Current Issue Guidelines Reviewers Archives Events Contact us

In the driver’s seat: Sustainable leadership as catalysts for sustainable development


Read (PDF) version


Muhammad Bilal Shaukat and Waqar Alam
Department of Management Sciences, Abasyn University Peshawar, Pakistan
e-mail: m.ibbikh19@gmail.com (corresponding author)


AGATHOS, Volume 15, Issue 2 (29): 465-477, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.13954129
© www.agathos-international-review.com CC BY NC 2024


Abstract: The notion, in the driver’s seat, sustainable leadership as catalyst for sustainable development is of highly importance in the embryonic age of community development. Prior research highlighted the importance of sustainable mechanisms and identified various limitations within the realm of sustainable leadership (SusL) and sustainable performance (SusP). With this in mind, this endeavor was designed to offer managerial and policymaking professionals insights into various potential avenues, encompassing areas like poverty mitigation, sustainable education, and community development. Building upon theoretical foundations of the Resource-Based View (RBV) and a comprehensive synthesis of integrated literature we formed a research framework with aims to investigate how SusL influences SusP. We also introduce a mediating mechanism of a novel concept of sustainable project management (SuPM) in this relationship. This research introduced four propositions that await additional validation. These propositions emphasize the need for further empirical evidence in the context of SMEs, thereby setting the stage for future studies. In essence, this research elaborated on both theoretical and practical contributions concerning the influence of SusL on SusP through the novel concept of SuPM.


Keywords: sustainable leadership, sustainable performance, sustainable project management, Resource Based View (RBV)


Introduction

Firms have usually assessed their performance through criteria such as equity, debt, and their market positioning (Siddiqui & Shaukat et al. 2023). However, the contemporary business milieu witnesses a growing influence of stakeholders in urging companies to combine social, ecological and economic considerations in their decision-making and strategic planning (Shaukat et al. 2022). The escalating market competition and heightened communal awareness of sustainability issues emphasize companies to assume a leadership position in sustainability (Moehler et al. 2018). Traditional leadership styles, effective in previous business paradigms, now fall short to meet the requirements of contemporary firms (Mabey et al. 2012; Siddiqui & Iqbal et al. 2023). Hence, it becomes essential to approach leadership behaviors through the lens of sustainable leadership (Su et al. 2020). Sustainable leadership, abbreviated as SusL, involves making long term decisions, fostering systemic innovation, nurturing a talented and devoted staff, and prioritize the provision of top-notch products with an emphasis to enhance overall value creation.

 While the importance of SusL in the realm of business administration is growing, the comprehension of SusL approach for sustainable performance is still emerging. Iqbal, Ahmad, and Halim (2020) have called for further exploration on the link between sustainable leadership and sustainable performance (hereafter SusP). Scolars like Baird et al. (2023) claimed that existing research mainly centered on assessing the influence of SusL styles on specific firm outcomes. However, there exist a significant research gaps in exploring the effects of SusL on broader organizational achievements, such as sustainable firm performance. The authors suggested that forthcoming efforts ought to fill this gap by investigating the yet-to-be-explored impacts of SusL on a broader scope of firm outcomes. The extant literature raised queries about the pragmatic approach employed in studying the direct correlation between SusL and SusP in various investigations (Iqbal et al. 2020; Shaukat & Alam 2023; Iqbal, Ahmad & Li 2021). They argue that findings from studies examining the direct link between SusL and SusP consistently demonstrated significant consistency, whether the results were significant, non-significant, or impartial. This uniformity is ascribed to the perspective effect of additional intermediary factors, which many studies have overlooked. Therefore, this endeavor integrates sustainable project management (hereafter SuPM) as a novel mediating variable to form a connection between the relationship of SusL and SusP.

 Various research gaps linked with the roles of SusL, SuPM, and SusP have been identified in the extant literature. First, despite the increasing concerns about sustainable leadership, the effective application of SusL remains notably underdeveloped (Shamim et al. 2019). Project management specialists have yet to fully utilize SusL advantages to enhance the sustainable performance of their organizations (Shaukat et al. 2022). Second, exploring the direct association between SusL and SusP could be enhanced by considering the incorporation of a mediating mechanism. Prior research highlighted the overlooked role of sustainable project management as a viable mediator (e.g. Dubois & Silvius 2020; Shaukat et al. 2022). Third, sustainable project management presents as a novel-perspective in the domain of corporate governance. Scholars like Shaukat et al. (2022) argue that SuPM substantially impact to both project performance and organizational success. The scholars further claim that SusL practices function as a motivating factor for the operative execution of sustainable project management philosophies. Similarly Dubois and Silvius (2020) suggested to incorporate SuPM into upcoming research frameworks presents an intriguing opportunity to assess sustainability. Fourth, in the context of developing countries, Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing sector play a vital position to achieve Sustainable Development Goals. These SME firms facilitate significantly by creating career openings, uplifting poverty rates, promoting systematic innovation, cultivating environmentally sustainable enterprises, and diminishing income inequalities (Littlewood & Holt 2018). On the other hand, Iqbal, Ahmad, and Ahmad (2018) emphasize the lack of empirical evidence to measure sustainable performance in SMEs, underscore the urgent need to address sustainability within these firms.

 The current study contribution is grounded in four fundamental propositions. At first, we integrate concepts from the Resource Based View (RBV) to improve the theoretical underpinnings of the research. Through the utilization of these distinct streams of knowledge, the current study provides a comprehensive perspective on how sustainable leadership practices influence sustainable performance. By leveraging on this unique knowledge source, the present research provides a comprehensive viewpoint of how sustainable leadership practices influences sustainable performance. This integration heightens the overall comprehension of the influence of sustainable leadership. Second, our research highlighted the mediating role of sustainable project management. This nuanced investigation goes beyond the mere establishment of direct relations and delves into the mechanisms through which SusL influences SusP. This contribution magnifies the literature by given that insights into the underlying dynamics that firms leverage to upsurge their sustainability efforts. Likewise, our research specific emphasis on Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) is of particular significance. The present study offers practical recommendations by addressing the distinct challenges and benefits that SME firms face in the realm of sustainable leadership and performance which make it valuable for this vibrant sector.


Literature review

Sustainable leadership

In the literature, the notion “sustainable leadership” often employed interchangeably with phrases like “sustainability leadership”, “environmental leadership”, “honeybee leadership” and “green management”, all aimed to discover the correlation between leadership practices and sustainable outcomes (Shaukat & Alam 2023). SusL strongly emphasized to improve the stakeholders’ well-being while also ensure the firm long term perspective (McCann & Holt 2010). SusL promotes the core characteristic of sustainability through individual, corporate, and society spheres (Pearse & Dimovski 2015). Likewise, SusL prioritized competency development, viable revolution, and enduring advantages, advancing beyond immediate advantages to deliver substantial value to achieve SDGs (Hallinger & Suriyankietkaew 2018). The implementation of SusL traits, which encompasses valuing the workforce, foster a shared vision, emphasize on social concerns, and maintain progressive employees relationships, has a positive impact to drive operational efficiency (Suriyankietkaew & Avery 2016).


Sustainable leadership and sustainable firm performance

The existing body of research highlights the impact of SusL on SusP. For instance, Moehler et al. (2018) suggested that in order to meet stakeholder demands and achieve sustainable results, firms must adopt SusL practices that bring results with superior ecological, economic and social concerns. In the same way, Avery and Bergsteiner (2010) argued that SusL is a core component to produce high-quality products that contribute to enhanced firm performance. Sustainable leader plays a critical role to shape organization culture, improve workforce enactment, and restructure the organization to realize viable results (Ferdig 2007).

 This research applies Resource Based View (RBV) to examine the influence of SusL on SusP. According to RBV, organizations possess a unique array of resources that are essential to attain strategic objectives and serve as the foundation of organizational effectiveness (Barney 1991). Companies utilize leader as a form of human capital resources, characterized by knowledge, irreplaceability, and uniqueness (Harris & McMahan 2015). Building upon RBV principles, Iqbal and Ahmad (2020) stressed that SusL practices are distinctive, evolving, sophisticated, irreplaceable and valuable, enabling firms to establish a competitive advantage over competitors in the market. Enhanced SusL practices empower firms with superior potential to augment sustainable benefits (Pearse & Dimovski 2015). Based on preceding discussion, following proposition was developed:

 Proposition 1: Sustainable leadership has a positive impact on sustainable performance.


Sustainable leadership and sustainable project management

The extant body of literature shed light on the intricate relationship between SusL and SuPM. Notable studies provide valuable insights into this connotation. For example, Nartgün, Limon, and Dilekçi (2020) conducted an in-depth investigation into the impact of sustainable leadership within the project based environment. The outcomes revealed a compelling association, highlighting the substantial contribution of SusL to the enhancement of project management effectiveness and the overall performance. Moreover, scholars like, Zulkiffli and Latiffi, (2016) carried out a comprehensive literature review on SusL applications by encompassing various industries, and their research underlined the critical role of SusL. Furthermore, Shaukat and Alam (2023) found that SusL undertakes a substantial responsibility, mainly concern with the implementation of socially conscious, environmentally sustainable, and economically viable project management practices, which together represent the three fundamental pillars of SuPM. This methodology leads to grasp sustainable outcomes and highlight the indispensable position of SusL in contemporary project management. In addition, a growing body of evidence suggested that SusL unveils a remarkable capability to manage sustainable project management practices with superior efficiency and effectiveness (Shaukat & Alam 2023). This implies that those firms who embrace SusL values are well equipped to steer the complexities of contemporary project management while fostering sustainability and underline the critical consequence of this leadership approach.

 Therefore, we proposed the following proposition:

 Proposition 2: Sustainable leadership has a positive effect on sustainable project management.


 Sustainable project management and sustainable performance

The extant body of literature carried to the forefront, the complex relationship between SuPM implementation and the overarching SusP concept. Noteworthy research within this realm delved into the numerous dimensions of this connotation and shed light on its complexities and implications. For example, scholars like Silvius and Schipper (2014) made a substantial contribution by establishing a comprehensive theoretical model to delve into a dynamic relationship between SuPM and performance, grounded in specific sustainability criteria. This framework further provide a structured methodology to gain insights into how the different dimensions of SuPM can exert an influence on the individual criteria that collectively shape sustainable performance. In essence, their research findings offered a distinct roadmap to discern the complex interplay between SuPM and the multifaceted facets of SusP. Furthermore, Carvalho and Rabechini (2017) undertook a noteworthy research endeavor, wherein they established a structured research model explicitly developed to analyze the link between sustainability within the realm of project management and the overarching project success concept. Their research consequences lighten a compelling association and showcasing the positive impact of SuPM on various dimensions of project success. This underscores the critical importance of sustainability in project management and also highlights how adopting SuPM principles lead to improved sustainable performance on multiple fronts. Besides, the empirical insights offered by Martens and Carvalho (2016) adds further depth to our understanding of the practical implementation of SuPM practices. Through the consideration of a various arrangement of case studies, their findings revealed numerous important observations. These comprised the application of standard project management methodologies, the incorporation of sustainability concerns throughout various project stages, and the commitment to continuous improvement in these areas. Such observations assist to underscore benefits and the widespread adoption of SuPM practices in contemporary business settings to enhance firm’s SusP.

 Based on above discussion we developed following proposition:

 Proposition 3: Sustainable project management has a positive impact on sustainable performance.


Mediating role of sustainable project management

Sustainable project management encompasses the planning and controlling of project processes, taking into account social, ecological and economic considerations throughout the project-life-cycle. The objective is to assistance stakeholders while confirming transparency and fostering active stakeholder involvement. (Silvius & Schipper, 2014). In the extant literature various scholars emphasize the significance of SuPM implementation. For example, Zulkiffli and Latiffi (2016) conducted a theoretical analysis of SusL in construction and other industrial projects, while Shaukat and Alam, (2023) concentrated on SME manufacturing enterprises. Both studies concluded that SusL takes the responsibility to incorporate socially responsible, environmentally conscious, and economically viable project management practices. Furthermore, SusL has the capability to manage sustainable project management practices with greater proficiency and effectiveness (Shaukat et al. 2022). The extant body of literature underscored that SuPM positively acted as a mediator in the association between SusL and SusP. For example, Goedknegt (2013) stressed that leaders wield significant impact over the implementation of SuPM practices. Similarly, Ullah et al. (2020) contended that the effective adoption and implementation of SuPM can be accomplished by leveraging the abilities and leadership qualities, leading to substantial improvements in performance-driven results. Silvius and Schipper (2014) stated that the application of SuPM required methodical and well-balanced arrangements among varied viewpoints on performance and development. They also argued that leaders play a pivotal and important role in evaluating sustainability.

 The intervening function of SuPM in the association between SusL and SusP can be explained through the lens of the Resource Based View (RBV). RBV posits that organizations possess a unique set of resources that serve as the foundation of strategic management and the primary driver of success (Barney 1991). Similarly, RBV emphasizes that companies aim to outdo each other by leveraging dynamic assets and competencies (Ayuso & Navarrete-Báez 2018). Drawing from RBV, it is posited that the evolving and indispensable nature of SuPM implementing competence equips an organization to attain competitive advantage over its peers (Larsson & Larsson 2020). SuPM is viewed as a unique asset for firms to facilitate and streamline project life cycle stages effectively (Silvius & Schipper 2014). Organizations equipped with enhanced SuPM implementation knowledge will have greater capabilities compared to those that adopt SuPM practices in a fragmented or sporadic manner (Larsson & Larsson 2020). Building upon RBV, the current study argues that SusL help in improving SuPM practices, ultimately lead to improve sustainable performance.

 Derived from these premises, the study puts forward the following proposition:

 Proposition 4: Sustainable project management mediates the relationship between SusL and SusP.

 RBV’s lens accentuates the role of SuPM as a pivotal resource and suggests that SusL significantly enriches the implementation of SuPM practices. Consequently, this interplay between SusL and SuPM bears a direct impact to augment a firm's sustainable performance, aligning with RBV’s emphasis on leveraging unique resources for competitive advantage (Barney 1991).


Conclusion

The present study has been planned to scrutinize the relationship amongst SusL, SuPM and SusP. From Resource Based View (RBV) a research framework was developed to establish the association between the proposed concepts.

 This study deepens our understanding of the correlation between sustainable leadership and sustainable performance. This endeavor further acknowledged the intermediary function of SuPM in the link among SusL and SusP. As a result, four propositions regarding the potential impact of sustainable project management on sustainable performance have emerged from this study. Moreover, the conceptualization of sustainable performance serves as a fundamental starting point and provides a substantial guide for upcoming quantitative research endeavors. This theoretical contribution suggested that researchers conducting quantitative investigations on proposed framework should examine the reliability and validity of these propositions.

 The extant literature highlighted the positive association between SusL and SusP, yet there exists an empirical unaddressed gap between these elements (Pearse & Dimovski 2015). Scholars like Iqbal et al. (2020) call for empirical investigation in the association between SusL and SusP. Hence, this study aims to bridge this gap by proposing that sustainable project management acts as the missing intermediary variable between SusL and SusP. While past research primarily focused on conceptually developing sustainable project management, empirical evidence remains scarce (Dubois & Silvius 2020). Sustainable project management offers a new perspective within the realm of corporate setups. Shaukat et al. (2022) stated that SuPM substantially supplement towards firm performance and effectiveness. The authors recommended to explore the interrelationship between SusL, SuPM and firm outcomes.

 This research incorporated crucial factors including sustainable leadership, performance, and sustainable project management. These factors have demonstrated a substantial elevation in the sustainability of firm performance. This endeavor stands as an early initiative aimed to form the proposed framework that interlinks SusL with SusP utilizing SuPM as a mediator. This highlights the diverse influence of SusL to navigate sustainability in SMEs, and stress the integration of SusL application within these enterprises to enhance inclusive performance and overarching sustainability goals.

 Finally, this study’s conceptual framework forms the foundation for conducting quantitative studies based on the extant theoretical support. Regarding the Resource Based View-RBV viewpoint, this study enriches existing literature by showcasing how sustainable project management serves as a mediator amid to SusL and SusP relationship. In doing so, the present study addresses the research gap identified by (Dubois & Silvius 2020; Shaukat et al. 2022; Siddiqui & Iqbal et al. 2023). Ultimately, this study distinguished a notable research gap in the sustainability literature and established a solid foundation for future research by presenting a comprehensive conceptual framework and research propositions.


Research implications

The current research contributes to the theoretical landscape significantly. Within the domain of the Resource Based View, this research explore the connections between sustainable leadership (SusL) and its profound impact on sustainable project management (SuPM) and sustainable performance (SusP) within the perspective of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs). This in-depth analysis sheds light on the pivotal function of SusL, and allow for a deeper understanding of leadership attributes, especially within technology oriented environments. It delves into existing literature that underlines SusL’s distinctive focus on sustainable project management practices, emphasize to cultivate highly skilled and dedicated employees, the delivery of superior products, and the fortification of the firms future sustainability. This comprehensive understanding not only adds depth to the present body of leadership-theories but also underscores how sustainability-focused leadership styles significantly influence and enhance overall firm performance, effectiveness and longevity.

 Practically, the implications of this research endeavor hold substantial value for SMEs. The research providespractitioners and leaders within SMEs firm with a more profound insight into the attributes defining SuPM, thus elucidate the crucial role that SuPM plays in bridging the gap between SusL and SusP. For practitioners operating within SMEs, this endeavor serves as a practical guide and provide a roadmap to know how their leaders effect the overall efficiency of their firms. By grasping the essence of sustainable leadership (SusL), project managers will able to improve their strategies, make more informed decisions, and ultimately make substantial contributions to the productivity and success of their respective organizations. Additionally, the current study offer significant insights for human resource departments in SMEs. They provide a framework to rationalize recruitment processes and identify and foster leaders who exhibit necessary sustainable leadership traits. Identifying the potential impact of these leaders on sustainable performance within SMEs firm context, human resource practitioners can prioritize the development and advancement of sustainable leadership attributes. Eventually, this study assists as a practical compass to SMEs, offer practical recommendations to elevate managerial decision-making, fortify organizational sustainability, and foster overall effectiveness in the quest of sustainability.


Limitation and future motivation

 The present study acknowledges its limitations, foremost among them being the dearth of quantitative insights regarding the relationship among SusL, SuPM and SusP within the scope of this study. It is imperative to note that this framework was meticulously crafted through an integrated literature review, operating independently of any prescribed methodology or standardized procedure, as emphasized by (Jesson et al. 2011). However, considering the paramount importance of this research domain, there exists a pressing need for further systematic literature reviews that could potentially yield additional nuanced insights into the intricacies of the proposed relationship. In addition, future research that addresses the propositions outlined in this study will not only enrich theoretical understanding of sustainable development but also provide guidance in the formulation of policies and practices conducive to fostering SuPM and driving superior sustainable performance within the economy. Evidently, the imperative nature of future studies lies in the mobilization of these propositions, leveraging suitable indicators to comprehensively explore the multifaceted dynamics of sustainable project management (SuPM) and its consequential impact on sustainable performance (Wahab & Shaukat, 2023; Siddiqui & Qureshi et al., 2024).


References:

  1. Avery, G. C., & H. Bergsteiner. 2010. Honeybees & Locusts: The Business Case for Sustainable Leadership. Allen & Unwin.

  2. Ayuso, S., & F.E. Navarrete-Báez. 2018. How does entrepreneurial and international orientation influence SMEs’ commitment to sustainable development? Empirical evidence from Spain and Mexico. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(1): 80–94.

  3. Baird, K., S. Su, & R. Munir. 2023. The mediating role of levers of controls on the association between sustainable leadership and organisational resilience. Journal of Management Control, 34(2): 167-200.

  4. Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99–120.

  5. Carvalho, M. M., & R. Rabechini Jr. 2017. Can project sustainability management impact project success? An empirical study applying a contingent approach. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6): 1120-1132.

  6. Dubois, O., & G. Silvius. 2020. The Relation Between Sustainable Project Management and Project Success. Relation, 9(4): 218-238.

  7. Ferdig, M. A. 2007. Sustainability leadership: Co-creating a sustainable future. Journal of Change Management, 7(1): 25-35.

  8. Goedknegt, D. 2013. Responsibility for adhering to sustainability in project management. In 7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organization, pp. 145-154. Trondheim.

  9. Hallinger, P., & S. Suriyankietkaew. 2018. Science Mapping of the Knowledge Base on Sustainable Leadership, 1990-2018. Sustainability, 10(12): 1–22.

  10. Harris, C. M., & G.C. McMahan. 2015. The influence of compensation on leader human capital and unit performance. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 80(1): 33–40.

  11. Iqbal, Q., & N.H. Ahmad. 2021. Sustainable development: The colors of sustainable leadership in learning organization. Sustainable Development, 29(1): 108-119.

  12. Iqbal, Q., N.H. Ahmad, & B. Ahmad. 2018. Enhancing sustainable performance through job characteristics via workplace spirituality: A study on SMEs. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 12(3): 463-490.

  13. Iqbal, Q., N.H. Ahmad, & H.A. Halim. 2020. How does sustainable leadership influence sustainable performance? Empirical evidence from selected ASEAN countries. Sage Open, 10(4), 2158244020969394.

  14. Iqbal, Q., N.H. Ahmad, & H.A. Halim. 2020. Insights on entrepreneurial bricolage and frugal innovation for sustainable performance. Business Strategy & Development, 4(3): 237-245.

  15. Iqbal, Q., N.H. Ahmad, & Y. Li. 2021. Sustainable Leadership in Frontier Asia Region: Managerial Discretion and Environmental Innovation. Sustainability, 13(9): 5002.

  16. Iqbal, Q., N.H. Ahmad, A. Nasim, & S.A.R. Khan. 2020. A moderated-mediation analysis of psychological empowerment: Sustainable leadership and sustainable performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 262: 121429.

  17. Jesson, J., L. Matheson, & F.M. Lacey. 2011. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques. London: Sage.

  18. Larsson, J., & L. Larsson. 2020. Integration, application and importance of collaboration in sustainable project management. Sustainability, 12(2): 585.

  19. Littlewood, D., & D. Holt. 2018. How social enterprises can contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)–A conceptual framework. In Entrepreneurship and the Sustainable Development Goals, pp. 33-46. Emerald Publishing Limited.

  20. Mabey, C., C. Kulich, & F. Lorenzi-Cioldi. 2012. Knowledge leadership in global scientific research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(12): 2450-2467.

  21. Martens, M. L., & M.M. Carvalho. 2016. Sustainability and success variables in the project management context: An expert panel. Project Management Journal, 47(6): 24-43.

  22. McCann, J. T., & R.A. Holt. 2010. Servant and sustainable leadership: an analysis in the manufacturing environment. International Journal of Management Practice, 4(2): 134-148.

  23. Moehler, R., A. Hope, & C. Algeo. 2018. Sustainable Project Management: Revolution or Evolution? Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2018, No. 1, p. 13583. Academy of Management.

  24. Nartgün, Ş. S., İ. Limon, & Ü. Dilekçi. 2020. The relationship between sustainable leadership and perceived school effectiveness: The mediating role of work effort. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 9(1): 141-154.

  25. Pearse, N., & V. Dimovski. 2015. Strategic Decision Making for Organizational Sustainability: The Implications of Servant Leadership and Sustainable Leadership Approaches. Economic and Business Review, 17(3): 273–290.

  26. Shamim, S., S. Cang, & H. Yu. 2019. Impact of knowledge oriented leadership on knowledge management behaviour through employee work attitudes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(16): 2387-2417.

  27. Shaukat, M. B., K.F. Latif, A. Sajjad, & G. Eweje. 2022. Revisiting the relationship between sustainable project management and project success: The moderating role of stakeholder engagement and team building. Sustainable Development, 30(1): 58-75.

  28. Shaukat, M. B., & W. Alam. 2023. Sustainable Development: The Colours of Sustainable Leadership in Entrepreneurial Ventures. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 12: 202-219 (First Special Issue 2023).

  29. Siddiqui, A. W., S. Iqbal, M.B. Shaukat, & K.F. Latif. 2023. From Coaching Leadership Style to Construction Industry Project Success: Modelling the Mediating Role of Team Building and Goal Clarity. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 12: 142-164. (First Special Issue 2023).

  30. Siddiqui, A. W., M.B. Shaukat, W.M. Fancy, & K.F. Latif. 2023. From Knowledge-Oriented Leadership to Information Technology Project Success: Modelling the Mediating Role of Team Empowerment. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 12: 91-312. (Second Special Issue 2023).

  31. Siddiqui, A. W., Qureshi, B., & Shaukat, M. B. (2024). Project Manager's Competencies as Catalysts for Project Success: The Mediating Role of Functional Manager Involvement and Stakeholder Engagement. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 13: 53-78. (First Special Issue 2024).

  32. Silvius, A. J. G., & R. Schipper. 2014. Sustainability in project management competencies: Analyzing the competence gap of project managers. Journal of Human Resources Sustainability Studies, 2: 40–58.

  33. Su, X., A. Xu, W. Lin, Y. Chen, S. Liu, & W. Xu. 2020. Environmental leadership, green innovation practices, environmental knowledge learning, and firm performance. SAGE Open, 10(2).

  34. Suriyankietkaew, S., & G. Avery. 2016. Sustainable leadership practices driving financial performance: Empirical evidence from Thai SMEs. Sustainability, 8(4): 327.

  35. Ullah, M., M.W.A. Khan, L.C. Kuang, A. Hussain, F. Rana, A. Khan, & M.R. Sajid. 2020. A structural model for the antecedents of sustainable project management in Pakistan. Sustainability, 12(19): 8013.

  36. Wahab, A. and Shaukat, M.B., 2023. The mediating role of team performance between affiliative leadership and project success in the IT Sector. JISR management and social sciences & economics, 21(3): 92-117.

  37. Zulkiffli, N. A., & A. Latiffi. 2016. Theoretical review on sustainable leadership (SL). In MATEC Web of Conferences, Vol. 66, No. 00045, pp. 1-8.