Linking public leadership and public project success: the mediating role of team building

The study addresses the persistent challenge of low project success rates, particularly in public sector projects, where completion within time, budget, scope, and stakeholder satisfaction remains difficult. While mainstream leadership styles (e.g., transformational, ethical, servant, inclusive) have been linked to project success, public organizations present unique contexts that may require sector-specific leadership approaches. Building on Social Information Processing (SIP) theory, and on public leadership conceptualized by Tummers and Knies (2016) with four dimensions—accountability leadership (AL), rule-following leadership (RL), political loyalty leadership (LL), and network governance leadership (NL)—the paper investigates whether public leadership improves project success and team building in public sector project settings. The research aims to fill gaps by empirically testing the effects of public leadership on project success and team building and examining whether team building mediates the leadership–success relationship within public sector projects in Pakistan.

The literature review situates project success as meeting schedule, budget, performance, and stakeholder expectations, and notes high failure rates in public projects. Leadership is highlighted as a critical success factor. Public leadership, distinctively suited to public organizations, comprises four dimensions: accountability (open communication and stakeholder engagement), rule-following (adherence to procedures), political loyalty (alignment and support for political leaders’ decisions), and network governance (building internal and external networks). Prior work links public leadership to employee outcomes (commitment, engagement, motivation, performance) but lacks evidence on project success. Using SIP theory, the review argues that public leadership shapes team members’ attitudes and behaviors by providing salient social cues: AL enhances information sharing and stakeholder involvement; RL aligns behavior with plans and standards; LL fosters commitment and cohesion; NL promotes collaboration and access to resources. These mechanisms are posited to enhance project success. Team building—comprising goal setting, role clarification, interpersonal relationships, and problem solving—is influenced by leadership and is associated with performance and project success. The review elaborates how each public leadership dimension can foster each team-building process (e.g., AL promotes open sharing aiding goals and roles; RL streamlines behavior and reduces conflict; LL strengthens trust and cohesion; NL facilitates collaboration and collective problem solving). The review culminates in four hypotheses: - H1: Public leadership is positively associated with project success. - H2: Public leadership is positively associated with team building. - H3: Team building is positively associated with project success. - H4: Team building mediates the association between public leadership and project success.

Design: Cross-sectional, descriptive survey using dyadic data from public sector project managers and their immediate subordinates in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan. Sampling and procedure: With approval from the provincial Planning Department, 612 project managers’ emails were obtained. Managers received a survey link and were asked to forward it to a subordinate who had recently completed a public project with them. Eligibility screening required respondents to have completed a public sector project in the past two years. Managers completed measures of project success and team building plus demographics; subordinates rated their manager’s public leadership and provided demographics and project details. Responses: 458 valid manager surveys and 436 valid subordinate surveys were received; 436 manager–subordinate dyads were matched by manager name and project title (approx. 71% response/match rate). Measures: All items rated on 5-point Likert scales (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). - Public leadership: 11-item scale (Vogel et al., 2020, adapted from Tummers & Knies, 2016); Cronbach’s alpha=0.93. - Project success: 14-item scale (Aga et al., 2016; adapted to public sector context); alpha=0.90. - Team building: 6-item scale (Potnuru et al., 2018; based on Aga et al., Klein et al., Salas et al.); alpha=0.91. Controls: Manager gender, age, education, and experience. Data analysis: SPSS, AMOS, and PROCESS Macro (Hayes). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) assessed measurement model fit and validity. Harman’s single-factor test checked common method bias. Hypotheses tested via linear regression and mediation analysis (PROCESS Model 4) with 5000 bootstrap samples and 95% CIs.

- Measurement model: Three-factor CFA (public leadership, team building, project success) showed good fit: χ²=803.16, df=514, χ²/df=1.562, CFI=0.94, TLI=0.92, SRMR=0.03, RMSEA=0.04; substantially better than a single-factor model. Harman’s single factor accounted for 32% (<40%), suggesting limited common method bias. Composite reliabilities >0.80 and AVE >0.50 supported reliability and convergent validity; Fornell–Larcker criteria supported discriminant validity. - H1 supported: Public leadership positively predicted project success (β=0.26, SE=0.05, t=5.21, p<0.001) controlling for demographics. - H2 supported: Public leadership positively predicted team building (β=0.29, SE=0.08, t=3.63, p<0.001). - H3 supported: Team building positively predicted project success (β=0.28, SE=0.06, t=4.68, p<0.001). - H4 supported (partial mediation): Indirect effect of public leadership on project success via team building was significant (β=0.12, SE=0.04, t=3.09, p<0.001); bootstrap 95% CI did not include zero [0.25, 0.48]; the direct effect remained significant, indicating partial mediation. Sobel test corroborated the indirect effect (SE=0.04, t=3.06, p<0.001).

Findings demonstrate that public leadership—a public sector-specific form of transformational leadership—significantly enhances public project success and team building. This aligns with prior evidence on mainstream leadership styles improving project outcomes, extending such effects to the public leadership construct within public sector projects. The positive link from public leadership to team building suggests that accountability, rule-following, political loyalty, and network governance collectively foster key team processes (goal setting, role clarity, interpersonal relations, problem solving). The positive association between team building and project success confirms team building as a critical success factor, particularly in complex public sector projects. The significant partial mediation indicates that public leadership improves project success both directly and indirectly by strengthening team building, elucidating an important mechanism consistent with SIP theory. These results have theoretical implications by expanding public leadership outcomes to include project success and team processes, and practical implications by underscoring the need to cultivate public leadership attributes and invest in team-building practices in public agencies.

The study empirically shows that public leadership improves project success and team building, and that team building, in turn, enhances project success. Moreover, team building partially mediates the relationship between public leadership and project success. Using dyadic data from public project managers and their subordinates in Pakistan, the research extends public leadership theory to the domain of public sector project management and clarifies team building as a key pathway through which leadership affects project outcomes.

- Self-report survey design may introduce social desirability bias; mitigated by assuring confidentiality and separating sources (managers rated project success and team building; subordinates rated public leadership). Harman’s single-factor test suggested limited common method bias, but risks cannot be fully ruled out. - Cross-sectional data limit causal inference; future research should employ time-lagged or longitudinal designs. - Analyses were conducted at the construct level; future studies should examine dimensional effects (e.g., how accountability, rule-following, political loyalty, and network governance relate to specific team-building and project success dimensions) and consider mixed-method approaches for validation and deeper insights.