Therefore, this study investigated the relationship that project personnel–project manager interactions and project personnel–project organization interactions have with project success in a South African project environment. These relationships were explained by the constructs leader-member exchange, perceived organizational support, affective commitment, and discretionary effort. A quantitative study was conducted using an online survey, where project personnel and project managers currently working in a project environment were considered valid responses.
Key findings of the study showed that leader-member exchange, perceived organizational support, and affectivity had a significant predictive relationship with project success. Another outcome was that perceived organizational support had a moderating effect on the relationship between leader-member exchange and project success.
INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH PROBLEM
Benefits to business
The importance of project success to the South African economy is noted, but it remains to be determined how organizations can improve the success rate of their projects. With the personnel factor becoming more important in its contribution to organizations and specifically project success, this study aims to explore the personnel factor by understanding how the supervisor and subordinate relationships with the organization lead to project success (Belout & Gauvreau, 2004).
Benefits to research
Two further employee behaviors of affective commitment and discretionary effort were also included in the conceptual model because of their positive outcomes and potential influence on project success. The need for the research is argued through the presentation of existing academic literature that highlights the knowledge gaps and a conceptual model that has been introduced. Chapter five: presents the results and analysis of the primary data collected using the methodology set out in chapter four.
Chapter Six: discusses the empirical findings of Chapter Five in relation to the academic literature presented in Chapter Two. Chapter seven: presents the main findings of the research and the implications for staff working in a project environment.
THEORY AND LITERATURE REVIEW
- Leader-Member Exchange and Project Success
- Perceived Organisational Support and Project Success
- Affective Commitment and Project Success
- Discretionary Effort and Project Success
This belief that the organization cares about employees is known as perceived organizational support (POS), and it is based on the social exchange, norm of reciprocity and organizational support theories (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gouldner, 1960; Kurtessis et al., 2015). Therefore, open communication strengthens the employees' organizational support which increases their reciprocity behavior leading to favorable results for the organization (Neves & Eisenberger, 2012). This study will therefore also focus on how the construct perceived organizational support affects project success.
Wayne et al., (1997) emphasize the need for leader-member exchange and perceived organizational support as they each explain a different relationship although both are grounded. The remaining three constructs of perceived organizational support (POS), affective commitment (AC) and discretionary effort (DE) have a closer relationship with organizational support theory which is also related to social exchange theory (Kurtessis et al., 2015).
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
Alternative hypothesis four (H41): There is a significant relationship between affective commitment and project success in a project environment. Alternative hypothesis five (H51): There is a significant relationship between perceived organizational support and project success in a project environment. Alternative hypothesis six (H61): There is a significant relationship between perceived organizational support and discretionary effort in a project environment.
Seventh alternative hypothesis (H71): There is a significant relationship between affective commitment and discretionary effort in a project environment. Eighth alternative hypothesis (H81): There is a significant relationship between discretionary effort and project success in the project environment.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
- Leader-member Exchange Scale
- Perceived Organisational Support Scale
- Affective Commitment Scale
- Discretionary Effort Scale
- Project Success Scale
- Demographic information
- Validity
- Reliability
- Descriptive Statistics
- Correlation Analysis
- Hypotheses testing
Purposeful sampling, also known as assessment sampling, is when the researcher selects the sample based on personal judgment using an appropriate characteristic of the sample member (Zikmund et al., 2010). The Cronbach's alpha for each of the five constructs was calculated and is discussed in chapter five of this report. To ensure that relevant respondents were reached, the following question has been included in part one of the questionnaire “Are you currently working in a project-type environment?”.
Descriptive statistics is the summary and description of the data collected from a sample (Wegner, 2012; Zikmund et al., 2010). Correlation analysis is used to describe the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two variables” (Pallant, 2010, p. 128).
RESULTS
- Descriptive statistics for leader-member exchange
- Descriptive statistics for perceived organisation support
- Descriptive statistics for affective commitment
- Descriptive statistics for discretionary effort
- Descriptive statistics for project success
- Hypothesis one
- Hypothesis two
- Hypothesis three
- Hypothesis four
- Hypothesis five
- Hypothesis six
- Hypothesis seven
- Hypothesis eight
Null hypothesis one (H10): There is no significant relationship between leader-member exchange and project success in a project setting. First alternative hypothesis (H11): There is a significant relationship between leader-member exchange and project success in a project setting. Therefore, a moderate positive relationship between leader-member exchange and project success exists in a project setting.
Null hypothesis two (H20): The relationship between leader-member exchange and project success is not moderated by affective commitment. Alternative hypothesis two (H21): The relationship between leader-member exchange and project success is moderated by affective commitment. The alternative hypothesis was rejected and the null hypothesis was accepted and it was therefore concluded that the relationship between leader-member exchange and project success was not moderated by affective commitment.
Null hypothesis three (H30): The relationship between leader-member exchange and project success is not moderated by perceived organizational support. Alternative hypothesis three (H31): The relationship between leader-member exchange and project success is moderated by perceived organizational support. Therefore, it was concluded that the relationship between leader-member exchange and project success was moderated by perceived organizational support.
Null hypothesis four (H40): There is no significant relationship between affective commitment and project success in a project environment. Null hypothesis five (H50): There is no significant relationship between perceived organizational support and project success in a project environment. Null hypothesis eight (H80): There is no significant relationship between discretionary effort and project success in a project environment.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
- Leader-member exchange
- Perceived organisational support
- Affective commitment
- Discretionary effort
- Project success
- Hypothesis one
- Hypothesis two
- Hypothesis three
- Hypothesis four
- Hypothesis five
- Hypothesis six
- Hypothesis seven
- Hypothesis eight
Hypothesis one was formulated to answer research objective one, which looked at the relationship between employee-manager interactions and project success. The hypothesis was tested using regression analysis, the interaction between leader-member exchange and affective commitment to project success is found to be insignificant, therefore the null hypothesis is accepted and the alternative hypothesis is rejected. It is concluded that affective commitment has no moderating effect on the relationship between leader-member exchange and project success.
Affective engagement that falls under the domain of social exchange and organizational support theory because perceived organizational support is the predictor has no effect on the relationship between leader-member exchange and project success (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Kurtessis et al., 2015). The hypothesis was tested using regression analysis, the interaction between leader-member exchange and perceived organizational support on project success appears to be significant, therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. It is concluded that perceived organizational support has a moderating effect on the relationship between leader-member exchange and project success.
Hypothesis three was formulated to answer research objective three, which looked at the effect of employee-organization interactions on the relationship between employee-manager interactions and project success. Hypothesis four was formulated to answer research objective two, which looked at the relationship between employee-organization interactions and project success. Hypothesis six was formulated to answer research objective two, which looked at the relationship between employee-organization interactions and project success.
Hypothesis seven was formulated to answer research objective two, which looked at the relationship between employee-organization interactions and project success. Hypothesis eight was formulated to answer research objective two, which looked at the relationship between employee-organization interactions and project success. Perceived organizational support did not have a predictive relationship with discretionary effort, and no significant relationship was established between discretionary effort and project success.
CONCLUSION
- Research Objective One
- Research Objective Two
- Research Objective Three
- Implications for Theory
Affective commitment did not have a significant effect on the relationship between leader-member exchange and project success, which was inconsistent with the typical positive outcomes of organizational support theory (Kurtessis et al., 2015). However, perceived organizational support did have a significant effect on the relationship between leader-member exchange and project success consistent with organizational support theory (Kurtessis et al., 2015). The positive outcomes of leader-member exchange, perceived organizational support, and affective commitment are noted through their predictive relationship with project success.
The relationship between project managers and project staff has become crucial because of its impact on project success, especially given the result of this study, which suggests that this relationship through leader-member exchange is predictive of project success. Leader-member exchange theory offers assistance to project managers as it explains that high-quality leader-member exchange relationships will enable project staff to contribute to project success. The aim would be to improve the relationship between project staff and project manager, leading to high quality manager-member exchange.
Therefore, project managers through leader-member exchange will have a further impact on project staff's work performance and respective relationship with the organization. Transformational leadership and transactional leadership have been briefly discussed in the leader-member exchange literature, and studying the moderating effect of leadership style on the relationship between leader-member exchange and project success will bring more insight into how a project manager influences employee-manager relationships. Leader-member exchange and member performance: A new look at individual-level negative feedback-seeking behavior and team-level empowerment climate.
Leader-member exchange and empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and. Examining the relationship between leader-member exchange (LMX) quality and employee job performance in the moderating context of perceived role ambiguity. Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and follower performance and organizational citizenship behavior.
MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT
Regardless of how much formal authority your project manager has built into his/her position, would you agree that he/she would use their power to solve your problems in your work? Again, no matter how much formal authority your project manager has, you would agree that he/she would "save" you at his/her expense. I have sufficient confidence in my project manager that I would defend and justify his/her decision if he/she were not present.
My organization takes my goals and values into account. Help is available from my organization if I have a problem. My organization would forgive a genuine mistake on my part. The project has not disrupted the culture or values of the organization it manages. The project was not managed to meet the interests and challenges of the project team members.
There were no quality issues related to the project results. Technical issues were successfully identified and resolved. I get work done, even if it means sacrificing breaks or lunches. I do more than what is expected of me.
ETHICAL CLEARANCE
CONSISTENCY MATRIX
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
