Introduction

A pandemic that has gripped the world in recent months led to the stagnation or regression of national economies around the globe. One pragmatic way to stimulate the Thai economy is through the housing construction industry. The real estate business is one of the most vital economic sectors to kick-start a nation’s economy substantially. While the real estate industry exerts significant influence on real estate development, it mainly relies on workers to collaborate with leadership teams to complete construction projects more productively. Appropriate leadership style is an essential component of Project Success (PS) and determined by the manager or supervisor of a construction project. Leadership management helps improve productivity. The conceptual study framework of a moderated mediation analysis applies in expecting of entering the debate and filling the previously discussed gaps of theory. Transformational Leadership is of central interest as it is the cornerstone of Leadership strategy, and there remains an ongoing debate concerning its role in Project Success. While, has been described the mechanism underlying the relationship influences positively that transformational leadership on project success (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Aeknarajindawat & Jermsittiparsert (2020) Findings of data showed that there is a significant of OCB had considered as those supplementary business connected practices which go well beyond the obligations recommended by their sets of responsibilities or restrained in official valuations. Hence, the following hypothesis was posited: Organization citizenship behavior is of interest as it is a critical factor in between Transformational Leadership and project success context. It refers to sensing and responding to motivation developments. To this end, the contribution that this study maker contributes to Transformational Leadership by providing a moderation-mediation analysis of the following: the potential moderating effect of the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) in the association between Transformational Leadership (TL) and Project Success (PS) via Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB).

Literature Review and Development of Hypotheses

TL is the cornerstone of the leadership strategy and its role in PS. The OCB is a critical factor in using TL to achieve PS. To this end, this study contributes to the field of study 1) examining whether TL has a complementary effect on the potential mediator via OCB on the PS and 2) by providing a moderation-mediation analysis of the potential moderating effect of the LMX in the association between TL and PS. Further, the potential moderating effect of the LMX on the association between TL on Project Integration Management Performance via OCB tested as well.

Increased knowledge TL has both direct and indirect influences on project success and is of great importance to project-based organizations demonstrated within development projects (Aga, Noorderhaven & Vallejo, 2016). Most research was concerned with TL, which was found to play an essential role in organizational success. Previous research demonstrates that transformational leadership positively influences project success (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Yang, Huang & Wu, 2011). Avolio, Zhu, Koh & Bhatia (2004) Emphasize that a more concerted effort is required to explore transformational leadership's process and boundary conditions, leading to beneficial work behaviors. In addition, the wide-ranging impact of transformational leaders on organizational success needs to have effectively utilized in projects as one of the critical success factors (Raziq, Borini, Malik, Ahmad, & Shabaz, 2018). Hence, the support for latent variables is related to the constructs, and Hypothesis 1 (H1).

Hypothesis 1: TL positively influences PS.

In support of this hypothesis, Jermsittiparsert, Siriattakul & Wattanapongphasuk (2019) reported that Transformational leadership positively affect organizational performance and job satisfaction. Transformational leadership increases organizational performance by 49.1%. Transformational leaders change the followers' view of their work, which appends organizational or societal importance. The inducing transformational leaders encourage subordinates to accept the organization’s vision, mission and goals, thus, leading to feelings of belonging identity, which, in turn, enhances subordinates' OCB. Besides, Transformational leadership animates development and information and produces favorable circumstances for organizational performance (Engelen, Gupta, Strenger & Brettel, 2015). Additionally, the study outcome implies that transformational leaders, through modeled motivation and conduct, can instigate changes in the mental condition of other individuals through association (Saleem, 2015). Choudhary, Kumar & Philip (2016) Revealed on effects of transformational leadership on followers OCB. Adaptation of transformational leadership increases the employees’ spirit at work and improves their willingness to perform extra work that is more meaningful, emphasizing the standing of reciprocation in social exchange(Majeed, Ramayah, Mustamil, Nazri, & Jamshed, 2017). Based on this, the support for latent variables are related to the construct s along with hypothesis 2 (H2) can be formulated as:

H2: The components of TL positively influence OCB of individual leaders and subordinates at the workplace or construction site.

Although several studies indicated supported, there was a relationship between transformational leadership and project success. Thus, Sumner, Bock, and Giamartino (2006) found that the relationship between the characteristics of a project leader and project success exhibit specific positive leadership behaviors, such as shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act. To sum up, transformational leadership has intellectual stimulation, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, behaviors, and individualized consideration. . Organ, Podsakoff & MacKenzie (2005) established the OCB identity as discretionary individual behaviors refusal directly recognized by the reward system. In addition, Lim & Loosemore (2017) seek OCB concerning construction project work. People believe good governance is fair; they are outcome positive OCB leads to working happily and smoothly, trying, respecting others, and resolving problems with a coworker. Besides, Lim & Loosemore (2017) results showed that project participants of OCBs impacted by their perceived interpersonal fairness in transactions. The impact of transformational leadership needs to be effectively utilized in projects as one of the critical success factors (Raziq, Borini, Malik, Ahmad & Shabaz, 2018). In addition, transformational leadership and project success through “behavioral mediators” such as team building, teamwork, job satisfaction and team interaction (Aga et al., 2016; Naeem & Khanzada, 2017; Yang, Wu, Wang & Chin, 2012). Hence, the support for latent variables is related to the constructs along with hypothesis 3 (H3) and hypothesis 4 (H4) can be formulated as:

H3: There is an indirect effect of TL on PS via OCB, such that the results positively influence PS.

H4: OCB positively influences PS.

The study of Shen & Chen (2007) demonstrated the positive impact of leadership on team trust and team performance. Moreover, the empirical evidence that the relationship between transformational leadership and multi-dimensional project success is negatively moderated by project flexibility and project visibility, respectively (Zaman, Nawaz, Tariq & Humayoun, 2019). In addition, team trust is a catalyst for increasing team performance. Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang & Chen (2005) Provided empirical support for the effect of TL and high-quality LMX relationships on follower task performance and OCB. The quality of LMX indicated as the mediator between negative affectivity and performance that high-quality LMX relationships manifest other leadership behaviors. While controlling for individual-level perceptions of LMX quality, relative LMX positively predicted psychological contract fulfillment (Henderson, Wayne, Shore, Bommer & Tetrick, 2008) these results help demonstrate how a social context created by LMX differentiation processes is related to employee outcomes. Reference of Model of relative LMX defined as the level of divergence between an individual’s exchange quality and the average of others’ exchange qualities in the workgroup; Hu & Liden (2013) moderated the relationship between transformational leadership and employee influence tactics. Specifically, employees reporting to a transformational leader with high relative LMX were more likely to use soft influence tactics rather than hard (i.e., rational) influence tactics (Epitropaki & Martin, 2013). Also, the relationship between transformational leadership and task performance/core characteristics perceptions was more favorable for employees with higher LMX quality (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Thus, LMX quality appears to strengthen the positive effect of transformational leadership on followers. Finally, it is possible to consider the moderating role of LMX quality on the relationship between transformational leadership and its outcomes in more specific contexts. LMX quality strengthens the positive relationship between transformational leadership and value congruence (Zhang, Jia & Gu, 2012). Based on this rationale, it is expected that the effects of TL, OCB on PS would be more assertive in firms with high levels of LMX than in firms with low levels. Hence, the support for latent variables is related to the constructs along with hypothesis 5 (H5).

H5: Individual-level of the LMX moderates the indirect effect of TL on PS via OCB; the results are more robust when an individual Level LMX is distinctively higher.

Research Methodology

Population and Data Gathering

The population consisted of a sample comprising 494 managers, with a supplemental LMX variable part comprising data-only collected from 494 subordinates, meaning that, in total, there were 988 participants. All the participants work in Thailand’s real estate industry on housing construction projects and have roles in project management teams. The subordinates are labourers, and the projects involve in the whole project. This research chose a recommended (J. Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson & Tatham, 2010) sampling strategy, where 10% of the population can determine the margin for error at the 95% confidence interval.

Research Instrumentation

All the measurements used in the present study are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 All the Instruments Used in this Study
Scale	Source	Measure
MLQ-5X-Short	Bass and Avolio (2000)	TL
Temporary organization	Braun, Ferreira, and Sydow (2013)	OCB
LMX-VII	Schriesheim, Castro, and Cogliser (1999)	LMX
Project Implementation Profile (PIP)	Slevin and Pinto (1986)	PS

Measurement

Factorial validity testing involved processes from scores of measuring instruments. For Construct Validity, all p-values related to each the value of loading demonstrated a significant value of less than 0.05. Additionally, all of the value factor loadings are more significant than 0.6. Moreover, all value scales of Av erage Variance Extracted (AVE) of twenty items are more than 0.5. Thus, these outcomes are acceptable, and support the notion that these nineteen items best describe the structure of the instrument survey. Further, the purification and reliability of each Cronbach’s alpha are 0.70 or 0.60 in the exploratory research (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & William, 1998; Nunnally, 1978). The results of this study indicate that all of the variables produced reliability scale value above the recommended level of 0.70.

Data Analysis

Descriptive studies were conducted on all of the variables. Baseline characteristics were compared between the variables using the independent-sample t-test for quantitative variables. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess the strength of linear relationships between pairs of variables of interest. P-value was corrected by the Bonferroni method for multiple comparisons and multiple correlations.

For testing the hypotheses, a moderated-mediation analysis from Model 58 was used relying on one or more mediators that moderate both of the independent variables: Mediator path and the Mediator-Dependent variables path. A Moderated – Mediation framework of conceptual diagram analysis for hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4, and H5 is summarized and presented in Figure 1, presented in the next section. The code contains X =TL, m =OCB, W=LMX and Y=PS. This analysis was conducted for each outcome separately. The coefficient of the path between ‘x’ and the mediator is ‘a’, and the coefficient of the path the mediator and ‘y’ is ‘b.’ The indirect path in the presence of a mediator is represented by ‘ab.’ In order for the mediation hypotheses to be supported, path ‘ab’ should be significant (see Figure 1). A Moderated Mediation analysis for testing both of the mediators and the moderator derived from the code for a single mediator was provided by Preacher and colleagues (2011).

Moderated mediation models were based on data consisting of a sample with 494 managers and a data-collected-only LMX variable from 494 subordinates, so that, in total, there were 988 participants. The valid measures of the TL, OCB on PS would be more assertive in firms with levels of LMX. Missing data was handled with complete information maximum likelihood ). The value level of significance was at p≤0.05. The evaluated model fit of hypothesized models was fit by criteria of the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Fit Index (TLI), Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Standardized Root- Mean-Square Residual (SRMR), and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) as suggested by (Chen, 2007). A good model fit is indicated by a CFI larger than 0.95, a TLI larger than 0.95, and an RMSEA smaller than 0.05 (Kline, 2010).

Research Results

Descriptive Statistics

Data was collected from current leadership employees working on 247 housing construction projects in Thailand, using purposive sampling techniques. Half of the respondents had more than two years of working experience in the current project at the time of the survey, with 74.1% of those having had more than 24 months tenure on the relevant projects. About 55.3 % of the projects were in the high value category of more than 1,000 million baht, while 44.7 % were projects valued at less than 1,000 million baht. Proportionally, 51.2% of the sample population said that the number of workers supervised was between 0 -100 persons, and 35.4% said that the relevant project employed 101 - 200 persons. Data was collected at the same place and period as the Leadership respondent’s portion; most of the worker respondents (62.5%) were male, and 49.8 % were over the age of 31. About 50.3 % of the workers were Cambodian or Burmese. 82.8% of respondents were identified as general workers, followed by 10.5 % who were identified as the “head-man”, and 4.5 % who were skill laborers. 55.9% of these workers had been on the current project for more than 24 months.

Normal distribution verifies the sample group tests, the principle proceeding of gathered responsiveness confirmed by normal distribution indices, skewness, and kurtosis scale, within the acceptance criteria of a skewness range of -3 to 3(Stuart, Arnold, Ord, O'Hagan & Forster, 1994). The data collected from 988 respondents comprised a large enough sample to support normal distribution principles. The resulting skewness scales were between -1.630 to -0.272, while the value of kurtosis scales was between 3.080 to 0.015. Hence, the normal distribution principle of the sample group in this finding was accepted.

The analysis results: A Moderated – Mediation conceptual diagram analysis for the hypothesis. (See Figure 1).

The summarised outcome of the moderated mediation supported the study's hypothesis, as presented in Tables 1 – 5 below.

Table 1 shows that TL has a direct influence effect on OCB, with an influence coefficient of 0.717 at the statistically significant level of 0.01. At the same time, interaction (Int 1) between TL and LMX variables has an influence coefficient level of 0.717 at the statistically significant level of 0.01.

Table 1 Results for Model Summary of Outcome Variables Of OCB, TL, LMX
	R	R2	MSE	F	df1	df2	p
OCB	.800	.640	.080	290.477	3.000	490.000	.000
	coeff	se	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
Constant	-.002	.013	-.171	.865	-.027	.023
TL→OCB	.717	.024	29.420	.000	.669	.765
LMX→OCB	-.006	.019	-.289	.773	-.044	.032
LInt_1→OCB	-.100	.037	-2.697	.007	-.172	-.027

Tables 2-3 illustrate that TL and OCB directly influence PS with influence coefficients of 0.320 and 0.649, and a statistical significance level of 0.01. There is also interaction (Int 1) between OCB and LMX variables, with an influence coefficient of -0.08 at the statistically significant level of .076. These indicate that LMX can be a functional activation variable between OCB and LMX at the statistically significant level of .076.

Table 2 Results for Model Summary of Outcome Variables of TL, OCB, LMX, PS Interactions (X*W):
	R	R2	MSE	F	df1	df2	P
PS	.841	.706	.086	294.244	4.000	489.000	.000
	coeff	se	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
Constant	4.326	.013	327.532	.000	4.300	4.352
TL→PS	.320	.041	7.747	.000	.239	.401
OCB→PS	.649	.046	13.996	.000	.558	.740
LMX→PS	-.011	.020	-.556	.579	-.050	.028
Int_1 →PS	-.080	.045	-1.777	.076	-.168	.008
Note. Int_1= OCB * LMX

Table 3 Results For Model Summary of Tests of Highest Order Unconditional Interactions, X * W Interaction
Tests of highest order unconditional interactions, W = LMX interaction, Focal predict: OCB (M) Mod var: LMX (W)
	R2-chng	F	df1	df2	p
M*W	.002	3.158	1.000	489.000	.076

As can be seen in Table 4, when LMX is segregated into three groups high, middle, low (+ -1SD), no matter the degree to which OCB is related to LMX, OCB's influence on PS remains statistically significant. Also, LMX displayed slight correlation levels with low LMX groups, and OCB's impact on PS was higher due to condition effects of the focal predictors at the moderator's values than with higher LMX levels groups.

Table 4 Condition Effect of the Focal Predictor at Values of the Moderator (S)
Conditioning Values	LMX	Effect	se	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
LOW	-.661	.702	.055	12.834	.000	.594	.809
MED	.000	.649	.046	13.996	.000	.558	.740
HIGH	.661	.596	.055	10.747	.000	.487	.705

As shown in Table 5, TL has an indirect influence on PS through OCB determined with LMX as the moderator variable’s function. When the levels of LMX are divided into three groups high, middle, low (+ -1SD), the result revealed significant indirect correlation among all three groups (based on the BootLLCI and BootULCI values or the confidence interval). If the values graph line from the LL to UL range did not pass 0 points on the graph, the path was significant. Thus, all of the low, middle and high groups, the LMX, had a directive influence on the TL and PS paths through OCB. Also, LMX demonstrated slight correlation levels with high, middle, and low groups due to indirect effects condition of the focal predictors at the moderator's values from TL to PS through OCB.

Table 5 Results for Considering the Direct and Indirect Effects of X on Y
Direct and indirect effects of X on Y Direct effect of X on Y
Effect	se	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
.320	.041	7.747	.000	.239	.401
Indirect effect:	TL → OCB → PS
Conditioning Values	LMX	Effect	BootSE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
LOW	-.661	.550	.050	.455	.652
MED	.000	.465	.046	.381	.564
HIGH	.661	.388	.052	.295	.500

Discussion

The results indicated strong agreement with previous studies that reported that transformational leaders encourage subordinates to accept the organization’s vision, mission, and goals. Additionally, Avolio, et al., (2004); Lindgren & Packendorff (2009), in their studies on frontline leaders, concluded that to be successful on some dimensions of factors that make up TL, such as IM, IIa, IIb, IS, IC, those factors influence OCB. So, it is vital to support TL among HB, LO, PC INI, and RM factors. Besides, the finding revealed mediation variable via OCB in the relationship between TL and PS. According to Aeknarajindawat & Jermsittiparsert (2020) mention, the findings of data showed that people’s perceptions of justice highly participatory with OCB. There is a significant optimistic association between Organizational Justice and OCB. Likewise, OCB is considered supplementary business connected practices that go well beyond the obligations recommended by their sets of responsibilities or restrained in official valuations. Opinions here include establishing the quantity of trust and motivation to carry about improvements of the workforce. Autry, Skinner & Lamb (2008) Reported on OCB drive effectiveness in permanent organizations. Thus, the managerial performance in making PS possible is a function of a TL relationship to OCB and job performance on the project itself. Hence, this finding has supported latent variables related to the constructs and the conceptual model. The final investigation is the individual-level LMX moderates on PS via OCB, which, with the TL, has mediation variables via OCB and PS of an individual of leaders at the workplace or construction site. Thus, the results revealed that there is support for previous research studies. The differentiated relationship between a leader and subordinators determines the leader's overall effectiveness, and the quality of the ties predicts different outcomes. The value of a high-quality LMX relationship depends on social exchange, meaning that the leader and subordinates should contribute resources at fair value. Thus, the model describes a process for generating low-quality relationships between leaders and individual employees within organizations. Whereas earlier studies have studied this relationship, an association of quality LMX or LMX does not predict performance scale, only high levels (Ilies, Nahrgang & Morgeson, 2007).

Conclusion

Theoretical implications: These research results explain the following: LMX is characterized by the process or quality of the relationship. LMX’s dimensions are generally assumed to be rational and constitutive with Liking, Mutual Support, Trust, Attitude, Attention, Loyalty, and Respect, all of which contribute to creating the relationship between leader and subordinates.

Practical Implications: The findings offer implications for Thailand’s real estate construction industry; the management of a real estate firm can apply the results for more appropriate investment planning. Thus, a higher relationship of quality leader-member exchange or LMX predicts the scale of performance only at all levels, enhancing the organization’s stability for strategic plans for real estate organizations to achieve competitive competency and become leaders in the real estate business.

Research Limitations: The findings described only the activities and situations of construction projects for organizations in the real estate industry in Thailand. Besides, the sample groups of subordinates comprise immigrant laborer’s, mainly from Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos.

Future Research: The new leadership genre relies on charismatic leadership and transformational, Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB), and how they are linked to project success. Hence, the composite of charismatic leadership and transformational leadership, providing a moderation-mediation analysis of the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), and Project Success (PS). Hence, it is reasonable for future research to discover new data among exogenous and endogenous variables, leading to more focused comprehension and applications.

References

1. Aeknarajindawat, N., & Jermsittiparsert, K. (2020). Does Organization Justice Influence the Organization Citizenship Behavior, Job Satisfaction & Organization Outcomes? Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11(1), 489-496.
2. Aga, D.A., Noorderhaven, N., & Vallejo, B. (2016). Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating role of team-building. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5), 806-818.
3. Autry, C.W., Skinner, L.R., & Lamb, C.W. (2008). Interorganizational citizenship behaviors: An empirical study. Journal of Business Logistics, 29(2), 53-74.
4. Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(8), 951-968.
5. Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (2000). MLQ, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire sampler set: Technical report, leader form, rater form, and scoring key for MLQ form 5x-short: Mind Garden.
6. Braun, T., Ferreira, A.I., & Sydow, J. (2013). Citizenship behavior and effectiveness in temporary organizations. International journal of project management, 31(6), 862-876.
7. Chen, F.F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling: A multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464-504.
8. Choudhary, N., Kumar, R., & Philip, P. (2016). Effects of transformational leadership on follower's organizational citizenship behavior: The moderating role of culture. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 9(7), 23-33.
9. Enders, C.K. (2001). The impact of nonnormality on full information maximum-likelihood estimation for structural equation models with missing data. Psychological methods, 6(4), 352.
10. Engelen, A., Gupta, V., Strenger, L., & Brettel, M. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation, firm performance, and the moderating role of transformational leadership behaviors. Journal of management, 41(4), 1069-1097.
11. Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2013). Transformational–transactional leadership and upward influence: The Role Of Relative Leader–Member Exchanges (RLMX) and Perceived Organizational Support (POS). The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 299-315.
12. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis, [Google Scholar].
13. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & William, C. (1998). Black (1998). Multivariate data analysis, 5, 87-135.
14. Henderson, D.J., Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Bommer, W.H., & Tetrick, L.E. (2008). Leader--member exchange, differentiation, and psychological contract fulfillment: A multilevel examination. Journal of applied psychology, 93(6), 1208.
15. Hu, J., & Liden, R.C. (2013). Relative leader–member exchange within team contexts: How and when social comparison impacts individual effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 66(1), 127-172.
16. Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J.D., & Morgeson, F.P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 92(1), 269.
17. Jermsittiparsert, K., Siriattakul, P., & Wattanapongphasuk, S. (2019). Determining the environmental performance of Indonesian SMEs influence by green supply chain practices with moderating role of green HR practices. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 8(3), 59-70.
18. Kline, R.B. (2010). Promise and pitfalls of structural equation modeling in gifted research.
19. Kozlowski, S.W., & Ilgen, D.R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological science in the public interest, 7(3), 77-124.
20. Lim, B.T., & Loosemore, M. (2017). The effect of inter-organizational justice perceptions on organizational citizenship behaviors in construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 35(2), 95-106.
21. Lindgren, M., & Packendorff, J. (2009). Project leadership revisited: Towards distributed leadership perspectives in project research. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 1(3), 285-308.
22. Majeed, N., Ramayah, T., Mustamil, N., Nazri, M., & Jamshed, S. (2017). Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Modeling emotional intelligence as mediator. Management & Marketing, 12(4), 571-590.
23. Naeem, S., & Khanzada, B. (2017). Impact of transformational leadership in attainment of project success: the mediating role of job satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 8(9), 168-177.
24. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory, 2.
25. Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences: Sage Publications.
26. Piccolo, R.F., & Colquitt, J.A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of management Journal, 49(2), 327-340.
27. Raziq, M.M., Borini, F.M., Malik, O.F., Ahmad, M., & Shabaz, M. (2018). Leadership styles, goal clarity, and project success: Evidence from project-based organizations in Pakistan. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.
28. Saleem, H. (2015). The impact of leadership styles on job satisfaction and mediating role of perceived organizational politics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 563-569.
29. Schriesheim, C.A., Castro, S.L., & Cogliser, C.C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63-113.
30. Shen, M.-J., & Chen, M.-C. (2007). The relationship of leadership, team trust and team performance: A comparison of the service and manufacturing industries. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35(5), 643-658.
31. Slevin, D.P., & Pinto, J.K. (1986). The project implementation profile: new tool for project managers.
32. Stuart, A., Arnold, S., Ord, J.K., O'Hagan, A., & Forster, J. (1994). Kendall's advanced theory of statistics: Wiley.
33. Sumner, M., Bock, D., & Giamartino, G. (2006). Exploring the linkage between the characteristics of IT project leaders and project success. Information systems management, 23(4), 43-49.
34. Wang, H., Law, K.S., Hackett, R.D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z.X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of management Journal, 48(3), 420-432.
35. Yang, L.-R., Huang, C.-F., & Wu, K.-S. (2011). The association among project manager's leadership style, teamwork and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 29(3), 258-267.
36. Yang, L.-R., Wu, K.-S., Wang, F.-K., & Chin, P.-C. (2012). Relationships among project manager’s leadership style, team interaction and project performance in the Taiwanese server industry. Quality & Quantity, 46(1), 207-219.
37. Zaman, U., Nawaz, S., Tariq, S., & Humayoun, A.A. (2019). Linking transformational leadership and “multi-dimensions” of project success: Moderating effects of project flexibility and project visibility using PLS-SEM. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business.
38. Zhang, Z., Jia, M., & Gu, L. (2012). Transformational leadership in crisis situations: evidence from the People's Republic of China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(19), 4085-4109.