Time Flies When You are Having Fun: The Mediating Effects of Project Opportunity Management in the Relationship Between Project Leaders’ Self-Efficacy and Multidimensional Project Success

Abstract

Numerous studies have linked various leadership styles with project success; however, the role of project leaders’ self-efficacy and project opportunity management has been rarely studied. The present study examines the effects of project leaders’ self-efficacy on multidimensional project success through project opportunity management. Drawing on data of 386 project professionals, the hypothesized relationships were tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) via MPlus. Empirical findings support that project opportunity management helps to explain and predict the relationship between project leaders’ self-efficacy and project success. The study extends project management literature by presenting a new model of multidimensional project success.

Keywords

leadership self-efficacy project opportunity management multidimensional project success structural equation modeling (SEM)Mplus

Introduction

Opportunity is interpreted in multiple ways that will improve the performance of projects, exploit favorable situations, explore improved trade-offs, and inspire lateral thinking in framing project strategies (Bagiu et al., 2020; Denney & Powell, 2020; Qazi et al., 2021; Zhong et al., 2019). Opportunity identification is about noticing a possibility to generate new commerce or vividly improving the position of a prevailing business, resulting in organizational success (Eskerod et al., 2018; Qazi et al., 2021). In projects that have evolving nature and are multifaceted and dynamic, the continuous and real-time management of opportunities is fundamental to project success (Hietajärvi et al., 2017). It is rational to assume that the observed associations will be even evident in circumstances where performers directly impact the project outcomes (Bagiu et al., 2020; Denney & Powell, 2020; Krueger & Day, 2010). Hence, gauging leaders’ self-efficacy (rather than leadership styles) would be more effective for project-based organizations that are determined to achieve success (Blomquist et al., 2016; Zaman et al., 2022a). Research on project leadership styles and project success has mellowed significantly over the past few decades (Ul Musawir et al., 2017; Zaman et al., 2022a); however, contradicting conclusions remain on what factors drive project success (Viswanathan et al., 2020; Zaman et al., 2022b).

The primary responsibilities of a leader are to delegate tasks, guide, provide support, give orders, set expectations and priorities, besides overseeing the daily activities of followers. However, this school of thought contradicts the setup of contemporary organizations. The complexity of organizational leadership has amplified because of the ever-changing conventional equilibrium of power, instabilities, and uncertainties (Ul Musawir et al., 2017; Zaman et al., 2021). Project-based economies have rapidly advanced recently especially in the information and communications technology (ICT) industry, which has brought the role of the project leader into the limelight. Prior studies have extensively discussed the project leader’s skills and proficiencies needed to complete the project effectively (Zaman et al., 2019). Moreover, numerous scholars have debated the worth of effective leadership in completing projects successfully (e.g., Müller & Turner, 2010; Ul Musawir et al., 2017; Zaman et al., 2022a). Organizational behavior literature suggests that self-efficacy positively correlates with managerial performance (Almutairi, 2020). Similarly, project management studies have also argued that self-efficacy positively triggers project managers’ performance (Blomquist et al., 2016) but it has been seldom measured (Zaman et al., 2022b).

Recruiting the right kind of self-confident project managers is one of the crucial challenges of modern organizations, despite the availability of a highly skilled and motivated workforce (Ahsan et al., 2013; Zaman et al., 2022b). Moreover, the continuous transformation of work processes and the development of new products and services call for leaders who are risk-takers with an ideal perception of threats and opportunities (Denney & Powell, 2020; Krueger & Day, 2010). Surprisingly, there is rare empirical evidence on how project leaders identify opportunities and threats to navigate projects toward success (Krueger & Day, 2010). Self-efficacy is defined as “belief in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet given situational demands” (Wood & Bandura, 1989, p. 408). Hence, leadership self-efficacy augments perceptions of opportunities and threats using dilemma tasks and gambling choices, resulting in decisions largely dependent on self-confidence in overcoming adversity (Krueger & Day, 2010; Schmitt et al., 2018; Zaman et al., 2022b).

Planning and completion of a valuable change are all that any project is about (Zaman et al., 2022a). This aspiration may involve a creation of tangible assets or an intangible change within the organization. In both cases, the quest for opportunities remains an innate concern. During project execution, the outcomes are highly dependent on uncertainties, hence, opportunities should be pursued at all stages of the project (Bagiu et al., 2020; Denney & Powell, 2020; Zaman et al., 2022b). Uncertainty triggers the pursuit of project opportunities, whereas self-efficacious leadership enables projects to bounce forward in delivering exceptional performance (Zaman et al., 2022a). In the context of project management, the constructs of opportunity management and self-efficacy of leaders have been studied from various angles and their linkage with project success has been theoretically interpreted in prior research (Zaman et al., 2022a). However, there is a lack of systematic (i.e., hypothesized, theory-based, tested, and validated) research on self-efficacy and its relation to opportunity identification and management in projects (Denney & Powell, 2020; Zaman et al., 2022b). To address this critical research gap and to highlight the importance of leadership self-efficacy, this study is the first to examine the effects of project leaders’ self-efficacy on multidimensional project success through project opportunity management.

In the following section, we first present the literature on the three latent constructs explored in this research, including leadership self-efficacy (LSE), project opportunity management (POM), and project success (PS), respectively. Second, we then take advantage of prominent theories (e.g., social cognitive theory, self-efficacy theory, satisficing theory, and regret theory), to elaborate our understanding of leadership self-efficacy and its impact on project success through the mediating role of project opportunity management. Hence, the research questions framed for this empirical research, include: (1) Does leadership self-efficacy affect project opportunity management and project success? And (2), does project opportunity management mediate the relationship between leadership self-efficacy and project success? To address these research questions, we have chosen the information and communications technology (ICT) sector in Pakistan to analyze these potential constructs (LSE, POM, and PS). In recent years, ICT projects have made a remarkable contribution (e.g., exceeding US$1 billion of annual IT exports) to the economic transition (i.e., rebound and growth) in Pakistan by inducing the attention of overseas investors (Imran et al., 2021; Rahman et al., 2021). Hence, Pakistan is emerging as an economic powerhouse in the South Asian region as its ICT industry continues to gain recognition globally (Imran et al., 2021).

Literature Review

Leadership Self-Efficacy

According to psychologist Bandura, who originally introduced the self-efficacy concept, it is defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1982, p. 3). Self-efficacy is the measure of individuals’ belief that they can accomplish the given tasks and successfully achieve the desired outcome (Yasin, 2019; Zaman et al., 2022b). According to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), individuals possess a self-system that enables them to assess and control their motivations, thoughts, feelings, and actions. Self-efficacy is the most central function of the self-system that powerfully influences individuals’ performance and behavior (Paglis, 2010; Zaman et al., 2022b). Self-efficacy affects an individual’s choice of actions and the efforts they commit to their activities. People are usually motivated to complete the tasks they believe they are more competent to succeed in. The relationship between self-efficacy and motivation and how the enhancement of one affects the other one is well studied in a variety of settings, for example, in the education sector (Margolis & McCabe, 2006; Schunk, 1991), athletics and sports (Schunk, 1989; Schunk, 1995; Sarı & Bayazıt, 2017), and health and medical services (Sim & Oh, 2012; Zhang et al., 2015). In general, an individual’s self-efficacy drives the decisions and choices they make at crucial stages of their lives (Zaman et al., 2022b). The literature available on self-efficacy suggests that people with strong self-efficacy beliefs are not only more ambitious in pursuing the given tasks, but they are willing to contribute more toward achieving the goals and they are better at overcoming obstacles (Anderson et al., 2008). Given that self-efficacy reflects the individual’s judgment of their ability, self-report measures are the most common tool to evaluate an individual’s self-efficacy beliefs (Hannah et al., 2012; Zaman et al., 2022b).

Leadership self-efficacy broadly refers to an individual’s judgment in their ability to successfully exert leadership roles (Paglis & Green, 2002; Zaman et al., 2022b). There is no agreement on how leadership self-efficacy should be measured (Paglis, 2010) due to the lack of a universally agreed definition for leadership in the literature (Paglis, 2010). Therefore, to measure leadership self-efficacy, some scholars rely on defining and evaluating the individual’s efficacy beliefs targeted at their leadership behaviors, which may include formulating strategies, setting directions, motivating the team to work hard in achieving the goals (Paglis & Green, 2002; Ng et al., 2008). While self-confidence and self-efficacy are usually discussed under the domain of leadership in literature, these two concepts are entirely different concepts. Self-efficacy is the gauge for measuring one’s belief in their capabilities for doing specific tasks. In contrast, self-confidence is a personality trait that augments an individual’s attitude toward themselves (Tsai et al., 2011). Researchers concluded that self-confidence and self-efficacy are linked to how individuals feel and think about themselves and they tremendously affect their potential to be great leaders (Zaman et al., 2022b).

Building on the self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1986), it is expected that one’s credence in their abilities to participate in leadership can impact their enthusiasm or inclination toward leadership activities, involvement, performance level, and even to enhance leadership skills further. Several studies supported this statement in a broad range of disciplines. For example, Chemers et al.’s (2000) study on reserve officers’ training corps cadets concluded that higher leadership self-efficacy scores received better leadership ratings from others in a leadership training camp. In a similar study, leadership development programs improved nurses’ leadership self-efficacy and collaborative engagements (Costanzo et al., 2019). The positive relationship between leadership effectiveness and self-efficacy, emotional intelligence, and leadership style was also confirmed among police personnel in South Africa (Ramchunder & Martins, 2014). Leadership self-efficacy in direction setting and gaining commitment are reported to be positively correlated with the rating managers received by the subordinates for their attempts in leading change (Paglis & Green, 2002). Through a comprehensive canonical study, Anderson et al. (2008) investigated the relationships between leadership self-efficacy and several domains of leadership effectiveness and introduced a self-efficacy leadership taxonomy.

Project Opportunity Management

Project opportunity management is about succeeding and removing obstacles to reach the target (Zhong et al., 2019). According to A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK^® Guide) – Sixth Edition (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2017), risks in projects are uncertain events with potential effects on achieving project objectives either positively or negatively. Hillson (2003) suggested that managing risks is the salient aspect of managing the measurable uncertainty in projects. While there is an ongoing debate in the literature on the definitions of uncertainty and risk and their relationship, there is a standard agreement that opportunity is the positive consequence of uncertainty (Olsson, 2007). Uncertainty gives birth to the risks attached to the project (Lehtiranta, 2011). Uncertain events or conditions with negative impacts on the project objectives are usually identified as threats (negative risks), and those with positive impacts are known as opportunities. Project values are significantly increased by seizing the opportunities (Abad & Naeni, 2020; Browning, 2014), and successful opportunity management facilitates innovations in complex projects (Hietajärvi et al., 2017). However, traditionally, risk management scholars and public relations actioners pay more attention to identifying and managing threats than opportunities (Hillson, 2002; Lehtiranta, 2011; Ward & Chapman, 2003). Failing to consider opportunities resulted in the lack of practices and tools for successfully managing opportunities (Hietajärvi et al., 2017). Another key reason for the project managers’ unwillingness toward opportunity management is associated with the fact that, typically, threat prevention is more desirable than exploiting opportunities of the same value (Hietajärvi et al., 2017; Loosemore, 2011), which means, generally, that threats are overestimated and opportunities are underestimated (Hietajärvi et al., 2017; Huemann & Martinsuo, 2016).

In the classical view, opportunity management follows the same principles and processes as risk management, through which potential opportunities are systematically recognized, examined, and worked on (Jaafari, 2001; Zhong et al., 2019). Generally, there are five processes in opportunity management (Hillson, 2002; Hietajärvi et al., 2017). The first process is planning opportunity management, and it is to ensure that the objectives of the project are precisely identified, and stakeholders have a clear understanding of the objectives. In addition, the planning process further provides the steps to follow in the subsequent processes. The following process is opportunity identification in which, by using different techniques, opportunities are recognized. Then, all of the listed opportunities are assessed and their potential impacts on the project are analyzed. Next comes the opportunity response planning; the appropriate responses to the identified opportunities are developed in this process. The last process is monitoring the identified opportunities and ensuring the agreed response plan is properly implemented and effective. In comparison with classical risk management, the only difference is the strategies devised for response planning. While the four common strategies to respond to risks are avoid, mitigate, transfer, and accept, the response strategies when talking about opportunity management are exploit, share, enhance, and ignore (Hillson, 2002).

Although opportunities are risks with positive impacts, several scholars argue that the current risk management practices are not sufficient to seize and manage project opportunities (Lehtiranta, 2011; Olsson, 2007; Qazi et al., 2021). Even though numerous techniques exist to identify and evaluate risks—such as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, root cause analysis, probability-impact matrix, and cause and effect diagram (Hillson, 2002)—these tools cannot manage opportunities properly in a project. It has been concluded from the available literature that if there is any conventional method for managing project threats, it needs to be modified to manage opportunities. However, there might be a natural resistance to employ modified methods because project practitioners adopt these methods for managing threats (Hillson, 2002). Furthermore, these techniques can help identify and evaluate single opportunities from time to time. However, in the case of continuous management of opportunity, the contributions of these tools are limited (Hietajärvi et al., 2017).

Several scholars have advised that the idea of uncertainty management is a better way of managing different types of uncertainties that existed in projects, including risks with positive and negative impacts (Jaafari, 2001; Ward & Chapman, 2003; Atkinson et al., 2006). This approach allows a wide range of uncertainty sources to be identified and managed more comprehensively throughout the project’s life cycle. It is strongly advised that opportunity and threat go side by side, and the difference is how the project managers deal with them. To survive and thrive we have to attend to both. A plethora of opportunities is available if the program manager masters skills such as identifying, managing, and transforming risks.

Project Success

Traditionally, project success has been defined as how well predefined project objectives are accomplished (Atkinson, 1999; De Wit, 1988). Projects are different in many ways, and no two projects are alike; therefore, the project’s success may also depend on various factors (Müller & Turner, 2007). Thus, researchers still have not built consensus as to what project success precisely means (Baccarini, 1999; Ika, 2009). However, project success always has a positive impact on the organization’s overall performance managing the project. Therefore, understanding project success is of substantial importance for research and practice (Zwikael & Meredith, 2019). The success of any project is directly linked with how well a project manager can manage the project within the scope and cost baseline (De Wit, 1988; Martens & Carvalho, 2016; Zaman et al., 2021). Subsequently, the research continues to identify various factors that may impact project success (Mir & Pinnington, 2014).

Project success has been addressed in literature in many ways. Initially, it is of the utmost importance to pinpoint the differences between success in project management and project success (Martens et al., 2018). Project success is also about measuring success in meeting the budget goals, schedule goals, and output goals. All of the undesired items were managed perfectly: dispute management, success, and integration of staff were handled excellently, and the project went as per plan, that is, as per benchmark (Ul Musawir et al., 2017). It also depends on the project success criteria, which are the indicators by which the success or failure of a project will be gauged (Viswanathan et al., 2020). Generally, the methodologies used in previous literature are mainly similar to the triple constraint or iron triangle model (Ul Musawir et al., 2017), but project success depends on different factors (Dvir et al., 2003; Ul Musawir et al., 2017). However, the commonly considered criteria for project success are still cost, schedule, and performance (De Wit, 1988; Li et al., 2018). The project’s success is highly dependent on critical scheduling (Gil & Pinto, 2018).

Prior literature has shown that project stakeholder management is also a critical factor for project success (Loosemore, 2011; Zaman et al., 2021). Project success has been characterized as a multidimensional paradigm, signifying that different individuals weigh project success in different ways, and at different periods (Shenhar & Holzmann, 2017). Indeed, each of the various project stakeholders perceives a project due to ethnicity, vested benefits, fears, expectations, interests, and motivations (Gil & Pinto, 2018). According to a study, a continuous search has been done to correctly identify the factors that affect project success positively (Mir & Pinnington, 2014). A multidimensional approach compromises five different independent dimensions (proactiveness, efficiency, project understanding, impact on customers, and impact on business), which ultimately measures project success (Erdem & Ozorhon, 2015). Moreover, reflection on project success can also modify as time advances, circumstances change, and therefore the project is viewed in extended retrospect. Consequently, time horizons also play a role because few stakeholders have short-term concerns (e.g., project manager), whereas others and the project sponsor, have longer term interests (Zwikael & Meredith, 2019).

Research Framework and Hypotheses Development

Leadership Self-Efficacy and Project Success

Leadership self-efficacy is the leader’s self-confidence in their capabilities to successfully commence assigned tasks and actively respond to challenges (Zidane & Olsson, 2017). A relationship between the characteristics of project success and self-efficacy was highlighted (Zaman et al., 2022b; Zidane & Olsson, 2017), where success of the project has been referred to as the measurable fulfillment of project scope, time, and cost. Different researchers have demonstrated that leadership self-efficacy leads to a variety of incentives (Yasin, 2019). However, the multifaceted nature of administrative inputs guide managers to accomplish their tasks differently. Furthermore, the leadership traits of a manager are considered vital to strategically achieve the desired goals within the stated deadlines and projected costs (Yasin, 2019). The concept of self-efficacy is intertwined with an individual's choice to grasp on to the target and bring success for the project (Kang & Yang, 2016). Moreover, as highlighted in the self-efficacy theory, an individual can exhibit the positive behaviors that match with particular situations to achieve project success (Bandura & Locke, 2003). Bandura, in his theory of social learning, acknowledged the expected behavioral orientation and expectations that are selectively applied by individuals in certain situations when appropriate (Bandura, 1986). Likewise, an individual’s self-efficacy expectation (i.e., beliefs and depiction of a person’s positive behavior) is triggered in order to achieve project goals successfully. This implies that if an individual possesses leadership self-efficacy, then their approach toward work will be proactive and due to this, the project will achieve the desired success. The self-efficacious leader can systematically and rigorously monitor project performance, therefore, serving as a catalyst to promote successful projects (Zaman et al., 2022b).

A leader’s self-efficacy can be gauged through the quality of performance during the project they supervise (Zaman et al., 2022b). Comprehending the complexity of the tasks involved in project execution, the project leader generates ideas to exploit opportunities by using a project’s internal and external knowledge (Zaman et al., 2022a). The real essence of self-efficacy is to thoroughly understand what a project requires, finishing it within the time line defined and sticking to the scope of the project, while taking the whole project team along and keeping them on the same page (Lemboye, 2019). Therefore, it is the belief of an individual to demonstrate a certain set of abilities to learn the intricate tasks, processes, and behavior; it cannot be only defined as just the caliber of a leader’s abilities (Bandura, 1982). Bandura concluded that the influence of an individual’s ability would be positive on the project if their self-efficacy has been increased while working on it. If the project leader’s abilities are too high or favorable, then it will help complete the project ahead of the time stipulated and will also be effective in keeping the team motivated (Bandura & Locke, 2003). If any unfavorable situation pops up, the team will deal with it positively and will come up with efficient solutions with the available resources (Blomquist et al., 2016). On the other hand, if the person is underestimating their abilities, then it will have a negative influence on the project, as the individual lacks faith in their abilities; then these would be of absolutely no help in attaining the desired project outcomes (Bandura & Locke, 2003). Hence, there is a significant relationship between the success of the project and leadership self-efficacy. As postulated by the satisficing theory, self-efficacious project leaders seek to satisfy themselves in achieving their desired project goals (e.g., scope, time, and cost). Moreover, as interpreted by regret theory, the efficacious project leaders rarely regret their decisions, while they overcome complex challenges and navigate projects toward success (Bandura, 1982; Ul Musawir et al., 2017; Zaman et al., 2021). Therefore, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Leadership self-efficacy has a significant positive effect on multidimensional project success.

Leadership Self-Efficacy and Project Opportunity Management

To identify and manage opportunity, it is vital to study self-efficacy. Self-efficacy not only talks about being acquainted with skill, since it is not enough to change the individual’s thinking, but also believes in their skills to make a difference (i.e., perceived versus actual efficacy) (Gibbs, 2009). The argument mentioned here implies that self-efficacy is mandatory to managing opportunities (Gibbs, 2009). Self-efficacy allows the managers to be aware of their capabilities required by certain tasks, of which a pivotal one is opportunity recognition (Tumasjan & Braun, 2012). Researchers have suggested that the process of opportunity identification is iterative, autonomous, not linear, complex, and is greatly influenced by self-efficacy. Leadership self-efficacy is prevalent in project-based organizations (Gibbs, 2009; Tumasjan & Braun, 2012). A study found that self-efficacy increases the sensitiveness toward opportunity and decreases sensitiveness toward the threat; it is rational to assume that the observed associations will be even stronger in circumstances where players perceived that ability influences consequences (Mohammed & Billings, 2002). Numerous studies have talked about a connection between self-efficacy and perceived issue understanding, and whether the issue to be controlled is an opportunity or threat (Schmitt et al., 2018). The self-efficacious people focus their concentration on looking for the solution to the issue and cultivate the self-assurance required to take on challenging activities (Kang & Yang, 2016). Contrary to this, inefficacious people are preoccupied with insufficiencies and develop an approach that dwells on undesirable results (Wood & Bandura, 1989). This implies that people with a high level of self-efficacy foresee the positive scenarios that lead toward high performance, whereas those with a low level of self-efficacy tend to be more inclined toward the negative scenarios that demoralize performance (Gibbs, 2009).

Since opportunity and threat classification comprises the measurement of whether success or failure is likely, a rational connection can be established from envisioning incapability toward the growth of a threat and envisioning success to capture the opportunity (Gibbs, 2009). Self-efficacy measures the person’s confidence in their capability to achieve outcomes and involves both actions and thoughts (Kang & Yang, 2016). Furthermore, it is purported to be a paramount factor for any project or a startup business. Bandura (1982) argued that self-efficacy is a vital aspect of the opportunity identification and recognition process. Opportunity identification has been linked to self-efficacy on multiple occasions (Bandura & Locke, 2003; Gibbs, 2009; Tumasjan & Braun, 2012). To recognize opportunities, the leader must proceed through the cognitive ability that facilitates the exploitation of opportunity to the fullest. This implies that through the importance of self-efficacy in the opportunity recognition process—as well as current verdicts of the constructive impact of self-efficacy on opportunity management—it can be estimated that self-efficacy has a positive impact on opportunity recognition insights and actions (Tumasjan & Braun, 2012). To reiterate, there is a universal agreement within literature flaunting self-efficacy as necessary rudiments for opportunity management (Lumpkin & Lichtenstein, 2005). Therefore, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Leadership self-efficacy has a significant positive effect on project opportunity management.

Project Opportunity Management and Project Success

Projects are all unique, but apart from nature, each supports the behaviors that could improve the methods to work, manage the opportunities more effectively, and respond to project risk management challenges (Qazi et al., 2021; Raz et al., 2002). The possibilities of uncertainty are inadequately exploited and it has yet to be explored how it can improve the success rate of projects (Böhle et al., 2016). Within the debate regarding how to manage uncertainties, the insights of the critics lately have emphasized that such predicaments should not always be deemed as negative (Böhle et al., 2016). Rather, the project manager can view them as the permission to lead to paths to discover innovative possibilities hitherto overlooked (Blomquist et al., 2016; Böhle et al., 2016). These potential positive possibilities that are there to improve the chances of success are known as opportunities. To exploit any opportunity to reach success requires a significant level of skills and changes that are just beyond the incremental modification in baselines (Lehtiranta, 2011; Zidane & Olsson, 2017). This concept is associated with the postulation that the plan mapped to execute the project accordingly must be altered in view of determining the project’s success (Zidane & Olsson, 2017).

Opportunities are variations, events, and factors that might bring changes in the project and make it able to finish, with the desired outcomes, ahead of time or at a much lower cost than agreed upon at the initiation of the project (Denney & Powell, 2020). Opportunities are also the variations, events, and factors that can bring about changes that can make the project provide more efficient functionality to lead to the generation of more revenues than expected after the project is delivered (Denney & Powell, 2020; Dupont & Eskerod, 2016). Critics have pondered the link between opportunity management and the success of the project on multiple levels. The literature identifies several factors regarding managing uncertainty that can ultimately affect the success of projects. The factors, such as teamwork, competence, internal communication, and support from management, have been considered to be the most powerful elements in efficiently managing the opportunity occasions (Böhle et al., 2016; Lehtiranta, 2011; Zidane & Olsson, 2017). Moreover, designing a holistic approach to recognize and capture the opportunities could be difficult unless the project manager holds the characteristic of self-efficacy, since seizing and managing opportunities is a mechanistic task (Kang & Yang, 2016). Project opportunity management can enhance the performance of the project, because an efficient mechanism can provide means for accomplishing the goals of a creative project (Qazi et al., 2021). Opportunity management not only enhances the performance of the project, it also empowers the shared opportunity management mechanism by establishing a no-blame environment, eventually increasing the capacity of innovation and dealing with complexities (Olsson, 2007; Qazi et al., 2021). Therefore, the key purpose of opportunity management is to help the program managers achieve key goals in the most efficient method possible. Therefore, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Project opportunity management has a significant positive effect on multidimensional project success.

Mediating Role of Project Opportunity Management

Self-efficacy is important to recognizing and managing opportunity because it impresses that only acquiring skills is not important, but that it is vital to change what an individual thinks and how much they believe in their skills and abilities. That is what actually makes the difference (perceived skill versus self-efficacy) (Krueger & Day, 2010). This suggests that self-efficacy may successfully distinguish between who will be capable of identifying opportunities and who will not. Knowledge of self allows individuals to recognize opportunities that ultimately lead to project success (Chapman et al., 2012; Ward & Chapman, 2003). Self-efficacy then has further dimensions, and many researchers purport that task-specific self-efficacy is a better prognosticator of task success than generalized self-efficacy (Kang & Yang, 2016). The person’s ability to deliver the outstanding outcomes of a project can manage opportunities and achieve project success (Qazi et al., 2021; Zaman et al., 2022a). If the individual has robust inside confidence in their strengths, that indicates a higher level of self-efficacy; then, even with a low budget, the project achieves success. To progress and achieve the skills, self-efficacy is a crucial variable for projects, especially megaprojects (Yasin, 2019; Zaman et al., 2022b).

Leaders may contradict risk-taking since they have their own interpretations for risk and, typically, they tend to classify it into two categories: threats and opportunities (Krueger & Day, 2010). Whenever the situation is controllable, they will call it an opportunity, and if it is not, then it will be referred to as a threat (Huemann & Martinsuo, 2016). Leaders with high self-efficacy always tend to grasp more opportunities than others. Leadership self-efficacy leads to effective opportunity management and that improves the chances of project success (Zaman et al., 2022b). For quite some time now, risk and uncertainty management have been a common interest in huge projects. The researchers consider that uncertainty management and evaluation is mainly an ex post process (Hietajärvi et al., 2017). A leader’s beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the project successfully tend to identify the opportunities in advance and manage them well to achieve the desired results from the project (Gibbs, 2009; Kang & Yang, 2016). Once the opportunities are properly identified and exploited, then the success of the project is certain. Therefore, leaders tend to identify the opportunities beforehand so they can get the maximum benefit (Zaman et al., 2022c). The individuals with high self-efficacy perform better on projects. Thus, it shows that leadership self-efficacy significantly impacts the process of opportunity management in any project and that leads to the success of the project. Therefore, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Project opportunity management positively mediates the relationship between leadership self-efficacy and multidimensional project success.

Methods

Sampling and Procedure

The present study used the quantitative, exploratory, and explanatory approaches to empirically examine the direct effects of leadership self-efficacy on multidimensional project success, also involving the mediating effects of project opportunity management (Ul Musawir et al., 2017). The researcher’s intervention was minimal, as the empirical evidence for hypotheses testing was determined based on the data gathered directly from the study participants. Therefore, the data collection procedure was free of any subjectivity, preconceived notion, or inclination (Khwaja et al., 2019). The study focus included project professionals representing the emerging information and communications technology (ICT) industry in Pakistan. The study used self-reported and self-administered questionnaires to gather data from 403 project professionals in the ICT industry (Zaman et al., 2020a). The initial data (N = 60) were also pilot tested (Khwaja et al., 2019). To fill out the designed questionnaires, the respondents were given one week, the information received was kept highly confidential, and the results were only presented in the statistical data form.

A combination of nonprobabilistic sampling techniques (including snowballing and convenience) was considered useful for data collection (e.g., broad exploration of project professionals in a cost-effective and time-efficient manner), since the ICT firms were quite reluctant to share information due to serious concerns over privacy breach (Khwaja et al., 2019; Zaman et al., 2020b). Importantly, a probabilistic sampling frame in the context of developing countries has been considered infeasible due to inadequate public records, as well as extreme difficulty in accessing information. Hence, numerous studies in project management have argued snowballing and convenience-based sampling techniques as valid for inferential statistics using structural equation modeling (SEM) (Zaman et al., 2022c). The respondents were reached through professional and personal contacts. To sufficiently ensure the impartiality of each individual’s response, all study participants (i.e., representing an interconnected network of project professionals in the ICT industry) were contacted in different time intervals with satisfactory assurance for the participant’s anonymity and confidentiality of responses. These procedural remedies (including the respondent’s lack of knowledge about the study’s conceptual model) avoided the participant’s response bias, and ensured case independence to proceed with SEM (Zaman et al., 2022a). Approximately 450 questionnaires were circulated among the respondents, which resulted in 403 completed responses. However, after careful review of the gathered data, the results were grounded on the analysis of 386 finalized responses. The remaining responses were discarded because they were either not properly filled in or were never received (Khwaja et al., 2019). The confidentiality of the respondent’s personal details was strictly maintained during and after the process of data collection (Zaman et al., 2022c).

Measures

Project opportunity management was measured using a developed scale including 10 items (represented by POM1 to POM10), based on prominent studies on opportunity management and, more specifically, in the context of managing opportunities in temporary (i.e., project-based) organizations (Browning, 2014; Chapman et al., 2012; Eskerod et al., 2018; Hietajärvi et al., 2017; Olsson, 2007). The leadership self-efficacy was measured by using an adapted scale of 11 items (represented by LSE1 to LSE11) based on the works of Burns (2018), Chemers et al. (2001), and Ng et al. (2008). The LSE adapted measures have also been validated recently by Zaman et al. (2022b). Project success was measured by using an adapted scale from seminal research by Ul Musawir et al. (2017), including an overall 11 items that measured each of its three dimensions, involving (1) project management success (PMS) (five items) (represented by PMS1 to PMS5), (2) project ownership success (POS) (three items) (represented by POS1 to POS3), and (3) project investment success (PIS) (three items) (represented by PIS1 to PIS3), respectively (Ul Musawir et al., 2017; Zaman et al., 2022c). The participant’s responses were collected on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 to 5 (representing 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree) (Zaman et al., 2022b). Before proceeding with the collection of study data, all measures (including newly developed and adapted scales) were carefully refined based on constructive feedback shared by senior academics (n = 6) and industry practitioners (n = 4), which adequately ensured the psychometric properties of all scales (Ul Musawir et al., 2017; Zaman et al., 2021).

Data Analysis and Results

Model Estimation Using Structural Equation Modeling

Covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) with Mplus software (Wang & Wang, 2019) was used for the estimation of overall results, including data normality, model fitness, reliability and validity (through measurement model assessment), and hypotheses testing (through structural model assessment with the bootstrapping procedure), respectively (Mueller & Hancock, 2019).

Data Normality

Skewed data impact the Cronbach’s alpha value, therefore the data must be checked before calculating the value of Cronbach’s alpha (Khwaja et al., 2019; Zaman et al., 2021). The data normality table (Table 1) showed that the skewness and kurtosis are either close to zero, except for PMS that shows a small departure from zero. Moreover, if we calculate the z values (the skewness and kurtosis values should be between −1.96 to +1.96), it shows that the data are a little skewed and kurtotic but do not differ significantly from normality (Mueller & Hancock, 2019), which means our data are normally distributed. Additionally, we also checked the validity of data by factor loading analysis (Mueller & Hancock, 2019; Wang & Wang, 2019).

Table 1.

Data Normality (N = 386)

Variables	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	SD	Skewness		Kurtosis
Variables	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	SE	Statistic	SE
POM	1.00	5.00	2.8731	0.73357	−0.088	.124	−0.028	.248
LSE	1.00	5.00	2.3066	0.82503	0.750	.124	0.428	.248
PMS	1.00	5.00	4.0210	0.60864	−0.645	.124	1.263	.248
POS	1.00	5.00	3.4991	0.82152	−0.497	.124	0.306	.248
PIS	1.00	5.00	3.7963	0.54417	−0.726	.124	0.677	.248

Note. POM = project opportunity management; LSE = leadership self-efficacy; PMS = project management success; POS = project opportunity success; PIS = project investment success; SD = standard deviation; SE = standard error.

Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (EFA/CFA)

In the next step of statistical estimations, the factor loading, reliability, and validity of the latent constructs (i.e., POM, LSE, PMS, POS, and PIS) based on the study sample (N = 386) were determined (Mueller & Hancock, 2019). Table 2 illustrates the results of factor loadings, reliability, and validity of the scale items in the measurement model (Wang & Wang, 2019; Zaman, 2020). The prevailing rule of thumb is that the value of Cronbach’s alpha test must be equal to or greater than 0.7 as it indicates the item’s internal consistency (Zaman, 2020). The Cronbach’s alpha (α) and composite reliability (CR) of all latent constructs were above 0.7 (see Figure 2). We also observed that the values of average variance extracted (AVE) for discriminant validity were greater than 0.5, which demonstrated convergent validity and indicating good reliability (Zaman et al., 2021). The CR of instruments ranged from 0.876 to 0.959; the values are higher than the defined threshold value of 0.70 (Zaman, 2020). Once we observed that the criteria had been fulfilled for the reliability and validity of all latent constructs, we carried out further analysis for CB-SEM analysis (Mueller & Hancock, 2019). Furthermore, the Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) criterion values were less than 1, whereas the discriminant validity outcomes (reported in Table 3) empirically confirmed that a multicollinearity issue was nonexistent. Hence, the discriminant validity for all of the latent constructs (i.e., LSE, POM, POM, POS, and PIS) was well established (Mueller & Hancock, 2019; Zaman et al., 2021).

Figure 2.

Measurement model of multidimensional project success.

Table 2.

Factor Loadings, Reliability, and Validity of the Measurement Model (N = 386)

Constructs and Items	Label	ρ	λ
Project Opportunity Management (POM) (AVE = 0.703; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.959; Composite Reliability = 0.962) “In our ICT project…”
we retain agility to respond to sudden developments (either negative or positive).	POM1	0.824	0.816
we allocate significant effort to identify, assess, and manage risks and opportunities.	POM2	0.834	0.881
we remain vigilant against unforeseen risks and emerging opportunities.	POM3	0.832	0.868
we minimize probability of adverse outcomes.	POM4	0.874	0.914
we take initiatives to enhance opportunities.	POM5	0.928	0.831
we aggressively exploit opportunities.	POM6	0.875	0.780
we have a special alertness or sensitivity toward opportunities.	POM7	0.940	0.927
we can usually spot a real opportunity.	POM8	0.897	0.884
we enjoy just thinking about and/or looking for new opportunities.	POM9	0.750	0.762
we consider ourselves to be opportunistic.	POM10	0.683	0.701
Leadership Self-Efficacy (LSE) (AVE = 0.588; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.910; Composite Reliability = 0.911) “In our ICT project, the leadership…”
is able to achieve most of the project goals.	LSE1	0.530	0.616
is always certain to accomplish difficult project-related tasks.	LSE2	0.517	0.616
can achieve outcomes that are important for the project.	LSE3	0.682	0.708
can succeed at most any endeavor relating to the project.	LSE4	0.524	0.556
can successfully overcome many challenges faced by the project.	LSE5	0.841	0.748
can effectively lead on many different project-related tasks.	LSE6	0.889	0.790
can lead most of the project-related tasks very well, as compared to other projects.	LSE7	0.817	0.765
can perform quite well, even when things get tough.	LSE8	0.776	0.810
never gives up on things before completing them.	LSE9	0.560	0.706
feels confident and secure in achieving the project goals.	LSE10	0.716	0.762
diligently handles unexpected issues/problems in the project.	LSE11	0.596	0.537
Project Management Success (PMS) (AVE = 0.603; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.880; Composite Reliability = 0.883) “In our ICT project…”
the budgetary goals have been satisfactorily accomplished.	PMS1	0.626	0.669
the scheduling goals have been satisfactorily accomplished.	PMS2	0.938	0.878
the required outputs have been satisfactorily delivered.	PMS3	0.785	0.789
undesired outcomes have been managed and avoided.	PMS4	0.709	0.758
the project plans have been successfully achieved.	PMS5	0.731	0.772
Project Ownership Success (POS) (AVE = 0.736; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.889; Composite Reliability = 0.893) “In our ICT project…”
the owners achieved their planned target outcomes.	POS1	0.785	0.816
the owners’ intended purpose was successfully followed.	POS2	0.894	0.881
the owners’ intended purpose was successfully met.	POS3	0.866	0.875
Project Investment Success (PIS) (AVE = 0.702; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.874; Composite Reliability = 0.876) “In our ICT project…”
the target outcomes supported the achievement of overall project objectives.	PIS1	0.741	0.788
the investment objectives have been successfully accomplished.	PIS2	0.887	0.844
the expected investment benefits have been successfully accomplished.	PIS3	0.909	0.878
Measurement model fit statistics:
a. Absolute fit indices (χ2 = 874.575, df = 448, P = 0.000, χ2/df = 1.952, SRMR = 0.043, RMSEA = 0.055)b. Incremental fit indices (TLI = 0.957, and CFI = 0.961)

Note. ρ = factor loadings at 0.40 using EFA; λ = standardized factors loadings using CFA;

a = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

Table 3.

Discriminant Validity of Constructs (N = 386)

	MSV	POM	LSE	PMS	POS	PIS
POM	0.377	0.839
LSE	0.377	0.614	0.698
PMS	0.275	0.353	0.382	0.776
POS	0.157	0.232	0.245	0.396	0.858
PIS	0.280	0.511	0.529	0.525	0.244	0.838

SEM Path Modeling Outcomes

In the measurement model, the factor loading of each construct showed an acceptable value with the estimated least value at 0.140 and the highest value at 0.711. Before running the CB-SEM analysis, autocorrelation and multicollinearity issues were already checked, which showed no such issues (Mueller & Hancock, 2019). Figure 3 graphically represents the structural model analysis that examined the relationships among a leader’s self-efficacy, project opportunity management, and project success (Wang & Wang, 2019; Zaman, 2020). The results indicated strongly significant positive associations among these latent constructs. The coefficient of determination (R²) explained the amount of variability in a dependent (i.e., endogenous) variable, explained or caused by its relationship with another (i.e., independent) variable (Zaman, 2020). Here the value R² for variance in PS was 0.746. This value disclosed a strong proportion of variance for PS explained by LSE. It implies that 74.6% variance in project success is explained by the predictor variable that is LSE. The results (β = 0.464, t = 10.286, p < 0.01) indicated a strong positive relationship between leadership self-efficacy and project success, hence supporting the first hypothesis, in other words, leadership self-efficacy has a significant positive effect on multidimensional project success (Mueller & Hancock, 2019; Zaman, 2020). Moreover, the R-square value for the second relationship (i.e., between leader’s self-efficacy and project opportunity management) was estimated as 0.624. It implies that 62.4% variance in project opportunity management is explained by the predictor variable, that is LSE. The second hypothesis stated that leadership self-efficacy has a significantly positive relationship with POM. The values (β = 0.614, t = 9.549, p < 0.01) proved support to H2_, in other words, leadership self-efficacy has a significant positive effect on project opportunity management (Wang & Wang, 2019). Furthermore, a positive relationship between POM and PS has also been confirmed through the CB-SEM estimations (β = 0.243, t = 3.802 p < 0.01) (Mueller & Hancock, 2019; Wang & Wang, 2019; Zaman, 2020).

Figure 3.

Structural model of multidimensional project success (second-order).

In the conceptualized model (shown as Figure 1), H4 represented the mediation hypothesis (i.e., project opportunity management mediates the relationship between leadership self-efficacy and multidimensional project success) that assumed how and in what manner leadership self-efficacy (LSE) impacts project success (PS) through project opportunity management (Mueller & Hancock, 2019; Zaman, 2020). SEM bootstrapping method was used to analyze the direct effect of LSE on PS as well as its indirect influence (i.e., through project opportunity management as a mediator) (Wang & Wang, 2019). The direct influence of leadership self-efficacy on project success was significant. Whereas, after the inclusion of the mediating variable (i.e., project opportunity management) the direct relationship (i.e., effects of leadership self-efficacy on project success) remained statistically significant (β = 0.317, t = 4.501, p < 0.01). This implies that POM partially mediates the relationship between LSE and PS, also statistically confirmed by the value of variance accounted for (VAF = 37%, i.e., less than 80%). The results in Table 4 provided empirical support for the fourth hypothesis acceptance (Mueller & Hancock, 2019; Wang & Wang, 2019). Overall, these results highlight varying degrees of project success (including project management success, project investment success, and project ownership success) being largely driven by project opportunity management and self-efficacy of project leaders in Pakistan’s ICT industry (Zaman et al., 2022b). Interestingly, these results also clearly reflect the higher tendencies of project management success (mean value = 4.0210), project investment management (mean value = 3.7963), and project ownership success (mean value = 3.4991) in Pakistan’s ICT industry, even though a marginal level of project opportunity management (mean value = 2.8731) is realized, apparently due to shortcomings in self-efficacy at the project leadership level (mean value = 2.3066) (Zaman et al., 2022b).

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework of multidimensional project success.

Table 4.

Results of CB-SEM Hypotheses Testing (N = 386)

Hypotheses	Relationships	Path Coefficients	t-Statistics	p-Values	Outcomes
H1	LSE → PS	0.464**	10.286	< 0.01	Accepted
H2	LSE → POM	0.614**	9.549	< 0.01	Accepted
H3	POM → PS	0.243**	3.802	< 0.01	Accepted
H4	LSE → POM → PS	0.317**	4.501	< 0.01	Accepted

Note. LSE = leadership self-efficacy; PS = project success (second-order); POM = project opportunity management; **p < 0.01.

Discussion

Success in projects can be connected confidently and securely with leader’s self-efficacy and project opportunity management (Hietajärvi et al., 2017; Zaman et al., 2022b). These novel findings, presented through a combination of unique relationships (e.g., mediating role of project opportunity management in linking leadership self-efficacy and project success), highlighted that the notion of success in projects can be significantly enhanced through LSE and POM. In the management domain, self-efficacy has been debated as a significant predictor of managerial performance (Kang & Yang, 2016). The present study concluded that self-efficacy is indeed a construct—a prominent one—for predicting the behavior of project leaders and eventually their probability of achieving success in projects. Moreover, the present study also highlighted the usefulness of leader’s self-efficacy in managing project opportunities. This progression of new knowledge on leadership self-efficacy and project opportunity management, as well as their relationship to project success, provides an extension to prior studies that have overlooked these potential constructs (i.e., LSE and POM) as predictors of project success (Chapman et al., 2012; Paglis, 2010; Zaman et al., 2022b). Self-confidence in one’s abilities is critical for project leaders since they have to manage a team by making the right choices and decisions. What can be achieved through various stages of any project is subjected to the level of uncertainty (Denney & Powell, 2020) comprising risks and the pursuit of potential opportunities. The quest for exploiting opportunities to improve project performance requires self-efficacious project leadership that explores new ways of using project resources more efficiently (Johansen et al., 2019; Zhong et al., 2019). Hence, our findings provide empirical support to prior studies that have conceived leadership self-efficacy as a predictor of opportunity management (Denney & Powell, 2020; Kang & Yang, 2016; Schmitt et al., 2018).

Opportunity management in projects requires exploration and realization of all possible ways of advancing project performance, including imaginative and lateral thinking, articulating strategies, exploitation of fortunate situations, elimination of hostile events (or behaviors), and looking for better trade-offs in achieving measurable and/or even nonmeasurable project goals. Therefore, the present study goes beyond the scope of the iron triangle (i.e., scope, cost, and time) and validates project opportunity management as a potential predictor of project success. Moreover, leadership self-efficacy provides vital grounds for the successful pursuit and completion of projects that ultimately reassures prosperity and survival of organizations in the long term (Kang & Yang, 2016; Zaman et al., 2022b). Hence, the findings of this research also validate these theoretical predictions by highlighting the positive impact of leadership self-efficacy on multidimensional project success. These findings complement prior studies that have also concluded that leadership efficacy is fundamental for achieving project success (Lemboye, 2019; Yasin, 2019; Zaman et al., 2022b). Lastly, the findings revealed new evidence that the relationship between leadership self-efficacy and project success is positively mediated by project opportunity management. Interestingly, these findings highlight that a project would remain in limbo unless project managers become opportunity managers, which is largely dependent on their leadership self-efficacy (Zaman et al., 2022b). Hence, project opportunity management bridges project managers’ efforts and capabilities (e.g., leadership efficacy) with preferred project outcomes (i.e., project success). This new evidence on the mediating role of project opportunity management extends to the arguments raised by prior studies that opportunity management leads to surprising results in organizations and in particular projects, while facing perpetual uncertainties embedded with risks and opportunities (Lemboye, 2019; Yasin, 2019; Zaman et al., 2022c).

Theoretical Implications

The primary contributions of this research are multiple. It contributes to theorizing on project opportunity management and leadership self-efficacy to study the impact on project success (Denney & Powell, 2020; Kang & Yang, 2016; Lehtiranta, 2011). First, we theorized the relationship between leadership self-efficacy and project success (Blomquist et al., 2016; Zaman et al., 2022b) in order to explore the positive effect of LSE on PS. Second, we studied the impact of project opportunity management on the relationship between leadership self-efficacy and project success as a potential mediator, which is also a unique theoretical contribution of this research. The present research validates that leadership self-efficacy has a positive impact on project success. Moreover, the conceptualization and testing of the mediating role of project opportunity management established that opportunity management positively mediates the relationship between leadership self-efficacy and project success. Last, the present research has significantly expanded the project management literature by exploring these interesting relationships (i.e., leadership self-efficacy, opportunity management, and multidimensional project success) that were previously untested and/or rarely researched (Zaman et al., 2022b). Additionally, the present study has ignited new theoretical directions to comprehend self-efficacy, opportunity management, and multidimensional success in projects, while observing beyond the ICT project’s perspective in Pakistan. Based on theoretical and empirical evidence, the present study has responded to some of the most critical (and unanswered) questions in project management, including: (1) Does leadership self-efficacy impact project opportunity management and project success? (2) Does project opportunity management mediate the relationship between leadership self-efficacy and project success?

Practical Implications

The present study’s structural model provides a practical guide to opportunity management at all decision stages (e.g., scoping choices, planning choices, undertaking risks, and potential benefits arising out of uncertain events) and levels of project management (e.g., project leadership and team members), which directly correlates with real-life examples of frequent project failures (e.g., 200% cost overrun in the Denver International Airport megaproject due to overaggressive scoping), as well as project success (e.g., financial/business success of the original World Trade Center (WTC, New York City) (Kendrick, 2015; Shenhar & Holzmann, 2017). Importantly, project leadership self-efficacy is critical in harvesting new and existing opportunities to increase the project’s benefits and impact, while decreasing its cost and time (e.g., the Apollo moon landing program, which enabled the United States to declare victory against the Soviet Union in the space race) (Shenhar & Holzmann, 2017; Zaman et al., 2021). There are, however, more than a few practical implications in this study. This study also provides knowledge to practitioners about how opportunities can be identified during a project by self-efficacious leaders and how it can make the process of opportunity management more efficient and effective (Shenhar & Holzmann, 2017). Project opportunity management should be configured inside the project’s central procedures and be combined with other project management maneuvers (Hietajärvi et al., 2017). The study’s findings also empirically demonstrate that leadership self-efficacy improves the success rate of a project (Lemboye, 2019). Therefore, it is recommended that the managers hired for projects should be self-efficacious so they have enough confidence in themselves to carry out necessary tasks efficiently, as they delegate the tasks to others and motivate them.

A self-efficacious leader is the one who directs teams to exploit opportunities arising out of uncertain events, and fosters team motivation to bring in new ideas and explore possible avenues for project success (Zaman et al., 2022b). Leadership self-efficacy is a trait that allows managers to readjust and implement project activities to exploit new opportunities that enable firms to achieve desired project outcomes (Zaman et al., 2022b). Managers can take this initiative by delegating their power (as much as possible) besides respecting team members’ opinions and encouraging their efforts. In project opportunity management, leadership self-efficacy remains central as it ignites self-confidence and commitment despite being confronted with obstacles in accomplishing project success (Lemboye, 2019; Schmitt et al., 2018; Zaman et al., 2022b). Therefore, the project leaders should realize the repercussions of self-doubt and lack of confidence that can cause harm to the performance and success in projects. While self-efficacy and self-confidence in individuals are affected by several psychological factors, there is no simple solution to improving workplace self-efficacy (Blomquist et al., 2016; Zaman et al., 2022b). Some intervention strategies, including special social trainings, have been advised to enhance self-efficacy in a variety of contexts. For instance, psychosocial training programs on coping strategies to manage imposed changes have shown positive impacts on the self-efficacy of primary school teachers (Cicotto et al., 2014). Additionally, many studies have reported a positive impact of communication skills and interpersonal skills training on the self-efficacy of healthcare professionals (Mata et al., 2021). Learning from these studies, project leaders may encourage social-skills training to improve workplace self-efficacy besides increasing opportunities for project performance and success (Zaman et al., 2019).

Limitations and Future Research

As expected, every type of research has certain limitations, which pave the way for future investigations. The present study is no different. At all times, numerous factors can be incorporated while investigating the same area of research (Zaman et al., 2022c). First, a novel model of multidimensional project success was developed (including leadership self-efficacy and project opportunity management) and empirically tested in the context of the emerging ICT industry in Pakistan (Zaman et al., 2019). The external validity of these findings (i.e., generalizability beyond the unique cultural context of Pakistan) may be limited, however, its application to other nations and industries can be redefined and retested, as the conceptual model was not culturally bound, rather framed on theoretical arguments based on cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural studies (Copola et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Zaman et al., 2019). Second, the data collected were cross-sectional; hence, in the future, researchers can use time lag. Third, the sample size was only 386 for this research; it can be increased to solidify and improve the research results. The sample size was relatively small, which may hinder the generalization of results at a broader level. Finally, the data were only collected from project managers working in the ICT industry in Pakistan, however, future studies may consider collecting study data from different countries and/or industries. This empirical study is simply a preliminary argument regarding the potential role of leadership efficacy and project opportunity management in delivering multidimensional project success (i.e., project management success, project ownership success, and project investment success). There is a plethora of critical success factors (CSFs) in projects that researchers can investigate in future studies. Related constructs (e.g., transformational leadership and team voice) can add more, deeper insights into ICT projects by an extension of prominent theories (e.g., social cognitive theory, self-efficacy theory, satisficing theory, and regret theory) as presented in this research (Zaman et al., 2022b). Moreover, future studies may also empirically examine new relationships by involving potential moderators and/or mediators (e.g., management innovation, team voice, leadership support, trust, and risk-taking), which might provide more enticing and definite results. These recommendations for future studies guide further exploration and understanding of the varying degrees of impact of other CSFs on project success (Ul Musawir et al., 2017; Zaman et al., 2022c).

Conclusion

The present study is the first to demonstrate how project opportunity management impacts the relationship between leadership self-efficacy and project success (Denney & Powell, 2020; Lemboye, 2019; Zhong et al., 2019). The findings confirmed that project opportunity management plays a critical role as a positive mediator between leadership self-efficacy and project success. Demonstrated by prior research, opportunity management serves as a building block for success (Li et al., 2018; Schmitt et al., 2018; Zhong et al., 2019), whereas leadership self-efficacy increases the chances of properly identifying opportunities and their management, which ultimately lead to project success (Lemboye, 2019; Zaman et al., 2022b). The findings have also confirmed that self-efficacy is now a vital trait for any leader to run a project successfully. Hence, leadership self-efficacy is an ability that every project leader must have, and not only that, but managers should also develop this ability in their followers (Zaman et al., 2022b). This trait of having self-confidence consequently empowers team members to achieve desired project goals that are central to project success (Zaman et al., 2022b). Furthermore, this study also builds a strong narrative that project opportunity management plays a decisive role in improving the chances of project success (Hietajärvi et al., 2017; Johansen et al., 2019). Hence, the present study offers strategic insights into project-based organizations in the ICT industry that demands project leaders be self-confident, influential, and persuasive in order to gain exclusive attention of multiple stakeholders, especially project teams. This study concludes that leadership self-efficacy is indispensable in order to foster self-confidence among teams, and also to react to the changing project realities and experiment on ways to optimize project opportunities as they become available and more visible (Hietajärvi et al., 2017; Zaman et al., 2022b).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Leila M. Naeni

Author Biographies

Umer Zaman, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at the Endicott College of International Studies, Woosong University, Daejeon, Republic of Korea. His articles have been published in top-tier international journals in project management, tourism, construction engineering management, higher education marketing, environment, and sustainability. His research interests mainly include project management, tourism marketing, strategic human resources and leadership. He can be contacted at umerzaman@endicott.ac.kr

Leila M. Naeni, PhD, is an internationally acclaimed project management expert and the director of the UTS postgraduate Project Management program. Her research spans project controls, project performance evaluation under uncertain conditions, and the use of disruptive technologies for performance management. Her goal is to facilitate technological and industrial transformation by improving contemporary project management practices and by providing a holistic perspective to support decision-making and enhance the benefits of project investments. Her research interests also include social sustainability assessment and women empowerment. She can be contacted at leila.mosleminaeni@uts.edu.au

Noor ul Huda, has a master’s degree in Project Management from Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology (SZABIST), Islamabad, Pakistan. She has been teaching management-related courses as a visiting faculty member at the SZABIST, Islamabad campus. She can be contacted at Noorulhuda91@gmail.com

Muddasar Ghani Khwaja, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru. His research interests include exploring the domains of project management, digital marketing, tourism marketing, and consumer psychology. He also specializes in statistical data modeling using contemporary research tools such as Mplus, AMOS, SmartPLS, SPSS, and R. He can be contacted at khawajamuddasar@gmail.com

References

Abad

Naeni

L. M

. (2020). A hybrid framework to assess the risk of change in construction projects using fuzzy fault tree and fuzzy event tree analysis. International Journal of Construction Management, 22(12), 1–13.

Ahsan

Khan

. (2013). Recruiting project managers: A comparative analysis of competencies and recruitment signals from job advertisements. Project Management Journal, 44(5), 36–54.

Almutairi

Y. M. N

. (2020). Leadership self-efficacy and organizational commitment of faculty members: Higher education. Administrative Sciences, 10(3), 66.

Anderson

D. W.

Krajewski

H. T.

Goffin

R. D.

Jackson

D. N

. (2008). A leadership self-efficacy taxonomy and its relation to effective leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 595–608.

Atkinson

. (1999). Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337–342.

Atkinson

Crawford

Ward

. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 687–698.

Baccarini

. (1999). The logical framework method for defining project success. Project Management Journal, 30(4), 25–32.

Bagiu

Avasilcăi

Alexa

. (2020, July). Exploring the opportunity for a hybrid methodology in project management: A focus group approach . In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 898, No. 1, p. 012045). IOP Publishing.

Bandura

. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122.

10.

Bandura

. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

11.

Bandura

Locke

E. A

. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87.

12.

Blomquist

Farashah

A. D.

Thomas

. (2016). Project management self-efficacy as a predictor of project performance: Constructing and validating a domain-specific scale. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), 1417–1432.

13.

Böhle

Heidling

Schoper

. (2016). A new orientation to deal with uncertainty in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7), 1384–1392.

14.

Browning

T. R

. (2014). A quantitative framework for managing project value, risk, and opportunity. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 61(4), 583–598.

15.

Burns

. (2018). Leader development or leader distress? Examining the interactive effects of leadership self-efficacy and situational strength on perceptions of stress, performance, and physiological responses [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech].

16.

Chapman

Ward

Wiley

. (2012). How to manage project opportunity and risk: Why uncertainty management can be a much better approach than risk management . https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119208587

17.

Chemers

M. M.

L. T.

Garcia

B. F

. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55.

18.

Chemers

M. M.

Watson

C. B.

May

S. T

. (2000). Dispositional affect and leadership effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism, and efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 267–277.

19.

Cicotto

De Simone

Giustiniano

Pinna

(2014). Psychosocial training: A case of self-efficacy improvement in an Italian school. Journal of Change Management, 14(4), 475–499.

20.

Copola

Azenha, F.

Aparecida

Reis, D.

Leme

Fleury, A.

(2021). The role and characteristics of hybrid approaches to project management in the development of technology-based products and services. Project Management Journal, 52(1), 90–110.

21.

Costanzo

A. J.

Gormley

D. K.

Hill-Clark

Israel

Goetz

Staubach

Pritchard

Little

. (2019). Leadership development and interprofessional nurse-led bedside rounding improves nurse leadership self-efficacy. Nurse Leader, 17(3), 257–262.

22.

Denney

V. P.

Powell

S. T

. (2020). Identifying project opportunity gaps using a descriptive literature review: 2010-2019. Journal of Modern Project Management, 8(1), 216–238.

23.

De Wit

(1988). Measurement of project success. International Journal of Project Management, 6(3), 164–170.

24.

Dupont

D. H.

Eskerod

. (2016). Enhancing project benefit realization through integration of line managers as project benefit managers. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 779–788.

25.

Dvir

Raz

Shenhar

A. J

. (2003). An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 21(2), 89–95.

26.

Erdem

Ozorhon

. (2015). Assessing real estate project success using an analytic network process. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(4), 04014065.

27.

Eskerod

Ang

Andersen

E. S

. (2018). Increasing project benefits by project opportunity exploitation. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(1), 35–52.

28.

Gibbs

S. R

. (2009). Exploring the influence of task-specific self-efficacy on opportunity recognition perceptions and behaviors. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 29(6), 1.

29.

Gil

Pinto

J. K

. (2018). Polycentric organizing and performance: A contingency model and evidence from megaproject planning in the UK. Research Policy, 47(4), 717–734.

30.

Hannah

S. T.

Avolio

B. J.

Walumbwa

F. O.

Chan

. (2012). Leader self and means efficacy: A multi-component approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(2), 143–161.

31.

Hietajärvi

A. M.

Aaltonen

Haapasalo

. (2017). Opportunity management in large projects: A case study of an infrastructure alliance project. Construction Innovation, 17(3), 340–362.

32.

Hillson

. (2002). Extending the risk process to manage opportunities. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 235–240.

33.

Hillson

. (2003). Effective opportunity management for projects: Exploiting positive risk. CRC Press.

34.

Huemann

Martinsuo

. (2016). In project management, uncertainty is a great opportunity: Special theme EURAM 2015. International Journal of Project Management, 34(6), 1026–1027.

35.

Ika

L. A

. (2009). Project success as a topic in project management journals. Project Management Journal, 40(4), 6–19.

36.

Imran

Khan

K. B.

Zaman

Musah

M. B.

Sudiapermana

Aziz

A. R. A.

Embong

Hassan

Z. B.

Jabor

M. K.

Anis

S. N. M

. (2021). Achieving pro-poor growth and environmental sustainability agenda through information technologies: As right as rain. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(30), 41000–41015.

37.

Jaafari

. (2001). Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on projects: Time for a fundamental shift. International Journal of Project Management, 19(2), 89–101.

38.

Johansen

Olsson

N. O.

Jergeas

Rolstadås

. (2019). Project risk and opportunity management: The owner’s perspective. Routledge.

39.

Kang

J. H.

Yang

D. W

. (2016). A study on effect of the university student's entrepreneurship on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention: Focusing on mediating effect of opportunity recognition. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society, 17(1), 493–507.

40.

Kendrick

. (2015). Project opportunity: Risk sink or risk source? Paper presented at PMI^® Global Congress 2015—North America, Orlando, FL, 11–13 October 2015. Project Management Institute.

41.

Khwaja

M. G.

Jusoh

Nor

K. M

. (2019). Does online social presence lead to purchase intentions? International Journal of Economic Policy in Emerging Economies, 12(2), 198–206.

42.

Krueger

Jr., N. F.

, & Day, M. (2010). Looking forward, looking backward: From entrepreneurial cognition to neuroentrepreneurship. In Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 321–357). Springer.

43.

Lehtiranta

. (2011). Relational risk management in construction projects: Modeling the complexity. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 11(2), 141–154.

44.

Lemboye

O. T.

(2019). Correlational analysis of the relationship among mastery experience, self-efficacy, and project success . [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Walden University].

45.

. (2018). Critical success factors for project planning and control in prefabrication housing production: A China study. Sustainability, 10(3), 836.

46.

Müller

Liu

Wang

Zhou

. (2021). Horizontal-leader identification in construction project teams in China: How Guanxi impacts coworkers’ perceived justice and turnover intentions. Project Management Journal, 52(6), 577–591.

47.

Loosemore

. (2011). Managing stakeholder perceptions of risk and opportunity in social infrastructure projects using a multimedia approach. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 3(3-4), 307–315.

48.

Lumpkin

G. T.

Lichtenstein

B. B

. (2005). The role of organizational learning in the opportunity-recognition process. Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice, 29(4), 451–472.

49.

Margolis

McCabe

P. P

. (2006). Improving self-efficacy and motivation: What to do, what to say. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(4), 218–227.

50.

Martens

C. D. P.

Machado

F. J.

Martens

M. L.

de Freitas

H. M. R.

(2018). Linking entrepreneurial orientation to project success. International Journal of Project Management, 36(2), 255–266.

51.

Martens

M. L.

Carvalho

M. M

. (2016). The challenge of introducing sustainability into project management function: Multiple-case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 117, 29–40.

52.

Mata

Á. N. D. S.

de Azevedo

K. P. M.

Braga

L. P.

de Medeiros

Christine

B. S.

de Oliveira Segundo

V. H.

Bezerra

I. N. M.

Pimenta

I. D. S. F.

Nicolás

I. M.

Piuvezam

(2021). Training in communication skills for self-efficacy of health professionals: A systematic review. Human Resources for Health, 19(1), 1–9.

53.

Mir

F. A.

Pinnington

A. H

. (2014). Exploring the value of project management: Linking project management performance and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 202–217.

54.

Mohammed

Billings

R. S

. (2002). The effect of self-efficacy and issue characteristics on threat and opportunity categorization. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(6), 1253–1275.

55.

Mueller

R. O.

Hancock

G. R.

(2019). Structural equation modeling. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

56.

Müller

Turner

R. J

. (2010). Attitudes and leadership competences for project success. Baltic Journal of Management, 5(3), 307–329.

57.

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.

58.

K.-Y.

Ang

Chan

K.-Y

. (2008). Personality and leader effectiveness: A moderated mediation model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 733.

59.

Olsson

. (2007). In search of opportunity management: Is the risk management process enough? International Journal of Project Management, 25(8), 745–752.

60.

Paglis

L. L

. (2010). Leadership self-efficacy: Research findings and practical applications. Journal of Management Development, 29(9), 771–782.

61.

Paglis

L. L.

Green

S. G

. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and managers’ motivation for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(2), 215–235.

62.

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

63.

Qazi

Daghfous

Khan

M. S

. (2021). Impact of risk attitude on risk, opportunity, and performance assessment of construction projects. Project Management Journal, 52(2), 192–209.

64.

Rahman

H. U.

Ali

Zaman

Pugnetti

. (2021). Role of ict investment and diffusion in the economic growth: A threshold approach for the empirical evidence from Pakistan. International Journal of Financial Studies, 9(1), 14.

65.

Ramchunder

Martins

. (2014). The role of self-efficacy, emotional intelligence and leadership style as attributes of leadership effectiveness. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 1–11.

66.

Raz

Shenhar

A. J.

Dvir

. (2002). Risk management, project success, and technological uncertainty. R&D Management, 32(2), 101–109.

67.

Sarı

İ.

Bayazıt

(2017). The relationship between perceived coaching behaviours, motivation and self-efficacy in wrestlers. Journal of Human Kinetics, 57(1), 239–251.

68.

Schmitt

Rosing

Zhang

S. X.

Leatherbee

. (2018). A dynamic model of entrepreneurial uncertainty and business opportunity identification: Exploration as a mediator and entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a moderator. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(6), 835–859.

69.

Schunk

D. H

. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive achievement: Implications for students with learning problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(1), 14–22.

70.

Schunk

D. H

. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 207–231.

71.

Schunk

D. H

. (1995). Self-efficacy, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7(2), 112–137.

72.

Shenhar

Holzmann

. (2017). The three secrets of megaproject success: Clear strategic vision, total alignment, and adapting to complexity. Project Management Journal, 48(6), 29–46.

73.

Sim

M.-J.

H.-S

. (2012). Influence of self efficacy, learning motivation, and self-directed learning on problem-solving ability in nursing students. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 12(6), 328–337.

74.

Tsai

M. T.

Tsai

C. L.

Wang

Y. C

. (2011). A study on the relationship between leadership style, emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and organizational commitment: A case study of the Banking Industry in Taiwan. African Journal of Business Management, 5(13), 5319–5329.

75.

Tumasjan

Braun

. (2012). In the eye of the beholder: How regulatory focus and self-efficacy interact in influencing opportunity recognition. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(6), 622–636.

76.

Ul Musawir

Serra

C. E. M.

Zwikael

Ali

(2017). Project governance, benefit management, and project success: Towards a framework for supporting organizational strategy implementation. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1658–1672.

77.

Viswanathan

S. K.

Tripathi

K. K.

Jha

K. N

. (2020). Influence of risk mitigation measures on international construction project success criteria—A survey of Indian experiences. Construction Management and Economics, 38(3), 207–222.

78.

Wang

. (2019). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus. John Wiley & Sons.

79.

Ward

Chapman

. (2003). Transforming project risk management into project uncertainty management. International Journal of Project Management, 21(2), 97–105.

80.

Wood

Bandura

. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 407.

81.

Yasin

. (2019). Impact of transformational leadership on project success with mediating effect of self-efficacy and moderated effect of conscientiousness [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, master’s thesis, Capital University of Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan].

82.

Zaman

. (2020). Examining the effect of xenophobia on “transnational” mega construction project (MCP) success: Moderating role of transformational leadership and high-performance work (HPW) practices. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(5), 1119–1143.

83.

Zaman

Damij

Khaliq

Nawaz

M. S.

Pradana

. (2022a). Feeling “holier than thou”: Exploring the critical nexus between project governance, exploitative leadership and multi-dimensional success in ICT projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 15(5), 816–841. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-11-2021-0294

84.

Zaman

Florez-Perez

Abbasi

Nawaz

Farías

Pradana

. (2022b). A stitch in time saves nine: Nexus between critical delay factors, leadership self-efficacy, and transnational mega construction project success. Sustainability, 14(4), 1–19.

85.

Zaman

Florez-Perez

Anjam

Ghani Khwaja

Ul-Huda

. (2022c). At the end of the world, turn left: Examining toxic leadership, team silence and success in mega construction projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-08-2021-0755

86.

Zaman

Florez-Perez

Khwaja

M. G.

Abbasi

Qureshi

M. G

. (2021). Exploring the critical nexus between authoritarian leadership, project team member's silence and multi-dimensional success in a state-owned mega construction project. International Journal of Project Management, 39(8), 873–886.

87.

Zaman

Jabbar

Nawaz

Abbas

. (2019). Understanding the soft side of software projects: An empirical study on the interactive effects of social skills and political skills on complexity–performance relationship. International Journal of Project Management, 37(3), 444–460.

88.

Zaman

Nadeem

R. D.

Nawaz

. (2020a). Cross-country evidence on project portfolio success in the Asia-Pacific region: Role of CEO transformational leadership, portfolio governance and strategic innovation orientation. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1727681.

89.

Zaman

Nawaz

Tariq

Humayoun

A. A

. (2020b). Linking transformational leadership and “multi-dimensions” of project success: Moderating effects of project flexibility and project visibility using PLS-SEM. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(1), 103–127.

90.

Zhang

Z.-J.

Zhang

C.-L.

Zhang

X.-G.

Liu

X.-M.

Zhang

Wang

Liu

. (2015). Relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and achievement motivation in student nurses. Chinese Nursing Research, 2(2-3), 67–70.

91.

Zhong

Liu

Lau

. (2019). Opportunity cost management in project portfolio selection with divisibility. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 70(7), 1164–1178.

92.

Zidane

Y. J. T.

Olsson

N. O. E

. (2017). Defining project efficiency, effectiveness and efficacy. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10(3), 621–641.

93.

Zwikael

Meredith

. (2019). Evaluating the success of a project and the performance of its leaders. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 68(6), 1745–1757.