Module 01 Discussion- Oxygenation and Physiological Needs Rubric

Module 01 Discussion- Oxygenation and Physiological Needs
Rubric
Total Assessment Points - 30
Levels of Achievement
Criteria
Emerging
Competence
Proficiency
Mastery
Initial Posting Comprehension
(13 Pts)
Initial post does not include explanations with examples or
supporting evidence. Failure to submit initial posting will
result in zero points for this criteria.
Initial post includes brief explanation with at least one example
and limited supporting evidence.
Initial post includes clear explanation with examples and
supporting evidence.
Initial post includes comprehensive explanation with detailed
examples and supporting evidence.
Points: 10
Points: 11
Points: 12
Points: 13
Response Posting Reasoning
(12 Pts)
Response to peers attempts to contribute to the discussion but
lacks suggestions and/or supporting evidence. Failure to submit
response postings will result in zero points for this criteria.
Response to peers provides minimal contributions and
suggestions with limited supporting evidence.
Response to peers contributes to the discussion with suggestions
and supporting evidence.

Response to peers offers substantial contributions and detailed
suggestions with supporting evidence.
Points: 9
Points: 10
Points: 11
Points: 12
Spelling and Grammar
(3 Pts)
Six or more spelling or grammar errors. Detracts from the
readability of the submission.
No more than five spelling or grammar errors, minimally
detracts from the readability of the submission.
No more than three spelling or grammar errors. Does not
detract from the readability of the submission.
No spelling or grammar errors.
Points: 1
Points: 2
Points: 2.5
Points: 3
APA Citation
(2 Pts)
Six or more APA errors reflected throughout initial and
response postings.
No more than five APA errors reflected throughout initial and
response postings.
No more than three APA errors reflected throughout initial and
response postings.
APA in-text citations and references are used correctly with no
errors in initial and response postings.
Points: 0
Points: 0.5

Points: 1
Points: 2
Roles of Shared Leadership, Autonomy, and
Knowledge Sharing in Construction Project Success
Hassan Imam, Ph.D.1
Abstract: Drawing upon self-determination theory, this study
discusses in depth the role of team members’ autonomy and
knowledge
sharing in construction projects. The main purpose of the study
is to investigate the rarely discussed role of shared leadership in
the successful
completion of these types of projects. The data were collected
from 216 site engineers working in Tier 3 construction
companies on two time
points. PROCESS Macro was used to test the hypothesized
framework. The results showed that shared leadership plays a
direct, significant
role in the successful delivery of projects and, through
members’ autonomy, meets individual psychological needs.
Slope analysis revealed
that knowledge sharing moderates the relationship between
shared leadership and autonomy. The present study’s framework
deepens
the understanding of construction projects with self-
determination theory that shared leadership fulfills workers’
psychological needs
(competence, relatedness, and autonomy) and leads project
deliverables. With a multifaceted project approach, this study
highlighted that

shared leadership is not limited to one dimension of project
success but positively impacts project cost, client use,
effectiveness, satisfaction,
performance, and time management. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002084. © 2021 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Shared leadership; Knowledge sharing;
Project success; Self-determination theory; Autonomy.
Introduction
The construction industry is one of the most costly, technically
de-
manding, and risky industries and commonly involves long time
frames (Ahmad et al. 2020). The general purpose of a project is
to meet all stakeholders’ needs (including project workers), but
professionals, building contractors, and even researchers tend to
place much of their emphasis on technical aspects and how
triple
constraints (time, cost, and scope) can be efficient in meeting
project deliverables (Fulford and Standing 2014). A large
number
of construction management and engineering studies discuss
these
technical aspects, but rarely do researchers ever discuss the
human
role in projects as a critical success factor (Phua 2012).
Likewise,
individual-level constructs (i.e., workers’ psychological needs)
are
seldom taken into consideration in connection with construction
project performance (Phua 2013). It is equally important to
discuss
project leadership and the development of construction workers’
skills because both of these are significant, practical factors —

for
two major reasons. First, inappropriate leadership style
increases
uncertainty of authority, power, and directions, thereby posing a
threat to project success (Müller and Turner 2007). Second,
sustain-
able human development (i.e., expansion of human capabilities
and
well-being) falls under the scope of project leadership, and thus
far,
this aspect has attracted very little attention from project
researchers
(Byrne and Barling 2015; Muñiz Castillo and Gasper 2012).
Leadership style can be seen as one of the major reasons for a
project’s failure because in traditional projects (particularly in
conventional construction projects), an appointed leader at the
top
gives directions and then assesses the progress being made
through-
out the project (Nixon et al. 2012; Turner and Müller 2005).
These types of leaders do not strengthen worker autonomy, and
they do not share project information well (Ellerman 2004,
2009).
The concept of shared leadership, in which the role of
leadership
is shared among team members and where cooperation could be
a
common practice, has emerged in the management literature as
an
effective leadership behavior in organizations (particularly
those in
which task complexity and team interdependence are high)
(Huang
2013; Kozlowski et al. 1996; Pearce and Sims 2002). Put

simply, a
shared approach from leadership to achieve the goals amplifies
the
employees’ performance (Gupta et al. 2010). Observing the
posi-
tive results of shared leadership in different domains (e.g.,
health-
care, education, and management) (Carson et al. 2007; Judge
and
Ryman 2001; Printy and Marks 2006) led project researchers to
think about how shared leadership could improve team
functioning
and project performance (Clarke 2012; Imam and Zaheer 2021).
Owing to the fact that a project requires cooperation and
collabo-
ration between team members—and based on shared leadership
properties (e.g., self-organized problem solving)—this is likely
to result in positive project outcomes. Therefore, in light of the
recent call for research, this paper seeks to answer how a shared
style of leadership contributes to project success (PS) and
human
development (Imam and Zaheer 2021; Scott-Young et al. 2019).
The context of this study is a construction project, where it is
assumed that bureaucratic rules exist and that labor typically
has
less autonomy to initiate or improve project tasks (Holt et al.
2000;
Silver 1990; Walker 2011). Thus, the present study takes a
sustain-
able human development approach to understanding the extent
to
which shared leadership fosters autonomy in project teams
(Dainty
et al. 2002). Normally, construction projects will have to deal
with

changes (i.e., material, design, cost, or scope) from clients that
require an adequate degree of communication between client
and
project manager to discuss the changes (Sun and Meng 2009;
Yang
and Wei 2010). A traditional project approach has one person
influencing the project downward (vertical leader), who then
com-
municates the change requirement(s) to the concerned project
team
members, rather than to all members. This is because vertical
lead-
ership is heavily focused on the scientific management approach
(i.e., task specialization and less involvement in decision-
making)
1Riphah School of Business and Management, Riphah
International
Univ., Lahore Campus, Lahore 54000, Pakistan. ORCID:
https://orcid
.org/0000-0002-0740-0897. Email: [email protected]
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 26, 2020;
approved on
January 26, 2021; published online on May 11, 2021.
Discussion period
open until October 11, 2021; separate discussions must be
submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of
Construction En-
gineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
© ASCE 04021067-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(7): 04021067
D

ow
nl
oa
de
d
fr
om
a
sc
el
ib
ra
ry
.o
rg
b
y
A
ra
b
A
ca
de
m

y
F
or
S
ci
en
ce
&
T
ec
h
on
0
6/
06
/2
1.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
A
S

C
E
. F
or
p
er
so
na
l
us
e
on
ly
;
al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.

https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002084
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0740-0897
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0740-0897
mailto:[email protected]
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1061%2F%28ASC
E%29CO.1943-7862.0002084&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2021-
05-11
(Ensley et al. 2006). Because of high task interdependence in
con-
struction, limited circulation of information about change
increases
uncertainty and may affect the overall project (Fong and Lung
2007). There is also an increased chance that, when all the
power
and control are held by a single or dominant leader, then
members
may be involved in political games (Clarke 2012; Pinto 2000).
Thus, an autonomous and knowledge sharing (KS) environment
is vital for the construction team to use less time, remain within
budget, and stay on schedule (Kuenzel et al. 2016). Therefor e,
this
study contemplates that sharing the role of leadership in the
project
not only increases KS among members but also makes members
more autonomous and able to cope with project challenges
(Worley and Lawler 2006) and adds to their knowledge, skills,
and
abilities (Swart and Kinnie 2003).
This paper contributes to the project literature by taking the
micro (individual) level and meso (project) level perspectives,
in
two ways: first, the human role in projects (particularly the

project
leadership) is in its establishment phase and requires
researchers’
attention (Byrne and Barling 2015); and second, to highlight
that
appropriate leadership not only fulfills clients’ requirements but
at
the same time also increases the capacity of people who are en-
gaged in these projects by providing autonomy, transferring
knowl-
edge and skills so that they can help themselves (Ellerman
2009).
Essentially, in response to the recent call for research (Scott-
Young
et al. 2019), this study focuses on project workers as agents of
change, where shared leadership increases their ability to act
and
achieve project goals, rather than only communicating orders to
get
things done with minimum (or no) support (Imam and Zaheer
2021).
Self-Determination Theory
Self-determination theory, a metatheory, addresses why (and
what)
motivates humans to pursue a particular task/goal (Deci and
Ryan
2000) and mainly focuses on “people’s inherent growth
tendencies
and innate psychological needs” (Ryan and Deci 2000, p. 68).
The
core of self-determination theory is made up of two distinct
motiva-
tional behaviors. The first behavior is autonomous motivational
behavior—out of free will. Individuals’ goal/task achieving

behav-
ior is not entirely dependent upon functional purposes (e.g.,
wage/
salary); they also act based on interest and fun (Fernet et al.
2010)
or personal value fulfillment related to psychological needs
(Millette and Gagné 2008) and expend extra effort in this
connec-
tion (De Cooman et al. 2013). The second behavior involves a
feel-
ing of external pressure and having to engage in an activity or
to
avoid punishment or feelings of guilt. This is called controlled
motivation. Such behaviors, in which individuals feel obliged or
a sense of external pressure, may negatively affect their well-
being
(Gagné 2003).
Three main aspects—autonomy, relatedness, and competence—
have been identified that promote motivation and are directly
linked
with innate psychological needs (Ryan and Deci 2017).
Autonomy
relates to people’s need to feel that they are in control of their
behavior because they want to feel that they are the masters of
their
own destiny. Likewise, given the limited freedom with
responsibil-
ities and accountability to construction workers, autonomy may
provide better project results. Competence is heavily related to
achievement and the advancement of knowledge and skills, and
so people need to build up their competence and develop a
mastery
over tasks. They are more likely to act because those tasks help
them to achieve their personal/professional goals. Relatedness
is

concerned with individuals’ need for belongingness and
attachment
to others, interdependence to some degree. The fulfillment of
these three psychological needs help to attain the necessary
self-determination level to achieve positive (personal and
profes-
sional) outcomes. Of the three aspects, autonomy is one of the
most
powerful influences on motivation, along with competence
(Deci
and Ryan 2000, p. 235).
In light of self-determination theory, this study examines the
question of how shared leadership fulfills workers’
psychological
needs by leveraging autonomy at work and creates an
environment
of KS that expands worker knowledge and skills (Deci and Ryan
2000). Likewise, within the context of a project team,
leadership
sharing works as a multidirectional social process and as a
collec-
tive activity that allows for sense making and is embedded
within a
project (Fletcher and Kaufer 2003).
Hypothesis Development
Construction projects are complex and multifaceted
undertakings
that demand teamwork, cooperation, and collaboration among
project members who share common goals and face common
issues
(Spatz 1999). Therefore, the increasing emphasis on teamwork
(which involves a significant investment of intellectual capi tal

by a group of skilled professionals) has gradually led
researchers
to shift their focus from individual leadership to shared
leadership
(Houghton et al. 2003). Merely working on a team is not always
associated with increased effectiveness (Ashley 1992), and
teams
often fail to live up to their potential owing to an inability to
smoothly coordinate team members’ actions and a lack of
effective
leadership to guide this process (Burke et al. 2003). As a result,
it is
important to maintain practices of team leadership that are more
predictive of successful outcomes, such as efficiency and
produc-
tivity. Shared leadership is explained as “a dynamic, interactive
influence process among individuals in groups for which the ob-
jective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or
organi-
zational goals or both” (Pearce and Conger 2003, p. 1). The
difference between shared leadership and shared responsibility
is
abundantly evident in literature: the former distributes
responsibil-
ities and influence (Carson et al. 2007), while the latter
emphasizes
individual cooperative actions and attitudes, with team members
then converting individual input into team output (Hollenbeck
et al.
2012; LePine et al. 2008).
Shared leadership creates a pattern of reciprocal influence in
which the leader’s behavior influences members—and, in the
same
way, a member’s actions, such as coordination, increases mutual
understanding with the leader (Carson et al. 2007). Applying

the shared leadership concept to a construction project promotes
relationships among members that further facilitate the project’s
key functions (i.e., cooperation, coordination, and problem
sharing)
(Crevani et al. 2007). Shared leadership divides power
according to
team members’ responsibilities and incorporates members into
the
process of decision-making (Robert and You 2018), and in con-
struction projects, this division of the leader’s role may range
from
high to low (Robert 2013). Project success largely depends on
leadership style (Müller and Turner 2007), and sharing a
leader’s
role among members creates a similar understanding of goals
and
objectives (Crevani et al. 2007). With an example from the
plant
construction and engineering industry, Hauschildt and
Kirchmann
(2001) found that performance (innovation success) increased
by
30%–50% when multiple individuals took on a leadership role
within project. This study argues that shared leadership is an
intan-
gible project resource where members develop trust and respect
and are open to influences that improve team functioning,
thereby
meeting the success criteria (Carson et al. 2007). Therefore, the
first
hypothesis is as follows:
H1: Shared leadership behavior increases the likelihood of
project success.

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
fr
om
a
sc
el
ib
ra
ry
.o
rg
b
y
A
ra
b
A

ca
de
m
y
F
or
S
ci
en
ce
&
T
ec
h
on
0
6/
06
/2
1.
C
op
yr
ig

ht
A
S
C
E
. F
or
p
er
so
na
l
us
e
on
ly
;
al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es

er
ve
d.
In construction projects, it is generally understood that tasks are
repetitive and that authoritarian leadership is enough to
complete all
tasks (Giritli and Oraz 2004; Holt et al. 2000). However, this
may
not be correct in the current business climate, in which
construction
projects face industry-specific challenges (i.e., fluctuating con-
struction activity), operating environment challenges (i.e., the
need
to integrate an increasingly large number of processes), and
general
business challenges (i.e., the growing size of projects and
increased
participation of foreign companies in domestic industries due to
globalization) (Toor and Ofori 2008b). In this context, the role
of leadership becomes more crucial for dealing with industry (as
well as workforce) challenges (i.e., aging workforce) and
dealing
with change/transition, as well as teamwork and communicating
project goals (Toor and Ofori 2008a). Therefore, project
research-
ers emphasize applying different styles of leadership in the con-
struction industry to deal with overall challenges (Chan and
Chan
2005; Toor and Ofori 2008b). It is pertinent to mention that
project
risk management is typically limited to technical aspects (i.e.,
fluc-

tuations in material costs and delayed cash flow); however,
project
managers face unknowns during the course of a project, in
which
human aspects (e.g., teamwork and goal communication) are
also
critical to project success and directly come under the purview
of
project leadership (Clarke 2012).
For the smooth functioning of (non)routine tasks and dealing
with
uncertain situations, project team members require autonomy—
the
extent of individual freedom, discretion, and independence in
carry-
ing out tasks (Chiniara and Bentein 2016). Gemünden et al.
(2005,
pp. 366–367) identified four types of project autonomy: (1) goal
de-
fining, freedom to set personal goals, and their priority; (2)
social
autonomy, choices available for self-organizing within a
project,
including interaction with other members; (3) structural
autonomy,
maintaining one’s own identity and boundaries with others; and
(4) resource autonomy, where one has the choice to use
resources
to complete an assigned task. All four types of autonomy are
needed
for construction project workers to be able to deal with client
change requirements and maintain control over project tasks.
Self-
determination theory indicates that autonomy is an influential
indi-

vidual’s psychological need that initiates self-motivated
behavior
toward need fulfillment.
This study postulates, in light of self-determination theory, that
shared leadership increases self-motivation by delegating influ-
ence, authority in tasks, and responsibilities among members to
ful-
fill individuals’ psychological needs (Deci and Ryan 2000;
Fausing
et al. 2013). This autonomy provides confidence in members to
devote their best efforts to a project and enables them to better
deal
with changing situations (Drescher et al. 2014; Fausing et al.
2013).
Construction projects have more distinct and dispersed
functions
(logistically complex and very resource-intensive, with a major
fo-
cus on activity-based planning) than other projects (e.g., supply
chain and risk management) (Al-Bahar and Crandall 1990;
Turner and Cochrane 1993; Vrijhoef and Koskela 2005).
Therefore,
autonomy is crucial in obtaining better results, and shared
leader-
ship fosters required autonomy on a team (Fausing et al. 2013).
In
light of the preceding considerations, the second hypothesis is
as
follows:
H2: Autonomy positively mediates the relationship between
shared leadership and project success.
Because of the diversity of tasks in construction projects, mem-
bers with broader skill sets and educational backgrounds are re -

quired, and so autonomy becomes a prerequisite for performing
assigned tasks. Likewise, to increase project efficiency, it is a
leader’s responsibility to create a productive work environment
where members can share their expertise and skills. Studies
have
demonstrated that shared leadership makes for efficient team
functioning by creating a collaborative environment (Drescher
et al.
2014) and increased social interaction among members (Conger
and Pearce 2003). Working in an environment where employees
have a higher degree of information sharing is better for
mobilizing
their creative potential (Wang and Noe 2010). They are able to
solve tasks optimally and quickly by utilizing the available
infor-
mation than they would have otherwise—known as knowledge
sharing (Christensen 2007), which is connected to an
individual’s
intelligence, convictions, and values (Hoegl and Schulze 2005).
The exchange of information and ideas also becomes more
impor-
tant in construction projects because of their greater (financial
and
social) value and because of the technical tasks involved.
Likewise,
researchers have suggested that shared leadership is a better
prac-
tice for responding to the dynamic and changing characteristics
of
most projects (Clarke 2012).
The human side of work brings skills and motivation to com-
plete projects on time; however, employees expect that their
psychological needs will be met. Owing to the temporally bound
nature of projects, workers may not be motivated or committed

to a
project, but they can still be motivated if they believe that they
will
acquire new knowledge and learn new things (Deci and Ryan
2000). Competence is related to achievement, knowledge, and
skills that one feels are important to grow. For this, one needs
to
develop mastery over tasks in order to remain employable. To
ex-
pand project workers’ existing skills, an environment of
knowledge
sharing (where team members can share their project-related
ideas
and information) is important because one person alone may not
possess all the skills required to complete a task (Pearce and
Manz
2005). This study postulates that in a project where a leadership
role is shared, members can share their knowledge and expertise
with each other (Coun et al. 2019; Houghton et al. 2003). This
KS
environment increases workers’ skills, and they then feel more
autonomous in carrying out their tasks (Pearce and Manz 2005).
In construction projects, workers perform their jobs as a team,
and
a recent study demonstrated that team functioning improves by
providing autonomy to workers (van Zijl et al. 2019). Drawing
on self-determination theory, this study argues that shared
leader-
ship increases workers’ joint responsibility by providing
autonomy
and a trust environment that is conducive to cooperation and
sharing knowledge with each other (Coun et al. 2019). However,
in an environment where KS is frequent, workers will feel less
dependent upon their so-called structural supervisor and others,
and the level of perceived autonomy at work will be high. Thus,
the third hypothesis is as follows:

H3: Knowledge sharing moderates the relationship of shared
leadership and autonomy such that higher knowledge sharing
on a project will increase autonomy, and vice versa.
This study proposes a model in light of self-determination
theory (Fig. 1) for construction projects by taking into account
the human perspective and discusses the psychological needs
Shared
Leadership
Project Success
Members’
autonomy
Knowledge
sharing
Proposed research model
H1
H2
H3
Fig. 1. Proposed research model.
D
ow
nl

oa
de
d
fr
om
a
sc
el
ib
ra
ry
.o
rg
b
y
A
ra
b
A
ca
de
m
y
F

or
S
ci
en
ce
&
T
ec
h
on
0
6/
06
/2
1.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
A
S
C
E

. F
or
p
er
so
na
l
us
e
on
ly
;
al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.

and motivations of construction workers. The proposed model
highlights that implementing shared leadership increases the
like-
lihood of success of construction projects, because such a
leader-
ship style addresses workers’ psychological needs by leveraging
task autonomy and creating a KS culture. This distorts the
general assumption that authoritarian leadership is sufficient to
achieve project deliverables in construction projects, due to the
repetitive nature of tasks (Holt et al. 2000), and highlights that
shared leadership deals with contemporary challenges faced by
the construction industry—particularly fluctuations in
construction
activity—and increases the participation of foreign construction
companies in the domestic market (Toor and Ofori 2008b).
Fig. 1 shows the proposed model and directions of the hypoth-
esized relationships.
Methods
Data and Sampling
The data were obtained from construction companies in two
cities
in Pakistan (Lahore and Islamabad). The author contacted 953
construction companies (Tier 3 construction companies involved
in typically residential and small-scale commercial projects)
contacted and asked to provide the contact information of site
en-
gineers, team size, and nature of their last completed project.
Out of
the 953 companies contacted, 565 responses were received,
from
which 459 companies were selected, because these companies
were homogeneous in terms of their budgets [installed costs

were
between $250,000 and $550,000, converted from Pakistani
rupees
(PKR) to USD based on the definition of medium-sized
projects]
and team size (10–25 members) in their last completed projects.
Such projects are considered to be medium-sized projects
(Byrne
1999) and are, with respect to team size, suitable for gauging
the
significance of shared leadership because “with increases in
team
size, the psychological distance between individuals can
increase”
(Pearce and Herbik 2004, p. 297).
Site engineers were taken as a sample because they are respon-
sible for managing parts of construction projects, overseeing
building work, and liaising with quantity surveyors about the
order-
ing and pricing of materials, and they are also in close contact
with
project managers and workers. Thus, the site engineer’s
response
will be less biased and suitable as a source of information about
leadership style of project managers, knowledge sharing on
projects, workers’ perception of autonomy, and project success
(Podsakoff et al. 2012).
Paper-and-pencil surveys were distributed to site engineers
from the selected companies. The questionnaire contained three
filter questions to obtain information on the following factors:
one must have completed a project on a team, the size of the
team
worked with, and the size of the budget on the last completed
project. For respondents’ convenience, the questionnaire was

translated into the national (Urdu) language of Pakistan and
then
checked by two language experts. Few items were modified or
back-translated (Brislin 1970). Before administering the survey,
a pilot study was carried out to test the validity and reliability
of the translated questionnaire, and the results were found to
be reliable (De Vaus 2013, p. 114).
The data were collected in two stages, with a 3-week interval to
avoid common-method variance (Podsakoff et al. 2012), and in
both stages, a separate page at the front of the questionnaire
was attached that explained the purpose of the study and
defined
the variables. In the first stage, 371 responses out of 459 were
re-
ceived, in which questions on shared leadership and knowledge
sharing were asked, along with demographic information. To
match
both stage responses, respondents were asked to identify their
Pakistan Engineering Council registration number, which was
then
used as a unique identifier. After 3 weeks came the second
stage, in
which questions were posed about autonomy and project
success,
and 255 responses were received out of 371. After screening,
39 responses were discarded owing to incomplete or missing
infor-
mation. In the end, 216 usable responses were accepted for final
analysis (overall response rate of 47.06%).
The surveyed demographic characteristics were gender, educa-
tion, and age. The sample was composed of 91.7% males and
8.3%
females. Age was categorized in brackets, and the sample

contained
18- to 25-year-olds (29.6%), 26- to 33-year-olds (46.8%), and
34- to 41-year-olds (12.5%). In addition, 40.3% of the sample
held
a college-level degree, 39.4% a bachelor’s degree, 16.2% a
master’s
degree, 2.3% a technical degree, and only 1.9% had
matriculated.
Measures
Independent Variable
Shared leadership: This study operationalizes the concept of
shared
leadership (with sets of behaviors) in which the leader’s role is
distributed among members of a team (at different points),
rather
than having a particular person directing a team (Lord et al.
2017;
Wang et al. 2014). This was measured through a 26-item short
scale
adopted from Hoch et al. (2010). This five-facet scale is a
combi-
nation of transformational, directive, empowering,
transactional,
and aversive leadership behaviors [X2ð290Þ ¼ 607.38,
comparative
fit index ðCFIÞ ¼ 0.90, Tucker–Lewis index ðTLIÞ ¼ 0.89, and
root mean square error of approximation ðRMSEAÞ ¼ 0.07].
Respondents were asked to rate on a five-point Likert-scale,
where
1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. A sample item is:
“My team members encourage me to rethink ideas that have
never
been questioned before,” α ¼ 0.91.
Moderating Variable

Knowledge sharing is operationalized as the working
environment
in which employees share information for mobilizing their
creative
potential and use available information for optimal task
solutions
(Christensen 2007; Wang and Noe 2010). A six-item scale was
adapted from Bock et al. (2005) to measure the degree to which
individuals perceived their team members as sharing different
forms of knowledge (Choi et al. 2010). This measure was previ -
ously used in the project context by Park and Lee (2014). A
five-
point Likert scale was used, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 =
strongly agree. A sample item is: “In the last project, we shared
project plans and the project status in an effective way,” α ¼
0.80.
Mediating Variable
Autonomy was measured by four items adapted from Lee and
Xia (2010) based on earlier work of Breaugh (1985) and Zmud
(1982). The scale measured all four facets of project
autonomy—
(1) goal defining, (2) social autonomy, (3) structural autonomy,
and
(4) resource autonomy (Gemünden et al. 2005)—and items were
modified in the context of leadership and construction. A
sample
item is: “In my last project, my project manager was granted
autonomy on how to handle user requirement changes,” α ¼
0.76.
Dependent Variable
Project success has multiple angles in the literature, and no
uniform
approach exists (even in the project literature) to measure
project
success—and there is an ongoing debate as to what project
success

means (Ika 2009; Todorović et al. 2015). Consistent with
previous
studies, this study takes a site engineer’s perspective and asks
about
the extent to which the project team is productive in its tasks
and
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
fr
om
a
sc
el
ib
ra
ry
.o
rg
b

y
A
ra
b
A
ca
de
m
y
F
or
S
ci
en
ce
&
T
ec
h
on
0
6/
06
/2

1.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
A
S
C
E
. F
or
p
er
so
na
l
us
e
on
ly
;
al
l

ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
effective in its interactions with nonteam members (Bryde 2008;
Khang and Moe 2008; Mir and Pinnington 2014; Pinto and Pinto
1990), and a composite measure of a multidimensional construct
of
project success (cost, client use, effectiveness, satisfaction,
perfor-
mance, and time management) with 14 items (Aga et al. 2016)
was
created. A five-point Likert scale was used to record responses,
where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. A sample
item
is: “The last project was completed in compliance with the
budget
allocated,” α ¼ 0.92.
Common-Method Bias
The author employed a rigorous approach to reduce common-
method bias. For example, temporal separation was performed
dur-
ing data collection, with respondent anonymity, and no wrong
and
right answers were communicated to participants (Podsakoff et

al.
2012, p. 888). However, because the data were collected from
the
same source, the chances of common-method bias may still
exist.
Thus, a recommended post hoc latent factor approach was used
to detect the presence of common-method bias (Chang et al.
2010,
p. 181; Conway and Lance 2010, p. 331; Williams and Anderson
1994). The results of the unconstrained model (X2 ¼ 2,692.68,
df ¼ 1,120; p ¼ not significant, and ΔX2 and Δdf remained
zero)
demonstrated the nonexistence of bias affecting the
hypothesized
model (Gaskin and Lim 2017). Therefore, there is no threat of
common-method bias.
Results of Correlations and Discriminant Validity
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics and zero-order correlation
where shared leadership was positive and significantly related
to
autonomy (r ¼ 0.63, p < 0.01), knowledge sharing (r ¼ 0.68,
p < 0.01), and project success (r ¼ 0.60, p < 0.01). Likewise,
autonomy and KS are positively linked with project success. A
confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to analyze the fit
be-
tween the hypothesized model and the data. Table 2 indicates
that a
four-factor hypothesized model was a better fit [X2 ¼ 646.57,
df ¼ 392, RMSEA ¼ 0.05, root mean square residual ðRMRÞ ¼
0.05, TLI ¼ 0.93, CFI ¼ 0.93] than all three rival models and
achieved sufficient discriminant validity.
Analytical Strategy and Hypothesis Testing

The PROCESS Macro developed by Hayes was used to
test the direct, indirect, and moderation for two reasons: first,
researchers suggested that the PROCESS Macro algorithm
produ-
ces similar results to structural equation modeling (Hayes et al.
2017); second, it requires limited skill to do complex analysis —
even with two (or more) mediators and moderators in one model
at the same time (Hayes 2017). Regardless of the number of
equa-
tions in a model, PROCESS Macro estimates each equation
sepa-
rately and “estimation of the regression parameters in one of the
equations has no effect on the estimation of the parameters in
any other equations defining the model” (Hayes et al. 2017, p.
77).
PROCESS Model 7 was used to test the direct, indirect, and
first stage moderating hypotheses. Table 3 shows direct path
results
that shared leadership was positively related to project success
[β ¼ 0.35, standard error ðSEÞ ¼ 0.07, t ¼ 5.40, 95%
confidence
interval (CI), lower limit confidence interval ðLLCIÞ ¼ 0.22,
upper
limit confidence interval ðULCIÞ ¼ 0.48], supporting
Hypothesis
1. The second hypothesis states that autonomy mediates the
rela-
tionship between shared leadership and project success (effect
¼
0.22, SE ¼ 0.05, 95% CI, LLCI ¼ 0.12; ULCL ¼ 0.33), support-
ing Hypothesis 2. Table 4 shows that the complete results of
condi-
tional indirect effects remained significant on all three levels.
The

third hypothesis states that KS moderates the relationship
between
shared leadership and autonomy. The results of the interaction
effect in Table 5 revealed that members felt more autonomy fos -
tered by a shared leader when knowledge sharing is high, and
vice
versa (effectsize ¼ 0.29, t ¼ 4.04, 95% CI, LLCI ¼ 0.15, ULCI
¼
0.44), supporting hypothesis 3.
Further, a slope test was performed to visually inspect the
trend of interaction (shared leadership × knowledge sharing →
autonomy) (Aiken et al. 1991). The dotted line in Fig. 2 shows
a clear interaction effect, that the project team member
experienced
a higher degree of autonomy when shared leadership and
knowledge sharing were high, in contrast to the plain line,
where
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations
S. No. Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4
1 Shared leadership 4.05 0.64 (0.91) — — —
2 Autonomy 4.08 0.79 0.63a (0.76) — —
3 Knowledge sharing 4.16 0.64 0.68a 0.57a (0.80) —
4 Project success 4.17 0.64 0.60a 0.61a 0.58a (0.92)
Note: N ¼ 216.
ap < 0.01, alpha value in parentheses. SD = standard deviation.
Table 2. Discriminant validity (model fit)
Model CMIN df RMSEA RMR TLI CFI
Four-factor (hypothesized) 646.57 392 0.05 0.05 0.93 0.93

Rival model 1 (combined KS and Autonomy) 789.32 395 0.07
0.06 0.89 0.90
Rival Model 2 (combined KS, autonomy, and PS) 870.97 397
0.07 0.06 0.86 0.88
Rival Model 3 (combined all) 985.3 398 0.08 0.06 0.83 0.85
Note: N ¼ 216; KS = knowledge sharing; PS = project success;
RMR = root mean square residual; and CMIN = chi-square
minimum.
Table 3. Direct and indirect effect
Direct effect (shared leadership → project success)
Effect SE p-value
95% confidence
interval
LLCI ULCI
0.35 0.07 0.000 0.22 0.48
Note: LLCI = lower limit confidence interval; ULCI = upper
limit
confidence interval; and SE = standard error.
D
ow
nl
oa

de
d
fr
om
a
sc
el
ib
ra
ry
.o
rg
b
y
A
ra
b
A
ca
de
m
y
F
or

S
ci
en
ce
&
T
ec
h
on
0
6/
06
/2
1.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
A
S
C
E
. F

or
p
er
so
na
l
us
e
on
ly
;
al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
the team member experienced low autonomy due to low

knowledge
sharing.
Discussion and Implications
This study examined the role of shared leadership in a
construction
project and how shared leadership leverages members’
autonomy
to amplify the success of construction projects. The primary
objec-
tive was to take the construction industry as an example because
it is directly linked with social and economic development to
achieve resource efficiency and meet sustainable development
goals (Ahmad et al. 2020). From a project standpoint, this study
highlighted that shared leadership leverages autonomy, which
in-
creases team members’ power to cope with project challenges
(Hoegl and Muethel 2016), and that members willfully
accomplish
tasks (Huang 2013).
This study used the theoretical lens of self-determination theory
and highlighted that shared leadership is not merely a style but
po-
tentially an emergent property of construction teams, because in
such a scenario leaders fulfill members’ psychological needs by
promoting autonomy and knowledge sharing (Clarke 2012).
Con-
struction projects—particularly small- to medium-sized
projects—
usually have an appointed project manager to communicate
project
goals, objectives, and deliverables, and the appointed manager
must get work done through members because they hold diverse
skill sets (e.g., design understanding, roofing, and sheet metal

work). In situations where dependence on team members is
high,
a shared leadership approach with empowered members creates
a
synergy for achieving overall project goals. This study
highlighted
that, in construction projects, when members perceive equal
roles
and responsibilities for delivering project outcomes, they are
mo-
tivated to obtain collective guidance from one another with
every
possible alternative (Fausing et al. 2015). Therefore, to achieve
satisfactory results from members, construction project
managers
should grant equal importance to the human aspects of projects,
along with their technical aspects. Owing to budgetary
constraints
in small- and medium-sized projects, it is difficult to offer
monetary
rewards to all project workers and keep them motivated.
Therefore,
this study highlighted that self-motivation is a suitable
alternative to
monetary rewards that can be achieved through shared
leadership
(Deci and Ryan 2000; Odusami et al. 2003).
Based on US data, McKinsey & Company (2015, p. 5) high-
lighted that the construction industry is highly labor-intensive,
with
the lowest usage of digitization and communication
technologies
compared to other industries (e.g., information and
communication
technology, media, or professional services). In the absence (or

low
level) of digitization in a project, shared leadership better
serves
the purpose of managing distributed functions and
heterogeneous
teams (Clarke 2012), because any change in design, material, or
project scope should be discussed in a shared manner among
mem-
bers, increasing their confidence and improving team
functioning
(Bourgault et al. 2008). Likewise, this study further indicated
that
shared leadership on projects provides a culture of information
sharing to expand workers’ skills (Scarbrough et al. 2004) and
to
better communicate an organization’s vision (Plakhotnik et al.
2011). By enhancing members’ existing knowledge, skills, and
abilities, members remain self-motivated and able to respond to
un-
certain situations that are crucial to attaining project goals
(Ryan
and Deci 2000).
In recent years, the construction industry in Pakistan has at-
tracted foreign direct investment, and this study has provided a
way for construction organizations to recognize that leadership
is
an important factor in reducing project failure and meeting the
ex-
pectations of stakeholders through project teams (Gazder and
Khan
2018). National culture was not the main focus of this study, but
the
application of a particular leadership style in different cultures
is
crucial in achieving positive outcomes. For example, a

leadership
style that is applied in Western culture may not produce the
same
results that it would in Asian culture (Liden 2012; Suen et al.
2007).
Pakistan has a culture with a high sense of collectivism and
power
distance, in which leaders maintain social distance from
subordi-
nates, and subordinates also obey a strict hierarchy (Hofstede
2001). This study highlighted that applying shared leadership in
construction projects may bring positive results; however, this
can-
not be generalized in megaprojects since this study used a
sample
from medium-sized construction projects, but it suggests a
potential
avenue for future research with samples taken from
megaprojects.
This study also highlighted that a leadership style introduced in
Western countries is equally (or more) beneficial in non-
Western
countries (Lee et al. 2020). However, future researchers can
take
Table 4. Conditional indirect effect
Shared leadership → autonomy → project success
Knowledge sharing Boot indirect effect Boot SE LLCI ULCI
−1 SD (−0.65) 0.14 0.06 0.06 0.27
Mean (0) 0.22 0.05 0.12 0.33
þ1 SD (0.68) 0.26 0.06 0.14 0.39
Note: A second analysis was performed while controlling for
gender.

The results of the direct and moderating effects remained the
same, but
the conditional indirect effect was improved on all three levels:
SD
(−1) = 0.46, mean (0) = 0.69, and SD ðþ1Þ ¼ 0.83. In a third
analysis,
experience and gender were used as controls and all the results
were
similar, as reported in the main text. LLCI = lower limit
confidence
interval; ULCI = upper limit confidence interval; and SE =
standard error.
Table 5. Moderating effect of knowledge sharing
Antecedent
Autonomy
Coefficient
value SE p-value
Shared leadership 0.65 0.09 0.00
Knowledge sharing 0.37 0.08 0.00
Shared leadership × knowledge sharing 0.29 0.07 0.00
Note: N ¼ 216; and SE = standard error.
1
1.5
2
2.5

3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low Shared Leadership High Shared Leadership
A
ut
on
om
y
Low Knowledge sharing High Knowledge sharing
Slope analysis
Fig. 2. Slope analysis.
D
ow
nl
oa

or
p
er
so
na
l
us
e
on
ly
;
al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
cultural aspects into consideration in order to provide greater
in-

sight into shared leadership and project functioning, and
propose
more localized project solutions.
This study contributed to the literature in several ways. First,
concepts such as leadership, commitment, and identification are
well studied in the organizational psychology literature but are
hardly studied in the project context (Byrne and Barling 2015;
Tremblay et al. 2015). Research on contemporary leadership
styles may provide benefits in terms of gaining better control
over
projects, and this study highlighted the role of shared leadershi p
in
construction projects in response to the recent call for research
on
project leadership (Scott-Young et al. 2019). The present work
also
discussed a KS environment as a boundary condition that
expands
project workers’ skills (Nicolaides et al. 2014) and reduces
asym-
metry in existing (yet mixed) findings in which the interaction
of shared leadership and autonomy lowers team performance
(Fausing et al. 2013) and individual satisfaction (Robert and
You
2018). The present study’s framework deepens the
understanding
of medium-sized construction projects with self-determination
theory, that shared leadership fulfills workers’ psychological
needs
(competence, relatedness, and autonomy) and helps in achieving
project deliverables (Deci and Ryan 2000). This study applied a
multifaceted project success approach and highlighted that
shared
leadership is not limited to one dimension of project success but
positively impacts project cost, client use, effectiveness,

satisfac-
tion, performance, and covering time (Aga et al. 2016). In
addition,
this study confirms that a single individual may not perform all
the
leadership functions effectively, but “within a project, there
may be
a set of individuals who collectively perform this activity”
(Clarke
2012, p. 198).
Limitation and Future Research Directions
The results of this study should be taken with caution. Several
precautions were put in place to minimize common-method bias
during data collection, and then statistical remedies (i.e., latent
method factor and confirmatory factor analysis) were used, as
suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003): first, the data were
collected
on two time points to reduce the consistency motifs and demand
characteristics; second, confidentiality of respondents (along
with
no right and wrong answers to survey questions) was communi-
cated to reduce the social desirability; third, items of each scale
were placed in random order to decrease any priming effect; and
lastly, the questionnaire was pretested to check its validity and
reliability—but that still does not justify claims of a causal
relation.
Therefore, a longitudinal and multilevel study (with client re-
sponse about the project delivered) would bring about a better
understanding of the nexus of shared leadership and project
success
(Scott-Young et al. 2019).
This study took the perspective of perceived autonomy and
knowledge sharing to expand individual skill sets of

construction
workers; however, perceived competence is also necessary for
in-
trinsic motivation, and it would be interesting for future
researchers
to see how perceived autonomy leveraged by shared leadership
strengthened the perceived competence, along with how it adds
to the team functioning (Deci and Ryan 2000). This could be
done
through parallel mediation, where one can assess the stronger
mediator between autonomy and competence through contrast
analysis. Another possibility exists: testing the former through
serial mediation, where autonomy leads to competence. This
study did not address the well-being perspective, which is also
im-
portant in construction projects to obtain optimal output from
workers. A recent study in construction highlighted that
autonomy
is negatively affected when workers have work-family conflict,
and
this impacts not only individual family life but also work
outcomes
(Bowen and Zhang 2020). Thus, investigating workers’ psycho-
logical well-being in the context of a construction project would
be an interesting line of future research. The present study was
descriptive in nature and aimed to understand the role of shared
leadership in construction project success via autonomy and
knowl-
edge sharing as a boundary condition. However, a comparative
study—particularly from the perspective of workers’
psychological
needs—will help project managers better understand the extent
to
which shared leadership adds to the technical aspects of
construc-

tion projects (i.e., budgeting, planning, risk management,
schedul-
ing, safety, and so on) and team property compared to other
styles
of leadership, such as authoritarian, authentic, or
transformational
(Imam et al. 2020). Team size is another important factor in
project
leadership (particularly in mega construction projects, where
team
size is typically large). It would be interesting to investigate
how
team size impacts the effectiveness of shared leadership in
project
outcomes.
Conclusion
Leadership is one of the most mature fields in organizational
studies, and yet the role of project leadership remains an under -
developed area of study. Project functions require a cooperative
approach to carry out tasks efficiently, and shared leadership
may
be a suitable alternative to vertical leadership. The present
study
was limited to construction projects but provides evidence for
how project leadership effects occur in a systemic manner.
Management should, however, assign the project manager’s
responsibilities to someone who has a personality to share the
leadership role when required. A positive leadership role always
motivates construction workers to devote their best effort to as-
signed tasks. Overall, this study concludes that the human side
of projects is equally significant for studying and contributing
to project success.
Data Availability Statement

Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of
this
study are available from the corresponding author upon
reasonable
request.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Mr. Kashif Zaheer, Lab Technologist at
Punjab Tianjin University of Technology, Lahore, for his
continu-
ous support and assistance with data collection.
References
Aga, D. A., N. Noorderhaven, and B. Vallejo. 2016.
“Transformational
leadership and project success: The mediating role of team-
building.”
Int. J. Project Manage. 34 (5): 806–818.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijproman.2016.02.012.
Ahmad, S. B. S., M. U. Mazhar, A. Bruland, B. S. Andersen, J.
A. Langlo,
and O. Torp. 2020. “Labour productivity statistics: A reality
check for
the Norwegian construction industry.” Int. J. Constr. Manage.
20 (1):
39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15623599.2018.1462443.
Aiken, L. S., S. G. West, and R. R. Reno. 1991. Multiple
regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions. New York: SAGE.

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
fr
om
a
sc
el
ib
ra
ry
.o
rg
b
y
A
ra
b
A

er
ve
d.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.012
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1462443
Al-Bahar, J. F., and K. C. Crandall. 1990. “Systematic risk
management
approach for construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
116 (3): 533–546. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(1990)
116:3(533).
Ashley, S. 1992. “US quality improves but Japan still leads.”
Mech.
Eng.-CIME 114 (12): 24–26.
Bock, G.-W., R. W. Zmud, Y.-G. Kim, and J.-N. Lee. 2005.
“Behavioral
intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles
of
extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and
organizational
climate.” MIS Q. 29 (1): 87–111.
https://doi.org/10.2307/25148669.
Bourgault, M., N. Drouin, and É. Hamel. 2008. “Decision
making within
distributed project teams: An exploration of formalization and
autonomy as determinants of success.” Supplement, Project
Manage.

J. 39 (S1): S97–S110. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20063.
Bowen, P., and R. P. Zhang. 2020. “Cross-boundary contact,
work-family
conflict, antecedents, and consequences: Testing an integrated
model
for construction professionals.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 146
(3):
04020005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0001784.
Breaugh, J. A. 1985. “The measurement of work autonomy.”
Hum. Relat.
38 (6): 551–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678503800604.
Brislin, R. W. 1970. “Back-translation for cross-cultural
research.”
J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1 (3): 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177
/135910457000100301.
Bryde, D. 2008. “Perceptions of the impact of project
sponsorship practices
on project success.” Int. J. Project Manage. 26 (8): 800–809.
https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.12.001.
Burke, C. S., S. M. Fiore, and E. Salas. 2003. “The role of
shared cognition
in enabling shared leadership and team adaptability.” In Shared
lead-
ership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, edited by
C. L.
Pearce and J. A. Conger, 103–122. New York: SAGE.
Byrne, A., and J. Barling. 2015. “Leadership and project
teams.” In The

psychology and management of project teams, edited by F. C.
Kelloway and B. Hobbs, 137–163. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Byrne, J. 1999. “Project management: How much is enough?”
PM Network
13 (2): 49–54.
Carson, J. B., P. E. Tesluk, and J. A. Marrone. 2007. “Shared
leadership in
teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and
performance.”
Acad. Manage. J. 50 (5): 1217–1234.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj
.2007.20159921.
Chan, A. T., and E. H. Chan. 2005. “Impact of perceived
leadership styles
on work outcomes: Case of building professionals.” J. Constr.
Eng.
Manage. 131 (4): 413–422.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364
(2005)131:4(413).
Chang, S.-J., A. Van Witteloostuijn, and L. Eden. 2010. “From
the editors:
Common method variance in international business research.” J.
Int.
Bus. Stud. 41 (2): 178–184.
https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.88.
Chiniara, M., and K. Bentein. 2016. “Linking servant leadership
to indi-
vidual performance: Differentiating the mediating role of
autonomy,
competence and relatedness need satisfaction.” Leadersh. Q. 27

(1):
124–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.004.
Choi, S. Y., H. Lee, and Y. Yoo. 2010. “The impact of
information
technology and transactive memory systems on knowledge
sharing,
application, and team performance: A field study.” MIS Q. 34
(4):
855–870. https://doi.org/10.2307/25750708.
Christensen, P. H. 2007. “Knowledge sharing: Moving away
from the
obsession with best practices.” J. Knowl. Manage. 11 (1): 36–
47.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710728222.
Clarke, N. 2012. “Shared leadership in projects: A matter of
substance over
style.” Team Perform. Manage. Int. J. 18 (3/4): 196–209.
https://doi.org
/10.1108/13527591211241024.
Conger, J. A., and C. L. Pearce. 2003. “A landscape of
opportunities: Future
research on shared leadership.” In Shared leadership: Reframing
the
hows and whys of leadership, edited by C. L. Pearce and J. A.
Conger, 285–304. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Conway, J. M., and C. E. Lance. 2010. “What reviewers should
expect from
authors regarding common method bias in organizational
research.”
J. Bus. Psychol. 25 (3): 325–334.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010

-9181-6.
Coun, M. M., P. C. Peters, and R. R. Blomme. 2019. “‘Let’s
share!’ The
mediating role of employees’ self-determination in the
relationship
between transformational and shared leadership and perceived
knowl-
edge sharing among peers.” Eur. Manage. J. 37 (4): 481–491.
https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.12.001.
Crevani, L., M. Lindgren, and J. Packendorff. 2007. “Shared
leadership: A
post-heroic perspective on leadership as a collective
construction.” Int.
J. Leadersh. Stud. 3 (1): 40–67.
Dainty, A. R., A. Bryman, and A. D. Price. 2002.
“Empowerment within
the UK construction sector.” Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 23 (6):
333–342.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730210441292.
Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. 2000. “The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of
goal pursuits:
Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.” Psychol.
Inq.
11 (4): 227–268.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.
De Cooman, R., D. Stynen, A. Van den Broeck, L. Sels, and H.
De Witte.
2013. “How job characteristics relate to need satisfaction and
autono-

mous motivation: Implications for work effort.” J. Appl. Social
Psychol.
43 (6): 1342–1352. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12143.
De Vaus, D. 2013. Surveys in social research. 6th ed. London:
Routledge.
Drescher, M. A., M. A. Korsgaard, I. M. Welpe, A. Picot, and
R. T. Wigand.
2014. “The dynamics of shared leadership: Building trust and
enhanc-
ing performance.” J. Appl. Psychol. 99 (5): 771.
https://doi.org/10.1037
/a0036474.
Ellerman, D. 2004. “Autonomy-respecting assistance: Toward
an alterna-
tive theory of development assistance.” Rev. Social Econ. 62
(2):
149–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346760410001684424.
Ellerman, D. 2009. Helping people help themselves: From the
World Bank
to an alternative philosophy of development assistance. Ann
Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Ensley, M. D., K. M. Hmieleski, and C. L. Pearce. 2006. “The
importance
of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top
management
teams: Implications for the performance of startups.” Leadersh.
Q.
17 (3): 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002.
Fausing, M. S., H. J. Jeppesen, T. S. Jønsson, J. Lewandowski,

and M. C.
Bligh. 2013. “Moderators of shared leadership: Work function
and team
autonomy.” Team Perform. Manage. Int. J. 19 (5/6): 244–262.
https://
doi.org/10.1108/TPM-11-2012-0038.
Fausing, M. S., T. S. Joensson, J. Lewandowski, and M. Bligh.
2015.
“Antecedents of shared leadership: Empowering leadership and
inter-
dependence.” Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 36 (3): 271–291.
https://doi
.org/10.1108/LODJ-06-2013-0075.
Fernet, C., M. Gagné, and S. Austin. 2010. “When does quality
of relation-
ships with coworkers predict burnout over time? The
moderating role of
work motivation.” J. Organ. Behav. 31 (8): 1163–1180.
https://doi.org
/10.1002/job.673.
Fletcher, J. K., and K. Kaufer. 2003. “Shared leadership:
Paradox and pos-
sibility.” In Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of
lead-
ership, edited by C. L. Pearce, J. A. Conger, 21–47. Thousand
Oaks,
CA: SAGE. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452229539.n2.
Fong, P. S., and B. W. Lung. 2007. “Interorganizational
teamwork in the
construction industry.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 133 (2): 157–
168.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:2(157).

Fulford, R., and C. Standing. 2014. “Construction industry
productivity and
the potential for collaborative practice.” Int. J. Project Manage.
32 (2):
315–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.05.007.
Gagné, M. 2003. “The role of autonomy support and autonomy
orientation
in prosocial behavior engagement.” Motivation Emotion 27 (3):
199–223. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025007614869.
Gaskin, J., and J. Lim. 2017. “CFA tool, AMOS plugin:
Retrieved from
Gaskination’s StatWiki.” Accessed January 25, 2020.
http://statwiki
.kolobkreations.com.
Gazder, U., and R. Khan. 2018. “Effect of organizational
structures and
types of construction on perceptions of factors contributing to
project
failure in Pakistan.” Mehran Univ. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 37 (1):
127–138. https://doi.org/10.22581/muet1982.1801.11.
Gemünden, H. G., S. Salomo, and A. Krieger. 2005. “The
influence of
project autonomy on project success.” Int. J. Project Manage. 23
(5):
366–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.03.004.
Giritli, H., and G. T. Oraz. 2004. “Leadership styles: Some
evidence
from the Turkish construction industry.” Constr. Manage. Econ.
22 (3):
253–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190310001630993.

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
fr
om
a
sc
el
ib
ra
ry
.o
rg
b
y
A
ra
b

A
ca
de
m
y
F
or
S
ci
en
ce
&
T
ec
h
on
0
6/
06
/2
1.
C
op
yr

ig
ht
A
S
C
E
. F
or
p
er
so
na
l
us
e
on
ly
;
al
l
ri
gh
ts
r

es
er
ve
d.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1990)116:3(533)
https://doi.org/10.2307/25148669
https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20063
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001784
https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678503800604
https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159921
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159921
https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.88
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.004
https://doi.org/10.2307/25750708
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710728222
https://doi.org/10.1108/13527591211241024
https://doi.org/10.1108/13527591211241024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.12.001
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730210441292
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12143
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036474
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036474

https://doi.org/10.1080/00346760410001684424
https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-11-2012-0038
https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-11-2012-0038
https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-06-2013-0075
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.673
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.673
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452229539.n2
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025007614869
http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com
http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com
https://doi.org/10.22581/muet1982.1801.11
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190310001630993
Gupta, V. K., R. Huang, and S. Niranjan. 2010. “A longitudinal
examina-
tion of the relationship between team leadership and
performance.”
J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 17 (4): 335–350.
/1548051809359184.
Hauschildt, J., and E. Kirchmann. 2001. “Teamwork for
innovation–the
‘troika’of promoters.” R&D Manage. 31 (1): 41–49.
https://doi.org/10
.1111/1467-9310.00195.
Hayes, A. F. 2017. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and
conditional
process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York:

Guilford
Publications.
Hayes, A. F., A. K. Montoya, and N. J. Rockwood. 2017. “The
analysis of
mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus
structural equa-
tion modeling.” Australas. Marketing J. 25 (1): 76–81.
https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.02.001.
Hoch, J., J. Dulebohn, and C. Pearce. 2010. “Shared leadership
question-
naire (SLQ): Developing a short scale to measure shared and
vertical
leadership in teams.” In Proc., SIOP Conf. (Visual
Presentation).
Bowling Green, OH: Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology.
Hoegl, M., and M. Muethel. 2016. “Enabling shared leadership
in virtual
project teams: A practitioners’ guide.” Project Manage. J. 47
(1): 7–12.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21564.
Hoegl, M., and A. Schulze. 2005. “How to support knowledge
creation in
new product development: An investigation of knowledge
management
methods.” Eur. Manage. J. 23 (3): 263–273.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.emj.2005.04.004.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values,
behaviors,

institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks,
CA:
SAGE.
Hollenbeck, J. R., B. Beersma, and M. E. Schouten. 2012.
“Beyond team
types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualization
for
team description.” Acad. Manage. Rev. 37 (1): 82–106.
https://doi
.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0181.
Holt, G. D., P. E. Love, and L. J. Nesan. 2000. “Employee
empowerment in
construction: An implementation model for process
improvement.”
Team Perform. Manage. Int. J. 6 (3–4): 47–51.
https://doi.org/10
.1108/13527590010343007.
Houghton, J. D., C. P. Neck, and C. C. Manz. 2003. “Self-
leadership and
superleadership: The heart and art of creating shared leadership
in
teams.” In Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of
lead-
ership, edited by C. L. Pearce and J. A. Conger, 123–140.
Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Huang, C.-H. 2013. “Shared leadership and team learning: Roles
of
knowledge sharing and team characteristics.” J. Int. Manage.
Stud.
8 (1): 124–133.

Ika, L. A. 2009. “Project success as a topic in project
management
journals.” Project Manage. J. 40 (4): 6–19.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj
.20137.
Imam, H., M. B. Naqvi, S. A. Naqvi, and M. J. Chambel. 2020.
“Authentic
leadership: Unleashing employee creativity through
empowerment
and commitment to the supervisor.” Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 41
(6):
847–864. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2019-0203.
Imam, H., and M. K. Zaheer. 2021. “Shared leadership and
project success:
The roles of knowledge sharing, cohesion and trust in the
team.” Int. J.
Project Manage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.02.006.
Judge, W. Q., and J. A. Ryman. 2001. “The shared leadership
challenge in
strategic alliances: Lessons from the US healthcare industry.”
Acad.
Manage. Perspect. 15 (2): 71–79.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2001
.4614907.
Khang, D. B., and T. L. Moe. 2008. “Success criteria and
factors for
international development projects: A life-cycle-based
framework.”
Project Manage. J. 39 (1): 72–84.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20034.
Kozlowski, S. W., S. M. Gully, E. Salas, and J. A. Cannon-

Bowers. 1996.
“Team leadership and development: Theory, principles, and
guidelines
for training leaders and teams.” In Vol. 3 of Advances in
interdiscipli-
nary studies of work teams: Team leadership, edited by M. M.
Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, and S. T. Beyerlein, 253–291.
Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Elsevier.
Kuenzel, R., J. Teizer, M. Mueller, and A. Blickle. 2016.
“SmartSite:
Intelligent and autonomous environments, machinery, and
processes to
realize smart road construction projects.” Autom. Constr. 71
(Nov):
21–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.03.012.
Lee, A., J. Lyubovnikova, A. W. Tian, and C. Knight. 2020.
“Servant
leadership: A meta-analytic examination of incremental
contribution,
moderation, and mediation.” J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 93 (1):
1–44.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12265.
Lee, G., and W. Xia. 2010. “Toward agile: An integrated
analysis of
quantitative and qualitative field data on software development
agility.”
MIS Q. 34 (1): 87–114. https://doi.org/10.2307/20721416.
LePine, J. A., R. F. Piccolo, C. L. Jackson, J. E. Mathieu, and J.
R. Saul.
2008. “A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a

multidimen-
sional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria.”
Person-
nel Psychol. 61 (2): 273–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2008
.00114.x.
Liden, R. C. 2012. “Leadership research in Asia: A brief
assessment and
suggestions for the future.” Asia Pac. J. Manage. 29 (2): 205–
212.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-011-9276-2.
Lord, R. G., D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro, B. J. Avolio, and A. H.
Eagly. 2017.
“Leadership in applied psychology: Three waves of theory and
re-
search.” J. Appl. Psychol. 102 (3): 434–451.
/apl0000089.
McKinsey & Company. 2015. “Digital America: A tale of the
haves and
haves-mores.” Accessed December 18, 2019.
https://www.mckinsey
.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Technology%20Media%20a
nd%20
Telecommunications/High%20Tech/Our%20Insights/Digital%20
America
%20A%20tale%20of%20the%20haves%20and%20have%20more
s/MGI
%20Digital%20America_Executive%20Summary_December%20
2015
.ashx.
Millette, V., and M. Gagné. 2008. “Designing volunteers’ tasks

to
maximize motivation, satisfaction and performance: The impact
of job
characteristics on volunteer engagement.” Motivation Emotion
32 (1):
11–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-007-9079-4.
Mir, F. A., and A. H. Pinnington. 2014. “Exploring the value of
project
management: Linking project management performance and
project
success.” Int. J. Project Manage. 32 (2): 202–217.
https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ijproman.2013.05.012.
Müller, R., and R. Turner. 2007. “The influence of project
managers
on project success criteria and project success by type of
project.”
Eur. Manage. J. 25 (4): 298–309.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2007
.06.003.
Muñiz Castillo, M. R., and D. Gasper. 2012. “Human autonomy
effective-
ness and development projects.” Oxford Dev. Stud. 40 (1): 49–
67.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818.2011.646975.
Nicolaides, V. C., K. A. LaPort, T. R. Chen, A. J. Tomassetti,
E. J. Weis,
S. J. Zaccaro, and J. M. Cortina. 2014. “The shared leadership
of teams:
A meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and moderating
relationships.”
Leadersh. Q. 25 (5): 923–942.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014
.06.006.
Nixon, P., M. Harrington, and D. Parker. 2012. “Leadership
performance is
significant to project success or failure: A critical analysis.”
Int. J. Pro-
ductivity Perform. Manage. 61 (2): 204–216.
/17410401211194699.
Odusami, K., R. Iyagba, and M. Omirin. 2003. “The relationship
between
project leadership, team composition and construction project
perfor-
mance in Nigeria.” Int. J. Project Manage. 21 (7): 519–527.
https://doi
.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00059-5.
Park, J. G., and J. Lee. 2014. “Knowledge sharing in
information systems
development projects: Explicating the role of dependence and
trust.”
Int. J. Project Manage. 32 (1): 153–165.
Pearce, C. L., and J. A. Conger. 2003. “All those years ago: The
historical
underpinnings of shared leadership.” In Shared leadership:
Reframing
the hows and whys of leadership, edited by C. L. Pearce and J.
A.
Conger, 1–18. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Pearce, C. L., and P. A. Herbik. 2004. “Citizenship behavior at
the team
level of analysis: The effects of team leadership, team

commitment,
perceived team support, and team size.” J. Social Psychol. 144
(3):
293–310. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.144.3.293-310.
Pearce, C. L., and C. C. Manz. 2005. “The new silver bullets of
leadership:
The importance of self-and shared leadership in knowledge
work.”
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
fr
om
a
sc
el
ib
ra
ry
.o

rg
b
y
A
ra
b
A
ca
de
m
y
F
or
S
ci
en
ce
&
T
ec
h
on
0
6/

06
/2
1.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
A
S
C
E
. F
or
p
er
so
na
l
us
e
on
ly
;

al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051809359184
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051809359184
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00195
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00195
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.02.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.02.001
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0181
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0181
https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590010343007
https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590010343007
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2001.4614907
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2001.4614907

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.03.012
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12265
https://doi.org/10.2307/20721416
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00114.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00114.x
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-011-9276-2
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000089
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000089
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Techn
ology%20Media%20and%20Telecommunications/High%20Tech/
Our%20Insights/Digital%20America%20A%20tale%20of%20the
%20haves%20and%20have%20mores/MGI%20Digital%20Ameri
ca_Executive%20Summary_December%202015.ashx

ca_Executive%20Summary_December%202015.as hx
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-007-9079-4
https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818.2011.646975
https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401211194699
https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401211194699
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00059-5
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00059-5
https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.144.3.293-310
Organ. Dyn. 34 (2): 130–140.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.03
.003.
Pearce, C. L., and H. P. Sims, Jr. 2002. “Vertical versus shared
leadership
as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams:
An
examination of aversive, directive, transactional,
transformational, and
empowering leader behaviors.” Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 6
(2):
172–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.172.
Phua, F. T. 2012. “Do national cultural differences affect the
nature and
characteristics of HRM practices? Evidence from Australian and
Hong Kong construction firms on remuneration and job
autonomy.”

Constr. Manage. Econ. 30 (7): 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1080
/01446193.2012.682074.
Phua, F. T. 2013. “Construction management research at the
individual
level of analysis: Current status, gaps and future directions.”
Constr.
Manage. Econ. 31 (2): 167–179.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193
.2012.707325.
Pinto, J. K. 2000. “Understanding the role of politics in
successful project
management.” Int. J. Project Manage. 18 (2): 85–91.
https://doi.org/10
.1016/S0263-7863(98)00073-8.
Pinto, M. B., and J. K. Pinto. 1990. “Project team
communication and
cross-functional cooperation in new program development.” J.
Product
Innovation Manage. Int. Publ. Prod. Dev. Manage. Assoc. 7 (3):
200–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.730200.
Plakhotnik, M. S., T. S. Rocco, and N. A. Roberts. 2011.
“Development
review integrative literature review: Increasing retention and
success
of first-time managers: A model of three integral processes for
the
transition to management.” Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 10 (1): 26–
45.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310386752.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, and N. P.
Podsakoff. 2003.

“Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical
review of
the literature and recommended remedies.” J. Appl. Psychol. 88
(5):
879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2012.
“Sources of
method bias in social science research and recommendations on
how to
control it.” Ann. Rev. Psychol. 63: 539–569.
/annurev-psych-120710-100452.
Printy, S. M., and H. M. Marks. 2006. “Shared leadership for
teacher and
student learning.” Theory Pract. 45 (2): 125–132.
https://doi.org/10
.1207/s15430421tip4502_4.
Robert, L. P. 2013. “A multi-level analysis of the impact of
shared
leadership in diverse virtual teams.” In Proc., 2013 Conf. on
Computer
Supported Cooperative Work. New York: Association for
Computer
Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441818.
Robert, L. P., Jr., and S. You. 2018. “Are you satisfied yet?
Shared lead-
ership, individual trust, autonomy, and satisfaction in virtual
teams.”
J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 69 (4): 503–513.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi
.23983.

Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000. “Self-determination theory
and the
facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and
well-being.”
Am. Psychol. 55 (1): 68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.55.1.68.
Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2017. Self-determination theory:
Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and
wellness.
New York: Guilford Publications.
Scarbrough, H., J. Swan, S. Laurent, M. Bresnen, L. Edelman,
and
S. Newell. 2004. “Project-based learning and the role of
learning
boundaries.” Organ. Stud. 25 (9): 1579–1600.
/0170840604048001.
Scott-Young, C. M., M. Georgy, and A. Grisinger. 2019.
“Shared leadership
in project teams: An integrative multi-level conceptual model
and re-
search agenda.” Int. J. Project Manage. 37 (4): 565–581.
https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.02.002.
Silver, M. L. 1990. “Rethinking craft administration:
Managerial position,
work autonomy, and employment security in the building
trades.”
Sociological Forum 5 (2): 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1007
/BF01112594.
Spatz, D. M. 1999. “Leadership in the construction industry.”

Pract.
Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 4 (2): 64–68.
/(ASCE)1084-0680(1999)4:2(64).
Suen, H., S.-O. Cheung, and R. Mondejar. 2007. “Managing
ethical
behaviour in construction organizations in Asia: How do the
teachings
of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism and Globalization
influence
ethics management?” Int. J. Project Manage. 25 (3): 257–265.
https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.001.
Sun, M., and X. Meng. 2009. “Taxonomy for change causes and
effects in
construction projects.” Int. J. Project Manage. 27 (6): 560–572.
https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.10.005.
Swart, J., and N. Kinnie. 2003. “Sharing knowledge in
knowledge-
intensive firms.” Hum. Resour. Manage. J. 13 (2): 60–75.
https://doi
.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2003.tb00091.x.
Todorović, M. L., D. Č. Petrović, M. M. Mihić, V. L.
Obradović, and S. D.
Bushuyev. 2015. “Project success analysis framework: A
knowledge-
based approach in project management.” Int. J. Project Manage.
33 (4): 772–783.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.10.009.
Toor, S.-U.-R., and G. Ofori. 2008a. “Developing construction

professio-
nals of the 21st century: Renewed vision for leadership.” J. Civ.
Eng.
Educ. 134 (3): 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-
3928
(2008)134:3(279).
Toor, S.-U.-R., and G. Ofori. 2008b. “Leadership for future
construction
industry: Agenda for authentic leadership.” Int. J. Project
Manage.
26 (6): 620–630.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.010.
Tremblay, I., H. Lee, F. Chiocchio, and J. P. Meyer. 2015.
“Identification
and commitment in project teams.” In The psychology and
management
of project teams, edited by F. C. Kelloway and B. Hobbs, 189–
212.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Turner, J. R., and R. A. Cochrane. 1993. “Goals-and-methods
matrix:
Coping with projects with ill defined goals and/or methods of
achieving
them.” Int. J. Project Manage. 11 (2): 93–102.
/0263-7863(93)90017-H.
Turner, J. R., and R. Müller. 2005. “The project manager’s
leadership style
as a success factor on projects: A literature review.” Project
Manage. J.
36 (2): 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280503600206.

van Zijl, A. L., B. Vermeeren, F. Koster, and B. Steijn. 2019.
“Towards
sustainable local welfare systems: The effects of functional
hetero-
geneity and team autonomy on team processes in Dutch
neighbourhood
teams.” Health Social Care Community 27 (1): 82–92.
https://doi.org
/10.1111/hsc.12604.
Vrijhoef, R., and L. Koskela. 2005. “Structural and contextual
comparison
of construction to other project-based industries.” In Vol. 2 of
Proc.,
IPRC, 537–548. Salford, UK: Univ. of Salford.
Walker, A. 2011. Organizational behaviour in construction.
New York:
Wiley.
Wang, D., D. A. Waldman, and Z. Zhang. 2014. “A meta-
analysis of shared
leadership and team effectiveness.” J. Appl. Psychol. 99 (2):
181–198.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034531.
Wang, S., and R. A. Noe. 2010. “Knowledge sharing: A review
and direc-
tions for future research.” Hum. Resour. Manage. Rev. 20 (2):
115–131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001.
Williams, L. J., and S. E. Anderson. 1994. “An alternative
approach to
method effects by using latent-variable models: Applications in
organi-

zational behavior research.” J. Appl. Psychol. 79 (3): 323–331.
https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.323.
Worley, C. G., and E. E. Lawler, III. 2006. “Designing
organizations that
are built to change.” MIT Sloan Manage. Rev. 48 (1): 19–23.
Yang, J.-B., and P.-R. Wei. 2010. “Causes of delay in the
planning and
design phases for construction projects.” J. Archit. Eng. 16 (2):
80–83.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0431(2010)16:2(80).
Zmud, R. W. 1982. “Diffusion of modern software practices:
Influence of
centralization and formalization.” Manage. Sci. 28 (12): 1421–
1431.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.28.12.1421.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
fr
om

a
sc
el
ib
ra
ry
.o
rg
b
y
A
ra
b
A
ca
de
m
y
F
or
S
ci
en
ce

&
T
ec
h
on
0
6/
06
/2
1.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
A
S
C
E
. F
or
p
er
so

na
l
us
e
on
ly
;
al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.03.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.03.003
https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.172
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2012.682074
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2012.682074
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2012.707325
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2012.707325
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00073-8
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00073-8
https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.730200

https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310386752
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4502_4
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4502_4
https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441818
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23983
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23983
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840604048001
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840604048001
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01112594
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01112594
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2003.tb00091.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2003.tb00091.x
https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(93)90017-H
https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(93)90017-H
https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280503600206
https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12604
https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12604
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034531
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.323

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.323
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.28.12.1421
Summary of Roles of Shared Leadership, Autonomy,
andKnowledge Sharing in Construction Project Success
ABSTRACT
RESULTS
INTRODUCTION
Hassan Imam, Ph.D.
METHODS
SUMMARY
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
Click to Add text
1

Module 01 Discussion- Oxygenation and Physiological Needs Rubric

Module 01 Discussion- Oxygenation and Physiological Needs Rubric

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Module 01 Discussion- Oxygenation and Physiological Needs Rubric

Similar to Module 01 Discussion- Oxygenation and Physiological Needs Rubric (20)

More from IlonaThornburg83

More from IlonaThornburg83 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Module 01 Discussion- Oxygenation and Physiological Needs Rubric