Knowledge-Oriented Leadership,Team Cohesion,and Project Success: A Conditional Mechanism

Abstract

We examined the impact of knowledge-oriented leadership on project success via team cohesion and the moderating role of valuing people and project complexity on this relationship. We collected data from 121 project employees in Pakistan in a two-wave field survey at an interval of 15 days. The results showed a positive association between knowledge-oriented leadership and project success, and team cohesion partially mediated this relationship. Valuing people positively moderated the relationship between knowledge-oriented leadership and team cohesion. Project complexity had a negative but insignificant moderating effect on project success. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

knowledge-oriented leadership valuing people team cohesion project complexity project success knowledge-based dynamic capabilities

Introduction

Projects drive strategy into actions required for the social and economic progression of any country. In Pakistan, both public and private sectors collaborate in several infrastructure development projects, such as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and Naya Pakistan Housing program, with immense confidence to accomplish socially valued success. Nevertheless, most risk factors linked with project failures (Farid et al., 2020; Wagner, 2016) can be attributed to the neglect of human elements directly engaged in projects: leadership and team members. Despite having a strategic standing, the human factors have a dearth of inquiry in the realm of projects (Maqbool et al., 2017; Tabassi et al., 2017).

To survive and thrive in economic uncertainty, project managers look for critical factors that determine project success (Gunduz & Almuajebh, 2020). Project management capabilities broadly impact project success (Irfan et al., 2019) in dynamic and competitive business ecosystems. Significantly, human capabilities and knowledge creation figure out success throughout the project's life cycle (Jugdev & Müller, 2005). Therefore, a focus beyond the classic iron triangle of scope, cost, and time (Bronte-Stewart, 2015; Koops et al., 2016) would expand the capabilities and practices that facilitate innovation, competitiveness, and sustainability (Severo et al., 2020).

The fields of management, social, and behavioral sciences have reached a certain level of maturity in leadership research (Geoghegan & Dulewicz, 2008). Leadership style (Cleveland & Cleveland, 2020; Turner & Müller, 2005), manager behavior, and the team itself (Matthews et al., 2018) are the foundations of employee engagement in successful project organizations. Leadership styles such as transformational (Maqbool et al., 2017), shared (Imam & Zaheer, 2021), and ethical (Bhatti et al., 2021) are broadly researched with project success. Leadership capabilities are sought to attain project success (Gehring, 2007; Maqbool et al., 2017), including the capabilities to deal with diversity, complexity, and distinct personalities of team members in dynamic project environments. In this context, knowledge-oriented leadership prompts and reinforces knowledge creation, sharing, and use to shift thinking patterns and collective outcomes (Mabey et al., 2012).

Learning and integrating knowledge management capabilities are central to innovation-based competitive strategies (Amarakoon et al., 2018; Salunke et al., 2019). In project organizations, knowledge sharing helps prevent mistakes and the risk of failure (Ni et al., 2018). Knowledge donation and collection occur when employees demonstrate their attitudes and intention to share knowledge (Tohidinia & Mosakhani, 2010). Empowering leadership, team cohesion, and team climate facilitate knowledge sharing (Kakar, 2018; Xue et al., 2011). Therefore, project managers should prepare for the human aspects of their work to foster collective sensemaking abilities (van der Hoorn & Killen, 2021). Environmental, personal, and leadership factors influence team elements, affecting individual and group outcomes (Carron, 1982). The dynamic capability view of knowledge denotes the potential for better performance (Khaksar et al., 2020; Nazari et al., 2021). However, this relationship could not be assumed without empirical verification in the project context (Zahra et al., 2006). This study considered knowledge-oriented leadership, valuing people, and team cohesion as dynamic capabilities to facilitate project success, given their unique complexities.

Problem Statement and Research Gaps

The recently coined term of knowledge-oriented leadership is at the initial stages of its alignment with project management literature. This leadership style motivates team members to collectively create, share, and apply knowledge to improve project performance (Latif et al., 2021). In the present time of radical and rapid change, organizations require positive work approaches, such as team cohesion, from their employees to support business objectives (Javed et al., 2019). Project managers increasingly look for innovative and engaged employees to stay balanced and competitive in the market (Salunke et al., 2019; Severo et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2018). Leaders should value and acknowledge their team members and create a sense of trust to engage teams and obtain superior results. Growing business opportunities and global competition demand proactive knowledge-management strategies, developing new capabilities, and renewing existing capabilities. Intellectual capital is a critical factor for business startup success (Paoloni et al., 2020). It enables growth opportunities (Sardo & Serrasqueiro, 2018), firm performance (Abualoush et al., 2018; Hussinki et al., 2017), and innovation in projects (Egbu, 2004) that are mainly required for a sustainable competitive edge (Severo et al., 2020).

Researchers track critical factors that contribute to projects’ success or failure (Gunduz & Almuajebh, 2020; Olawumi & Chan, 2019). One vital factor influencing project success is the project managers’ leadership style (Cleveland & Cleveland, 2020; Rehman, 2020). The studies illustrate positive outcomes of knowledge-oriented leadership (Latif et al., 2021) and team cohesion (Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009). Knowledge-oriented leadership can guide knowledge management processes that affect project success; however, it is scarcely investigated concerning project performance (Latif et al., 2021). Further, the mechanisms defining this relationship have not been adequately examined. Team cohesion promotes dynamic capability processes such as absorption, generation, storage, and adaptation of knowledge (Gonzalez & de Melo, 2019). However, team cohesion as a knowledge management mechanism and the relevant boundary conditions influencing project success remain less researched. There is a need to study multidimensional team cohesion (task and social cohesion) with team performance (Marques-Quinteiro et al., 2019). Scholars (Scott-Young & Samson, 2008; Turner et al., 2008) have also proposed empirical studies on comprehensive team-building practices in a project context.

Drawing upon the knowledge-based dynamic capabilities view, we assumed that knowledge-oriented leadership facilitates team cohesion by integrating employee competencies and experience (Callow et al., 2009). Valuing people (Laub, 1999, 2018; McNeff & Irving, 2017) could be another strategy used by project leaders to induce team spirit and cohesion to benefit from employees’ explicit and tacit knowledge resources. Knowledge-oriented leadership and valuing people may interact to build dynamic capabilities (McNeff & Irving, 2017), enabling performance through knowledge sharing and team cohesion (Huang, 2009). These may also develop teamwork quality through enhanced coordination, mutual support, and team effort (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001; Lindsjørn et al., 2016). As a result, each employee becomes a dynamic team member, accelerating team and project success, despite the prevailing and emerging project complexities. Hence, in response to recent calls for research on leadership, team performance, and project success (Latif et al., 2021; McNeff & Irving, 2017; Scott-Young et al., 2019), this study offers theoretical articulation to better understand the antecedents, mechanisms, and boundary conditions of project success. Specifically, the key questions we addressed through hypothesis testing are: (1) What is the nature of the relationships among knowledge-oriented leadership, valuing people, team cohesion, project complexity, and project success? (2) Does team cohesion mediate the relationship between knowledge-oriented leadership and project success? (3) Does valuing people moderate the relationship between knowledge-oriented leadership and team cohesion? and (4) Does project complexity moderate the relationship between team cohesion and project success? The findings have practical relevance to managers and organizations pursuing competing project goals.

Literature Review

This section reviews the literature on five study constructs (i.e., project success, knowledge-oriented leadership, team cohesion, valuing people, and project complexity) and the inter-construct associations constituting the basis of the conceptual model (Figure 1). The mediating role of team cohesion and the moderating effects of valuing people and project complexity are argued in the context of knowledge-oriented leadership and project success using the knowledge-based dynamic capabilities view (Khaksar et al., 2020; Nazari et al., 2021).

Figure 1.

Proposed research model.

Successful projects contribute to socioeconomic and community well-being. The concept of project success, however, lacks consensus on a globally accepted definition. The definitions vary, from the nature and type of projects to who defines them and how different stakeholders view them. It is a multidimensional strategic concept, and “success means different things to different people” (Shenhar et al., 2001, p. 702). Project Management Institute (2017) offered the most popular definition of project success: balancing competing demands, such as project quality, scope, time, and cost, and meeting stakeholders’ concerns and expectations. Lindsjørn et al. (2016) conceptualized project success as team performance (leaders, members, and project owners in terms of quality, schedule, and budget) and team member success (work satisfaction and learning). Project success is also defined as project performance characterized by project schedule, cost, quality, scope, and safety (Hussain et al., 2020). Given their role in socioeconomic progression, we included a variety of projects in this study. Thus, we conceptualized and measured project success as a multidimensional construct: (1) teams’ task-related outcomes such as team task performance, (2) people-related outcomes such as team member success (Lindsjørn et al., 2016), and (3) project-related outcomes called project performance (Hussain et al., 2020).

This research benefits from the perspective of knowledge-based dynamic capabilities, which are interlinked and influence each other (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003). A knowledge-based view of dynamic capabilities describes a firm's ability to explore and exploit new opportunities by reconfiguring and protecting knowledge resources, competencies, assets, and technologies to realize a sustainable competitive advantage (Teece, 1998). It defines how firms adjust their knowledge base by acquiring, generating, and combining knowledge to identify and respond to their environmental dynamics (Khaksar et al., 2020; Zheng et al., 2011). There are three major knowledge-based dynamic capabilities (Zheng et al., 2011): knowledge acquisition, generation, and combination. Denford (2013) identified a set of eight knowledge-based dynamic capabilities, namely, knowledge creation, integrating, reconfiguration, replication, development, assimilation, synthesis, and imitation. Developing and integrating these capabilities facilitate worker productivity (Khaksar et al., 2020) and firm prosperity (Easterby-Smith et al., 2009) in changing market conditions. The leaders can help individuals recognize their capabilities, design a teamwork atmosphere, and guide organizational outcomes.

Leadership and shared vision serve as dynamic capability processes that enable the creation and flow of knowledge to bring innovation and performance in modern, knowledge-intensive societies (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; von Krogh et al., 2012). It befits quite well for projects where team members’ learning behaviors and knowledge creation are linked to project success (Arumugam et al., 2013). Knowledge-oriented leadership and valuing people cultivate a culture of knowledge-based team cohesion based on trust and cooperation, facilitating distant and local group learning to attain group efficiency and innovation (Wong, 2004). Knowledge orientation of transformational leadership and team cohesion are rare and valuable sources of sustainable competitive advantage (Grant, 1996). These need to be examined as forms of knowledge-based dynamic capabilities (Idris & Ali, 2008). Developing such capabilities is expected to reinforce learning as a managerial process and yield high returns at the project level.

The Relationship Between Knowledge- Oriented Leadership and Project Success

Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities predict firms’ innovation processes and performance (Nazari et al., 2021). However, a parsimonious explanation of the relationship between knowledge-oriented leadership and project success is scarce (Latif et al., 2021). Knowledge-oriented leadership combines transactional and transformational leadership styles to focus on knowledge management (Donate & de Pablo, 2015). Leadership creates an awareness of shared interests and a typical mentality that strengthens the teams’ shared vision and cohesion capabilities to promote collective organizational goals (Bass et al., 2003). Through their knowledge management approaches and coaching skills, team leaders induce team members’ psychological engagement at work and foster high-quality teamwork, characterized by positive indicators, including team cohesion (Mariam et al., 2019, 2020). Leadership capability is highly valued for effective organizational outcomes. Leaders help organizations prepare for change through employee commitment, creativity, and innovative engagement at work (Iranzadeh & Bahrami, 2013). Likewise, project success depends on appropriate leadership behavior (Cleveland & Cleveland, 2020). Leaders’ knowledge orientation is a dynamic process capability that supports the creation of unique and strategic knowledge to leverage innovation and performance (Ferraresi et al., 2012). It recognizes, supports, and rewards knowledge-based efforts and employees’ capabilities (Ribière & Sitar, 2003). Knowledge-oriented leadership also discourages negative behaviors that threaten the transfer, sharing, and application of knowledge (Lakshman, 2009) while encouraging team building and project success (Aga et al., 2016; Latif et al., 2021). Based on this, we drew the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Knowledge-oriented leadership is positively associated with project success.

The Relationship Between Knowledge- Oriented Leadership and Team Cohesion

Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities enhance knowledge workers’ productivity (Khaksar et al., 2020). Leadership unites people to accomplish team and organizational outcomes (Filho, 2019; García-Morales et al., 2011; Michalisin et al., 2004). Knowledge orientation is essentially a trait of transformational leadership (Donate & de Pablo, 2015), inspiring followers and increasing team cohesion, understanding and exchanging ideas, providing analytics across teams, and empowering teams to be self-managing (Aga et al., 2016). Team cohesion is the propensity of teams to stick together and pursue their ambitions in unison. It is an affective state of team dynamics characterized and measured in terms of task cohesion, social cohesion, and individual attraction to a group with a passion to remain in it (Carless & De Paola, 2000; Filho, 2019). Knowledge-based cohesion fosters team mental models, coordination, and collective efficacy, influencing team outcomes (Filho, 2019). It reflects a firm's capacity to develop skills and communications required to achieve planned objectives and a team spirit (Edmondson, 1999; Kakar, 2018), facilitating collegiality and a will to help others in the team. Socialization within firms makes it challenging to imitate the complex interactions that involve teamwork (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Marques-Quinteiro et al. (2019) called for research into multidimensional team cohesion (task and social cohesion) to find out how it evolves and affects performance outcomes.

Knowledge-based leadership approaches encourage expanding knowledge-intensive capabilities and innovative outcomes (Naqshbandi & Jasimuddin, 2018). Knowledge sharing contributes to the success of a complex project (Jamil et al., 2019). Knowledge-oriented leadership behavior supports creating, sharing, and utilizing new knowledge to bring a shift in thinking patterns and cumulative outcomes (Mabey et al., 2012). Knowledge-oriented transformational leadership improves cohesion, and subsequently, organizational outcomes (Callow et al., 2009; Shamir et al., 1998). It builds a cohesive team culture where each team member exerts optimal efforts to reach team and project success (Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009). It gives the basis for the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Knowledge-oriented leadership is positively associated with team cohesion.

The Relationship Between Team Cohesion and Project Success

The spirit of organizational actions lies in the coordinated, synchronized, and integrated contributions of all members, who may be organized into subsystems, groups, and structures according to their functional roles (Tesluk et al., 1997). A team includes two or more people interacting socially to perform specific tasks, with distinct roles and responsibilities for achieving interdependent, common goals in an organizational system under a broader context and task environment (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Team building is a superior component of human resource management practices in project organizations (Turner et al., 2008) and a fundamental indicator of project success (Aga et al., 2016). It prompts the teamwork quality required for innovative projects’ success (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001).

Team cohesion refers to the extent to which individuals come and remain together to pursue tasks or socially interdependent goals (Filho, 2019; Pescosolido & Saavedra, 2012). It is a valuable and dynamic capability that powerfully determines effective teamwork (Menges & Kilduff, 2015), competitive growth, and success (Filho, 2019; Michalisin et al., 2004). The cohesion and trust in teams anticipate project success (Imam & Zaheer, 2021). The cohesive team members remain united to achieve common goals, essential for business teams’ performance (Menges & Kilduff, 2015). It is because they can effectively share and exploit the knowledge that they can thus develop in a more absorptive capacity. This knowledge-based cohesion within the team drives innovation performance (Nazari et al., 2021) and project success (Emiliano de Souza et al., 2021). A strong degree of cohesion in teams is more likely to produce better coordination and performance outcomes over time (Marques-Quinteiro et al., 2019). Accordingly, we hypothesized as below:

Hypothesis 3: Team cohesion is positively associated with project success.

The Mediating Role of Team Cohesion

The mediator is a variable that transfers the effect of an antecedent to a criterion variable. Mediation is when a mediator describes the causal link between any two variables (Mathieu & Taylor, 2007). In team development processes, the individual, team, and organizational contexts influence emergent states and outcomes (Mathieu et al., 2008). “Teams are multitasking entities that perform multiple processes simultaneously and continuously to orchestrate goal-directed taskwork” (Marks et al., 2001, p. 1). Teams and their effectiveness are central to the everyday social component of work. Organizational systems, contextual contingencies, and environmental dynamics determine team tasks and situational demands, influencing team effectiveness through emerging team processes (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Menges & Kilduff, 2015). Through related group outcomes, individual-level factors turn to organizational outcomes (Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009). Project management is concerned with teams and their social mechanisms, essential to project outcomes (Hennel & Rosenkranz, 2020). Project and organizational outcomes emerge from teamwork processes that express interdependent activities to pursue team goals (Marks et al., 2001). Team cohesion is imperative to team outcomes (Filho, 2019), superior industry returns (Michalisin et al., 2004), and project success (Din, 2017). Project managers’ personalities (Hassan et al., 2017), leadership styles, teamwork (Yang et al., 2011), and quality of teamwork (Lindsjørn et al., 2016) influence project success.

The literature reveals that leadership is related to team cohesion, which improves performance (Callow et al., 2009) and project success (Imam & Zaheer, 2021) by improving teamwork quality (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). We conceptualized team cohesion as a potential mediator to explain the relationship between knowledge-oriented leadership and project success. Several mechanisms may illustrate this mediation process; knowledge-oriented leadership encourages knowledge sharing (Shariq et al., 2019) and team building (Braun et al., 2013). It defines the tie between collaborative culture and innovative capabilities (Yang et al., 2018). A culture of knowledge sharing encourages cooperative interactions (Ni et al., 2018) and trustworthiness (Kipkosgei et al., 2020) among team members, leading to better team performance (Huang, 2009) and project success (Braun et al., 2013). The interaction and trust may ease individuals’ attractions to the group, task cohesion, and social cohesion (Carless & De Paola, 2000). Cohesive teams achieve project success, as team members agree on performance goals, standards, and shared interests and approaches at work (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008). Therefore, we hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 4: Team cohesion mediates the relationship between knowledge-oriented leadership and project success.

The Moderating Effect of Valuing People

Human capital is the foundation for any successful business strategy. It is a compelling source of competitive advantage (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 2002), since “putting the people first” determines organizational success (Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999). Valuing people is a servant-leadership behavior (Laub, 1999). It refers to how often leaders acknowledge their subordinates by creating a sense of trust, belonging, and appreciation of their knowledge, skills, and expertise (McNeff & Irving, 2017). Leaders work with people and need to value people to benefit from their unparalleled knowledge, expertise, and experiences. Valuing people may strongly impact organizational culture and serve as the foundation for leadership behaviors. Therefore, the need to examine valuing people relating to leadership behaviors and organizational outcomes is realized (McNeff & Irving, 2017).

Healthy organizations value and develop their people (Laub, 2018). Leaders recognize that people have present value as well as future potentiality. People have an innate ability to know whether they are being trusted and valued or not. Effective leaders recognize an individual's value straight away; they trust them without asking them to earn it. Organizations want their employees to engage at work and exhibit proactive behavior, initiative, and responsibility for personal and organizational development (Patrick & Bhat, 2014). In this respect, valuing people may have a powerful, reciprocal effect on the organization's business culture (McNeff & Irving, 2017).

The knowledge-based dynamic capability view supports that the team members who feel valued about their knowledge, competencies, experience, and work contribution would exhibit more team collaboration to share and apply their knowledge at work. Knowledge-oriented leadership is relevant when employees want to see leaders being more active and committed to supporting knowledge and learning activities by valuing their existing knowledge and expertise (DeTienne et al., 2004). In this view, leadership's effect on the team and organizational performance may be contingent on how much leaders value their people. Accordingly, we hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 5: Valuing people positively moderates the relationship between knowledge-oriented leadership and team cohesion such that, at high levels of valuing people, this relationship becomes more robust.

The Moderating Effect of Project Complexity

Projects vary in size, distinctiveness, and complexity, and accordingly, project success may vary (Müller & Turner, 2007). Project complexity refers to the difficulty of establishing the processes required to facilitate coordination, fitting the parts together, and responding to unpredictable interdependencies in conditions changing over a specified time (Hirschman, 2014). It also considers the numbers and heterogeneity of interrelated project elements (Burke & Morley, 2016). Modern-day projects are complex in scope, constituencies, technologies, resources, and so forth (Luo et al., 2017; Mathieu et al., 2008). We conceptualized and measured project complexity in terms of the task, goal, and technological complexity (Luo et al., 2017).

Project complexity of any type diminishes project success (Jamil et al., 2019; Ma & Fu, 2020). Baccarini (1996) maintained that complexity significantly impacts project management methods and practices. Müller et al. (2011) supported that project complexity negatively moderates the relationship between project leaders’ competencies and project success. McComb et al. (2007) also noticed that project complexity moderates the flexibility-performance relationship. It is thus likely that project complexity may reduce the positive effects of certain success factors on project success, in other words, sustainability (Malik et al., 2020) and agile response to change (Nguyen & Mohamed, 2020). Therefore, we theorized that despite knowledge-oriented leadership, valuing people, and team cohesion, project success would decline with the growing project complexities. Accordingly, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 6: Project complexity negatively moderates the relationship between team cohesion and project success such that, at high levels of project complexity, this relationship gets weaker.

Method

Context and Participants

All projects strive to improve the living conditions of the larger population surrounding them. We conducted an online field survey involving project employees from a diverse range of public and private sector organizations from different sectors of the economy (i.e., buildings and highways; communication networks and software; dams, canals, and bridges; education and learning management systems; power systems; healthcare systems; mass transit and airports; manufacturing operations; and water resource management). The participation criteria included the individual employees having worked on a project team in any role in some of the most recently completed knowledge-intensive/infrastructure development projects in Pakistan.

The survey concluded with a simple random sample of 121 project employees (male = 89.3%, female = 10.7%). The majority of participants were younger (25–30 years = 53.7%, 31 years and above = 46.3%), highly educated (minimum master's level = 100%, doctorate = 9%), and rich in experience of working in project-based organizations (1–5 years = 55.4%, 6 years and above = 46.6%) from across Pakistan (Table 1).

Table 1.

Personal Profile of Participants (n = 121)

Characteristics	Percentage	Characteristics	Percentage
Gender Male Female	89.3 10.7	Current job position Top-level managers Middle-level managers First-line managers Supervisor/team leads Executing team members	11.6 28.9 19.8 21.5 18.2
Age 25–30 years 31–35 years 36–40 years 41–45 years 46 years and above	53.7 17.4 13.2 10.7 5.0	Size of project organization Up to 50 employees 51–100 employees 101–500 employees 501–1,000 employees More than 1,000 employees	43.0 11.6 20.6 5.8 19.0
Education Bachelor's/master's (16 years) MS/MPhil (18 years) PhD	46.3 43.8 9.9	Size of the project team Up to 5 members 6–10 members 11–15 members 16–20 members More than 20 members	37.2 26.4 11.6 5.8 19.0
Experience 1–5 years 6–10 years 11–15 years 16–20 years 21 years and above	55.4 14.0 8.3 5.8 16.5	Project location Islamabad Punjab Sindh Balochistan Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Gilgit Baltistan Azad Jammu and Kashmir	37.2 32.2 12.4 2.5 12.4 1.7 1.7

Data Collection Procedure

The primary, quantitative, and self-reported data were collected from 121 experienced project employees (see Table 1). Initially, a random list of 50 potential participants comprising senior and middle-level project employees (engineers, consultants, and contractors) was prepared by obtaining their contact details through the author's personal networking in different projects and the Pakistan Engineering Council—a statutory body regulating the engineering profession in Pakistan. This targeted random sample was approached through email and WhatsApp to fill in the research questionnaires, and respondents were asked to share the survey link with their project colleagues for participation in this research. The data collection was temporarily separated into two waves, in other words, time 1 and time 2 (15 days after time 1) from May 2020 to July 2020, to avoid the likelihood of common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The potential respondents were informed, through a cover letter, about the purpose of the research, eligibility criteria for participation, no intentional physical or psychological harm, the requirement of an email address for two-wave data collection, and the complete confidentiality of their responses. The respondents indicated their informed consent for volunteer participation by responding to the question: “Can you please volunteer for participation in this academic survey in a few minutes? (Yes/No).” Only those who opted for “Yes” were allowed to fill out the questionnaire; those opting for “No” were asked not to participate in the survey.

At time 1, data on demographic characteristics, including an email address needed for contact for the time 2 survey, independent variable (knowledge-oriented leadership), mediating variable (team cohesion), and moderators (valuing people and project complexity) were collected. Participants were instructed to: “Please think of the most recently completed knowledge-intensive/infrastructure development project that you have worked on in Pakistan in any role. Keeping that project in mind, please respond to the given statements using a 5-point scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).” We sent the initial survey link to 50 selected senior and middle-level project employees with the request to forward the survey within their professional networks. A week after the launch of this survey, we asked the respondents through an email to share the survey link within their professional networks to maximize the sample size. The survey was concluded after 15 days with 170 respondents.

At time 2, only the 170 respondents of the time 1 survey (15 days after their response to the time 1 survey) were emailed another questionnaire to collect data on the dependent variable (project success). This time, the participants were instructed to “Please recall the project that you thought about while responding to the Phase 1 survey some 15 days back (that was the most recently completed knowledge-intensive/infrastructure development project that you had worked on in Pakistan). Keeping that same project in mind, please respond to the following statements on a 5-point scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).” A week later, the nonresponsive participants were reminded three times. Fifteen days after initiating the time 2 survey, we concluded the data collection process. The final sample of 121 project employees was achieved (with a response rate of 71%, with the loss of 29% of responses received at time 1).

Measures

We used English-language versions of the following existing reliable measures. Like prior research in Pakistan (Naseer & Raja, 2019), the translation of measures in any local language was not considered. The study involved respondents who are well versed in English, highly educated, and frequently communicate professionally in this language.

Knowledge-Oriented Leadership

Knowledge-oriented leadership was measured at time 1 using six items coded as KOL (composite reliability/CR = 0.93) developed by Donate and de Pablo (2015). The participants rated their observation on how the managers in their projects exhibited given leadership behaviors. For example, “Managers reward employees who share and apply their knowledge.” In the present study, the scale showed excellent internal consistency (CR = 0.91, Cronbach's alpha/α = 0.88).

Valuing People

Valuing people was measured at time 1 using five items coded as VP (α = 0.75) adapted from McLean et al. (2005). The participants rated how leaders and managers in their projects valued individual employees in their teams. One sample item is “In decision-making, my leader emphasizes feelings over logic.” In the present study, the scale showed excellent internal consistency (CR = 0.87, α = 0.82).

Team Cohesion

Team cohesion was measured at time 1 using 10 items (α = 0.92) developed by Carless and De Paola (2000). The scale consists of three dimensions measuring the extent to which cohesion exists among team members. Task cohesion (α = 0.74) consisted of four items coded as TsC (three items were reversed): “Our team is united in trying to reach its goals for performance.” Social cohesion (α = 0.84) consisted of four items coded as SC (three items were reversed): “Our team would like to spend time together outside of work hours.” Individual attraction to group (α = 0.63) comprised two items coded as IAG: “Some of my best friends are in this team.” In this study, the overall scale (CR = 0.70, α = 0.65), as well as its three dimensions, reflected reasonable overall reliability.

Project Complexity

Project complexity was measured at time 1 using 11 items (Luo et al., 2017) along three dimensions (task, goal, and technological complexity). The respondents indicated the extent to which they observed given aspects related to task complexity (three items coded as TKC, α = 0.73; sample item “Diversity of tasks”), goal complexity (four items coded as GC, α = 0.64; sample item “Number of stakeholder requirements changes”), and technological complexity (four items coded as TGC, α = 0.65; sample item “Risk of using highly difficult technology”). In this study, the overall scale (CR = 0.94, α = 0.90) and each dimension returned a very good reliability level.

Project Success

Project success as evaluated at time 2 using 28 items along three dimensions: team members’ success, team task performance, and project performance. The scale for team members’ success (Lindsjørn et al., 2016) consists of eight items along two subdimensions: work satisfaction and learning. The work satisfaction measure comprises four items coded as WS (α = 0.84; sample item “The team members will like to do this type of collaborative work again”). The learning measure includes four items coded as LR (α = 0.83; sample item “Teamwork promotes one professionally”). The scale used to measure team task performance (Lindsjørn et al., 2016) comprises 15 items along two subdimensions: efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency contains five items coded as EFY (α = 0.92; sample item “The company is satisfied with how the teamwork progresses”). Effectiveness encompasses 10 items coded as EFS (α = 0.87; sample item “Going by the results, this teamwork can be regarded as successful”). The scale to measure project performance (Hussain et al., 2020) consisted of five parameters coded as PP (α = 0.912) indicating project performance in terms of schedule, cost, quality, scope, and safety. In the present study, the overall scale (CR = 0.96, α = 0.94) and each dimension showed a sound level of reliability.

Analytical Procedure

We matched the responses received at times 1 and 2 using the email address collected as a unique key for the times 1 and 2 surveys. The participant's response on three items of team cohesion (TsC2R to TsC4R) and three items of social cohesion (SC2R to SC4R) was reversed, being reverse coded items. We followed the deductive approach to test hypotheses using empirical data collected in this study. The descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and inter-construct correlations were computed using SPSS. The measurement and structural models were tested using SmartPLS software.

Results

Measurement Model

This study's measurement model indicated a high level of reliability and convergent validity. Figure 2 shows that all the factor loadings exceeded 0.700, except one item for valuing people (VP1 = 0.601). Table 2 shows that the values of Cronbach's Alpha (>0.700), composite reliability (>0.700), and average variance extracted (AVE) above 0.500 met the minimum thresholds. The composite reliabilities of all constructs were also greater than their respective AVEs. We also examined discriminant validity; the square root of all AVEs should be higher than the correlations between constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 3 shows that square roots of AVEs (as reported in Table 2) are higher than inter-construct correlations, which established discriminant validity. Hence, the measurement model was trusted to be sufficiently reliable and valid to proceed with hypothesis testing in the structural model.

Figure 2.

Measurement model.

Table 2.

Convergent Validity

Construct/Variable	Items	Factor Loadings		AVE	CR	α
Construct/Variable	Items	Minimum	Maximum	AVE	CR	α
Knowledge-oriented leadership	6	0.70	0.84	0.63	0.91	0.88
Valuing people	5	0.60	0.84	0.58	0.87	0.82
Team cohesion				0.54	0.70	0.65
Task cohesion	4	0.71	0.84	0.59	0.85	0.77
Social cohesion	4	0.70	0.82	0.57	0.84	0.74
Individual attraction to group	2	0.89	0.93	0.83	0.91	0.80
Project complexity				0.83	0.94	0.90
Goal complexity	4	0.81	0.88	0.71	0.91	0.87
Technological complexity	4	0.76	0.86	0.68	0.90	0.95
Task complexity	3	0.87	0.90	0.77	0.85	0.85
Project success				0.90	0.96	0.94
Team member's success	8	0.80	0.89	0.74	0.96	0.95
Team task performance	15	0.76	0.90	0.71	0.97	0.97
Project performance	5	0.81	0.90	0.76	0.94	0.92

n = 121, α = Cronbach's alpha, AVE = average variance extracted, CR = composite reliability.

Table 3.

Correlations and Discriminant Validity

	Mean	SD	KOL	VP	TC	PC	PS
1. Knowledge-oriented leadership (KOL)	3.36	0.88	0.794
2. Valuing people (VP)	3.07	0.90	0.593**	0.762
3. Team cohesion (TC)	3.33	0.81	0.474**	0.537**	0.735
4. Project complexity (PC)	3.13	0.76	0.187**	0.063	0.031	0.911
5. Project success (PS)	3.05	1.01	0.462**	0.478**	0.484**	−0.248**	0.948

n = 121, **p < .01, SD = standard deviation, boldface values in the diagonal are √AVE.

Descriptive and Correlational Analyses

Table 3 shows the mean, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients for the study variables. As expected, knowledge-oriented leadership indicated significant positive correlations with team cohesion (β = 0.474, p < .01) and project success (β = 0.462, p < .01). Valuing people reflected a significant positive correlation with team cohesion (β = 0.537, p < .01) and project success (β = 0.478, p < .01). Project complexity revealed an insignificant correlation with team cohesion (β = 0.031, p > .10) and a significant negative correlation with project success (β = −0.248, p < .01). These correlations indicated the potential for predicting theorized relationships without any risk of multicollinearity in this study.

Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing

We used a partial least square (PLS) approach to path analysis. The direct, indirect, and total effects were examined to test the proposed hypotheses, as shown in Table 4. First, we observed the direct and total effects of knowledge-oriented leadership (KOL) on project success (PS) and team cohesion (TC). Secondly, direct and total effects of KOL on TC and of TC on PS were examined. Thirdly, the mediation effect of TC on the relationship of KOL and PS was observed using the four-step procedure of Baron and Kenny (1986).

Table 4.

Path Analysis

Path					Direct Effect (t-value)	Indirect Effect (t-value)	Total Effect (t-value)	Hypothesis	Outcome
KOL	→	PS			0.382** (4.84)	-	0.488** (6.22)	H1	Supported
KOL	→	TC			0.342** (2.54)	-	0.342** (2.54)	H2	Supported
TC	→	PS			0.309** (4.38)	-	0.309** (4.38)	H3	Supported
KOL	→	TC	→	PS	0.382** (4.93)	0.106** (2.48)	0.488** (6.22)	H4	Supported
VP	→	TC			0.354** (2.63)	-	0.354** (2.63)	-	-
PC	→	PS			−0.330** (4.18)	-	−0.330** (4.18)	-	-
Moderating Effect (KOL x VP)→TC					0.130* (1.92)	-	0.130* (1.92)	H5	Supported
Moderating Effect (TC x PC)→PS					0.074 (.899)	-	0.074 (.899)	H6	Rejected

**p < .01, *p < .05, Note: H = hypothesis, KOL = knowledge-oriented leadership, PC = project complexity, PS = project success, TC = team cohesion, VP = valuing people.

Finally, we examined the moderating effects of valuing people (VP) and project complexity (PC) on TC and PS, respectively. The estimated PLS path model (Figure 3) shows that KOL (β = 0.342), VP (β = 0.354), and their interaction term (KOL x VP; β = 0.130) explain a 34.7% variance in TC (R² = 0.347). The complete moderated-mediated-moderated model, after considering the effects of TC (β = 0.309), PC (β = −0.330), and their interaction term (TC x PC; β = 0.074), accounted for a 41% (R² = 0.413) variance in PS.

Figure 3.

Estimated PLS path model.

Hypothesis 1 stated that KOL has a significant positive association with PS. The results of path analysis (see Table 4) show that the direct (β = 0.382, t = 4.84, p < .01) and total effects (β = 0.488, t = 6.22, p < .01) of KOL on PS are positive and significant, supporting this hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2 proposed that KOL has a significant positive association with TC. The specified path analysis (see Table 4) indicates that the effect of KOL on TC (β = 0.342, t = 2.54, p < .01) is positive and significant, supporting this hypothesis.

Hypothesis 3 suggested that TC has a significant positive association with PS. The effect of TC on PS (β = 0.309, t = 4.38, p < .01) turned out to be positive and significant (see Table 4), which supports this hypothesis.

Hypothesis 4 anticipated that TC mediates the relationship between KOL and PS. Keeping in view that acceptance of hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 fulfill the conditions of mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986), the specified path analysis (see Table 4) revealed that KOL has an indirect effect on PS (β = 0.106, t = 2.48, p < .01) through TC. The total effect of KOL on PS (without a mediator; β = 0.488, t = 6.22, p < .01) reduced to a significant direct effect in the presence of the mediator (β = 0.382, t = 4.93, p > .05). This finding pointed toward the presence of partial mediation by TC between KOL and PS. Hence, hypothesis 4 was confirmed.

Hypothesis 5 stated that VP positively moderates the relationship between KOL and TC. Results of path analysis showed that VP itself significantly contributed toward TC (β = 0.354, t = 2.63, t < 0.01) and its moderating effect (KOL x VP) on TC (β = 0.130, t = 1.92, p < .05) was positive and significant, which supported this hypothesis, suggesting that, at higher levels of VP, the relationship between KOL and TC becomes stronger.

Hypothesis 6 stated that PC negatively moderates the relationship between TC and PS. The path analysis indicated that PC itself has a significant negative contribution toward PS (β = −0.330, t = 4.18, p < .01). However, despite the existence of this relationship, the interactive effect of PC (TC x PC) on PS (β = 0.074, t = 0.899, p > .05) was insignificant. Hence, hypothesis 6 could not be supported.

Discussion

Firms accumulate valuable resources to achieve competitive advantage and success; it is also true for project-based organizations. However, just accumulating resources is insufficient to maintain a competitive advantage in complex and dynamic environments. The resources need rapid integration and reconfiguration into dynamic capabilities to match a changing environment (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). Knowledge is a critical strategic resource with a high propensity for contributing to competitive advantage (Grant, 1996). The firms need to develop knowledge-based dynamic capabilities such as knowledge acquisition, integration, and combination capabilities to maximize employee productivity (Khaksar et al., 2020) and drive innovation performance (Nazari et al., 2021). As shared leadership is related to team cohesion, knowledge sharing, and project success, knowledge-oriented leadership would better inspire team cohesion and knowledge sharing by valuing employees for their knowledge, competencies, experience, and contributions at work. Thus, create and encourage a team culture to develop knowledge-based dynamic capabilities, yielding higher levels of project success, even in complex projects.

This study examined the mechanism of team cohesion and the conditions of valuing people and project complexity, explaining how knowledge-oriented leadership contributes to predicting project success. As hypothesized, the PLS path model predicted a significant positive association between knowledge-oriented leadership and project success through team cohesion. This finding suggests that project leaders should consider knowledge orientation to inspire knowledge-based team cohesion at the task and social levels. This approach would build teams and develop knowledge-based dynamic capabilities for realizing project success in terms of team member success, team task performance, and overall project performance. This finding also answers the call by Turner and Müller (2005) who underlined that the project management literature failed to give sufficient attention to the role of project managers’ leadership styles. Team cohesion indicated a significant positive relationship with project success, supporting that team building positively predicts project success (Aga et al., 2016).

Project-based organizations can outperform their competitors if project team members interact, collaborate, and remain united to develop knowledge-based dynamic capabilities of creating, sharing, and applying new knowledge to meet challenges and solve problems in critical situations (Troth et al., 2012). However, team communications and conflicts can influence project success (Wu et al., 2017). Therefore, to tackle complex projects and critical situations, and create cohesion among team members, leadership plays a fundamental role and directly links with the project's success. In line with this, our results confirm that valuing people is a team-building intervention by the project leadership. Its interactive effect with knowledge-oriented leadership styles positively contributes to project success by developing team cohesion characterized by task cohesion, social cohesion, and individual attraction to the group. This result indicates that if project leaders are knowledge-oriented and value people, they are likely to motivate and inspire cohesion among team members, encouraging them to share and practice their knowledge, expertise, and experience to enable project success.

In line with existing literature, we observed that project complexity negatively contributed to project success. However, contrary to our assumption, its interaction effect with team cohesion on project success was not significant. This finding supports the positive role of knowledge-oriented leadership, valuing people, and their interactions in mitigating project complexity's adverse effects and strengthening the likelihood of project success.

Theoretical Implications

We consider the contribution of the present study to theory in three ways. First, it adds to team development theory by understanding how team cohesion acts as a dynamic capability to explain the relationship between knowledge-oriented leadership style and project success. The present study is the first that explicitly identified and tested team cohesion as a mechanism to explain the relationship between knowledge-oriented leadership and project success.

Second, we also examined valuing people and project complexity as two boundary conditions that may influence the proposed mediation model's effectiveness. The findings confirm that project managers and leaders should also explicitly recognize and encourage employees by appreciating their knowledge, expertise, experience, and contribution, apart from mere knowledge orientation. This sense of value and recognition will further inspire their commitment to project success through enhanced knowledge-based team cohesion.

Third, each team member is required to exhibit positive behaviors, including psychological availability, commitment to the task, knowledge sharing, and work engagement to achieve the set project objectives. The present study examined how the interactive effects of knowledge-oriented leadership and valuing people induce team cohesion: task cohesion, social cohesion, and individual attraction to the group. It advances the team-building role of project leaders by practicing knowledge orientation and valuing people approaches.

Fourth, we found an insignificant interactive effect of project complexity on project success. A possible explanation is that the positive combined effects of knowledge-oriented leadership, valuing people, and team cohesion enable teams to deal with project complexities and effectively facilitate project success. It implies that the application of our model can successfully mitigate the adverse effects of project complexity. However, the generalizability of these findings needs verification through further research in different project contexts.

Practical Implications

One of the primary goals of leadership is to undertake interventions that positively affect team functioning. Leadership styles aimed at team building help improve team performance (Burke et al., 2006; Klein et al., 2009) and realize project success (Aga et al., 2016; Ali et al., 2021). Our findings suggest that, in their team-building efforts, project managers should consider knowledge orientation and valuing people as interventions to induce knowledge-based team cohesion, characterized by task cohesion, social cohesion, and attraction to the group. It will provide team members with an increasing sense of being valued at work. As a result, they will positively contribute their knowledge, expertise, and prior teamwork experience to effectively deal with project complexities and facilitate much-desired project success. It has great potential to enhance teamwork quality (Mariam et al., 2020), ultimately achieving project success to all stakeholders’ satisfaction. We suggest that project-based organizations’ leadership and management development programs should focus on developing knowledge orientation, valuing people, and team cohesion.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The present study has some limitations to be considered during the practical application of its findings. First, we used previously established reliable measures to collect data from diverse project employees, yet those are subjective and self-reported. The objective measures of project success may vary from project to project, depending on its nature and scope. Future researchers in project sector-specific studies may consider this aspect. Second, levels of the specification may influence analysis outcomes (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Our findings support that individual-level concepts (i.e., leadership and valuing people) are linked with group-level concepts (i.e., team cohesion), which may influence project-level concepts (i.e., project complexity and project success). However, we assessed all these concepts (five study variables) using individual-level responses (i.e., project employees). Future research may consider measuring these concepts at their appropriate specification levels (i.e., employee, team, and project). Third, our results are tested for reliability, validity, and model fitness using the PLS path model bootstrapped at 5,000 samples, yet the findings are based on a limited sample size (n = 121). The present research model may be considered for a replication study using a larger sample to authenticate its generalizability and effectiveness. Fourth, we collected data using the time lag approach in two waves, which has its limitations. We recommend future studies based on action research and experimental approaches to examine the prevalence of knowledge orientation, valuing people, team cohesion, and their impact on objectively assessed project success. Fifth, team cohesion indicated partial mediation to predict project success in the present study; we propose exploring other mechanisms explaining the relationship between knowledge-oriented leadership and project success. Likewise, we suggest examining other conditions that may positively or negatively influence team cohesion levels, and thereby, project success. Sixth, we observed an insignificant moderating effect of project complexity on project success. It warrants further research exploring the mechanisms and conditions to better understand how to mitigate project complexity's harmful effects on project success.

Conclusion

The present study has demonstrated project leaders’ knowledge orientation, valuing people, and team cohesion in the context of knowledge-based dynamic capabilities required as critical factors for project success. The estimated path model significantly accounted for the proposed mechanism and conditions explaining how these factors contribute to project success. Team cohesion mediated the relationship between knowledge-oriented leadership and project success, while valuing people enhanced this relationship by significantly increasing team cohesion. The study accounted for project complexity as a condition that may reduce these factors’ positive impacts on project success. We observed an insignificant moderating effect of project complexity, implying that team cohesion developed through knowledge-oriented leadership and valuing people can effectively deal with project complexities and ultimately achieve project success. We suggest that project managers focus on knowledge orientation and valuing people to build knowledge-based cohesive teams that would be more collaborative, cooperative, and committed to the tasks to attain project success to all stakeholders’ satisfaction.

Footnotes

Author Biographies

Shahida Mariam is a doctoral scholar in management science at International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan, and holds a master's degree in project management from Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan. Her research interests include knowledge management, intellectual capital management, communication and teamwork, information systems, coaching and career management, organizational behavior, leadership, and social issues in management with particular reference to project-based organizations. She has published in reputed journals and conferences, including the Academy of Management Proceedings. She worked on a mega information management project of “Pakistan Law Site—A Comprehensive Online Law Library” initiated by the Electronic Government Directorate, Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication, Government of Pakistan. Having more than 16 years of experience in information management, teaching, and managing student affairs, Mrs. Mariam is currently working as a librarian at Government Associate College, Rawalpindi Cantonment—a tertiary-level business and commerce education institute of Punjab Higher Education Department, Lahore, Pakistan. She can be contacted at mrsshahidanawaz@gmail.com

Kausar Fiaz Khawaja holds a doctoral degree in management sciences with a specialization in technology management. She is currently serving as an assistant professor and chairperson, Department of Technology Management (Female Campus) at Faculty of Management Sciences, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan. Her research interests focus on e-services, information system adoption, project management, knowledge management, and supply chain management. She has published in both locally and internationally recognized journals and serves as a reviewer for many reputed journals. She can be contacted at kausar.khawaja@iiu.edu.pk

Muhammad Nawaz Qaisar holds a doctoral degree in management science with a specialization in human capital and organization development. He has a strong academic and research affiliation with the National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad, Pakistan being its student for over 13 years in pursuing his MBA, MS, and PhD degrees. His research interests include strategic human resource development, leadership and change management, employee wellness and workplace productivity, knowledge management, and project inspection and evaluation. His work has appeared in prestigious journals. He possesses the diversified operational and investigative experience, currently working as an additional director (investigation) at National Accountability Bureau, Peshawar, Pakistan. In this capacity, he supervises multiple teams investigating white-collar crimes in public sector management, including various mega public projects, which allegedly have been delayed or even failed to achieve set objectives, causing colossal losses to the national exchequer due to corruption and corrupt practices. He can be contacted at itsnawaz@gmail.com

Farooq Ahmad holds a doctoral degree in management science. He is serving as an assistant professor of management and head of commerce and finance department at the University of Okara, Pakistan. His focus is on research in team development, advocacy, social mobilization, social marketing, consumer behavior, quality of service, and green human resource management. He has published in reputed national and international journals. He teaches project management courses, advanced research methodology, business research methods, marketing communication, and consumer behavior at the undergraduate and graduate levels. He loves conducting workshops in Pakistan and abroad on research, communication, advocacy, and social mobilization, and has conducted many previously. Before joining academia, he enriched himself with 18 years of industry experience and contributed to managing significant development sector projects in Pakistan. He has worked with globally renowned organizations like Spectrum, Young & Rubicam, and Population Council. As a trainer, Dr. Farooq has trained many professionals working in media, public sector organizations, the development sector, and academia on social communication, brand communication, project communication, team development, qualitative research, marketing strategy, and resource and social mobilization strategies. Dr. Farooq has presented his research work at international forums arranged by leading universities like Johns Hopkins University, USA, and INED in Paris, France. He can be contacted at faroqahmad@gmail.com

References

Abualoush

Masa’deh

Bataineh

Alrowwad

(2018). The role of knowledge management process and intellectual capital as intermediary variables between knowledge management infrastructure and organization performance. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 13, 279–309. https://doi.org/10.28945/4088

Aga

D. A.

Noorderhaven

Vallejo

(2016). Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating role of team-building. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5), 806–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.012

Ali

Khan

Shah

S. J.

Ullah

(2021). Linking humble leadership and project success: The moderating role of top management support with mediation of team-building. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 14(3), 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-01-2020-0032

Amarakoon

Weerawardena

Verreynne

M. L.

(2018). Learning capabilities, human resource management innovation, and competitive advantage. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(10), 1736–1766. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1209228

Arumugam

Antony

Kumar

(2013). Linking learning and knowledge creation to project success in six sigma projects: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Production Economics, 141(1), 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.09.003

Baccarini

(1996). The concept of project complexity—A review. International Journal of Project Management, 14(4), 201–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00093-3

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bartlett

C. A.

Ghoshal

(2002). Building competitive advantage through people. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(2), 34–41.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

Jung

D. I.

Berson

(2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207

10.

Bhatti

S. H.

Kiyani

S. K.

Dust

S. B.

Zakariya

(2021). The impact of ethical leadership on project success: The mediating role of trust and knowledge sharing. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 14(4), 982–998. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-05-2020-0159

11.

Braun

Peus

Weisweiler

Frey

(2013). Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.11.006

12.

Bronte-Stewart

(2015). Beyond the iron triangle: Evaluating aspects of success and failure using a project status model. Computing & Information Systems, 19(2), 19–36.

13.

Burke

C. M.

Morley

M. J.

(2016). On temporary organizations: A review, synthesis, and research agenda. Human Relations, 69(6), 1235–1258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715610809

14.

Burke

C. S.

Stagl

K. C.

Klein

Goodwin

G. F.

Salas

Halpin

S. M.

(2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 288–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.007

15.

Callow

Smith

M. J.

Hardy

Arthur

C. A.

Hardy

(2009). Measurement of transformational leadership and its relationship with team cohesion and performance level. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(4), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200903204754

16.

Carless

S. A.

De Paola

(2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31(1), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100104

17.

Carron

A. V.

(1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4(2), 123–138.

18.

Chiocchio

Essiembre

(2009). Cohesion and performance: A meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams, and service teams. Small Group Research, 40(4), 382–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409335103

19.

Cleveland

(2020). Leadership competencies for sustained project success. International Journal of Applied Management Theory and Research, 2(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJAMTR.2020010103

20.

Denford

J. S.

(2013). Building knowledge: Developing a knowledge-based dynamic capabilities typology. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271311315150

21.

DeTienne

K. B.

Dyer

Hoopes

Harris

(2004). Toward a model of effective knowledge management and directions for future research: Culture, leadership, and CKOs. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190401000403

22.

Din

A. N. U.

(2017). Impact of emotional intelligence on project success with mediation of team cohesion and moderation of self-efficacy. Capital University of Science and Technology.

23.

Donate

M. J.

de Pablo

J. D. S.

(2015). The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge management practices and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.022

24.

Easterby-Smith

Lyles

M. A.

Peteraf

M. A.

(2009). Dynamic capabilities: Current debates and future directions. British Journal of Management, 20, S1–S8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00609.x

25.

Edmondson

(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

26.

Egbu

C. O.

(2004). Managing knowledge and intellectual capital for improved organizational innovations in the construction industry: An examination of critical success factors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11(5), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980410558494

27.

Eisenbeiss

S. A.

van Knippenberg

Boerner

(2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1438–1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012716

28.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

Martin

J. A.

(2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21: 10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E

29.

Emiliano de Souza

Favoretto

& Carvalho

M . (2021). Knowledge management, absorptive and dynamic capacities and project success: A review and framework. Engineering Management Journal, Online. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2020.1840876

30.

Farid

Kureshi

N. I.

Babar

Mahmood

(2020). Critical risk factors of construction industry of Pakistan for improving project outcome. Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 39(1), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.22581/muet1982.2001.08

31.

Ferraresi

A. A.

Quandt

C. O.

dos Santos

S. A.

Frega

J. R.

(2012). Knowledge management and strategic orientation: Leveraging innovativeness and performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 688–701. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211262754

32.

Filho

(2019). Team dynamics theory: Nomological network among cohesion, team mental models, coordination, and collective efficacy. Sport Sciences for Health, 15(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-018-0519-1

33.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

34.

García-Morales

V. J.

Jiménez-Barrionuevo

M. M.

Mihi-Ramírez

(2011). The influence of strategic dynamic capabilities on organizational outcomes through the organizational learning process. Industry & Innovation, 18(7), 685–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2011.604473

35.

Gehring

D. R.

(2007). Applying traits theory of leadership to project management. Project Management Journal, 38(1), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280703800105

36.

Geoghegan

Dulewicz

(2008). Do project managers’ leadership competencies contribute to project success? Project Management Journal, 39(4), 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20084

37.

Gonzalez

R. V. D.

de Melo

T. M.

(2019). How do autonomy, cohesion and integration of teamwork impact the dynamic capability? Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2019.1636640

38.

Grant

R. M.

(1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.2307/2486994

39.

Gunduz

Almuajebh

(2020). Critical success factors for sustainable construction project management. Sustainability, 12(5), 1990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051990

40.

Hassan

M. M.

Bashir

Abbas

S. M.

(2017). The impact of project managers’ personality on project success in NGOs: The mediating role of transformational leadership. Project Management Journal, 48(2), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800206

41.

Helfat

C. E.

Peteraf

M. A.

(2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997–1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.332

42.

Hennel

Rosenkranz

(2020). Investigating the “socio” in socio-technical development: The case for psychological safety in agile information systems development. Project Management Journal, Online, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820933057

43.

Hirschman

A. O.

(2014). Development projects. Brookings Institution Press.

44.

Hoegl

Gemuenden

H. G.

(2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.435.10635

45.

Huang

C.-C.

(2009). Knowledge sharing and group cohesiveness on performance: An empirical study of technology R&D teams in Taiwan. Technovation, 29(11), 786–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.04.003

46.

Hussain

Xuetong

Hussain

(2020). Impact of skilled and unskilled labor on project performance using structural equation modeling approach. SAGE Open, 10(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020914590

47.

Hussinki

Ritala

Vanhala

Kianto

(2017). Intellectual capital, knowledge management practices and firm performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(4), 904–922. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-11-2016-0116

48.

Idris

Ali

K. A. M.

(2008). The impacts of leadership style and best practices on company performances: Empirical evidence from business firms in Malaysia. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 19(1–2), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360701602130

49.

Imam

Zaheer

M. K.

(2021). Shared leadership and project success: The roles of knowledge sharing, cohesion and trust in the team. International Journal of Project Management. Online, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.02.006

50.

Iranzadeh

Bahrami

(2013). Survey of knowledge management dimensions and creativity (a case study). Human Resource Management Research, 3(2), 55–59. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.hrmr.20130302.01

51.

Irfan

Hassan

(2019). The effect of project management capabilities on project success in Pakistan: An empirical investigation. IEEE Access, 7, 39417–39431. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2906851

52.

Jamil

Ahmad

Mariam

(2019). Knowledge sharing accelerates success of complex projects: An evidence from Pakistan. Global Regional Review, IV(II), 438–447. https://doi.org/10.31703/grr.2019

53.

Javed

Naqvi

S. M. M. R.

Khan

A. K.

Arjoon

Tayyeb

H. H.

(2019). Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: The role of psychological safety. Journal of Management and Organization, 25(1), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.3

54.

Jugdev

Müller

(2005). A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success. Project Management Journal, 36(4), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280503600403

55.

Kakar

A. K.

(2018). How do team cohesion and psychological safety impact knowledge sharing in software development projects? Knowledge and Process Management, 25(4), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1584

56.

Khaksar

S. M. S.

Chu

M.-T.

Rozario

Slade

(2020). Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities and knowledge worker productivity in professional service firms: The moderating role of organisational culture. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Online, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2020.1794992

57.

Kipkosgei

Kang

S.-W.

Choi

S. B.

(2020). A team-level study of the relationship between knowledge sharing and trust in Kenya: Moderating role of collaborative technology. Sustainability, 12(4), 1615. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041615

58.

Klein

DiazGranados

Salas

Burke

C. S.

Lyons

Goodwin

G. F.

(2009). Does team building work? Small Group Research, 40(2), 181–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408328821

59.

Koops

Bosch-Rekveldt

Coman

Hertogh

Bakker

(2016). Identifying perspectives of public project managers on project success: Comparing viewpoints of managers from five countries in north-west Europe. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5), 874–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.03.007

60.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Ilgen

D. R.

(2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x

61.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Klein

K. J.

(2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, 3–90.

62.

Lakshman

(2009). Organizational knowledge leadership: An empirical examination of knowledge management by top executive leaders. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 30(4), 338–364. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730910961676

63.

Latif

K. F.

Afzal

Saqib

Sahibzada

U. F.

Alam

(2021). Direct and configurational paths of knowledge-oriented leadership, entrepreneurial orientation, and knowledge management processes to project success. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(1), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1108/jic-09-2019-0228

64.

Laub

J. A.

(1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the organizational leadership assessment (OLA) model. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(2), 1–115.

65.

Laub

J. A.

(2018). Leveraging the power of servant leadership. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-319-77143-4

66.

Lindsjørn

Sjøberg

D. I. K.

Dingsøyr

Bergersen

G. R.

Dybå

(2016). Teamwork quality and project success in software development: A survey of agile development teams. Journal of Systems and Software, 122, 274–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.09.028

67.

Luo

Xie

Yang

(2017). Investigating the relationship between project complexity and success in complex construction projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 33(2), https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000471

68.

(2020). Exploring the influence of project complexity on the mega construction project success: A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) method. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(9), 2429–2449. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-12-2019-0679

69.

Mabey

Kulich

Lorenzi-Cioldi

(2012). Knowledge leadership in global scientific research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(12), 2450–2467. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.668386

70.

Malik

M. F.

Khan

R. A.

Khan

M. M.

Humayon

A. A.

(2020). Role of sustainability and project complexity in achieving project success. City University Research Journal, 10(1), 1–15.

71.

Maqbool

Sudong

Manzoor

Rashid

(2017). The impact of emotional intelligence, project managers’ competencies, and transformational leadership on project success: An empirical perspective. Project Management Journal, 48(3), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800304

72.

Mariam

Ahmad

Qaisar

M. N.

(2019). Managerial coaching induces psychological engagement of employees: Moderating effect of knowledge management. Global Economics Review, IV(I), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.31703/ger.2019(IV-I).07

73.

Mariam

Zia

M. H.

Qaisar

M. N.

(2020). Fostering teamwork quality through managerial coaching: Mediating role of psychological engagement in project organizations. NUML International Journal of Business & Management, 15(1), 50–67.

74.

Marks

M. A.

Mathieu

J. E.

Zaccaro

S. J.

(2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785

75.

Marques-Quinteiro

Rico

Passos

A. M.

Curral

(2019). There is light and there is darkness: On the temporal dynamics of cohesion, coordination, and performance in business teams. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 847. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00847

76.

Mathieu

J. E.

Maynard

M. T.

Rapp

Gilson

(2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316061

77.

Mathieu

J. E.

Taylor

S. R.

(2007). A framework for testing meso-mediational relationships in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(2), 141–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.436

78.

Matthews

Stanley

Davidson

(2018). Human factors and project challenges influencing employee engagement in a project-based organisation (PBO). International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(4), 873–885. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-04-2017-0043

79.

McComb

S. A.

Green

S. G.

Dale Compton

(2007). Team flexibility's Relationship to staffing and performance in complex projects: An empirical analysis. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24(4), 293–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2007.09.004

80.

McLean

G. N.

Yang

Kuo

M. H. C.

Tolbert

A. S.

Larkin

(2005). Development and initial validation of an instrument measuring managerial coaching skill. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1131

81.

McNeff

M. E.

Irving

J. A.

(2017). Job satisfaction and the priority of valuing people: A case study of servant leadership practice in a network of family-owned companies. SAGE Open, 7(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016686813

82.

Menges

J. I.

Kilduff

(2015). Group emotions: Cutting the gordian knots concerning terms, levels of analysis, and processes. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 845–928. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2015.1033148

83.

Michalisin

M. D.

Karau

S. J.

Tangpong

(2004). Top management team cohesion and superior industry returns: An empirical study of the resource-based view. Group and Organization Management, 29(1), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601103251687

84.

Müller

Geraldi

Turner

(2011). Relationships between leadership and success in different types of project complexities. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2011.2114350

85.

Müller

Turner

(2007). The influence of project managers on project success criteria and project success by type of project. European Management Journal, 25(4), 298–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2007.06.003

86.

Naqshbandi

M. M.

Jasimuddin

S. M.

(2018). Knowledge-oriented leadership and open innovation: Role of knowledge management capability in France-based multinationals. International Business Review, 27(3), 701–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.12.001

87.

Naseer

Raja

(2019). Why does workplace bullying affect victims’ job strain? Perceived organization support and emotional dissonance as resource depletion mechanisms. Current Psychology, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00375-x

88.

Nazari

Rahimipour Anaraki

Taghavi

S. S.

Ghasemi

(2021). The relationship among knowledge-based dynamic process capabilities, innovation processes and innovation performance: An empirical study of knowledge-based high-tech companies in Iran. Kybernetes, 50(5), 1379–1404. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-03-2020-0147

89.

Nguyen

T. S.

Mohamed

(2020). Interactive effects of agile response-to-change and project complexity on project performance. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1910-9_26

90.

Cui

Sang

Wang

Xia

(2018). Knowledge-sharing culture, project-team interaction, and knowledge-sharing performance among project members. Journal of Management in Engineering, 34(2), 04017065. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000590

91.

Nonaka

Takeuchi

(1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.

92.

Olawumi

T. O.

Chan

D. W. M.

(2019). Critical success factors for implementing building information modeling and sustainability practices in construction projects: A Delphi survey. Sustainable Development, 27(4), 587–602. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1925

93.

Paoloni

Coluccia

Fontana

Solimene

(2020). Knowledge management, intellectual capital and entrepreneurship: A structured literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(8), 1797–1818. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-01-2020-0052

94.

Patrick

H. A.

Bhat

V. A.

(2014). Moderating influence of critical psychological states on work engagement and personal outcomes in the telecom sector. SAGE Open, 4(2), https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014538260

95.

Pescosolido

A. T.

Saavedra

(2012). Cohesion and sports teams: A review. Small Group Research, 43(6), 744–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412465020

96.

Pfeffer

Veiga

J. F.

(1999). Putting people first for organizational success. Academy of Management Executive, 13(2), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1999.1899547

97.

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. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

98.

Project Management Institute. (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK^® guide) – Sixth edition. Author.

99.

Rehman

S. U.

(2020). Impact of inclusive leadership on project success. Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 10(2), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.2478/jeppm-2020-0011

100.

Ribière

V. M.

Sitar

A. S.

(2003). Critical role of leadership in nurturing a knowledge-supporting culture. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500004

101.

Salunke

Weerawardena

McColl-Kennedy

J. R.

(2019). The central role of knowledge integration capability in service innovation-based competitive strategy. Industrial Marketing Management, 76, 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.07.004

102.

Sardo

Serrasqueiro

(2018). Intellectual capital, growth opportunities, and financial performance in european firms: Dynamic panel data analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(4), 747–767. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-07-2017-0099

103.

Scott-Young

C. M.

Georgy

Grisinger

(2019). Shared leadership in project teams: An integrative multi-level conceptual model and research agenda. International Journal of Project Management, 37(4), 565–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.02.002

104.

Scott-Young

C. M.

Samson

(2008). Project success and project team management: Evidence from capital projects in the process industries. Journal of Operations Management, 26(6), 749–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.10.006

105.

Severo

E. A.

Sbardelotto

de Guimarães

J. C. F.

de Vasconcelos

C. R. M.

(2020). Project management and innovation practices: Backgrounds of the sustainable competitive advantage in southern Brazil enterprises. Production Planning and Control, 31(15), 1276–1290. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1702734

106.

Shamir

Zakay

Breinin

Popper

(1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.2307/257080

107.

Shariq

S. M.

Mukhtar

Anwar

(2019). Mediating and moderating impact of goal orientation and emotional intelligence on the relationship of knowledge oriented leadership and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(2), 332–350. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-01-2018-0033

108.

Shenhar

A. J.

Dvir

Levy

Maltz

A. C.

(2001). Project success: A multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Planning, 34(6), 699–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00097-8

109.

Tabassi

A. A.

Roufechaei

K. M.

Bakar

A. H. A.

Yusof

(2017). Linking team condition and team performance: A transformational leadership approach. Project Management Journal, 48(2), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800203

110.

Teece

D. J.

(1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets. California Management Review, 40(3), 55–79. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165943

111.

Tesluk

Mathieu

J. E.

Zaccaro

S. J.

Marks

(1997). Task and aggregation issues in the analysis and assessment of team performance. In Brannick

M. T.

Salas

Prince

(Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement (pp. 197–224). Lawrence Erlbaum.

112.

Tohidinia

Mosakhani

(2010). Knowledge sharing behaviour and its predictors. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 110(4), 611–631. https://doi.org/10.1108/0263557101 1039052

113.

Troth

A. C.

Jordan

P. J.

Lawrence

S. A.

Tse

H. H. M.

(2012). A multilevel model of emotional skills, communication performance, and task performance in teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 700–722. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.785

114.

Turner

J. R.

Müller

(2005). The project manager's leadership style as a success factor on projects: A literature review. Project Management Journal, 36(2), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280503600206

115.

Turner

Huemann

Keegan

(2008). Human resource management in the project-oriented organization: Employee well-being and ethical treatment. International Journal of Project Management, 26(5), 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.005

116.

van der Hoorn

Killen

C. P.

(2021). Preparing project managers for the human aspects of project work: Fostering sensemaking abilities. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 14(6), 1314–1334. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-06-2020-0195

117.

von Krogh

Nonaka

Rechsteiner

(2012). Leadership in organizational knowledge creation: A review and framework. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 240–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00978.x

118.

Wagner

D. N.

(2016). Breakin’ the project wave: Understanding and avoiding failure in project management. PM World Journal, 1(1), 1–21.

119.

Wong

S. S.

(2004). Distal and local group learning: Performance trade-offs and tensions. Organization Science, 15(6), 645–656. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0080

120.

Liu

Zhao

Zuo

(2017). Investigating the relationship between communication-conflict interaction and project success among construction project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1466–1482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.08.006

121.

Xue

Bradley

Liang

(2011). Team climate, empowering leadership, and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111119709

122.

Yang

L.-R.

Huang

C.-F.

K.-S.

(2011). The association among project manager's leadership style, teamwork and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 29(3), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.03.006

123.

Yang

Nguyen

V. T.

P. B.

(2018). Knowledge sharing serves as a mediator between collaborative culture and innovation capability: An empirical research. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 33(7), 958–969. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-2017-0245

124.

Zahra

S. A.

Sapienza

H. J.

Davidsson

(2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00616.x

125.

Zheng

Zhang

(2011). Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities and innovation in networked environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 1035–1051. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111179352