How Leadership Commitment Shapes the Impact of Scope Management Programs on Team Accountability
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59784/glosains.v7i3.774Keywords:
Leadership Commitment, Project Governance, Scope Management, Structural Equation Modeling, Team AccountabilityAbstract
Background: Organizations worldwide continue to experience scope-related project failures despite substantial investment in formal governance programs, indicating that structural mechanisms alone are insufficient to guarantee accountability outcomes.
Objective: This study investigates the moderating role of leadership commitment in the relationship between scope management programs and team accountability within corporate settings. Drawing on agency theory, stakeholder theory, and the resource-based view, the research examines how executives' visible endorsement, resource allocation, and behavioral modeling amplify or attenuate the effectiveness of formal scope management initiatives.
Methods: Using a quantitative survey design, data were collected from 320 project managers and team leaders across manufacturing, financial services, and technology sectors in Indonesia. Structural equation modeling (SEM) with SmartPLS 4.0 was employed to test the hypothesized relationships.
Results: Findings reveal that leadership commitment significantly moderates the scope management–team accountability relationship (β = 0.412, p < 0.001), with high leadership commitment more than doubling the positive effect of scope management programs. The model explains 56.1% of the variance in team accountability (R² = 0.561).
Conclusions: The study contributes to project management theory by integrating leadership as a boundary condition and offers practical guidance for organizations seeking to enhance accountability through governance reforms. Practically, the findings guide executives to pair scope-governance investments with structured leadership-development initiatives that strengthen accountability outcomes.
References
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.012
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108.
Crawford, L., & Nahmias, A. H. (2010). Competencies for managing change. International Journal of Project Management, 28(4), 405–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.01.015
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. In Sage Publications, Inc. (5th ed., Issue 2).
Fareed, M. Z., Su, Q., Abbas Naqvi, N., Batool, R., & Aslam, M. U. (2023). Transformational leadership and project success: the moderating effect of top management support. SAGE Open, 13(3), 21582440231195684. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231195685
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stokcholder approach. Pitman Boston, MA.
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource management.
Hair, J. F., M. Hult, G. T., M. Ringle, C., Sarstedt, & Marko. (2022). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) [3 ed]. In Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 6(11), 951–952. (Vol. 3, Issue 1).
Hoftede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. McGraw-Hill.
Institute, P. M. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide)–Seventh edition and the standard for project management.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. 3, 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.03.005
Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2015). Relationships between a project management methodology and project success in different project governance contexts. International Journal of Project Management, 33(6), 1377–1392.
Kerzner, H. (2025). Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of E-Collaboration (Ijec), 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
Kock, N. (2020). Harman’s single factor test in PLS-SEM: Checking for common method bias. Data Analysis Perspectives Journal, 2(2), 1–6.
Kock, N., & Hadaya, P. (2018). Minimum sample size estimation in PLS‐SEM: The inverse square root and gamma‐exponential methods. Information Systems Journal, 28(1), 227–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12131
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255
Maier, C., Thatcher, J. B., Grover, V., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2023). Cross-sectional research: A critical perspective, use cases, and recommendations for IS research. In International Journal of Information Management (Vol. 70, p. 102625). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102625
Müller, R., & Jugdev, K. (2012). Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin, and Prescott–the elucidation of project success. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), 757–775. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371211269040
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Söderlund, J. (2011). Pluralism in project management: navigating the crossroads of specialization and fragmentation. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00290.x
Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2005). The project manager’s leadership style as a success factor on projects: A literature review. Project Management Journal, 36(2), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280503600206
Zada, M., Khan, J., Saeed, I., Zada, S., & Jun, Z. Y. (2023). Linking public leadership with project management effectiveness: Mediating role of goal clarity and moderating role of top management support. Heliyon, 9(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15543
Zwikael, O., & Smyrk, J. (2015). Project governance: Balancing control and trust in dealing with risk. International Journal of Project Management, 33(4), 852–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.10.012
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ikhsan Nendi, Amelia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC-BY-SA). that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
