Content uploaded by Azadeh Rezvani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Azadeh Rezvani on Sep 19, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Azadeh Rezvani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Azadeh Rezvani on Jul 02, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Manager emotional intelligence and project success:
The mediating role of job satisfaction and trust
Azadeh Rezvani
a,
⁎, Artemis Chang
a
, Anna Wiewiora
a
, Neal M. Ashkanasy
b
,
Peter J. Jordan
c
, Roxanne Zolin
a
a
Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, Queensland 4000, Australia
b
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia
c
Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Received 8 September 2015; received in revised form 15 April 2016; accepted 31 May 2016
Available online 2 July 2016
Abstract
The number of complex projects is increasing across many sectors and the associated challenges are substantial. Using a field study we aim to
understand how project managers' emotional intelligence (EI) contributes to project success. We propose and test a model linking EI to project
success and examine the mediating effects of project managers' job satisfaction and trust on this relationship. Based on data collected from 373
project managers in the Australian defence industry, our results indicate that EI has a positive impact on project success, job satisfaction, and trust.
Moreover, we found evidence that job satisfaction and trust mediate the relationship between EI and project success. Our findings suggest that top
management should be aware of the importance of project managers' job satisfaction and trust, which can both serve to boost project success in
complex project situations.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Complex project; Project success; Emotional intelligence; Trust; Work attitudes; Job satisfaction
1. Introduction
The globalisation and rapid growth of industry has increased
the number of complex projects across many sectors, including
defense, infrastructure, and aerospace. The challenges associated
with these projects are substantial. Indeed, almost every complex
project is seemingly a “first of its kind”(Sauser et al., 2009),
intended to deliver new capacities and/or complex infrastruc-
tures. These projects tend to be characterised by large budgets
and issues associated with complex systems, such as nonlinearity,
irregularity, and uncertainty. Moreover, such complex projects
typically attract strong public attention and political interest as a
result of substantial social, environmental, national, and even
international implications being associated with the success and
failure of such enterprises (Whitty and Maylor, 2009).
The performance of these large, complex projects is often
disappointing. Many complex projects experience substantial cost
overruns and delays in completion, and fail to deliver their
objectives (Chang et al., 2013; Eden et al., 2005; Williams and
Samset, 2010). For example, the FIFA World Cup 2014 project
budget increased from the originally estimated €1 billion to €11
billion. Such failures in complex projects are not unique to sport
events. The construction of Denver International Airport exceeded
the original budget by 200% and was delivered 16 months over
schedule (Flyvbjerg, 2005). Clearly, any research that seeks to
improve the record of accomplishment in complex projects merits
attention.
Researchers including Dvir et al. (2006) and Sauser et al.
(2009) have found that challenges in complex projects are
primarily associated with managerial, rather than technical issues.
⁎Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: azadeh.rezvani@hdr.qut.edu.au (A. Rezvani),
a2.chang@qut.edu.au (A. Chang), a.wiewiora@qut.edu.au (A. Wiewiora),
n.ashkanasy@uq.edu.au (N.M. Ashkanasy), peter.jordan@griffith.edu.au
(P.J. Jordan), r.zolin@qut.edu.au (R. Zolin).
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.012
0263-7863/00/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1112 –1122
In this regard, project management skills and leadership skills
may be the most critical determinants of successful project
outcomes (Kaulio, 2008; Müller et al., 2012). In developing our
central arguments, we note the role of emotion has been
highlighted recently as being a central factor in how successful
leaders manage on a day-to-day basis (Jordan and Lindebaum,
2015). In order to incorporate emotions as an element in our
research we draw on the principles of Affective Events Theory
(AET; Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996) in developing a testable
model of this process. Within the AET model, events at work
result in employee affective reactions that, in turn, determine their
subsequent work attitudes and behaviours. As Ashkanasy (2002)
has pointed out, the underlying principles of AET enable us to
understand the cause and consequence of emotional experience
on employee work attitudes and behaviour. In our study we
extend this to consider how emotion plays a role in the leadership
of complex projects.
Leadership is a crucial part of managing complex projects,
impacting directly on successful project outcomes (Shenhar et al.,
2002). In this research we specifically focus on leaders'
managerial skills and in particular the effect of project managers'
emotional intelligence (EI), defined by Mayer et al. (2004) as the
ability to be aware of, to utilise, to understand, and to manage
emotions in self and others. We justify this approach in the
context of project management on the basis of research by Clarke
(2010) and Müller and Turner (2007), who identified EI as a key
ingredient of effective complex project leadership (see also,
Sunindijo et al., 2007; Thomas and Mengel, 2008). In more
recent research, Mazur et al. (2014) have argued specifically that
high EI project managers are able to solve new challenges and
problems as well as to better communicate with their peers.
Although EI has been offered as a solution to resolving some
complex project management issues, the underlying mechanisms
influencing the EI–project success relationship remain unknown.
In this regard, Müller and Jugdev (2012) have suggested that if
we are to understand the factors that underlie the success of
project outcomes then there is a need for researchers to explore
variables that potentially mediate between project manager
characteristics (such as EI) and project success.
In particular, in accordance with the principles underlying
AET, we argue that job satisfaction and trust resulting from
affective experiences may mediate the relationship between EI
and project manager behaviours. We argue that emotionally
intelligent project managers should be more likely to be satisfied
with their jobs and to trust in others (Sy et al., 2006).
Subsequently, we consider that higher levels of trust and job
satisfaction will, in turn, lead to higher levels of project success in
terms of high quality communication, effective troubleshooting,
mission clarity, and top management support (Mazur et al.,
2014). In this regard, Judge et al. (2001),Pheng and Chuan
(2006),andThompson (2008) found positive relationships
between job satisfaction, trust, and project success. We also
note that Güleryüz et al. (2008),Sy et al. (2006),andWong and
Law (2002) found that EI is an antecedent to job satisfaction and
trust. In our study we extend these findings in an examination of
variables in a field-based study within a complex project
management organisation. A review of the literature reveals no
studies that have tested the mediating relationships linking these
variables in the context of a complex project management
organisation.
We argue that our study contributes to theory and practice in
three ways. First, we develop and empirically test a model of the
impact of EI on a sample of managers working on large and
complex defence projects. Second, we explore potential mecha-
nisms by which an emotionally intelligent project manager may
contribute to project success factors. Third, we add to an increasing
body of literature on the emotional, attitudinal, and behavioural
implications of EI in complex project management organisations.
2. Critical variables
The critical variables in our study are project managers':
ratings of project success factors, EI, job satisfaction, and trust
in others. In the following section we introduce these four
variables and then describe our study model and hypotheses.
2.1. Project success
Although defining project success in complex projects –
where timeframes for completion are long and the size of the
projects are substantial –remains a challenging issue (Toor and
Ogunlana, 2010; Wang and Huang, 2006), project management
scholars generally agree on two components that define project
success: success criteria and critical success factors (Müller
and Jugdev, 2012; Turner and Zolin, 2012). Success criteria
focus on objective measures, such as completion timeliness,
quality, and cost (Pinto and Slevin, 1987). Such objective
criteria, however, have been criticised, especially in the context
of defining complex project success. This is because they tend
to draw on overly simplistic constructs which do not mirror the
experience in large, complex projects (Toor and Ogunlana,
2010). Moreover, as Jugdev and Müller (2005) have pointed
out, such criteria fail to address broader factors that can be
considered as success indicators, such as behavioural skills or
strategic management objective criteria.
Critical success factors, on the other hand, focus on “soft”
issues, such as behavioural skills of project teams as well as
customer and stakeholder satisfaction, and therefore represent a
more realistic progressive approach to assessing project success
(Jugdev and Müller, 2005; Pinto, 1990). Turner and Zolin (2012)
have pointed out that success factors, unlike impacts such as time,
cost, and quality, can be measured prior to the end of the project.
Given the long timeframes for complex projects this type of
measurement is useful in assessing a project's progress. We
employ Pinto and Slevin's (1987) approach, which uses project
managers' ratings of “critical success factors”.Thesearethe
factors that have been identified by Jugdev and Müller (2005) as
the most widely recognised and used measures of success factors.
Taking our lead from Mazur et al. (2014) and Procaccino
et al. (2005), we focus on the four project success factors that
are regarded as “people related”: (a) effective communication
with internal and external stakeholders, (b) troubleshooting
(i.e., unexpected complications and challenges are effectively
1113A. Rezvani et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1112–1122
managed as they occur in crisis moments), (c) clear project
mission, and (d) top management support (Pinto, 1990).
Researchers have consistently identified these four factors as
the keys to project success. For instance, Couillard (1995)
identified communication and troubleshooting as indicators of
project success in high-risk and complex projects. In the same
vein, Belout and Gauvreau (2004) found that troubleshooting
and clear project mission objectives contribute to project
success in the execution stage. More recently, Davis (2014)
and Mazur et al. (2014) specifically identified these four factors
as the best indicators of progressive project success, especially
in the context of complex project management.
Communication refers to “the provision of an appropriate
network and necessary data to all key actors in the project”
(Pinto and Slevin, 1989, p. 31). This represents the degree to
which project managers are able to communicate effectively
with internal and external stakeholders to ensure the best
combination of skills and knowledge are available for the
project. Communication is an important managerial competen-
cy that influences project success.
Troubleshooting refers to being able to “handle unexpected
crises and deviations from the plan”(Pinto and Slevin 1989,
p. 31). In complex projects, project managers are prone to
unexpected problems and challenges due to task interdepen-
dency and complexity (Pich et al., 2002; Sun and Meng, 2009).
These need to be addressed for the project to be successful.
Mission clarity refers to “initial clarity of goals and general
directions”(Pinto and Slevin 1989, p. 31). Complex projects
are characterised by high levels of complexity and ambiguity
(Dvir et al., 2006). Chang et al. (2013) have pointed out that in
large and complex defence projects it is not uncommon for
projects to have vague goals, such as “increase defence
capability”, at the beginning of a long-term project. More
specific goals lead to greater project success.
Top management support refers to “willingness of top
management to provide the necessary resources and authority/
power for project success”(Pinto and Slevin 1989, p. 31).
Mazur et al. (2014) have pointed out in particular that top
management support is a critical factor across all phases of
project planning and execution.
2.2. Emotional intelligence
Salovey and Mayer (1990) define EI as an “ability to
monitor one's and others' feelings and emotions, to discrim-
inate among them and to use this information to guide one's
thinking and actions”(p. 189). Since it was first put forward, EI
has been consistently identified as a key set of managerial
skills, which has a significant influence on how managers
interact with others. This is particularly the case in the context
of high project complexity (Caruso and Salovey, 2004; Clarke,
2010; Joseph and Newman, 2010; Müller and Turner, 2010).
Based on the accumulating evidence that EI is related to
managerial effectiveness (O'Boyleetal.,2011), it seems
reasonable to conclude that effective project management is not
simply determined by technical or hard skills but also by
capabilities related to emotions (Fisher, 2011). In the specific
context of project management, research by Mazur et al. (2014)
and Müller and Turner (2007) have demonstrated a link between
EI as a personal attribute of managers and effectiveness in the
context of complex project management. In particular, the results
of their research (Mazur et al., 2014; Müller and Turner, 2007)tell
us that a project manager's ability to understand and to regulate
emotion in self and others produces high quality, effective
relationships with both internal and external stakeholders.
2.3. Job satisfaction
Brief (1998) defines job satisfaction as “an attitude toward
one's job”(p. 10). As such, job satisfaction encompasses
cognitive and affective components. Previous studies (Locke,
1969; Weiss, 2002) have shown that both affective and cognitive
components contribute to overall attitude and behaviour.
Scholars have studied job satisfaction as both an independent
and a dependent variable (e.g., see Chen et al., 2011; Judge et al.,
2005). Job satisfaction as an independent variable has been
shown to be associated with a variety of workplace behaviours
such as project managers' performance and turnover intention, as
well as project success (Bowling, 2007; Judge et al., 2001). For
example Parker and Skitmore (2005) found that job satisfaction is
a significant predictor of a project manager's turnover intention.
Moreover, Pheng and Chuan (2006) found that a project
manager's performance is affected by job satisfaction, especially
in complex projects.
2.4. Trust
Our final variable is trust, which Rousseau et al. (1998) define
as “a psychological state comprising of the intention to accept
vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions
or behaviours of another”(p. 395). The key elements of this
definition are a willingness to accept vulnerability in the
relationship and positive expectations about another party under
conditions of interdependence and risk (Lewicki et al., 2006).
Trust has been found to be a predictor of project performance
(Maurer, 2010) and project effectiveness (Diallo and Thuillier,
2005; Kadefors, 2004; Lee-Kelley and Sankey, 2008; Park and
Lee, 2014; Webber and Klimoski, 2004), stakeholder satisfaction
(Bresnen and Marshall, 2000), creativity and problem solving
(Smyth, 2005), knowledge and information disclosure, and
project success (Diallo and Thuillier, 2005; Jung and Avolio,
2000; Smyth et al., 2010; Wiewiora et al., 2014).
3. Model and hypotheses development
3.1. Conceptual framework
In Fig. 1 we outline the model we propose for our study. In
line with the principles underlying AET (Weiss and Cropanzano,
1996), we have focused on the manner in which an individual's
responses to affective experiences at work shape their work
attitude and behaviour.
According to Weiss and Cropanzano (1996), attitudes and
behaviour at work are influenced by the experience of emotions
1114 A. Rezvani et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1112–1122
and feelings such as pride, enthusiasm, anger, shame, guilt, fear,
frustration, and envy. These emotions emerge from events that
create emotional reactions in the work environment. Research has
shown that employees, including organisational top management,
experience emotions at work, and a number of studies support the
underlying assumptions of AET (Mignonac and Herrbach, 2004;
Zhao et al., 2007). For example, Ashton-James and Ashkanasy
(2005) argued that there is a strong bond between strategic
decision-making processes and the emotions that managers
experience in response to workplace events. In the same vein,
Pirola-Merlo et al. (2002) used AET in a study of leadership to
explain the effect workplace events have on team affective
climate and consequently on team performance. Large, complex
projects with large budgets are likely to have frequent challenging
events which, according to AET, could produce emotional
reactions. These reactions may result in both positive and
negative emotions for the project managers, team members,
contractors, and stakeholders (Lindebaum and Jordan, 2014).
Although we do not set out to test AET per se, our model is
based on the underlying principles of AET that attitudes and
behaviour at work are derived from emotional reactions to
events. Ashkanasy (2002) notes that EI plays a critical role in
addressing emotions at work insofar as emotion management
abilities help individuals to perceive, understand, and manage
their own and other's emotions. As such, EI should serve to
shape employees' work attitudes and behaviours in a more
positive direction, thus influencing project success. In the
present research we focus specifically on two job attitudes that
may enhance this relationship: job satisfaction and trust.
3.2. Emotional intelligence and project success
Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) have pointed out that emotional
experiences change over time and that work behaviours also
fluctuate depending on an employee's flow of emotional
experience. In the work environment employees often experience
positive or negative emotions (Lindebaum and Jordan, 2014).
Positive emotions, in general, are seen to have a positive effect
and to enable employees to perform better at work (Mayer et al.,
2008; Sy et al., 2006; Wong and Law, 2002), while negative
emotions such as frustration, irritation, and anger can reduce
enthusiasm which can contribute to a decrease in performance
(Fisher, 2003; McColl-Kennedy and Anderson, 2002; Von
Glinow et al., 2004).
Emotionally intelligent project managers are more likely to
experience and to express their emotions positively (Peslak,
2005). This, in turn, is likely to increase the enthusiasm of
project managers, enabling them to communicate effectively
towards their team members and to facilitate creativity towards
addressing challenging tasks (Carmeli, 2003). Project managers
with high EI should therefore be more motivated to have a
positive impact on their subordinates and to offer appropriate
solutions to solve new problems and challenges that a complex
project brings (Mount, 2006).
Indeed, researchers (Clarke, 2010; Mazur et al., 2014;
Müller and Turner, 2010) have consistently found that EI is a
prerequisite for project success. In particular, Müller and
Turner (2007, 2010) found direct evidence that EI increases the
chance of project success, especially in highly complex project
environments. Thomas and Mengel (2008) found that project
managers who score high on EI have the ability to recover
quickly from negative emotions and stress in difficult
situations. Clarke (2010) also reinforces the importance of EI
in project manager effectiveness. He reported that EI acts as an
underlying ability that determines the behavioural complexity
of project managers in complex project situations. Supporting
these findings, Thomas and Mengel (2008) found that a lack of
EI results in frustration, stress, and low performance, especially
where there is scope for misunderstanding and tensions in
complex project settings. Overall, these studies provide
compelling evidence for the significant role EI plays in
determining project success factors. We therefore hypothesise:
H1. Project managers' EI is positively related to project
success.
3.3. Emotional intelligence and work attitudes: trust and job
satisfaction
Organisational researchers (Barczak et al., 2010; Christie
et al., 2015; Kafetsios and Zampetakis, 2008; Sy et al., 2006)
have also consistently reported that EI significantly affects team
members' job satisfaction and trust in others. An explanation for
this might be found in the evidence that managers with high EI
are better than their low EI counterparts at managing the
emotional fluctuations employees experience at work and to
facilitate positive emotions. Positive emotions have been linked
to developing better social relationships and building trust with
others (Barczak et al., 2010; Christie et al., 2015), but also in
generating higher levels of job satisfaction compared to
individuals who experience emotions such as disappointment,
depression, and anger (Jordan et al., 2006). In this regard, Dunn
and Schweitzer (2005) found that positive emotions increase trust
in others, while negative emotions (such as anger) decrease trust.
In terms of negative emotions, Boden and Berenbaum (2007)
found that lower levels of emotional awareness are associated
with higher levels of suspicion and frustration.
Since emotional awareness is a component of EI (Mayer and
Salovey, 1997) we argue from these findings that EI should
also be related to team members' perceptions of trust in others.
Finally, we also note that Sy et al. (2006) and Christie et al.
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework.
1115A. Rezvani et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1112–1122
(2015), who examined the impact of EI on work attitudes and
outcomes, also found that perceptions of job satisfaction and
trust are directly related to emotional skills. Thus, we next
hypothesise:
H2. Project managers' EI is positively related to (a) their job
satisfaction and (b) their trust in others.
3.4. Job satisfaction and project success
Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) argued that job satisfaction
can increase both the expectancy that an employee's effort will
lead to high performance and the belief that sustained effort will
lead to desirable behavioural outcomes. In an extension of this
idea, Fisher (2003) suggested that when employees are more
satisfied with their job, their motivation to contribute to the
common interest of the context in which they perform their
work also increases. Thus, when project managers are satisfied
they tend to seek out social interactions, react more favourably
to others, have greater involvement in activities, and commu-
nicate more with their stakeholders because they are more
likely to view such interactions as rich and rewarding (Schaller
and Cialdini, 1990). Moreover, as Cheung et al. (2003) found,
satisfied project managers are also more likely to undertake
more effective problem resolution (troubleshooting), and to set
clear directions and motivate team members to undertake new
goals that they have not yet attained (Maylor et al., 2008).
Complementing this evidence, Fisher (2003) reported that
low job satisfaction tends to jeopardise project success. This is
because managers who are not satisfied are less motivated and
consequently put in less effort to achieve project goals.
Furthermore, low job satisfaction leads to tasks being carried
out less efficiently (Judge et al., 2001). Pheng and Chuan
(2006) found further that dissatisfied project managers have
less interest in communicating with project partners and are
thus less able to align the strategies and management with their
firm's objectives. Based on this evidence, we next hypothesise:
H3a. Project managers' job satisfaction is positively related to
project success.
3.5. Trust and project success
We argue that work attitudes (e.g., trust) shape the degree to
which project managers rate the success or otherwise of their
projects. Trust facilitates interactions between project managers
and their team members by providing effective horizontal
working relationships between individuals, especially where
there are uncertainties and ambiguities (as is likely in a complex
project). Under conditions of uncertainty and ambiguity, a
manager's trust in the other party increases better communica-
tion, troubleshooting, and organisational support (Diallo and
Thuillier, 2005).
In the specific context of complex project management,
communication and cooperation between project managers and
their team members become more critical than ever (Cherns and
Bryant, 1984; El-Sabaa, 2001; Turner and Müller, 2004). Such
communication and cooperative efforts in turn depend to a
large degree upon trust. According to McEvily et al. (2003),
belief in the other party is needed by managers to share risks
and to contribute resources to jointly develop and deliver the
product or services that project managers cannot provide on
their own.
Conversely, a lack of trust by project managers towards
team members can initiate defensive behaviours and block the
flow of information that constitutes effective communication,
cooperative relationships, and problem-solving tasks (Colquitt
et al., 2007; Mayer and Gavin, 2005; Moe and Šmite, 2008).
Atkinson et al. (2006) have shown further that lack of trust can
lead to dysfunctional and opportunistic team member behav-
iours. Such behaviours can result in the project manager
focussing on detecting signs of opportunism and poor
performance, rather than on positive factors likely to lead to
project success. Thus, we now hypothesise:
H3b. There is a positive relationship between project man-
agers' trust in others and project success.
3.6. The mediating role of job satisfaction and trust
In the foregoing discussion we sought to establish relation-
ships between project managers' EI and two key work attitudes
–job satisfaction and trust in others (H2)–and the relationship
between work attitudes and project success (H3). We now
argue that, based upon the principles underlying AET, job
satisfaction and trust serve as the attitudinal mediators through
which EI contributes to project success.
The first mediating path (via job satisfaction) draws on the
impact of EI on project managers' evaluative judgments or
positive emotions regarding their job. We argue that project
managers who are emotionally intelligent and have high job
satisfaction are more likely to encourage effective communica-
tion, troubleshooting, and project mission clarity. The second
mediating path (trust) highlights trust of another party as a critical
foundation to increase project success. Emotionally intelligent
managers are likely to know how their team members are feeling
or might feel in diverse circumstances and use this information to
promote content and productive relationships that lay the
foundation for trust (Chun et al., 2010; Mayer et al., 2008).
This, in turn, contributes to the exchange of information, open
communication, and facilitates the generation of creative ideas in
crises moments with the aim of increasing project success
(Christie et al., 2015). We therefore finally hypothesise:
H4. Project manager attitudes, namely (a) job satisfaction and
(b) trust, mediate the relationship between project managers' EI
and project success.
4. Method
4.1. Context
We collected the data for our study as members of a team
examining leadership and project effectiveness in an Australian
1116 A. Rezvani et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1112–1122
defence organisation. The organisation has an AU$5 billion
operating budget for capital acquisition projects. Within this
organisation complex projects are characterised by high project
management complexity, high levels of technical complexity,
difficult support and commercial arrangements, and a typical
lifecycle period of 12 years or more.
4.2. Procedure and sample
Our research model was empirically tested using an online
survey. To collect our data we asked the Human Resource
Department to make our online survey available to 2500
employees in the organisation, and to invite them to complete
the instrumentation. A total of 1582 questionnaires were
completed, including managerial (n = 780) and non-managerial
respondents, with an overall response rate of 63.2%. Our final
data sample for this study consisted of 373 valid responses from
project managers. The aim of our research was to investigate the
work attitudes of project managers and therefore we excluded
non-managerial respondents from our study. Sixty-one of the 373
respondents were female (16.4%) and 85% had a college or
university degree.
4.3. Measures
We used published and validated measures of EI, job
satisfaction, trust, and project success. All of the measures
asked participants to rate each scale item using a seven-point
Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree).
4.3.1. Emotional intelligence
We used a self-report measure of EI that adheres to the
Salovey and Mayer (1990) ability definition of EI (Jordan and
Lawrence, 2009). The 16-item scale was particularly designed
for use in organisations and within a team context, which
predominates in the organisation we studied. Using this scale
we were able to measure four specific components of EI:
(1) awareness of own emotions (sample item: “I can explain the
emotions I feel to team members”; (2) awareness of others'
emotions (sample item: “I can read my fellow team members'
true feelings, even if they try to hide them”); (3) management of
own emotions (sample item: “When I am frustrated with fellow
team members, I can overcome my frustration”); and (4) man-
agement of others' emotions (sample item: “I can get my fellow
team members to share my keenness for a project”). The
Cronbach alpha reliability for this measure was .88.
4.3.2. Project success
To measure project success we utilised Pinto's (1990)
20-item scale to investigate participants' assessments against
four factors: (1) communication (sample item: “Individuals/
groups supplying input have received feedback on the
acceptance or rejection of their input”); (2) trouble-shooting
(sample item: “Immediate action is taken when problems come
to the project team's attention”); (3) mission clarity (sample
item: “The basic goals of the project are made clear to the
project team”); and (4) top management support (sample item:
“Upper management is responsive to our requests for additional
resources, if the need arises”. This measure obtained an alpha
reliability of .92.
4.3.3. Job satisfaction
To measure job satisfaction we employed a four-item global
job satisfaction scale developed by Cammann et al. (1983).A
sample item is “I am satisfied with my job”. The Cronbach
alpha reliability for this measure was .84.
4.3.4. Trust
Finally, we employed the 10-item Behavioural Trust Inven-
tory (BTI) to measure trust (Gillespie, 2012; Lewicki et al.,
2006). The BTI has two dimensions: (1) willingness to rely on
another's work-related skills, abilities, and knowledge (sample
item: “How willing are you to rely on your leader's task-related
skills and abilities?”); and (2) willingness to disclose sensitive
work or personal information to another (sample item: “Discuss
how you honestly feel about your work, even negative feelings
and frustration”). The BTI has good psychometric properties and
a stable factor structure (Gillespie and Mann, 2004) and in our
study this measure had an alpha reliability of .81.
4.4. Analysis
To test our parallel multiple mediator model we employed
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM, Jöreskog, 1993). We chose
this method for two reasons. First, SEM enables us to study both
latent and directly measured variables. The use of latent variables
removes the effects of unreliability in mediator variables, and
improves the accuracy of the mediated effect measurement.
Therefore, the latent variable approach should have a higher
statistical power to identify the mediating effect than the
traditional regression analysis. Second, SEM software allows
users to choose from multiple estimation methods, including
ordinary least squares, generalised least squares, maximum
likelihood, and asymptotically distribution free methods (Byrne,
2013). Different assumptions must hold for various estimation
methods. For example, the generalised least squares method
assumes normality of the data, while the bootstrap method does
not (Preacher and Hayes, 2008).
4.5. Procedure to test mediation
To test our mediation hypotheses we selected the parallel
multiple mediation model (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). We
chose this approach for three reasons. First, the likelihood of
parameter bias (due to absent variables) in the multiple parallel
mediators is minimised in this method. Second, the method
allows us to control for multiple mediators. Third, the method
controls for potential inter-correlation among the mediators in
the multiple mediator model.
As recommended by MacKinnon (2008),weusedan
extension of the simple mediation model to analyse the multiple
mediators in our model. This approach consists of three tests:
(1) to see if the independent variable (EI) affects the dependent
1117A. Rezvani et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1112–1122
variable (project success), (2) to determine whether the
independent variable (EI) affects the mediators (job satisfaction
and trust), and (3) to see if the mediators (job satisfaction and
trust) affect project success when the independent variable (EI) is
controlled. According to this model, if job satisfaction and
trust completely mediate the relationship between EI and
project success the path between them should then become
non-significant.
We used AMOS 20® to test the SEM (Byrne, 2013). In
particular, AMOS directly produces bootstrapped bias-corrected
confidence intervals for indirect effects as well as the maximum
likelihood estimation method. Both estimation methods are
adopted in this research. We also adopted Preacher and Hayes
(2008) recommendation to use a minimum of 5000 resamples for
the bootstrap analysis.
5. Results
5.1. Measurement model
As the first stage of our analysis we employed confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) to check the integrity of our measurement
models. As can be seen in Table 1, the scales demonstrated
better fit as second-order rather than first-order models. We
compared two models by testing the difference in chi-square
(Breckler, 1990) across the models. In this regard, we found
that the second-order model offered a significantly better fit to
the data (delta–chi-square = 369.22, df = 1, p b0.001). As
can also be seen in Table 1, the second-order model fit statistics
all exceeded accepted minimum thresholds required for good fit
(χ
2
/df b2, RMSEA, SRMR b0.08, IFI, TLI, CFI N0.9;
Hooper et al., 2008).
We next evaluated convergent and discriminant validity. We
did so using criteria recommended by Hair et al. (2012),which
included the tests: (1) Cronbach's αN0.70 for all constructs,
(2) composite reliability for all constructs N0.70, and (3) average
variance extracted of each construct N0.50. As can be seen in
Table 2, all three criteria were satisfied.
For discriminant validity, and as Hair et al. (2012) recom-
mend, we examined whether the square root of the average
variance extracted for each construct was greater than the
bivariate correlations between the constructs. As can be seen in
the descriptive statistics for our study (Table 3) this criterion was
met.
To avoid common method variance (CMV) a number of
procedural remedies in designing and administering the
questionnaire (e.g. anonymity and mixing the order of the
questions) were used (Podsakoff et al., 2012). We also
employed statistical remedies suggested by Podsakoff et al.
(2012). Herman's one factor test showed that the first factor
accounts for 26% of the total variance. We further examined
our model to see if a single, unmeasured, latent method factor
was present (Podsakoff et al., 2012). To accomplish this we
compared fit statistics between models with and without the
latent method variance factor (Richardson et al., 2009). The
CMV factor resulted in improved fit (Δχ2 = 150.21, df = 33,
pb.001; model with CMV factor: χ2/df = 1.50, IFI = 0.952,
TLI = 0.950, CFI = 0.950, RMSEA = 0.40; model without
CMV factor: χ2/df = 1.68, IFI = 0.946, TLI = 0.940, CFI =
0.946, RMSEA = 0.42). Although these results suggest the
influence of CMV is likely to be small, we nonetheless
controlled for it by including the CMV factor in our
hypothesised model test (Podsakoff et al., 2012).
5.2. Hypothesis tests
We tested our structural model in two stages. In Stage 1
(Model 1) we looked at the relationships between EI and the
three variables: job satisfaction, trust in others, and project
outcomes. As can be seen in Fig. 2 all three relationships were
positive and significant, supporting Hypotheses 1, 2a, and 2b.
We further examined the direct effects of job satisfaction and
trust on project success. Both variables had positive significant
effects on project success (job satisfaction →project success,
path = 0.45, p b0.001; and trust →project success, path =
0.25, p b0.01), therefore H3a and H3b were supported. The
model was unchanged when we controlled for sex, age, and
education level.
In Stage 2, in order to identify the multiple mediation effects
of job satisfaction and trust, we conducted a comparison
between Model 1 (Fig. 2) and Model 2 (Fig. 3), where Model 2
included the links from the mediators (job satisfaction and trust)
and the dependent variable. In this stage we determined
whether the mediators (job satisfaction and trust) affect project
success when the independent variable (EI) is controlled. If job
satisfaction and trust completely mediate the relationship
between EI and project success, the path between them should
then become non-significant.
First, we used the maximum-likelihood method in AMOS,
and calculated the significance of a multiple mediation effect in
the SEM. As can be seen in Fig. 3, the path in Model 2 from EI
to project success became non-significant. This confirms that
the effect of EI on project success was completely mediated by
both job satisfaction and trust.
We next conducted a complimentary test using the bootstrap
method with 5000 samples and a 95% bias-corrected confi-
dence interval (Efron and Tibshirani, 1993). Bootstrapping
Table 1
Goodness-of-fit statistics.
Parameter: model χ
2
/df p IFI TLI CFI RMSEA SRMR
2nd-order 1.653 0.000 0.946 0.940 0.946 0.042 0.067
1st-order 2.237 0.000 0.895 0.885 0.897 0.059 0.077
Table 2
Convergent validity tests.
Variable Cronbach's
alpha
Composite
reliability
Average variance
extracted
EI 0.88 0.81 0.52
Job satisfaction 0.84 0.83 0.51
Project success 0.92 0.83 0.62
Trust 0.81 0.86 0.53
1118 A. Rezvani et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1112–1122
provides the most powerful and reasonable method of obtaining
confidence limits for mediation effects under various condi-
tions (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). As can be seen in Table 4,
while the lower bound and upper bounds for the indirect
(mediated) variables do not include zero, the direct effect from
EI to project success does include zero. These findings confirm
support for Hypotheses 3a and 3b (job satisfaction and trust
both link to project success), and 4a and 4b (mediation effects).
6. Discussion
Our main motivation in conducting the present study was to
examine the underlying mechanisms by which a critical
component of project manager skill –EI –is linked to managers'
ratings of project success factors in a complex project setting. Our
findings demonstrate in particular that, while project managers'
EI is positively related to project success (Müller and Turner,
2010), this relationship is complex and cannot be fully explained
in terms of a straight-forward direct relationship.
To understand the underlying mechanisms connecting project
managers' EI and project success we developed and tested a
model that drew on relevant emotions theory (Ashkanasy, 2002;
Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996). Using this theoretical framework
we argued for the relationship between EI and project success and
inferred that this relationship may be mediated by two paths.
First, we argued that trust is an attitudinal variable that implies an
emotional bond linking EI and project success. As such,
emotionally intelligent project managers develop trust with their
team by creating an emotional attachment with their team
members, and this relationship is then reflected in project success
factors, including communication, mission clarity, troubleshoot-
ing, and top-management support. Second, the mediating role of
job satisfaction determines the impact of EI on project managers'
evaluative judgments regarding their job and is also reflected in
their evaluations of project success.
Our findings suggest that the traditional view of the direct
effect of EI on project success only tells part of the story. In this
sense, our study represents a response to Müller and Jugdev's
(2012) call for research to explore mediating variables of project
success. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to
apply AET to study the role of EI in project success. The positive
relationship we found between EI, job satisfaction, and trust
provides further insights into the relationship between emotion-
ally intelligent project managers' skills and their work attitudes.
This positive relationship is also consistent with previous
research findings related to EI and work attitudes (Sy et al.,
2006, Wong and Law, 2002). Emotionally intelligent managers
have the ability to recover quickly from negative emotions and
stress in difficult situations (Wong and Law, 2002). In a complex
project setting, project managers who are confronted with a
difficult situation would be able to regulate their emotions to
work towards a productive outcome. The findings of this study
help shed light on this critical organisational process that has
previously lacked both theoretical and empirical attention. Given
that EI and work attitudes have been shown to make a difference
in terms of heightened project success, our results may guide new
research that aims to capture the potentially business-enhancing
effects of combining EI and positive work attitudes in a complex
project setting.
Our study also contributes from a methodological perspec-
tive, insofar as we examined satisfaction and trust simulta-
neously, thus reducing a parameter estimate bias issue
(Preacher and Hayes, 2008) that would have arisen were we
to have examined one mediator at a time.
Table 3
Standard deviation (SD), mean, correlations and discriminate validity.
Mean SD Age Gender Education EI Job satisfaction Project success Trust
Age 3.81 1.81
Gender 1.84 0.37 0.21 ⁎
Education 3.97 1.18 −0.12 ⁎0.06
EI 5.05 1.01 −0.05 −0.08 0.08 0.72
Job satisfaction 3.60 1.03 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.42 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.71
Project success 5.17 1.27 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.41 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.51 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.79
Trust 5.66 0.98 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.67 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.35 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.38 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.73
Figures in bold on the diagonal represent square root of average variance extracted.
⁎pb.05.
⁎⁎⁎ pb.00.
Fig. 2. Model 1 results (AWOE = awareness of own emotions; AWAE = awareness of others' emotions; MOE = management of own emotions; MAO =
management of others' emotions).
1119A. Rezvani et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1112–1122
6.1. Practical implications
Understanding how EI links to project success has practical
implications for project managers, particularly in the areas of
recruitment and management development. Our findings suggest
that organisations should consider recruiting project managers
who have high levels of EI since these managers can be expected
to have higher levels of positive work attitudes, such as job
satisfaction and trust. In terms of human resource development,
emphasis should be given to developing EI in project managers
(Clarke, 2010). EI would seem to be a significant factor that plays
a key role in social situations, instilling feelings of trust and
cooperation with other project teams, particularly in highly
stressful workconditions such ascomplex projects. EI can also be
developed through training programmes. Clarke (2010) reported
that project managers who received EI training increased positive
attitudes and behaviour and decreased conflict; in Clarke's (2010)
study the organisation that supported the EI training also
exceeded its productivity goals. As a multitude of studies have
shown, revenue growth can be increased by improving manager
satisfaction and trust (Mohr and Puck, 2007). Positive work
attitudes, such as job satisfaction and trust, are enhanced by
fostering EI in managers (Carmeli, 2003).
Finally, we note that our findings suggest that top manage-
ment should be aware of the importance of project managers' job
satisfaction and trust, which can both serve to boost project
success in complex project situations. As such, enhancing job
satisfaction and promoting project managers' trust in their
followers should form part of leader development programmes.
In this regard, providing appropriate training programmes has
been shown to be associated with increased job satisfaction
(Harris et al., 2009). Design of project rewards or empowerment
is another strategy that increases the development of trust
between two parties in projects which lead to revenue growth
(Mohr and Puck, 2007).
6.2. Limitations and future directions
We acknowledge three limitations to our study that suggest
potential fruitful opportunities for future research. First, we
acknowledge that the generalisability of results may be limited
because our data were collected from a defence organisation in
the one country: Australia. In this case, it might be useful to see if
our findings replicate in other national settings. Second, while we
justified two particular mediators (job satisfaction and trust) of
the EI–project success relationship, we also acknowledge that
additional mechanisms might exist through which EI may impact
on project success. Future research might therefore consider other
mechanisms, such as work environment characteristics and
personal dispositions. Finally, we point out that we focused on
a managerial sample; in this regard, researchers in the future
might wish to examine the role of EI among non-managerial
employees and its impact on project success.
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.
References
Ashkanasy, N., 2002. Studies of cognition and emotion in organisations:
attribution, affective events, emotional intelligence and perception of
emotion. Aust. J. Manag. 27, 11–20.
Ashton-James, C.E., Ashkanasy, N.M., 2005. What Lies Beneath? A Process
Analysis of Affective Events Theory. In: Ashkanasy, N.M., Zerbe, W.J.,
Härtel, C.E.J. (Eds.), Research on Emotion in Organizations vol. 1. Elsevier
Science, Oxford, UK, pp. 23–50.
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., Ward, S., 2006. Fundamental uncertainties in
projects and the scope of project management. Int. J. Proj. and Innovation
ManagementManag. 24 (8), 687–698.
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., Mulki, J., 2010. Antecedents of team creativity: an
examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative
culture. Creat. Innov. Manag. 19 (4), 332–345.
Belout, A., Gauvreau, C., 2004. Factors influencing project success: the impact
of human resource management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22 (1), 1–11.
Boden, M.T., Berenbaum, H., 2007. Emotional awareness, gender, and
suspiciousness. Cognit. Emot. 21 (2), 268–280.
Bowling, N.A., 2007. Is the job satisfaction–job performance relationship
spurious? A meta-analytic examination. J. Vocat. Behav. 71 (2), 167–185.
Breckler, S.J., 1990. Applications of covariance structure modeling in
psychology: cause for concern? Psychol. Bull. 107 (2), 260.
Bresnen, M., Marshall, N., 2000. Building partnerships: case studies of client–
contractor collaboration in the UK construction industry. Constr. Manag.
Econ. 18 (7), 819–832.
Brief, A.P., 1998. Attitudes in and Around Organizations vol. 9. Sage.
Fig. 3. Model 2 results (AWOE = awareness of own emotions; AWAE = awareness of others' emotions; MOE = management of own emotions; MAO =
management of others' emotions).
Table 4
Bias-corrected bootstrap results.
Confidence limits
Parameters Lower Upper p-Value
EI →Job satisfaction .455 .927 .000
EI →Trust .261 .554 .000
EI →Project success −1.200 .526 .874
Job satisfaction →Project success .351 .697 .000
Trust →Project success .226 .812 .027
1120 A. Rezvani et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1112–1122
Byrne, B.M., 2013. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic
Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Routledge, New York.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G.D., Klesh, J., 1983. Michigan
Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Assessing Organizational
Change: A Guide To Methods, Measures, and Practices, pp. 71–138.
Carmeli, A., 2003. The relationship between emotional intelligence and work
attitudes, behavior and outcomes: an examination among senior managers.
J. Manag. Psychol. 18 (8), 788–813.
Caruso, D.R., Salovey, P., 2004. The Emotionally Intelligent Manager: How to
Develop and Use the Four Key Emotional Skills of Leadership. John Wiley
& Sons, New York.
Chang, A., Chih, Y.Y., Chew, E., Pisarski, A., 2013. Reconceptualising mega
project success in Australian Defence: recognising the importance of value
co-creation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (8), 1139–1153.
Chen, G., Ployhart, R.E., Thomas, H.C., Anderson, N., Bliese, P.D., 2011. The
power of momentum: a new model of dynamic relationships between job
satisfaction change and turnover intentions. Acad. Manag. J. 54 (1), 159–181.
Cherns, A.B., Bryant, D.T., 1984. Studying the client's role in construction
management. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2 (2), 177–184.
Cheung, S.O., Ng, T.S., Wong, S.P., Suen, H.C., 2003. Behavioral aspects in
construction partnering. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21 (5), 333–343.
Christie, A.M., Jordan, P.J., Troth, A.C., 2015. Trust antecedents: emotional
intelligence and perceptions of others. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 23 (1), 89–101.
Chun, J.U., Litzky, B.E., Sosik, J.J., Bechtold, D.C., Godshalk, V.M., 2010.
Emotional intelligence and trust in formal mentoring programs. Group
Organ. Manag. 35 (4), 421–455.
Clarke, N., 2010. Emotional intelligence and its relationship to transformational
leadership and key project manager competences. Proj. Manag. J. 41 (2), 5–20.
Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., LePine, J.A., 2007. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust
propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking
and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 (4), 909.
Couillard, J., 1995. The role of project risk in determining project management
approach. Proj. Manag. J. 26, 3–15.
Davis, K., 2014. Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project
success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (2), 189–201.
Diallo, A., Thuillier, D., 2005. The success of international development
projects, trust and communication: an African perspective. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 23 (3), 237–252.
Dunn, J.R., Schweitzer, M.E., 2005. Feeling and believing: the influence of
emotion on trust. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88 (5), 736.
Dvir, D., Ben-David, A., Sadeh, A., Shenhar, A.J., 2006. Critical managerial
factors affecting defense projects success: a comparison between neural
network and regression analysis. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 19 (5), 535–543.
Eden, C., Williams, T., Ackermann, F., 2005. Analysing project cost overruns:
comparing the “measured mile”analysis and system dynamics modelling.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23 (2), 135–139.
Efron, B., Tibshirani, R., 1993. An introduction to the bootstrap. Monogr. Stat.
Appl. Probab. (EUA) 57.
El-Sabaa, S., 2001. The skills and career path of an effective project manager.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 19 (1), 1–7.
Fisher, C.D., 2003. Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance
are correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense theory. J. Organ. Behav.
24 (6), 753–777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.219.
Fisher, E., 2011. What practitioners consider to be the skills and
behaviours of an effective people project manager. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 29 (8), 994–1002.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2005. Design by deception: the politics of megaproject approval.
Harv. Des. Mag. 22, 50–59.
Gillespie, N., 2012. Measuring Trust in Organizational Contexts: An Overview
of Survey-based Measures. In: Lyon, F., Möllering, G., Saunders, M. (Eds.),
Handbook of Research Methods on Trust. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK,
pp. 175–188.
Gillespie, N.A., Mann, L., 2004. Transformational leadership and shared
values: the building blocks of trust. J. Manag. Psychol. 19 (6),
588–607.
Güleryüz, G., Güney,S., Aydın, E.M., Aşan, Ö., 2008. The mediating effect of job
satisfaction between emotional intelligence and organisational commitment of
nurses: a questionnaire survey. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 45 (11), 1625–1635.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Mena, J.A., 2012. An assessment of the
use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing
research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 40 (3), 414–433.
Harris, K.J., Wheeler, A.R., Kacmar, K.M., 2009. Leader–member exchange
and empowerment: direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction,
turnover intentions, and performance. Leadersh. Q. 20 (3), 371–382.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., Mullen, M.R., 2008. Structural equation modelling:
guidelines for determining model fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 6 (1),
53–60.
Jordan, P.J., Lawrence, S.A., 2009. Emotional intelligence in teams:
development and initial validation of the workgroup emotional intelligence
profile —short version (WEIP-S). J. Manag. Organ. 15, 452–469.
Jordan, P.J., Lindebaum, D., 2015. A model of within person variation in
leadership: emotional regulation and scripts as predictors of situationally
appropriate leadership. Leadersh. Q. 26, 594–605.
Jordan, P.J., Lawrence, S.A., Troth, A.C., 2006. The impact of negative mood
on team performance. J. Manag. Organ. 12 (2), 131–145.
Jöreskog, K.G., 1993. Testing Structural Equation Models. In: Bollen, K.A.,
Scott Long, J. (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. Sage, Newbury
Park, CA.
Joseph, D.L., Newman, D.A., 2010. Emotional intelligence: an integrative
meta-analysis and cascading model. J. Appl. Psychol. 95 (1), 54.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Erez, A., Locke, E.A., 2005. Core self-evaluations and
job and life satisfaction: the role of self-concordance and goal attainment.
J. Appl. Psychol. 90 (2), 257.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E., Patton, G.K., 2001. The job
satisfaction–job performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative
review. Psychol. Bull. 127 (3), 376.
Jugdev, K., Müller, R., 2005. A retrospective look at our evolving
understanding of project success. Proj. Manag. J. 36 (4), 19–31.
Jung, D.I., Avolio, B.J., 2000. Opening the black box: an experimental
investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on
transformational and transactional leadership. J. Organ. Behav. 21 (8),
949–964.
Kadefors, A., 2004. Trust in project relationships—inside the black box. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 22 (3), 175–182.
Kafetsios, K., Zampetakis, L.A., 2008. Emotional intelligence and job
satisfaction: testing the mediatory role of positive and negative affect at
work. Personal. Individ. Differ. 44 (3), 712–722.
Kaulio, M.A., 2008. Project leadership in multi-project settings: findings from a
critical incident study. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26 (4), 338–347.
Lee-Kelley, L., Sankey, T., 2008. Global virtual teams for value creation and
project success: a case study. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26 (1), 51–62.
Lewicki, R.J., Tomlinson, E.C., Gillespie, N., 2006. Models of interpersonal
trust development: theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future
directions. J. Manag. 32, 991–1022.
Lindebaum, D., Jordan, P.J., 2014. When it can be good to feel bad and bad to
feel good: exploring asymmetries in workplace emotional outcomes. Hum.
Relat. 67, 1037–1050.
Locke, E.A., 1969. What is job satisfaction? Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 4
(4), 309–336.
MacKinnon, D.P., 2008. Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis.
Routledge.
Maurer, I., 2010. How to build trust in inter-organizational projects: the
impact of project staffing and project rewards on the formation of trust,
knowledge acquisition and product innovation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28 (7),
629–637.
Mayer, R.C., Gavin, M.B., 2005. Trust in management and performance: who
minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Acad. Manag. J. 48
(5), 874–888.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., 1997. What Is Emotional Intelligence? In: Salovey, P.,
Sluyter, D. (Eds.), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence:
Educational Implications. Basic Books, New York
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R., 2004. Target articles: emotional
intelligence: theory, findings, and implications. Psychol. Inq. 15 (3),
197–215.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R., 2008. Emotional intelligence: new
ability or eclectic traits? Am. Psychol. 63 (6), 503.
1121A. Rezvani et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1112–1122
Maylor, H., Vidgen, R., Carver, S., 2008. Managerial complexity in project-
based operations: a grounded model and its implications for practice. Proj.
Manag. J. 39 (S1), S15–S26.
Mazur, A., Pisarski, A., Chang, A., Ashkanasy, N.M., 2014. Rating defence
major project success: the role of personal attributes and stakeholder
relationships. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (6), 944–957.
McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Anderson, R.D., 2002. Impact of leadership style and
emotions on subordinate performance. Leadersh. Q. 13 (5), 545–559.
McEvily, B., Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., 2003. Trust as an organizing principle.
Organ. Sci. 14 (1), 91–103.
Mignonac, K., Herrbach, O., 2004. Linking work events, affective states, and
attitudes: an empirical study of managers' emotions. J. Bus. Psychol. 19 (2),
221–240.
Moe, N.B., Šmite, D., 2008. Understanding a lack of trust in Global Software
Teams: a multiple-case study. Softw. Process: Improv. Pract. 13 (3), 217–231.
Mohr, A.T., Puck, J.F., 2007. Role conflict, general manager job satisfaction
and stress and the performance of IJVs. Eur. Manag. J. 25 (1), 25–35.
Mount, G., 2006. The Role of Emotional Intelligence in Developing
International Business Capability: EI Provides Traction. Linking Emotional
Intelligence and Performance at Work, pp. 97–124.
Müller, R., Jugdev, K., 2012. Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin,
and Prescott—the elucidation of project success. Int. J. Manag. Projects
Bus. 5 (4), 757–775.
Müller, R., Turner, J.R., 2007. Matching the project manager's leadership style
to project type. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25 (1), 21–32.
Müller, R., Turner, R., 2010. Leadership competency profiles of successful
project managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28 (5), 437–448.
Müller, R., Geraldi, J., Turner, J., 2012. Relationships between leadership and
success in different types of project complexities. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.
59 (1), 77–90.
O'Boyle, E.H., Humphrey, R.H., Pollack, J.M., Hawver, T.H., Story, P.A.,
2011. The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: a
meta-analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 32, 788–818.
Park, J.G., Lee, J., 2014. Knowledge sharing in information systems
development projects: explicating the role of dependence and trust. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 32 (1), 153–165.
Parker, S.K., Skitmore, M., 2005. Project management turnover: causes and
effects on project performance. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23 (3), 205–214.
Peslak, A.R., 2005. Emotions and team projects and processes. Team Perform.
Manag. 11 (7/8), 251–262.
Pheng, L.S., Chuan, Q.T., 2006. Environmental factors and work performance of
project managers in the construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24 (1), 24–37.
Pich, M.T., Loch, C.H., Meyer, A.D., 2002. On uncertainty, ambiguity, and
complexity in project management. Manag. Sci. 48 (8), 1008–1023.
Pinto, J.K., 1990. Project implementation profile: a tool to aid project tracking
and control. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 8 (3), 173–182.
Pinto, J.K., Slevin, D.P., 1987. Critical factors in successful project
implementation. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 1,22–27.
Pinto, J.K., Slevin, D.P., 1989. Critical success factors in R&D projects. Res.
Technol. Manag. 32 (1), 31.
Pirola-Merlo, A., Härtel, C., Mann, L., Hirst, G., 2002. How leaders influence
the impact of affective events on team climate and performance in R&D
teams. Leadersh. Q. 13 (5), 561–581.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P., 2012. Sources of method
bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63, 539–569.
Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models.
Behav. Res. Methods 40 (3), 879–891.
Procaccino, J.D., Verner, J.M., Shelfer, K.M., Gefen, D., 2005. What do
software practitioners really think about project success: an exploratory
study. J. Syst. Softw. 78 (2), 194–203.
Richardson, H.A., Simmering, M.J., Sturman, M.C., 2009. A tale of three
perspectives examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and
correction of common method variance. Organ. Res. Methods 12 (4), 762–800.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., Camerer, C., 1998. Not so different
after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23 (3),
393–404.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J.D., 1990. Emotional intelligence. Imagination Cogn. Pers.
9 (3), 185–211.
Sauser, B.J., Reilly, R.R., Shenhar, A.J., 2009. Why projects fail? How
contingency theory can provide new insights—a comparative analysis of
NASA's Mars Climate Orbiter loss. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27 (7), 665–679.
Schaller, M., Cialdini, R.B., 1990. Happiness, Sadness, and Helping: A
Motivational Integration. In: Higgins, E.T., Sorrentino, R.M., M., Richard
(Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social
Behavior vol 3. Guilford Press, New York, pp. 265–296.
Shenhar, A.J., Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., Lechler, T., 2002. Refining
the search for project success factors: a multivariate, typological approach.
R&D Manag. 32 (2), 111–126.
Smyth, H., 2005. Trust in the design team. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 1 (3),
211–223.
Smyth, H., Gustafsson, M., Ganskau, E., 2010. The value of trust in project
business. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28 (2), 117–129.
Sun, M., Meng, X., 2009. Taxonomy for change causes and effects in
construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27 (6), 560–572.
Sunindijo, R.Y., Hadikusumo, B.H., Ogunlana, S., 2007. Emotional intelli-
gence and leadership styles in construction project management. J. Manag.
Eng. 23 (4), 166–170.
Sy, T., Tram, S., O'Hara, L.A., 2006. Relation of employee and manager
emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance. J. Vocat. Behav.
68 (3), 461–473.
Thomas, J., Mengel, T., 2008. Preparing project managers to deal with
complexity—advanced project management education. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
26 (3), 304–315.
Thompson, T. L. (2008). The Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and
Project Success: A Quantitative Study of Project Managers in Houston,
Texas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University.
Toor, S.-u.-R., Ogunlana, S.O., 2010. Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: stakeholder
perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public
sector development projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28 (3), 228–236.
Turner, J.R., Müller, R., 2004. Communication and co-operation on projects
between the project owner as principal and the project manager as agent.
Eur. Manag. J. 22 (3), 327–336.
Turner, J.R., Zolin, R., 2012. Modelling success on complex projects: multiple
perspectives over multiple time frames. J. Project Manag. 87–99 (October).
Von Glinow, M.A., Shapiro, D.L., Brett, J.M., 2004. Can we talk, and should
we? Managing emotional conflict in multicultural teams. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 29 (4), 578–592.
Wang, X., Huang, J., 2006. The relationships between key stakeholders' project
performance and project success: perceptions of Chinese construction
supervising engineers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24 (3), 253–260.
Webber, S.S., Klimoski, R.J., 2004. Client–project manager engagements, trust,
and loyalty. J. Organ. Behav. 25 (8), 997–1013.
Weiss, H.M., 2002. Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations,
beliefs and affective experiences. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 12 (2),
173–194.
Weiss, H.M., Cropanzano, R., 1996. Affective events theory: a theoretical
discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective
experiences at work. Res. Organ. Behav. 18, 1–74.
Whitty, S.J., Maylor, H., 2009. And then came complex project management
(revised). Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27 (3), 304–310.
Wiewiora, A., Murphy, G., Trigunarsyah, B., Brown, K., 2014. Interactions
between organizational culture, trustworthiness, and mechanisms for inter-
project knowledge sharing. Proj. Manag. J. 45 (2), 48–65.
Williams, T., Samset, K., 2010. Issues in front-end decision making on projects.
Proj. Manag. J. 41 (2), 38–49.
Wong, C.S., Law, K.S., 2002. The effects of leader and follower emotional
intelligence on performance and attitude: an exploratory study. Leadersh. Q.
13 (3), 243–274.
Zhao, H.A.O., Wayne, S.J., Glibkowski, B.C., Bravo, J., 2007. The impact of
psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: a meta-analysis.
Pers. Psychol. 60 (3), 647–680.
1122 A. Rezvani et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1112–1122
