
construction project briefing by way of content analysis”, Journal of Construction
16,3 Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 132 No. 11, pp. 1178-86.
Yukl, G.A. (1999), “An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10, pp. 285-305.
Zaccaro, S.J., Kemp, C. and Bader, P. (2004), “Leader traits and attributes”, in Antonakis, J.,
272 Cianciolo, A.T. and Sternberg, R.J. (Eds), The Nature of Leadership, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 101-24.
Zimmerer, T.W. and Yasin, M.M. (1998), “A leadership profile of American project managers”,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 31-8.

Further reading
Lombardo, M.M. (1983), “I felt it as soon as I walked in”, Issues and Observations, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 7-8.
Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1997), “Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership model:
background, empirical assessment, and suggestions for future research”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 117-25.
Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
CA.

Corresponding author
Shamas-ur-Rehman Toor can be contacted at: shamastoor@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats