Labour Productivity Journal Paper

7/23/2019 Labour Productivity Journal Paper

1/22

International Journal of Productivity and Performance ManagementLabour productivity in Iranian construction projects: Perceptions of chief

executive officersParviz Ghoddousi Omid Poorafshar Nicholas Chileshe M. Reza Hosseini

Article information:

To cite this document:Parviz Ghoddousi Omid Poorafshar Nicholas Chileshe M. Reza Hosseini , (2015),"Labour productivityin Iranian construction projects", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,Vol. 64 Iss 6 pp. 811 - 830Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2013-0169

Downloaded on: 12 September 2015, At: 23:45 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 87 other documents.

To copy this document: [email protected]

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 139 times since 2015*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Md. Shamsul Arefin, Md Rakibul Hoque, Yukun Bao, (2015),"The impact of business intelligence onorganizations effectiveness: an empirical study", Journal of Systems and Information Technology, Vol.17 Iss 3 pp. 263-285 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSIT-09-2014-0067

Ishfaq Ahmed, Muhammad Musarrat Nawaz, (2015),"Antecedents and outcomes of perceivedorganizational support: a literature survey approach", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 34

Iss 7 pp. 867-880 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMD-09-2013-0115Alireza Tajbakhsh, Elkafi Hassini, (2015),"Performance measurement of sustainable supply chains: areview and research questions", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,Vol. 64 Iss 6 pp. 744-783 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2013-0056

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-

srm:543726 []

ForAuthors

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emeraldfor Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submissionguidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, aswell as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources andservices.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative fordigital archive preservation.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2013-0169http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2013-0169


2/22

*Related content and download information correct at time of

download.


3/22

Labour productivity in Iranian

construction projectsPerceptions of chief executive officersParviz Ghoddousi and Omid Poorafshar

School of Civil Engineering,Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran, and

Nicholas Chileshe and M. Reza HosseiniSchool of Natural and Built Environments,

University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

AbstractPurpose The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, it aims to highlight the main factorsand items affecting the productivity of construction projects, based on the perceptions of CEOs inconstruction companies in Iran. Second, the study compares the elicited CEOsperceptions against thefindings of studies based on the views of such as project managers, middle managers and employeesin other levels.Design/methodology/approachThe study drew upon literature on construction work to developa conceptual model. Further, a total of 60 CEOs from road construction companies were surveyed usinga five-point Likert scale questionnaire to generate the data. The collated data were categorised andranked according to the CEOs perceived level of importance using the relative importance index.Findings The findings highlight the main factors and items affecting labour productivity inconstruction projects in Iran as perceived by CEOs, which are mainly of human resources managementnature and could be attributed to motivation and managerial policy aspects. The study also recognisesthat factors associated with the working environment particularly safety and health are perceived asinsignificant by Iranian CEOs which could be a concern for the Iranian construction industry. Thediscussions shed some light on the discrepancies between the perceptions of CEOs and previousstudies in regards to major determinants of productivity in the construction context.Originality/value This study is the first study aiming at discussing the perceptions of CEOsof construction companies active in construction projects in Iran. As such, the study highlights thestandpoint of the main decision makers in construction companies in regards to labour productivityin the construction sector. Thus, the key contribution of the present study is providing insight intothe perceptions of CEOs, who play the most vital role in strategic development of constructioncompanies whereas previous studies have mostly focused on project or middle managers havinga lower influence in determining the strategic plans of companies.

Keywords Iran, Human resources, Construction industry, Management, Productivity,Road projects

Paper typeResearch paper

1. IntroductionLow productivity is still a major issue for the construction industry in many countries(Fulford and Standing, 2014), including Iran (Ghoddousi and Hosseini, 2012). Evidencesuggests that low productivity rampant in the construction industry in developingcountries could be attributed to poor labour productivity due to the labour-intensivenature of construction activities in these countries (Kazaz and Ulubeyli, 2004; Jarkaset al., 2014). Therefore, identifying the pertinent factors affecting labour productivityis a prerequisite for any attempt to increase productivity in the construction industry

(Ghoddousi and Hosseini, 2012). Further, it is imperative to undertake studies to

International Journal of

Productivity and Performance

Management

Vol. 64 No. 6, 2015

pp. 811-830 EmeraldGroupPublishing Limited

1741-0401

DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-10-2013-0169

Received 1 October 2013Revised 3 March 2014

28 November 2014Accepted 23 December 2014

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm

811

Labourproductivity


4/22

identify these factors as according to Khaled and Remon (2014) and Jarkas et al.(2014),construction field is still in need of further inquiries on factors affecting productivity.

Against this backdrop, views of what factors are associated with decrease or increase

in productivity may vary depending on the respondents position in the constructionproject and in the company as argued by Perera et al. (2014). Due to the pivotal role

of CEOs in construction companies, any decisions made by others to improveproductivity might not be implemented in default of CEOs support as indicated byWalker and Johannes (2003). Therefore, this study is intended to determine what theperceptions of the CEOs are and to compare these with perceptions of other practitionersas outlined in previous studies.

As the context, construction projects in Iran have been selected for conducting thepresent study. To this end, road construction has been regarded as representativeof construction work in general. Road construction has its own particularcharacteristics that bias the sample towards the more complex type of constructionprojects (Perera et al., 2014). Nevertheless, it is contended that focusing on complexsituations is more useful than investigating simple situations since it is likely todiscover more factors and shed more light on the nature of the factors affectingproductivity and their inter-relationships.

Review of literature established that available studies within the Iranianconstruction industry have been largely devoted to discovering the factorsassociated with one particular category of practitioners (e.g. as investigatingmotivation of construction managers by Yisaet al., (2000)). Even more, to the best of theauthors knowledge, hitherto none of the more recent studies (e.g. Ghoddousi andHosseini, 2012; Ghoddousiet al., 2014b) have deployed viewpoints of CEOs as the basisfor their findings.

As a result of this information gap, this study therefore focuses on investigating

the main factors affecting labour productivity in Iranian road projects based on theperception of CEOs. These perceptions would be compared with those views embodiedin the literature and those particularly related to empirical studies of lower level staffinvolved in construction projects. This would create a platform to implement moreappropriate decisions to positively influence the level of labour productivity inconstruction projects in Iran and, more generally, construction projects in developingcountries and other parts of the globe.

The paper deals with the background literature on the topic next. This is followedby proposing a conceptual framework through synthesising the findings of previousstudies that accordingly leads into a discussion of the methods used in the study.The results and discussion section comes next and the paper finishes with conclusions.

2. Background literature2.1 DefinitionsAccording to Coelli et al. (2005), productivity could be briefly defined as the ratioof the outputs that are produced to the inputs used to produce the outputs as inthe following equation:

Productivity Outputs

Inputs (1)

When all inputs to productivity are considered, Equation (1) can be used

to calculate the total factor productivity (TFP). Thomas et al.(1990) defines that TFP

812

IJPPM64,6


5/22

is a major measure to calculate productivity as captured in the followingequation:

TFP Total output

Labour equipment materials energy (2)

Another common measure to consider productivity is single factor productivity in whichoutputs are compared against one particular input (Yi and Chan, 2013). As pointed out byThomaset al.(1990), single factor productivity within the construction context is usuallyconsidered in terms of labour productivity, in view of the criticality of labour forconstruction activities (Yi and Chan, 2013; Jarkaset al., 2014).

Labour productivity for the construction industry has been defined as the unitsof work accomplished (as the output of labour) divided by the hours of work (i.e. inputfor the labour) (Enshassi et al., 2007a; Ghoddousi and Hosseini, 2012; Hwang et al.,2014). This definition is implied throughout this study.

2.2 Productivity within the construction contextThe overall level of productivity in the construction context is still unsatisfactory (Hortaet al., 2013; Fulford and Standing, 2014). In this context, construction has remained alabour-intensive sector (Jarkas et al., 2014) in which the workforce is the primarycontributor (Sunindijo et al., 2007) and the major determinant of productivity (Enshassiet al., 2007a; Khaled and Remon, 2014).

Review of literature revealed that three major aspects are highlighted in the constructionfield as the main sources of labour productivity. Motivation, is one of these aspects and hasbeen regarded as the key to increase the productivity in managing people as postulated byBerman (2006). Rojas and Aramvareekul (2003), emphasise that motivation is among the

constructs affecting productivity under the category of manpower. Further, it was opinedby Jarkas and Radosavljevic (2013, p. 446) and later acknowledged by Jarkas et al. (2014)that several factors impact the efficiency of construction operatives, but motivation isamong the most important.

Additionally, as opined by Dogramaci and Adam (1985), the other two aspectswhich are central determinants of productivity are the affecting environment andthe decisions and policies implemented within the boundaries of the organisation. Thementioned aspects were termed as exogenous factors and the basic elements ofthe models of construction productivity proposed by Thomas et al.(1990) and Rojas andAramvareekul (2003). These aspects are further discussed next.

2.3 Project nature and working environmentProject working environment could be summed-up succinctly as what it feels like towork here. There are of course, a number of elements, which contribute to anindividual perception of what an organisation feels like (Gray, 2001). The definitionpresented by Yanget al.(2011, p. 900) for project environment described the concept asthe aggregate of surrounding things, conditions or influences. The former authorsemphasised the influence of uncertainties pertaining to conditions and environment onproductivity in projects.

Smithers and Walker (2000) stated that some major variables of project workingenvironment on a construction site include working hours, attitude of colleagues andmanagers and level of recognition by managers. The performance in a project is

affected by the procurement strategy (Love et al., 2013) and behavioural trends

813

Labourproductivity


6/22

dominant in a project (Baiden et al., 2006). In addition to the aforementioned elements,the technology, complexity, the scheduling and the size of organisations fall within thedefinition of project nature and working environment influencing productivity in a

construction project (Chan et al., 2004; Ghoddousi et al., 2014b).The primacy of the effects of project environment as one of the main contributors tohuman resources productivity has been confirmed in previous studies conducted in awide range of contexts (Sanders and Thomas, 1993; Fayek and Oduba, 2005; Yi andChan, 2013). Similarly, studies in Iran have acknowledged the effects of workingenvironment on productivity of workers as well (Zakeri et al., 1996; Ghoddousi andHosseini, 2012; Ghoddousiet al., 2014b).

2.4 Management policies and leadership strategiesThe leadership style is one of the crucial determinants of construction managementquality (Toor and Ofori, 2008), and significant to obtain high productivity levels fromhuman resources (Odusami et al., 2003; Harris et al., 2012). Ineffective leadership could

be a source for failure of a project in many aspects (Ogunlana, 2009). According to Nixonet al. (2012, p. 214) [] it can be established that a lack of leadership performancemonitoring can be directly associated with project failure.

It is inferred that the direct effect of leadership and management style on labourproductivity within the construction industry is widely acknowledged (Arshi Shakeeland Sameh Monir, 2006; Enshassi et al., 2007b, 2009), and the Iranian constructioncontext is no exception as stated by Tabassi and Bakar (2010). Leadership stylescould be separated into two categories namely, task-oriented and relations-oriented(Brown, 2003). The best leadership style for any situation is determined by thecharacteristics of the leader, the followers, and the nature of leaders relationshipswith followers, along with the climate and the environment of the work (Nicholas

and Steyn, 2008; Nixonet al., 2012).Based on the results of a research by Ogunlana et al. (2002), relations-oriented

leadership style is more effective for construction project managers as opposed tothe task-oriented style. However, Odusami et al. (2003) argued that the mostappropriate leadership style identified is the consultative autocrat which sits somehowbetween the two foregoing extremes of leadership styles. On the other hand, Toor andOfori (2008) proposed the concept of authentic leadership. This concept implies thatleaders should possess positive values, lead and guide personnel from the heart, andconsider highest possible levels of ethics and morality.

2.5 Motivation

Literature has advocated for improving the productivity in the construction industrythrough enhancing the level of motivation of human resources (Harris et al., 2012;Yi and Chan, 2013). The great effects of motivation of human resources on theproductivity of construction projects has been widely acknowledged (Enshassi et al.,2007b; Kazaz et al., 2008; Rose and Manley, 2011; Jarkas and Bitar, 2012; Khaled andRemon, 2014). Likewise, there are seminal studies stressing the detrimental effectsof low level of motivation of personnel on the success of a construction project(Borcherdinget al., 1980; Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1997).

Based on the literature reviewed for this study, it was established that constructionmanagers should gain a deep appreciation of the factors that affect the level ofmotivation of human resources (Khan, 1993). It was also indirectly signified the crucial

importance of research on the determinants of motivation.

814

IJPPM64,6


7/22

3. Conceptual frameworkBased on an integrative literature review, the three aspects below were identified as theumbrella themes for factors affecting labour productivity on construction sites:

(1) project nature and working environment (Dogramaci and Adam, 1985; Thomaset al., 1990; Rojas and Aramvareekul, 2003; Ghoddousi et al., 2014b);

(2) management policies and leadership styles as pointed out by Dogramaci andAdam (1985), Thomaset al. (1990) and Nixon et al. (2012); and

(3) motivation (Rojas and Aramvareekul, 2003; Berman, 2006; Jarkas and Radosavljevic,2013; Jarkaset al., 2014).

Each factor constituted a number of items extracted from the relevant studies in theliterature as captured in the conceptual model in Figure 1.

4. Research methodsThe questionnaire was divided into four sections comprising the demographics and32 items in three factors: motivation (12 items), project nature and working environment(eight items) and management policies and leadership strategies (12 items). Therespondents had to indicate their perception in respect to the level of effects of itemsdefined in Figure 1 in affecting the productivity of road construction projects on a five-point Likert rating scale where very high effect 5, high effect 4, moderate effect 3,low effect 2 and very low effect 1.

It was agreed by the authors of this study that awareness of CEOs views, their levelof knowledge and experiences regarding the factors affecting labour productivity

Job performance

Motivation Labour ProductivityManagement Policies

and Leadership Strategies

Task-oriented style leadership

Timeliness of remuneration

Ethical behaviour of manager

Training

Welfare conditions on site

Skilled workers

Worker participation in decisionmaking

Relation-oriented style leadership

Periodical report

Penalty clause

Communications

Project nature and working conditions

Promotion opportunities

Giving responsibility

Amount of remuneration

Work satisfaction

Competition with colleagues

Solving individual problems

Incentive payments

Health working conditions

Safe working conditions

Job security

Overcrowding on site ProcurementWeather

conditionsGeography of site Rework

Qualityinspections

Projectcomplexity

New Projecttechniques

Good relationship withcolleagues

Figure 1.Conceptual

framework to designthe survey

(items and factorsaffecting labour

productivity)

815

Labourproductivity


8/22

would be necessary for this study. This was due to the strategic role of CEOs in makingdecision regarding the performance and productivity of construction companies aspointed out by Walker and Johannes (2003). Additionally, CEOs play a central role

in making any changes in the company, thus their perceptions are highly influentialin making any decisions for mitigating the negative factors and promoting the positivefactors related to productivity (Walker and Johannes, 2003). Hence, this study drewupon the insights of CEOs to rank the factors at hand.

Licensed construction companies are categorised in five grades, namely Grade 1-5(G1, G2, G3, G4 and G5). Leading construction organisations within the industry arein category Grades 1 and 2 and are the firms which access the largest size of contractsin the country (Ghoddousi and Hosseini, 2012). Most of the companies active in roadconstruction projects are Grade 1 (G1) or Grade 2 (G2). The survey for this study wasconducted in 2007 and the data collection period lasted seven months. As of 2007, therewere fewer than 150 Grades 1 and 2 construction companies which were registeredas contractors in Management and Planning Organisation in Iran, The questionnaireswere delivered to 116 companies, resulting in returning a total of 60 duly completedquestionnaires. According to the table for sample size by Barlett et al.(2001) populationsizes of 100 and 200 require 55 and 75 samples ( 0.05). As such, the sample size wasdeemed adequate. In order to transfer the responses obtained from the questionnairesinto accurate and meaningful data for ranking the importance of factors, the relativeimportance index (RII) method was adopted. This technique aims to help decipherinformation involving five-point Likert scale questions. The RII enables scores to becategorised into low, medium or high importance levels according to respondent sviews. The use of a RII, as a data analysis tool, has been commonplace in constructionstudies involving ranking the items based on questionnaire surveys (e.g. Shash, 1993).The RII deployed in this study was calculated based on Equation (3) drawing from the

equation used by Kazaz et al. (2008):

RII

P5i1WiXiP5

i1Xi(3)

whereWiis the weighting given by the respondents to each item ranging from 1 to 5 inwhich 5 was the highest weight. Likewise,Xi represented the percentage of respondentsscoring and reflected the order number for the respondents. In cases where the RIIswere the same for two or more items related to one of the categories such as motivation,project environment or working condition, rank differentiations were achieved

by examining the distribution of the rating against such variables. Table I showsthe classification for the conversion of the mean scores and RII into the variousimportance levels.

Mean score Relative importance index (RII) Importance level

W4.0-5.0 W0.8-1.0 High (H)W3 to 4.0 W0.6 0.8 Medium (M)1.0 or 3 0.2 0.6 Low (L)

Source:Adapted from Chileshe (2004)

Table I.Conversion tablefor mean scoresand RII intoimportance levels

816

IJPPM64,6


9/22

5. Results and discussionsThe results of ranking the items within the three factors are captured in Tables II-IV.

As can be seen from Table II, MF had an average mean score of 3.79 (MS) and RII of

0.758. On the other hand, examination of Tables III and IV shows that the projectnature and working environment and management policies and leadership strategiesthemes had average mean score values of 3.48 (RII 0.696) and 3.72 (RII 0.744)respectively, lower than that of the motivation theme.

The ranking of 32 items under investigation including the relevant factors areillustrated in Table V.

As illustrated in Table V, the majority of high effective items as seen by CEOs weredrawn from the motivation factor followed by the management policies and leadershipstrategies factor. Results revealed the lower effects of the factors belonging to theproject nature and working environment theme as perceived by CEOs. This reiteratesthe findings of the study by Ghoddousi and Hosseini (2012) in which the low priorityof the factors belonging to the project nature and working environment theme withinthe Iranian construction context was confirmed.

Rank Motivational factors n MSa SDb RII Effect levelc

1 Amount of remuneration 60 4.50 0.83 0.900 HE2 Work satisfaction 60 4.36 0.82 0.872 HE3 Promotion opportunities 60 4.13 0.85 0.826 HE4 Solving individual problems 60 4.11 0.80 0.822 HE5 Incentive payments 60 4.06 1.13 0.812 HE6 Job security 60 4.03 1.04 0.806 HE7 Giving responsibility 60 3.90 0.96 0.780 ME

8 Job permanence 60 3.83 0.90 0.766 ME9 Good relationship with colleagues 60 3.30 0.99 0.660 ME

10 Safe working condition 60 3.23 1.14 0.646 ME11 Competition with colleagues 60 3.08 1.09 0.616 ME12 Healthy working condition 60 2.96 0.95 0.592 LE

Average 3.79 0.758

Notes: aMS, mean score; bSD, standard deviation; ceffects level: see Table I for importancelevels classification

Table II.Statistical results

for motivationfactor (MF)

Rank Project nature and working environment n MSa SDb RII Effect levelc

1 Procurement 60 3.76 1.01 0.752 ME2 Weather conditions 60 3.63 1.13 0.726 ME3 New project techniques 60 3.55 1.01 0.710 ME4 Quality inspections 60 3.53 0.94 0.706 ME5 Overcrowding on the site 60 3.48 1.08 0.696 ME6 Project complexity 60 3.40 0.96 0.680 ME7 Geography of site 60 3.38 1.19 0.676 ME8 Reworks 60 3.13 1.06 0.626 ME

Average 3.48 0.696

Notes: aMS, mean score; bSD, standard deviation; ceffects level: see Table I for importancelevels classification

Table III.Statistical results for

the project natureand working

environment factor(PN and WE)

817

Labourproductivity


10/22

Rank Management policies and leadership strategies n MSa SDb RII Effect levelc

1 Timeliness of remuneration 60 4.26 0.97 0.852 HE

2 Ethical behaviour of manager 60 4.23 0.94 0.846 HE3 Skilled workers 60 4.00 1.02 0.800 ME4 Welfare conditions on site 60 3.81 0.94 0.762 ME5 Training 60 3.80 0.93 0.760 ME6 Relation-oriented style leadership 60 3.66 1.00 0.732 ME7 Task-oriented style leadership 60 3.63 0.82 0.726 ME8 Competent site manager 60 3.56 0.88 0.712 ME9 Penalty clause 60 3.53 1.08 0.706 ME

10 Worker participation in decision making 60 3.51 0.94 0.702 ME11 Communication 60 3.35 1.05 0.670 ME12 Periodical report 60 3.33 1.00 0.666 ME

Average 3.72 0.744

Notes: aMS, mean score; bSD, standard deviation; ceffects level: see Table I for importance

levels classification

Table IV.Statistical results formanagement policiesand leadershipstrategies factor

(MP and LS)

Rank Factors Themes RII

1 Amount of remuneration Motivation 0.92 Work satisfaction Motivation 0.8723 Timeliness of remuneration Management policies and leadership strategies 0.8524 Ethical behaviour of manager Management policies and leadership strategies 0.8465 Promotion opportunities Motivation 0.8266 Solving individual problems Motivation 0.8227 Incentive payments Motivation 0.8128 Job security Motivation 0.8069 Skilled workers Management policies and leadership strategies 0.8

10 Giving responsibility Motivation 0.7811 Job permanence Motivation 0.76612 Welfare conditions on site Management policies and leadership strategies 0.76213 Training Management policies and leadership strategies 0.7614 Procurement Project nature and working environment 0.75215 Relation-oriented style leadership Management policies and leadership strategies 0.73216 Weather conditions Project nature and working environment 0.72617 Task-oriented style leadership Management policies and leadership strategies 0.72618 Competent site manager Management policies and leadership strategies 0.71219 New project techniques Project nature and working environment 0.7120 Quality inspections Project nature and working environment 0.70621 Penalty clause Management policies and leadership strategies 0.70622 Worker participation in decision making Management policies and leadership strategies 0.70223 Overcrowding on the site Project nature and working environment 0.69624 Project complexity Project nature and working environment 0.6825 Geography of site Project nature and working environment 0.67626 Communication Management policies and leadership strategies 0.6727 Periodical report Management policies and leadership strategies 0.66628 Good relationship with colleagues Motivation 0.6629 Safe working condition Motivation 0.64630 Reworks Project nature and working environment 0.62631 Competition with colleagues Motivation 0.61632 Healthy working condition Motivation 0.592

Table V.Ranking of 32 itemsand their relevantfactors

818

IJPPM64,6


11/22

5.1 Motivation5.1.1 Amount of remuneration. As shown in Table II, remuneration was regardedas a strong determinant and scored the highest rank. Therefore, CEOs believed that

the appropriate wage level is the most important motivator inducing Iranian workersto higher productivity. This conclusion complements the results of Kazaz and Ulubeyli(2007) in Turkey and the results of studies in Iranian construction projects (Zakeri et al.,1997). This could be attributed to the fact that CEOs are well-aware that constructionworkers in Iran still have to deal with low incomes, which has been detected as an issuein Iran by the research of Tabassi and Bakar (2009) and Ghoddousi et al. (2014a).

5.1.2 Work satisfaction. Love and Edwards (2005, p. 92) defined work satisfactionas a function of the match between the rewards offered by the work environment andthe individuals preferences for those rewards. Subsequently, work satisfaction largelyconcerns the expectations of workers on issues such as wages, rewards and status inthe company (Ghoddousi et al., 2014a). Work satisfaction ranked the second (MS 4.36,

SD 0.82, RII 0.872) within the motivation factor as well as among the 32 investigateditems. This position is in line with the significance assigned to this factor in theconstruction literature as pointed out by Chileshe and Haupt (2010). The perception ofIranian CEOs is in agreement with the consensus in the literature that work satisfactionwould affect major attitudes of workers behaviours towards their jobs. This includesmotivation, performance and productivity which are central to the success of constructionprojects and organisations (Marzukiet al., 2012) alongside lower absenteeism and turnoverin construction projects (Maloney and McFillen, 1985).

5.1.3 Promotion opportunities. Promotion opportunities (MS 4.13, SD 0.85,RII 0.826) was ranked as the third in motivation factor and the fifth among the32 items. As such, CEOs believed that Iranian workers on construction sites will work

more productively when they believe there are opportunities for promotion. Findings ofthe previous studies in construction field are consistent with this as according to Doloi(2007), employersrecognition and prospect of promotion are associated with professionaldevelopment based on individual competency, and predominately show determinationof workers for higher performance.

5.1.4 Solving individual problems. The fourth ranked in motivation factor was that ofSolving the individual problems(MS 4.11, SD 0.80, RII 0.822) (the sixth among the32 items). The high score of this item implies that as seen by CEOs, the managementsystem has to play a constructive role by positively contributing to solving the individualsproblems as much as possible. Hence, CEOs believed that managers should demonstrateappreciation and empathy to the workers as individuals not just as skilled personnel. This

is as a proven fact in the construction industry as maintained by Lingard and Francis(2006) and has been highlighted in previous studies in Iran (Tabassi and Bakar, 2009).5.1.5 Incentive payments. Incentive payments were ranked the fifth in motivation

theme (MS 4.06, SD 1.13, RII 0.812). In this regard, the perceptions of CEOs in thisstudy concur with observations by Doloi (2007), indicating that financial security is amuch-preferred option over short-term monetary benefits. Nevertheless, Kazaz and Ulubeyli(2007) pointed out that, incentive payments can lose their novelty after a while, and it isapparent that non-monetary rewards often are assumed to be of greater importance.

5.1.6 Job security. Job security was ranked the sixth (MS 4.03, SD 1.04, RII 0.806)among the motivation theme and the eighth within the 32 investigated items. The highscore associated with this factor as seen by CEOs becomes understandable considering

the project-based nature of construction projects, which often results in necessity for

819

Labourproductivity


12/22

relocations and lack of job security among the employees (Lingard and Francis, 2004).Likewise, recent studies in Iran have confirmed the primacy of job security for constructionworkers (e.g. Ali et al., 2012), postulating that job security is of great importance for the

Iranian workforce in the construction industry.5.1.7 Giving responsibility. The motivation item ofgiving responsibilitywas rankedthe seventh (MS 3.90, SD 0.96, RII 0.78). This factor creates opportunity for workersto become motivated (Locke, 1976). This insight of CEOs is underpinned by results ofKazaz and Ulubeyli (2007) remarking that by giving responsibility to workers, managerscan significantly increase productivity. On the other hand, giving responsibilityculminates in higher level of autonomy for workers. A recent study conducted by Van derMeer and Wielers (2013) indicates that it makes workers happy. From anotherperspective, giving responsibility regarded as sharing the complexity of tasks relatespositively with attitudinal outcomes such as satisfaction with work (Bruce Prince, 2003).

5.1.8 Job permanence. The eighth ranked item seen by CEOs was job permanence

(MS 3.83, SD 0.90, RII 0.766). This item is different from job security as it takesa long time for norms like beliefs and attitudes and cohesiveness among workers todevelop. Turner et al. (2008) and Lingard and Francis (2004) pointed out that the temporarynature of construction projects brings a degree of uncertainty for employees. This isbecause personnel cannot be sure about the type and locations of future projects they willbe assigned to and the attitude of colleagues they have to work with. Additionally,according to Ikediashi et al. (2012), this discourages companies from investing in careerdevelopment and training for the employees because of the possibility of discontinuityof functions once a particular project is completed.

5.1.9 Good relationship with colleagues. The motivation factor of Good relationshipwith colleagueswas ranked the ninth (MS 3.30, SD 0.99, RII 0.660) in its factor and

the 28th of 32 items with medium effects. Thus, perception of CEOs on this contradictsthe results of the study on workers in South Africa by Chileshe and Haupt (2010) in whichthe workers stressed the significant influence of relationships with colleagues. This contrastcould be attributed to the cultural differences alongside the discrepancies between theperceptions of CEOs and workers in the foregoing study. Yet, good relationship with workersis generally believed to affects the performance of construction projects by providing a betterworking environment for the workforce as stressed by Lingard and Francis (2006).

5.1.10 Competition with colleagues. The second last item as perceived by CEOswas the competition with colleagues (MS 3.08, SD 1.09, RII 0.616). It seemsthere are different opinions on this matter, because intra-group competition makeslower cohesiveness of the group, but inter-group competition makes individuals of each

group to be more united. In general, competition to some extent is a motivator; it doesnot affect the cohesiveness of the team, even in intra-group conditions.5.1.11 Safe/healthy working conditions. The construction industry in some

developing countries is renowned for its poor working conditions, as well as adoptionof health and safety measures. Therefore, this finding is not surprising, as CEOs rankedthe two factors of safe working conditions (MS 3.23, SD 1.14, RII 0.646) andhealthy working conditions (MS 2.96, SD 0.95, RII 0.592) as the tenth and the12th, respectively, within the theme of motivation (29th and 32th among the 32 items).This shows that CEOs views on safety are consistent with the perceptions of projectmanagers in previous studies in Iran which reported that it is obvious that site layoutand safety regulations are not matters of great importance among Iranian project

managers

(Ghoddousi and Hosseini, 2012, p. 111).

820

IJPPM64,6


13/22

Another possible explanation for such low ranking might be the nature of work in roadconstruction projects. As asserted by Lingard and Rowlinson (2004) most accidents withinthe construction industry are related with falls from heights and falling objects, power

tools and manual handling which do not seem to be very serious in road projects asopposed to the case of buildings and bridges. Likewise, the study by Perera et al. (2009)showed no recognition of safety aspects as major risks for road projects in Sri Lanka.

5.2 Project nature and working environment factorsAs can be seen from Table III, the mean scores within project nature and workingenvironment factor ranged from 3.13 (rework) to 3.76 (procurement).

5.2.1 Procurement. Procurement was seen as a highly ranked item within the themeof project nature and working environment (MS 3.76, SD 1.01, RII 0.752). This itemnormally includes availability of materials and tools and equipment. The importance ofprocurement factor reflects the special conditions dominating road projects. The reason

is as pointed out by Sobotka et al. (2012), road projects entail consuming enormous quantitiesof materials such as aggregates and asphalt concrete. Therefore, improvement ofprocurement would bring about considerable increase in productivity in road works.Additionally, road projects are mostly delivered in remote areas from the cities. Thiscommonly results in problems attributed to finding reliable suppliers and skilled labour forthe construction period (Sobotka et al., 2012). Generally, the findings concur with the results inother types of construction works in Iran (Zakeri et al., 1996; Ghoddousi and Hosseini, 2012)and Sri Lanka (Pereraet al., 2009) reiterating the challenging nature of procurement tasks inroad construction projects. The high rank of procurement for CEOs could be attributedto frequent delays in payments. That is, late payments end up in cash-flow interruptions andresultantly renders the road contractors unable to purchase materials and/or obtain resources

to maintain a seamless supply chain similar to the case in Sri Lanka (Perera et al., 2014).5.2.2 Weather conditions. The variable of weather conditionswithin the projectmanagement and natural environment category was ranked second (MS 3.63,SD 1.13, RII 0.726) by CEOs. Owing to the size of the country, the weather patternsin Iran vary across the regions, and depending on the location of the project, the impactcould have varying effects. Nonetheless, it is supported by previous studies denotingthat construction activities are dramatically affected by inclement weather conditionsas suggested by Kaming et al. (1997). This is particularly the case for road projectsas acknowledged in the literature (e.g. Kaliba et al., 2009; Pereraet al., 2009, 2014).

5.2.3 New project techniques. The third ranked item was that of new projecttechniques (MS 3.55, SD 1.01, RII 0.71). Most construction methods in Iran are

still traditional and with low productivity. This might be the motive behind ranking thisfactor as the third primary variable by CEOs. Likewise, the results of the work byGhoddousi and Hosseini (2012) ranked the issues with the traditional nature ofconstruction methods as the main contributor to wasted time on construction projects.This shows the agreement among CEOs and construction practitioners in other levelsregarding the necessity of shifting away from traditional methods and the vital roleof harnessing innovative methods for the Iranian construction context.

5.2.4 Quality inspections. Quality inspections was seen as fourth (MS 3.53,SD 0.94, RII 0.706). The positive side of quality inspections is to reduce the reworkswhen it comes to productivity. Likewise, Ng et al. (2004) studied the demotivatingfactors influencing the productivity of civil engineering projects in Hong Kong and

their conclusions support the findings of the present study.

821

Labourproductivity


14/22

5.2.5 Overcrowding on the site. Although some previous studies in Iran(e.g. Ghoddousi and Hosseini, 2012) have regarded poor organising as one of thecontributors to the low productivity; however this was not deemed as such by CEOs as

they did not consider it as a challenge in their projects.5.2.6 Project complexity. Project complexity, was ranked as sixth (MS 3.40,SD 0.96, RII 0.68) by CEOs. According to Gidado (1996), complexity of aconstruction project as perceived by managers, is associated with the difficultiesthey face in planning for bringing together numerous elements of work to forma flow for producing output. Complexity for construction projects becomes ofgreat importance when a project involves construction work on a confined sitewith access difficulties and requiring diverse trades to work in close proximity,simultaneously (Gidado, 1996, p. 214). Road projects are inherently largeconstruction projects with many involving parties, thus as stated by Antoniadiset al. (2011), complexity becomes a determinant of productivity for such large

projects. The findings and such low importance assigned to this items bring to lightthat CEOs are not aware of the complexities in operational features of their projects.Further still, complexity in projects increases the work pressure on workers, which inturn makes them unhappy (Van der Meer and Wielers, 2013) and eventually endsup in lower levels of productivity. Yet, it seems CEOs are not aware of such effects ontheir workers.

5.2.7 Geography of the sites. The variable of Geography of site was amongthe least ranked (MS 3.38, SD 1.08, RII 0.696). This finding is hardly surprisingas delivering projects in remote areas all over the country is regarded as an inherentattribute of road projects that is common between all the projects (Perera et al., 2014).As a result, this item is taken for granted by CEOs in terms of affecting the productivity

of construction companies in delivering road projects. Moreover, CEOs are usually notinvolved in activities on their construction sites and this might explain the lowimportance of the item as perceived by CEOs.

5.2.8 Rework. The least ranked variable within the project management andnatural environment factorswas that of rework(MS 3.13, SD 1.06, RII 0.626).This finding contradicts previous studies such as Nget al.(2004) and Ghoddousiet al.(2008). For example, Nget al.(2004) found reworkas a major source of dissatisfactionleading to a negative impact on productivity among the civil engineering workers inHong Kong. Similarly, within the context of Iran, Ghoddousi et al. (2008) foundinconsistencies in rules and regulations related to the work of contractors and poorquality workmanship among the highly ranked factors affecting the dam construction

projects. One explanation for such low ranking comes from the fact that rework mightbe the most serious risk for clients in road projects as implied by Mahamid (2011) giventhe huge costs of rework. Within the Iranian construction projects, fast project deliveryand budget limitations far outweighs the quality of work for clients and contractors(Ghahramanzadeh, 2013). Against that backdrop, necessity of reworks is not frequentand is not an influential factor for contractors. Contractors by far value timelycompletion of the projects and prefer to consider cost limitations rather than deliveringhigh quality projects due to the pressure from governmental clients to completeprojects as another issue in developing countries (Kaliba et al., 2009). Additionally, asCEOs are not directly involved in construction activities, they might not become awareof necessity of rework on site which offers another explanation for such an insight

regarding rework.

822

IJPPM64,6


15/22

5.3 Management policies and leadership strategies factorsAs inferred from Table IV, the majority of the items in this factor fell within the higheffects category when it comes to productivity as discussed below.

5.3.1 Timeliness of remuneration. Timeliness of numeration was ranked the firstfactor among all the 32 investigated items as perceived by CEOs. This could be justifieddue to the widespread irregularities for payments and associated budget deficits facingconstruction companies within the Iranian context as stressed by Ghoddousi and Hosseini(2012). Late payment and financial issues were also found to be among the most seriousrisks affecting Iranian construction projects in the study by Ghahramanzadeh (2013). Thisis also supported by the results of the study in Kuwait by Jarkas and Radosavljevic (2013),in China by Tamet al.(2004) and in Zambia (Kaliba et al., 2009) indicating that delays inpayments dramatically affect the major aspects of productivity in the constructionindustry. Payment timeliness was also identified as one of the major risks affecting roadprojects in Sri Lanka as indicated by Perera et al. (2009) and acknowledged later by Perera

et al.(2014). Another explanation could refer to the direct involvement and responsibilityof CEOs for financial aspects of construction projects for which they become well-awareof issues and outcomes of financial hardships.

5.3.2 Ethical behaviour of managers. Ethical behaviour of managers in projectsrepresent the matters not embodied in law but expected by society(Yanget al., 2011,p. 905). The high priority assigned to the ethical behaviour by CEOs could be tenablein view of their awareness of the role this factor plays in determining the commitmentof workers and the job satisfaction level of employees as acknowledged by Fu et al.(2011). Additionally, ethical behaviour is the bedrock for managing stakeholders ofprojects as acknowledged by Yang et al. (2011).

5.3.3 Skilled workers. CEOs perceived the item reflecting the skill of workers as

another highly effective factor for road projects. This reveals the wide-spread awarenessof the issues brought about by lack of skilled workers within the Iranian constructionindustry as described in great length by Tabassi and Bakar (2009). It should be noted thatlack of skills not only applies to tradesmen and blue-collar workers in Iran, but alsoincludes engineers and site managers as postulated by Ghoddousi and Hosseini (2012) andreiterated by Ghahramanzadeh (2013). Logically, CEOs are aware of such issues due totheir direct involvement in recruiting personnel for their companies.

5.3.4 Welfare conditions on site. Welfare condition on site was considered by CEOsas the fourth most important item for the project environment factor but the 12th itemamong the 32 items in hand. The effects of welfare of workers on productivity wasemphasised by Loosemore et al.(2003) stressing the vital role of human resources for

construction projects. Besides, general welfare was found to affect the safety aspectsof construction sites by Ismail et al. (2012). Nonetheless, perception of CEOs restatedthat welfare and site conditions are not generally deemed of high priority due to thelack of regulations and mechanisms for enforcing such matters within the Iranianconstruction context (Ghoddousi and Hosseini, 2012).

5.3.5 Training. In accordance with the definition proposed by Swanson (1999),training is the systematic procedure to develop the skills and knowledge by the aimof improving productivity of human resources. As stated by Tabassi and Bakar (2009),one major factor in human resources management (HRM) in the construction industryis training of personnel which is an overlooked matter for the Iranian constructionindustry. Likewise, as acknowledged by Hasan et al. (2011), this is the case for other

developing countries such as Malaysia. Besides, as asserted by Ofori and Toor (2012),

823

Labourproductivity


16/22

lack of education and training have remained the rampant issues for the constructionindustry in developing countries such as Iran. This was reaffirmed by the stanceof CEOs towards training as they ranked it as the fifth among its category and as the

13th among the 32 items in hand.5.3.6 Task/relation oriented style leadership. It could be inferred from the rankingthat task-oriented style was understood by CEOs to have less effect than the relations-oriented leadership style, conversely the relative importance of leadership styles weredeemed of low level. It becomes tenable in view of the fact that as stated by Toor andOfori (2008), there is no agreement on what leadership style is the best for theconstruction professionals and project managers. Another justification for that could bethe low importance of leadership style as perceived by Iranian CEOs. This isfathomable in view of the fact that as stated by Ofori and Toor (2012), constructionpractitioners in developing countries rank the importance of leadership at low levels.

5.3.7 Competent site manager. As stated by Mustapha and Naoum (1998), site

manager qualification and ability is central to the success of construction projects. Yet,results of the study revealed that based on CEOs perceptions the competency of sitemanagers is the 18th important item among the 32 investigated ones. This shows the lowpriority of site manager competence for Iranian CEOs in the construction industry. Suchperception contradicts the view of Iranian site managers ranking the competency of sitemanagers as the second important factor when it comes to productive according toGhoddousi and Hosseini (2012). Such contradiction becomes understandable in view ofthe recent study by Arashpouret al.(2012) in Iran denoting the discrepancies between theviewpoints of construction engineers and managers of companies in regards to the meritsof professional competency of employees. Nonetheless, incompetency of constructionmanagers is a serious problem impeding the productivity increase in the Iranian

construction industry as pointed out by Ghahramanzadeh (2013) and is in dire needof attention by policy makers.Other items in this theme as illustrated in Table IV were ranked as 9th to 12th items

affecting productivity in construction projects. It is noteworthy to mention thatcommunication was regarded as the 11th important item among 12 in this theme andthe 26th among the 32 considered factors. This reveals the issue that althoughcommunications could be of outmost importance for the success of road constructioncompanies as acknowledged by Kalibaet al.(2009); a fact that is overlooked by IranianCEOs in the construction sector.

6. Conclusions

As inferred from the results (see Table V), CEOs of Iranian construction companies,deemed the items associated with motivation and managerial policies of mostimportance as opposed to, the project nature and working environment which wereof low salience in their views. Additionally, it was revealed that CEOs regard majoraspects of HRM as the most effective factors to increase productivity in constructionprojects. Likewise, monetary features of HRM such as amount and timeliness ofpayments and remuneration and intrinsic aspects, e.g. satisfaction, ethical behaviour,promotion, individual relationships and job security were among the factors perceivedby CEOs as the most influential determinant of productivity in road projects inIran. This shows that stance of CEOs in terms of managerial and financial aspectsare in consistency with findings outlined in the literature. It is noteworthy of

mentioning that such an insight is also in agreement with perception of construction

824

IJPPM64,6


17/22

practitioners in other levels such as project managers and workers as observed inprevious studies in Iran.

It was also detected that the great role of skills of employees in construction projects

has been recognised by CEOs. Nevertheless, the study highlighted the lack of attentionof CEOs regarding the salience of training of personnel in construction companies.It came to light that in sharp contrast to findings reflected in available studies in the

construction industry, leadership strategies and communication management areperceived by CEOs as of low priority. Furthermore, the conditions of construction sitesincluding safety and welfare of workers were ranked as lowest by the CEOs which issimilar with viewpoints of Iranian construction project managers. Such a widespreadinsight about minor importance of health and safety aspects demonstrates the natureof the safety culture governing the Iranian construction industry according to whichproviding a safe and healthy condition on site is not a priority for managers.

Henceforth, given the pivotal role of CEOs in change management and strategicdecisions, this study uncovers some major concerns for Iranian construction companies.This refers to the lack of understanding of CEOs in regards to the central role of someestablished determinant of productivity as identified by investigators.

According to Ofori and Toor (2012) one main cause for this misunderstanding isthe lack of research on some major productivity determinants (e.g. leadership andsafety) in developing countries. As such, future investigators could consider conductingexploratory inquiries to shed some light on the overlooked areas as highlighted (includingleadership, communications, safety and welfare of workers) factoring in the influence ofculture and socioeconomic conditions of developing countries. Furthermore, investigatingmajor aspects of HRM (e.g. motivation, job satisfaction) for the Iranian constructionindustry could be a productive approach given the awareness of the significance of roleof CEOs in road projects.

The study contributes to the field by revealing the perceptions of CEOs of roadconstruction companies in a developing country in regards to the factors affectingproductivity in construction projects. However, the findings of this study should beconsidered in view of its limitations. This includes considering the potential lack ofawareness of CEOs regarding operational aspects of projects, which could be a reasonbehind some discrepancies with findings of previous studies. Additionally, thequestionnaire was not formally piloted before the administration procedure as anotherlimitation to the data collection procedure. Another limitation concerns the fact thatthe cultural and socioeconomic factors of the Iranian construction industry mightaffect the viewpoints of CEOs. As a result, findings should be generalised in othercontext with caution.

References

Ali, H.N., Monika, M., Kiamars, F.H. and Kalajahi, S.R.T. (2012), Identifying and prioritizing themotivational factors of employees through MCDM approach,Journal of Basic and AppliedScientific Research, Vol. 2 No. 10, pp. 9814-9821.

Antoniadis, D.N., Edum-Fotwe, F.T. and Thorpe, A. (2011), Socio-organo complexity and projectperformance, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 808-816.

Arashpour, M., Shabanikia, M. and Arashpour, M. (2012), Valuing the contributionof knowledge-oriented workers to projects: a merit based approach in the constructionindustry, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 12 No. 4,

pp. 1-12.

825

Labourproductivity
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ijproman.2011.02.006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5130%2Fajceb.v12i4.2724http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5130%2Fajceb.v12i4.2724http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5130%2Fajceb.v12i4.2724http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ijproman.2011.02.006


18/22

Arshi Shakeel, F. and Sameh Monir, E.-S. (2006), Significant factors causing delay in the UAEconstruction industry, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 11,pp. 1167-1176.

Baiden, B.K., Price, A.D.F. and Dainty, A.R.J. (2006),

The extent of team integration withinconstruction projects,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 13-23.

Barlett, J.E., Kotrlik, J.W. and Higgins, C.C. (2001), Organizational research: determiningappropriate sample size in survey research, Information Technology, Learning, andPerformance Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 43-50.

Berman, E.M. (2006), Productivity in Public and Nonprofit Organizations, M.E. Sharpe Inc.,Armonk, NY.

Borcherding, J.D., Samelson, N.M. and Sebastian, S.M. (1980), Improving motivation andproductivity on large projects,Journal of the Construction Division, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 73-89.

Brown, B.B. (2003),EmployeesOrganizational Commitment and Their Perception of SupervisorsRelations-Oriented and Task-Oriented Leadership Behaviors, Virginia Polytechnic Instituteand State University, Falls Church, Virginia.

Bruce Prince, J. (2003), Career opportunity and organizational attachment in a blue-collarunionized environment, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 136-150.

Chan, A., Scott, D. and Chan, A. (2004), Factors affecting the success of a construction project,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 153-155.

Chan, D.W. and Kumaraswamy, M.M. (1997), A comparative study of causes of time overruns inHong Kong construction projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15No. 1, pp. 55-63.

Chileshe, N. (2004), The application of TQM within small and medium sized constructionrelated organisations, unpublished PhD thesis, School of Environment, Sheffield HallamUniversity, Sheffield.

Chileshe, N. and Haupt, T.C. (2010),

The effect of age on the job satisfaction of constructionworkers, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 107-118.

Coelli, T.J., Rao, D.S.P., ODonnell, C.J. and Battese, G.E. (2005),An Introduction to Efficiency andProductivity Analysis, 2nd ed., Springer, New York, NY.

Dogramaci, A. and Adam, N.R. (1985), Introduction, in Dogramaci, A. and Adam, N. (Eds),Managerial Issues in Productivity Analysis, Vol. 7, Springer, Hingham, MA.

Doloi, H. (2007), Twinning motivation, productivity and management strategy in constructionprojects, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 30-40.

Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S. and Abushaban, S. (2009), Factors affecting the performance ofconstruction projects in the gaza strip, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management,Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 269-280.

Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S., Mayer, P. and Abed, K. (2007a), Benchmarking masonry laborproductivity,International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 56No. 4, pp. 358-368.

Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S., Mustafa, Z.A. and Mayer, P.E. (2007b), Factors affecting labourproductivity in building projects in the gaza strip, Journal of Civil Engineering andManagement, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 245-254.

Fayek, A.R. and Oduba, A. (2005), Predicting industrial construction labor productivity usingfuzzy expert systems, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131No. 8, pp. 938-941.

Fu, W., Deshpande, S.P. and Zhao, X. (2011), The impact of ethical behavior and facets of jobsatisfaction on organizational commitment of Chinese employees, Journal of Business

Ethics, Vol. 104 No. 4, pp. 537-543.

826

IJPPM64,6
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F01446190600827033http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ijproman.2005.05.001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0001-8791%2802%2900024-6&isi=000184173500009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0001-8791%2802%2900024-6&isi=000184173500009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-9364%282004%29130%3A1%28153%29&isi=000188736200017http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2896%2900039-7http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17260531011034682http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17260531011034682http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2F978-1-4615-5493-6http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2F978-1-4615-5493-6http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2F978-94-009-4982-9_1http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F10429247.2007.11431738http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3846%2F1392-3730.2009.15.269-280http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17410400710745342http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-9364%282005%29131%3A8%28938%29&isi=000230707300009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs10551-011-0928-4&isi=000297620200007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs10551-011-0928-4&isi=000297620200007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-9364%282004%29130%3A1%28153%29&isi=000188736200017http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs10551-011-0928-4&isi=000297620200007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F01446190600827033http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs10551-011-0928-4&isi=000297620200007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3846%2F1392-3730.2009.15.269-280http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17260531011034682http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0001-8791%2802%2900024-6&isi=000184173500009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-9364%282005%29131%3A8%28938%29&isi=000230707300009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F10429247.2007.11431738http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2F978-94-009-4982-9_1http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2896%2900039-7http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ijproman.2005.05.001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17410400710745342http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2F978-1-4615-5493-6http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2F978-1-4615-5493-6


19/22

Fulford, R. and Standing, C. (2014), Construction industry productivity and the potential forcollaborative practice, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 315-326.

Ghahramanzadeh, M. (2013), Managing risk of construction projects: a case study of Iran,

unpublished PhD thesis, University of East London, London.Ghoddousi, P. and Hosseini, M.R. (2012), A survey of the factors affecting the productivity

of construction projects in Iran, Technological and Economic Development of Economy,Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 99-116.

Ghoddousi, P., Jalal, M. and Hosseinalipour, M. (2008), Fuzzy assessment of causes of timeoverrun (delays) in Irans dam construction projects, Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 8No. 19, pp. 3423-3430.

Ghoddousi, P., Bahrami, N., Chileshe, N. and Hosseini, M.R. (2014a), Mapping site-basedconstruction workers motivation: expectancy theory approach, Australasian Journal ofConstruction Economics and Building, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 60-77.

Ghoddousi, P.T., Alizadeh, B., Hosseini, M.R. and Chileshe, N. (2014b), Implementing the

international benchmarking labour productivity theoretical model, Benchmarking: AnInternational Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 1041-1061.

Gidado, K.I. (1996), Project complexity: the focal point of construction production planning,Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 213-225.

Gray, R.J. (2001), Organisational climate and project success, International Journal of ProjectManagement, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 103-109.

Harris, F., McCaffer, R. and Edum-Fotwe, F. (2012), Modern Construction Management,ISBN: 1118510216 (electronic bk.); 9781118510216 (electronic bk.), 7th ed., Wiley-Blackwell,Hoboken, NJ.

Hasan, H.S.M., Ahamad, H. and Mohamed, M.R. (2011), Skills and competency in constructionproject success: learning environment and industry application- the GAP, Procedia

Engineering, Vol. 20, pp. 291-297.

Horta, I.M., Camanho, A.S., Johnes, J. and Johnes, G. (2013), Performance trends in theconstruction industry worldwide: an overview of the turn of the century, Journal ofProductivity Analysis, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 89-99.

Hwang, B.G., Zhao, X. and Do, T.H.V. (2014), Influence of tradelevel coordination problemson project productivity,Project Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 5-14.

Ikediashi, D.I., Ogunlana, S.O., Awodele, O.A. and Okwuashi, O. (2012), An evaluation ofpersonnel training policies of construction companies in Nigeria, Journal of HumanEcology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 229-238.

Ismail, Z., Doostdar, S. and Harun, Z. (2012), Factors influencing the implementation of a safetymanagement system for construction sites, Safety Science, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 418-423.

Jarkas, A. and Bitar, C. (2012), Factors affecting construction labor productivity in Kuwait,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 138 No. 7, pp. 811-820.

Jarkas, A. and Radosavljevic, M. (2013), Motivational factors impacting the productivity ofconstruction master craftsmen in Kuwait,Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 29No. 4, pp. 446-454.

Jarkas, A.M., Radosavljevic, M. and Wuyi, L. (2014), Prominent demotivational factorsinfluencing the productivity of construction project managers in Qatar, InternationalJournal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 No. 8, pp. 1070-1090.

Kaliba, C., Muya, M. and Mumba, K. (2009), Cost escalation and schedule delays in roadconstruction projects in Zambia, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27

No. 5, pp. 522-531.

827

Labourproductivity
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ijproman.2013.05.007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3846%2F20294913.2012.661203http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3923%2Fjas.2008.3423.3430http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3923%2Fjas.2008.3423.3430http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5130%2Fajceb.v14i1.3712http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5130%2Fajceb.v14i1.3712http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FBIJ-04-2012-0029http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FBIJ-04-2012-0029http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F014461996373476http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2899%2900060-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2899%2900060-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.proeng.2011.11.168http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.proeng.2011.11.168http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs11123-012-0276-0&isi=000313121700009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs11123-012-0276-0&isi=000313121700009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fpmj.21445http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fpmj.21445http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ssci.2011.10.001&isi=000300206000006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0000501&isi=000312668600003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%29ME.1943-5479.0000160&isi=000324467400015http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FIJPPM-11-2013-0187http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FIJPPM-11-2013-0187http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FIJPPM-11-2013-0187http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ijproman.2008.07.003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3923%2Fjas.2008.3423.3430http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0000501&isi=000312668600003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs11123-012-0276-0&isi=000313121700009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs11123-012-0276-0&isi=000313121700009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F014461996373476http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3846%2F20294913.2012.661203http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ijproman.2008.07.003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ssci.2011.10.001&isi=000300206000006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.proeng.2011.11.168http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.proeng.2011.11.168http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FBIJ-04-2012-0029http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FBIJ-04-2012-0029http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FIJPPM-11-2013-0187http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FIJPPM-11-2013-0187http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5130%2Fajceb.v14i1.3712http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5130%2Fajceb.v14i1.3712http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%29ME.1943-5479.0000160&isi=000324467400015http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ijproman.2013.05.007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fpmj.21445http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2899%2900060-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2899%2900060-5


20/22

Kaming, P.F., Olomolaiye, P.O., Holt, G.D. and Harris, F.C. (1997), Factors influencingconstruction time and cost overruns on high-rise projects in Indonesia, ConstructionManagement and Economics, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 83-94.

Kazaz, A. and Ulubeyli, S. (2004),

A different approach to construction labour in Turkey:comparative productivity analysis,Building and Environment, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 93-100.

Kazaz, A. and Ulubeyli, S. (2007), Drivers of productivity among construction workers: a studyin a developing country, Building and Environment, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 2132-2140.

Kazaz, A., Manisali, E. and Ulubeyli, S. (2008), Effect of basic motivational factors on constructionworkforce productivity in turkey, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 14No. 2, pp. 95-106.

Khaled, M. and Remon, F. (2014), Factors influencing construction labor productivity in Egypt,Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-9.

Khan, M.S. (1993), Methods of motivating for increased productivity,Journal of Management inEngineering, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 148-156.

Lingard, H. and Francis, V. (2004), The worklife experiences of office and sitebased employeesin the Australian construction industry, Construction Management and Economics,Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 991-1002.

Lingard, H. and Francis, V. (2006), Does a supportive work environment moderate the relationshipbetween workfamily conflict and burnout among construction professionals?,ConstructionManagement and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 185-196.

Lingard, H. and Rowlinson, S. 2004, Occupational Health and Safety in Construction ProjectManagement, 1st ed., Taylor and Francis, Hoboken, NJ.

Locke, E.A. (1976), The nature and causes of job satisfaction, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.),Handbookof Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, pp. 1297-1349.

Loosemore, M., Dainty, A. and Lingard, H. (2003), Human Resource Management in ConstructionProjects : Strategic and Operational Approaches, Spon Press, New York, NY.

Love, P.E. and Edwards, D.J. (2005), Taking the pulse of UK construction project managershealth:influence of job demands, job control and social support on psychological wellbeing,Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 88-101.

Love, P.E.D., Zhou, J., Sing, C.-P. and Kim, J.T. (2013), Documentation errors in instrumentationand electrical systems: toward productivity improvement using system informationmodeling, Automation in Construction, Vol. 35, pp. 448-459.

Mahamid, I. (2011), Risk matrix for factors affecting time delay in road construction projects:owners perspective, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 18No. 6, pp. 609-617.

Maloney, W. and McFillen, J. (1985), Valence of and satisfaction with job outcomes,Journal ofConstruction Engineering and Management, Vol. 111 No. 1, pp. 53-73.

Marzuki, P.F., Permadi, H. and Sunaryo, I. (2012), Factors affecting job satisfaction of workers inIndonesian construction companies,Journal of Civil Engineering and Management,Vol. 18No. 3, pp. 299-309.

Mustapha, F.H. and Naoum, S. (1998), Factors influencing the effectiveness of construction sitemanagers, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-8.

Ng, S.T., Skitmore, R.M., Lam, K.C. and Poon, A.W. (2004), Demotivating factors influencing theproductivity of civil engineering projects, International Journal of Project Management,Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 139-146.

Nicholas, J.M. and Steyn, H. (2008),Project Management for Business, Engineering, and Technology:

Principles and Practice, 3rd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA.

828

IJPPM64,6
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F014461997373132http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F014461997373132http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F014461997373132http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F014461997373132http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.buildenv.2003.08.004&isi=000186242200011http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.buildenv.2006.04.020&isi=000243984000031http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.buildenv.2006.04.020&isi=000243984000031http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3846%2F1392-3730.2008.14.4http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000333451100001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%299742-597X%281993%299%3A2%28148%29http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%299742-597X%281993%299%3A2%28148%29http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%299742-597X%281993%299%3A2%28148%29http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F0144619042000241444http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F14697010500226913http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F14697010500226913http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4324%2F9780203417881http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4324%2F9780203417881http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09699980510576916http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.autcon.2013.05.028&isi=000325742500039http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09699981111180917http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09699981111180917http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-9364%281985%29111%3A1%2853%29&isi=A1985ADN8300005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-9364%281985%29111%3A1%2853%29&isi=A1985ADN8300005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3846%2F13923730.2012.698889http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3846%2F13923730.2012.698889http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2897%2900025-2http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2803%2900061-9http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F014461997373132http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F014461997373132http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09699980510576916http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F14697010500226913http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F14697010500226913http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3846%2F1392-3730.2008.14.4http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-9364%281985%29111%3A1%2853%29&isi=A1985ADN8300005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-9364%281985%29111%3A1%2853%29&isi=A1985ADN8300005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4324%2F9780203417881http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4324%2F9780203417881http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F0144619042000241444http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2803%2900061-9http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.buildenv.2006.04.020&isi=000243984000031http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09699981111180917http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%299742-597X%281993%299%3A2%28148%29http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%299742-597X%281993%299%3A2%28148%29http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2897%2900025-2http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.buildenv.2003.08.004&isi=000186242200011http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.autcon.2013.05.028&isi=000325742500039http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000333451100001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3846%2F13923730.2012.698889


21/22

Nixon, P., Harrington, M. and Parker, D. (2012), Leadership performance is significant to projectsuccess or failure: a critical analysis, International Journal of Productivity and PerformanceManagement, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 204-216.

Odusami, K.T., Lyagba, R.R.O. and Omirin, M.M. (2003), The relationship between projectleadership, team composition and construction project performance in Nigeria,InternationalJournal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 519-527.

Ofori, G. and Toor, S.-U.-R. (2012), Leadership and construction industry development in developingcountries,Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-21.

Ogunlana, S. (2009), Ineffective leadership: investigating the negative attributes of leaders andorganizational neutralizers, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 254-272.

Ogunlana, S., Siddiqui, Z., Yisa, S. and Olomolaiye, P. (2002), Factors and procedures used inmatching project managers to construction projects in Bangkok,International Journal ofProject Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 385-400.

Perera, B.A.K.S., Dhanasinghe, I. and Rameezdeen, R. (2009), Risk management in roadconstruction: the case of Sri Lanka,International Journal of Strategic Property Management,Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 87-102.

Perera, B.A.K.S., Rameezdeen, R., Chileshe, N. and Hosseini, M.R. (2014), Enhancing theeffectiveness of risk management practices in Sri Lankan road construction projects:a delphi approach, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 14 No. 1,pp. 1-19.

Rojas, E.M. and Aramvareekul, P. (2003), Labor productivity drivers and opportunities in theconstruction industry, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 78-82.

Rose, T. and Manley, K. (2011), Motivation toward financial incentive goals on constructionprojects, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 7, pp. 765-773.

Sanders, S.R. and Thomas, H.R. (1993), Masonry productivity forecasting model, Journal ofConstruction Engineering and Management, Vol. 119 No. 1, pp. 163-179.

Shash, A.A. (1993), Factors considered in tendering decisions by top UK contractors,Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 111-118.

Smithers, G.L. and Walker, D.H.T. (2000), The effect of the workplace on motivation anddemotivation of construction professionals, Construction Management and Economics,Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 833-841.

Sobotka, A., Jaskowski, P. and Czarnigowska, A. (2012), Optimization of aggregate supplies forroad projects, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 48, pp. 838-846.

Sunindijo, R., Hadikusumo, B. and Ogunlana, S. (2007), Emotional intelligence and leadershipstyles in construction project management,Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 23No. 4, pp. 166-170.

Swanson, R.A. (1999), Theory, real or imagined?,Human Resource Development International,Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 2-5.

Tabassi, A.A. and Bakar, A. (2009), Training, motivation, and performance: the case of humanresource management in construction projects in mashhad, Iran, International Journal ofProject Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 471-480.

Tabassi, A.A. and Bakar, A.H.A. (2010), Towards assessing the leadership style and quality oftransformational leadership: the case of construction firms of Iran,Journal of TechnologyManagement in China, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 245-258.

Tam, C.M., Zeng, S.X. and Deng, Z.M. (2004), Identifying elements of poor construction safety

management in China, Safety Science, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 569-586.

829

Labourproductivity
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17410401211194699http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17410401211194699http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17410401211194699http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2802%2900059-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2802%2900059-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09699980910951663http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2801%2900017-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2801%2900017-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3846%2F1648-715X.2009.13.87-102http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3846%2F1648-715X.2009.13.87-102http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F15623599.2013.875271http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290742-597X%282003%2919%3A2%2878%29&isi=000228144700006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jbusres.2010.07.003&isi=000291299600016http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-9364%281993%29119%3A1%28163%29&isi=A1993KN71100013http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-9364%281993%29119%3A1%28163%29&isi=A1993KN71100013http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F01446199300000004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F014461900433113http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.sbspro.2012.06.1061http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.sbspro.2012.06.1061http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.sbspro.2012.06.1061http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290742-597X%282007%2923%3A4%28166%29&isi=000249709100002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13678869900000002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ijproman.2008.08.002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ijproman.2008.08.002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17468771011086256http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17468771011086256http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ssci.2003.09.001&isi=000222618800001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290742-597X%282003%2919%3A2%2878%29&isi=000228144700006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09699980910951663http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13678869900000002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F01446199300000004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F15623599.2013.875271http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ssci.2003.09.001&isi=000222618800001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290742-597X%282007%2923%3A4%28166%29&isi=000249709100002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-9364%281993%29119%3A1%28163%29&isi=A1993KN71100013http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-9364%281993%29119%3A1%28163%29&isi=A1993KN71100013http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3846%2F1648-715X.2009.13.87-102http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17468771011086256http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17468771011086256http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2802%2900059-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2802%2900059-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.sbspro.2012.06.1061http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jbusres.2010.07.003&isi=000291299600016http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2801%2900017-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2801%2900017-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ijproman.2008.08.002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ijproman.2008.08.002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17410401211194699http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17410401211194699http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F014461900433113


22/22

Date post:	19-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	asif-hameed
View:	225 times
Download:	2 times

Labour Productivity Journal Paper

Documents