Labour Productivity Journal Paper

International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
Labour productivity in Iranian construction projects: Perceptions of chief

executive officers
Parviz 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 productivity
in Iranian construction projects", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 64 Iss 6 pp. 811 - 830
Permanent 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: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
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 on
organizations 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 perceived
organizational support: a literature survey approach", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 34
Iss 7 pp. 867-880 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMD-09-2013-0115
Alireza Tajbakhsh, Elkafi Hassini, (2015),"Performance measurement of sustainable supply chains: a
review 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 emeraldsrm:543726 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines 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 company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of

download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm
Labour productivity in Iranian

construction projects
Labour
productivity
Perceptions of chief executive officers

Parviz Ghoddousi and Omid Poorafshar
School of Civil Engineering,
Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran, and
Nicholas Chileshe and M. Reza Hosseini

School of Natural and Built Environments,
University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
811
Received 1 October 2013
Revised 3 March 2014
28 November 2014
Accepted 23 December 2014
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, it aims to highlight the main factors
and items affecting the productivity of construction projects, based on the perceptions of CEOs in
construction companies in Iran. Second, the study compares the elicited CEOs perceptions against the
findings of studies based on the views of such as project managers, middle managers and employees
in other levels.
Design/methodology/approach The study drew upon literature on construction work to develop
a conceptual model. Further, a total of 60 CEOs from road construction companies were surveyed using
a five-point Likert scale questionnaire to generate the data. The collated data were categorised and
ranked 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 in
construction projects in Iran as perceived by CEOs, which are mainly of human resources management
nature and could be attributed to motivation and managerial policy aspects. The study also recognises
that factors associated with the working environment particularly safety and health are perceived as
insignificant by Iranian CEOs which could be a concern for the Iranian construction industry. The
discussions shed some light on the discrepancies between the perceptions of CEOs and previous
studies 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 CEOs
of construction companies active in construction projects in Iran. As such, the study highlights the
standpoint of the main decision makers in construction companies in regards to labour productivity
in the construction sector. Thus, the key contribution of the present study is providing insight into
the perceptions of CEOs, who play the most vital role in strategic development of construction
companies whereas previous studies have mostly focused on project or middle managers having
a lower influence in determining the strategic plans of companies.
Keywords Iran, Human resources, Construction industry, Management, Productivity,
Road projects
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Low productivity is still a major issue for the construction industry in many countries
(Fulford and Standing, 2014), including Iran (Ghoddousi and Hosseini, 2012). Evidence
suggests that low productivity rampant in the construction industry in developing
countries could be attributed to poor labour productivity due to the labour-intensive
nature of construction activities in these countries (Kazaz and Ulubeyli, 2004; Jarkas
et al., 2014). Therefore, identifying the pertinent factors affecting labour productivity
is 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
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0401
DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-10-2013-0169
IJPPM
64,6
812
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 construction
project 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 improve
productivity might not be implemented in default of CEOs support as indicated by
Walker and Johannes (2003). Therefore, this study is intended to determine what the
perceptions of the CEOs are and to compare these with perceptions of other practitioners
as outlined in previous studies.
As the context, construction projects in Iran have been selected for conducting the
present study. To this end, road construction has been regarded as representative
of construction work in general. Road construction has its own particular
characteristics that bias the sample towards the more complex type of construction
projects (Perera et al., 2014). Nevertheless, it is contended that focusing on complex
situations is more useful than investigating simple situations since it is likely to
discover more factors and shed more light on the nature of the factors affecting
productivity and their inter-relationships.
Review of literature established that available studies within the Iranian
construction industry have been largely devoted to discovering the factors
associated with one particular category of practitioners (e.g. as investigating
motivation of construction managers by Yisa et al., (2000)). Even more, to the best of the
authors knowledge, hitherto none of the more recent studies (e.g. Ghoddousi and
Hosseini, 2012; Ghoddousi et al., 2014b) have deployed viewpoints of CEOs as the basis
for 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 the
perception of CEOs. These perceptions would be compared with those views embodied
in the literature and those particularly related to empirical studies of lower level staff
involved in construction projects. This would create a platform to implement more
appropriate decisions to positively influence the level of labour productivity in
construction projects in Iran and, more generally, construction projects in developing
countries and other parts of the globe.
The paper deals with the background literature on the topic next. This is followed
by proposing a conceptual framework through synthesising the findings of previous
studies 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 literature
2.1 Definitions
According to Coelli et al. (2005), productivity could be briefly defined as the ratio
of the outputs that are produced to the inputs used to produce the outputs as in
the 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
is a major measure to calculate productivity as captured in the following

equation:
TFP
Total output
Labour equipment materials energy
Labour
productivity
(2)
Another common measure to consider productivity is single factor productivity in which

outputs are compared against one particular input (Yi and Chan, 2013). As pointed out by
Thomas et al. (1990), single factor productivity within the construction context is usually
considered in terms of labour productivity, in view of the criticality of labour for
construction activities (Yi and Chan, 2013; Jarkas et al., 2014).
Labour productivity for the construction industry has been defined as the units
of work accomplished (as the output of labour) divided by the hours of work (i.e. input
for 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 context
The overall level of productivity in the construction context is still unsatisfactory (Horta
et al., 2013; Fulford and Standing, 2014). In this context, construction has remained a
labour-intensive sector (Jarkas et al., 2014) in which the workforce is the primary
contributor (Sunindijo et al., 2007) and the major determinant of productivity (Enshassi
et al., 2007a; Khaled and Remon, 2014).
Review of literature revealed that three major aspects are highlighted in the construction
field as the main sources of labour productivity. Motivation, is one of these aspects and has
been regarded as the key to increase the productivity in managing people as postulated by
Berman (2006). Rojas and Aramvareekul (2003), emphasise that motivation is among the
constructs affecting productivity under the category of manpower. Further, it was opined
by 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 is
among the most important.
Additionally, as opined by Dogramaci and Adam (1985), the other two aspects
which are central determinants of productivity are the affecting environment and
the decisions and policies implemented within the boundaries of the organisation. The
mentioned aspects were termed as exogenous factors and the basic elements of
the models of construction productivity proposed by Thomas et al. (1990) and Rojas and
Aramvareekul (2003). These aspects are further discussed next.
2.3 Project nature and working environment
Project working environment could be summed-up succinctly as what it feels like to
work here. There are of course, a number of elements, which contribute to an
individual perception of what an organisation feels like (Gray, 2001). The definition
presented by Yang et al. (2011, p. 900) for project environment described the concept as
the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions or influences. The former authors
emphasised the influence of uncertainties pertaining to conditions and environment on
productivity in projects.
Smithers and Walker (2000) stated that some major variables of project working
environment on a construction site include working hours, attitude of colleagues and
managers 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
IJPPM
64,6
814
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 the
definition 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 to
human resources productivity has been confirmed in previous studies conducted in a
wide range of contexts (Sanders and Thomas, 1993; Fayek and Oduba, 2005; Yi and
Chan, 2013). Similarly, studies in Iran have acknowledged the effects of working
environment on productivity of workers as well (Zakeri et al., 1996; Ghoddousi and
Hosseini, 2012; Ghoddousi et al., 2014b).
2.4 Management policies and leadership strategies
The leadership style is one of the crucial determinants of construction management
quality (Toor and Ofori, 2008), and significant to obtain high productivity levels from
human 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 Nixon
et al. (2012, p. 214) [] it can be established that a lack of leadership performance
monitoring can be directly associated with project failure.
It is inferred that the direct effect of leadership and management style on labour
productivity within the construction industry is widely acknowledged (Arshi Shakeel
and Sameh Monir, 2006; Enshassi et al., 2007b, 2009), and the Iranian construction
context is no exception as stated by Tabassi and Bakar (2010). Leadership styles
could be separated into two categories namely, task-oriented and relations-oriented
(Brown, 2003). The best leadership style for any situation is determined by the
characteristics of the leader, the followers, and the nature of leaders relationships
with followers, along with the climate and the environment of the work (Nicholas
and Steyn, 2008; Nixon et 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 to
the task-oriented style. However, Odusami et al. (2003) argued that the most
appropriate leadership style identified is the consultative autocrat which sits somehow
between the two foregoing extremes of leadership styles. On the other hand, Toor and
Ofori (2008) proposed the concept of authentic leadership. This concept implies that
leaders should possess positive values, lead and guide personnel from the heart, and
consider highest possible levels of ethics and morality.
2.5 Motivation
Literature has advocated for improving the productivity in the construction industry
through 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 the
productivity of construction projects has been widely acknowledged (Enshassi et al.,
2007b; Kazaz et al., 2008; Rose and Manley, 2011; Jarkas and Bitar, 2012; Khaled and
Remon, 2014). Likewise, there are seminal studies stressing the detrimental effects
of low level of motivation of personnel on the success of a construction project
(Borcherding et al., 1980; Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1997).
Based on the literature reviewed for this study, it was established that construction
managers should gain a deep appreciation of the factors that affect the level of
motivation of human resources (Khan, 1993). It was also indirectly signified the crucial
importance of research on the determinants of motivation.
3. Conceptual framework
Based on an integrative literature review, the three aspects below were identified as the
umbrella themes for factors affecting labour productivity on construction sites:
Labour
productivity
(1) project nature and working environment (Dogramaci and Adam, 1985; Thomas
et al., 1990; Rojas and Aramvareekul, 2003; Ghoddousi et al., 2014b);
(2) management policies and leadership styles as pointed out by Dogramaci and
Adam (1985), Thomas et al. (1990) and Nixon et al. (2012); and
815
(3) motivation (Rojas and Aramvareekul, 2003; Berman, 2006; Jarkas and Radosavljevic,
2013; Jarkas et al., 2014).
Each factor constituted a number of items extracted from the relevant studies in the
literature as captured in the conceptual model in Figure 1.
4. Research methods
The questionnaire was divided into four sections comprising the demographics and
32 items in three factors: motivation (12 items), project nature and working environment
(eight items) and management policies and leadership strategies (12 items). The
respondents had to indicate their perception in respect to the level of effects of items
defined in Figure 1 in affecting the productivity of road construction projects on a fivepoint 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 level
of knowledge and experiences regarding the factors affecting labour productivity
Job performance
Task-oriented style leadership
Promotion opportunities
Timeliness of remuneration
Giving responsibility
Ethical behaviour of manager

Training
Amount of remuneration
Welfare conditions on site

Work satisfaction
Skilled workers
Competition with colleagues
Labour Productivity
Motivation
Solving individual problems
Management Policies
and Leadership Strategies
Worker participation in decision

making
Relation-oriented style leadership
Incentive payments
Periodical report
Good relationship with
colleagues
Penalty clause
Health working conditions
Communications
Safe working conditions

Project nature and working conditions
Job security
Overcrowding on site
Procurement
Weather
conditions
Geography of site
Rework
Quality
inspections
Project
complexity
New Project
techniques
Figure 1.
Conceptual
framework to design
the survey
(items and factors
affecting labour
productivity)
IJPPM
64,6
816
would be necessary for this study. This was due to the strategic role of CEOs in making
decision regarding the performance and productivity of construction companies as
pointed out by Walker and Johannes (2003). Additionally, CEOs play a central role
in making any changes in the company, thus their perceptions are highly influential
in making any decisions for mitigating the negative factors and promoting the positive
factors related to productivity (Walker and Johannes, 2003). Hence, this study drew
upon 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 are
in category Grades 1 and 2 and are the firms which access the largest size of contracts
in the country (Ghoddousi and Hosseini, 2012). Most of the companies active in road
construction projects are Grade 1 (G1) or Grade 2 (G2). The survey for this study was
conducted in 2007 and the data collection period lasted seven months. As of 2007, there
were fewer than 150 Grades 1 and 2 construction companies which were registered
as contractors in Management and Planning Organisation in Iran, The questionnaires
were delivered to 116 companies, resulting in returning a total of 60 duly completed
questionnaires. According to the table for sample size by Barlett et al. (2001) population
sizes of 100 and 200 require 55 and 75 samples ( 0.05). As such, the sample size was
deemed adequate. In order to transfer the responses obtained from the questionnaires
into accurate and meaningful data for ranking the importance of factors, the relative
importance index (RII) method was adopted. This technique aims to help decipher
information involving five-point Likert scale questions. The RII enables scores to be
categorised into low, medium or high importance levels according to respondents
views. The use of a RII, as a data analysis tool, has been commonplace in construction
studies 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):
P5
i1 W i X i
RII P
5
i1 X i
(3)
where Wi is the weighting given by the respondents to each item ranging from 1 to 5 in
which 5 was the highest weight. Likewise, Xi represented the percentage of respondents
scoring and reflected the order number for the respondents. In cases where the RIIs
were 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 shows
the classification for the conversion of the mean scores and RII into the various
importance levels.
Mean score
Table I.
Conversion table
for mean scores
and RII into
importance levels
Relative importance index (RII)
W4.0-5.0
W3 to 4.0
1.0 or 3
Source: Adapted from Chileshe (2004)
W0.8-1.0
W0.6 0.8
0.2 0.6
Importance level
High (H)
Medium (M)
Low (L)
5. Results and discussions

The 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 project
nature and working environment and management policies and leadership strategies
themes 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 are
illustrated in Table V.
As illustrated in Table V, the majority of high effective items as seen by CEOs were
drawn from the motivation factor followed by the management policies and leadership
strategies factor. Results revealed the lower effects of the factors belonging to the
project nature and working environment theme as perceived by CEOs. This reiterates
the findings of the study by Ghoddousi and Hosseini (2012) in which the low priority
of the factors belonging to the project nature and working environment theme within
the Iranian construction context was confirmed.
Rank
Motivational factors
MSa
SDb
RII
60
4.50
0.83
0.900
HE
Work satisfaction
60
4.36
0.82
0.872
HE
60
4.13
0.85
0.826
HE
60
4.11
0.80
0.822
HE
Incentive payments
60
4.06
1.13
0.812
HE
Job security
60
4.03
1.04
0.806
HE
60
3.90
0.96
0.780
ME
Job permanence
60
3.83
0.90
0.766
ME
Good relationship with colleagues
60
3.30
0.99
0.660
ME
Safe working condition
60
3.23
1.14
0.646
ME
60
3.08
1.09
0.616
ME
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 importance
levels classification
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Project nature and working environment
MSa
Procurement
60
3.76
Weather conditions
60
3.63
New project techniques
60
3.55
Quality inspections
60
3.53
Overcrowding on the site
60
3.48
Project complexity
60
3.40
Geography of site
60
3.38
Reworks
60
3.13
Average
3.48
Notes: aMS, mean score; bSD, standard deviation; ceffects level:
SDb
1.01
1.13
1.01
0.94
1.08
0.96
1.19
1.06
RII
817
Effect levelc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Rank
Labour
productivity
Table II.
Statistical results
for motivation
factor (MF)
Effect levelc
0.752
ME
0.726
ME
0.710
ME
0.706
ME
0.696
ME
0.680
ME
Table III.
0.676
ME
Statistical results for
0.626
ME
the project nature
0.696
and working
see Table I for importance
environment factor
(PN and WE)
IJPPM
64,6
Rank
Management policies and leadership strategies
1
60
2
60
3
Skilled workers
60
4
60
5
Training
60
818
60
6
60
7
60
8
Competent site manager
60
9
Penalty clause
10
Worker participation in decision making
60
Table IV.
Communication
60
Statistical results for 11
60
Periodical report
management policies 12
Average
and leadership
Notes: aMS, mean score; bSD, standard deviation; ceffects
strategies factor
(MP and LS)
Table V.
Ranking of 32 items
and their relevant
factors
MSa
SDb
RII
4.26 0.97 0.852

4.23 0.94 0.846
4.00 1.02 0.800
3.81 0.94 0.762
3.80 0.93 0.760
3.66 1.00 0.732
3.63 0.82 0.726
3.56 0.88 0.712
3.53 1.08 0.706
3.51 0.94 0.702
3.35 1.05 0.670
3.33 1.00 0.666
3.72
0.744
level: see Table I for
Effect levelc
HE
HE
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
importance
Rank Factors
Themes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Motivation
Motivation
Motivation
Motivation
Motivation
Motivation
Motivation
Motivation
Motivation
Motivation
Motivation
Motivation
Work satisfaction
Incentive payments
Job security
Skilled workers
Job permanence
Training
Procurement
Weather conditions
Competent site manager
New project techniques
Quality inspections
Penalty clause
Worker participation in decision making
Overcrowding on the site
Project complexity
Geography of site
Communication
Periodical report
Good relationship with colleagues
Safe working condition
Reworks
Healthy working condition
RII
0.9
0.872
0.852
0.846
0.826
0.822
0.812
0.806
0.8
0.78
0.766
0.762
0.76
0.752
0.732
0.726
0.726
0.712
0.71
0.706
0.706
0.702
0.696
0.68
0.676
0.67
0.666
0.66
0.646
0.626
0.616
0.592
5.1 Motivation
5.1.1 Amount of remuneration. As shown in Table II, remuneration was regarded
as a strong determinant and scored the highest rank. Therefore, CEOs believed that
the appropriate wage level is the most important motivator inducing Iranian workers
to 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 construction
workers in Iran still have to deal with low incomes, which has been detected as an issue
in 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 satisfaction
as a function of the match between the rewards offered by the work environment and
the individuals preferences for those rewards. Subsequently, work satisfaction largely
concerns the expectations of workers on issues such as wages, rewards and status in
the 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 investigated
items. This position is in line with the significance assigned to this factor in the
construction literature as pointed out by Chileshe and Haupt (2010). The perception of
Iranian CEOs is in agreement with the consensus in the literature that work satisfaction
would affect major attitudes of workers behaviours towards their jobs. This includes
motivation, performance and productivity which are central to the success of construction
projects and organisations (Marzuki et al., 2012) alongside lower absenteeism and turnover
in 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 the
32 items. As such, CEOs believed that Iranian workers on construction sites will work
more productively when they believe there are opportunities for promotion. Findings of
the previous studies in construction field are consistent with this as according to Doloi
(2007), employers recognition and prospect of promotion are associated with professional
development based on individual competency, and predominately show determination
of workers for higher performance.
5.1.4 Solving individual problems. The fourth ranked in motivation factor was that of
Solving the individual problems (MS 4.11, SD 0.80, RII 0.822) (the sixth among the
32 items). The high score of this item implies that as seen by CEOs, the management
system has to play a constructive role by positively contributing to solving the individuals
problems as much as possible. Hence, CEOs believed that managers should demonstrate
appreciation 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 this
study concur with observations by Doloi (2007), indicating that financial security is a
much-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 is
apparent 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 high
score associated with this factor as seen by CEOs becomes understandable considering
the project-based nature of construction projects, which often results in necessity for
Labour
productivity
819
IJPPM
64,6
820
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 construction
workers (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 of giving responsibility was ranked
the seventh (MS 3.90, SD 0.96, RII 0.78). This factor creates opportunity for workers
to become motivated (Locke, 1976). This insight of CEOs is underpinned by results of
Kazaz and Ulubeyli (2007) remarking that by giving responsibility to workers, managers
can significantly increase productivity. On the other hand, giving responsibility
culminates in higher level of autonomy for workers. A recent study conducted by Van der
Meer and Wielers (2013) indicates that it makes workers happy. From another
perspective, giving responsibility regarded as sharing the complexity of tasks relates
positively 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 takes
a long time for norms like beliefs and attitudes and cohesiveness among workers to
develop. Turner et al. (2008) and Lingard and Francis (2004) pointed out that the temporary
nature of construction projects brings a degree of uncertainty for employees. This is
because personnel cannot be sure about the type and locations of future projects they will
be 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 career
development and training for the employees because of the possibility of discontinuity
of functions once a particular project is completed.
5.1.9 Good relationship with colleagues. The motivation factor of Good relationship
with colleagues was 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 contradicts
the results of the study on workers in South Africa by Chileshe and Haupt (2010) in which
the workers stressed the significant influence of relationships with colleagues. This contrast
could be attributed to the cultural differences alongside the discrepancies between the
perceptions of CEOs and workers in the foregoing study. Yet, good relationship with workers
is generally believed to affects the performance of construction projects by providing a better
working environment for the workforce as stressed by Lingard and Francis (2006).
5.1.10 Competition with colleagues. The second last item as perceived by CEOs
was the competition with colleagues (MS 3.08, SD 1.09, RII 0.616). It seems
there are different opinions on this matter, because intra-group competition makes
lower 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 does
not 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 adoption
of health and safety measures. Therefore, this finding is not surprising, as CEOs ranked
the two factors of safe working conditions (MS 3.23, SD 1.14, RII 0.646) and
healthy working conditions (MS 2.96, SD 0.95, RII 0.592) as the tenth and the
12th, 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 project
managers in previous studies in Iran which reported that it is obvious that site layout
and safety regulations are not matters of great importance among Iranian project
managers (Ghoddousi and Hosseini, 2012, p. 111).
Another possible explanation for such low ranking might be the nature of work in road
construction projects. As asserted by Lingard and Rowlinson (2004) most accidents within
the 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 as
opposed 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 factors
As can be seen from Table III, the mean scores within project nature and working
environment factor ranged from 3.13 (rework) to 3.76 (procurement).
5.2.1 Procurement. Procurement was seen as a highly ranked item within the theme
of project nature and working environment (MS 3.76, SD 1.01, RII 0.752). This item
normally includes availability of materials and tools and equipment. The importance of
procurement factor reflects the special conditions dominating road projects. The reason
is as pointed out by Sobotka et al. (2012), road projects entail consuming enormous quantities
of materials such as aggregates and asphalt concrete. Therefore, improvement of
procurement would bring about considerable increase in productivity in road works.
Additionally, road projects are mostly delivered in remote areas from the cities. This
commonly results in problems attributed to finding reliable suppliers and skilled labour for
the construction period (Sobotka et al., 2012). Generally, the findings concur with the results in
other types of construction works in Iran (Zakeri et al., 1996; Ghoddousi and Hosseini, 2012)
and Sri Lanka (Perera et al., 2009) reiterating the challenging nature of procurement tasks in
road construction projects. The high rank of procurement for CEOs could be attributed
to frequent delays in payments. That is, late payments end up in cash-flow interruptions and
resultantly 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 conditions within the project
management 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 patterns
in Iran vary across the regions, and depending on the location of the project, the impact
could have varying effects. Nonetheless, it is supported by previous studies denoting
that construction activities are dramatically affected by inclement weather conditions
as suggested by Kaming et al. (1997). This is particularly the case for road projects
as acknowledged in the literature (e.g. Kaliba et al., 2009; Perera et al., 2009, 2014).
5.2.3 New project techniques. The third ranked item was that of new project
techniques (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 this
factor as the third primary variable by CEOs. Likewise, the results of the work by
Ghoddousi and Hosseini (2012) ranked the issues with the traditional nature of
construction methods as the main contributor to wasted time on construction projects.
This shows the agreement among CEOs and construction practitioners in other levels
regarding the necessity of shifting away from traditional methods and the vital role
of 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 reworks
when it comes to productivity. Likewise, Ng et al. (2004) studied the demotivating
factors influencing the productivity of civil engineering projects in Hong Kong and
their conclusions support the findings of the present study.
Labour
productivity
821
IJPPM
64,6
822
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 the
contributors 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 a
construction project as perceived by managers, is associated with the difficulties
they face in planning for bringing together numerous elements of work to form
a flow for producing output. Complexity for construction projects becomes of
great importance when a project involves construction work on a confined site
with access difficulties and requiring diverse trades to work in close proximity,
simultaneously (Gidado, 1996, p. 214). Road projects are inherently large
construction projects with many involving parties, thus as stated by Antoniadis
et al. (2011), complexity becomes a determinant of productivity for such large
projects. The findings and such low importance assigned to this items bring to light
that 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 in
turn makes them unhappy (Van der Meer and Wielers, 2013) and eventually ends
up in lower levels of productivity. Yet, it seems CEOs are not aware of such effects on
their workers.
5.2.7 Geography of the sites. The variable of Geography of site was among
the least ranked (MS 3.38, SD 1.08, RII 0.696). This finding is hardly surprising
as delivering projects in remote areas all over the country is regarded as an inherent
attribute 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 not
involved in activities on their construction sites and this might explain the low
importance of the item as perceived by CEOs.
5.2.8 Rework. The least ranked variable within the project management and
natural environment factors was that of rework (MS 3.13, SD 1.06, RII 0.626).
This finding contradicts previous studies such as Ng et al. (2004) and Ghoddousi et al.
(2008). For example, Ng et al. (2004) found rework as a major source of dissatisfaction
leading to a negative impact on productivity among the civil engineering workers in
Hong Kong. Similarly, within the context of Iran, Ghoddousi et al. (2008) found
inconsistencies in rules and regulations related to the work of contractors and poor
quality workmanship among the highly ranked factors affecting the dam construction
projects. One explanation for such low ranking comes from the fact that rework might
be the most serious risk for clients in road projects as implied by Mahamid (2011) given
the huge costs of rework. Within the Iranian construction projects, fast project delivery
and budget limitations far outweighs the quality of work for clients and contractors
(Ghahramanzadeh, 2013). Against that backdrop, necessity of reworks is not frequent
and is not an influential factor for contractors. Contractors by far value timely
completion of the projects and prefer to consider cost limitations rather than delivering
high quality projects due to the pressure from governmental clients to complete
projects as another issue in developing countries (Kaliba et al., 2009). Additionally, as
CEOs are not directly involved in construction activities, they might not become aware
of necessity of rework on site which offers another explanation for such an insight
regarding rework.
5.3 Management policies and leadership strategies factors

As inferred from Table IV, the majority of the items in this factor fell within the high
effects category when it comes to productivity as discussed below.
5.3.1 Timeliness of remuneration. Timeliness of numeration was ranked the first
factor among all the 32 investigated items as perceived by CEOs. This could be justified
due to the widespread irregularities for payments and associated budget deficits facing
construction 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 serious
risks affecting Iranian construction projects in the study by Ghahramanzadeh (2013). This
is also supported by the results of the study in Kuwait by Jarkas and Radosavljevic (2013),
in China by Tam et al. (2004) and in Zambia (Kaliba et al., 2009) indicating that delays in
payments dramatically affect the major aspects of productivity in the construction
industry. Payment timeliness was also identified as one of the major risks affecting road
projects 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 responsibility
of CEOs for financial aspects of construction projects for which they become well-aware
of issues and outcomes of financial hardships.
5.3.2 Ethical behaviour of managers. Ethical behaviour of managers in projects
represent the matters not embodied in law but expected by society (Yang et al., 2011,
p. 905). The high priority assigned to the ethical behaviour by CEOs could be tenable
in view of their awareness of the role this factor plays in determining the commitment
of workers and the job satisfaction level of employees as acknowledged by Fu et al.
(2011). Additionally, ethical behaviour is the bedrock for managing stakeholders of
projects 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 awareness
of the issues brought about by lack of skilled workers within the Iranian construction
industry as described in great length by Tabassi and Bakar (2009). It should be noted that
lack of skills not only applies to tradesmen and blue-collar workers in Iran, but also
includes engineers and site managers as postulated by Ghoddousi and Hosseini (2012) and
reiterated by Ghahramanzadeh (2013). Logically, CEOs are aware of such issues due to
their direct involvement in recruiting personnel for their companies.
5.3.4 Welfare conditions on site. Welfare condition on site was considered by CEOs
as the fourth most important item for the project environment factor but the 12th item
among the 32 items in hand. The effects of welfare of workers on productivity was
emphasised by Loosemore et al. (2003) stressing the vital role of human resources for
construction projects. Besides, general welfare was found to affect the safety aspects
of construction sites by Ismail et al. (2012). Nonetheless, perception of CEOs restated
that welfare and site conditions are not generally deemed of high priority due to the
lack of regulations and mechanisms for enforcing such matters within the Iranian
construction 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 aim
of improving productivity of human resources. As stated by Tabassi and Bakar (2009),
one major factor in human resources management (HRM) in the construction industry
is training of personnel which is an overlooked matter for the Iranian construction
industry. 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),
Labour
productivity
823
IJPPM
64,6
824
lack of education and training have remained the rampant issues for the construction
industry in developing countries such as Iran. This was reaffirmed by the stance
of 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 ranking
that task-oriented style was understood by CEOs to have less effect than the relationsoriented leadership style, conversely the relative importance of leadership styles were
deemed of low level. It becomes tenable in view of the fact that as stated by Toor and
Ofori (2008), there is no agreement on what leadership style is the best for the
construction professionals and project managers. Another justification for that could be
the low importance of leadership style as perceived by Iranian CEOs. This is
fathomable in view of the fact that as stated by Ofori and Toor (2012), construction
practitioners 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 site
managers is the 18th important item among the 32 investigated ones. This shows the low
priority of site manager competence for Iranian CEOs in the construction industry. Such
perception contradicts the view of Iranian site managers ranking the competency of site
managers as the second important factor when it comes to productive according to
Ghoddousi and Hosseini (2012). Such contradiction becomes understandable in view of
the recent study by Arashpour et al. (2012) in Iran denoting the discrepancies between the
viewpoints of construction engineers and managers of companies in regards to the merits
of professional competency of employees. Nonetheless, incompetency of construction
managers is a serious problem impeding the productivity increase in the Iranian
construction industry as pointed out by Ghahramanzadeh (2013) and is in dire need
of 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 that
communication was regarded as the 11th important item among 12 in this theme and
the 26th among the 32 considered factors. This reveals the issue that although
communications could be of outmost importance for the success of road construction
companies as acknowledged by Kaliba et al. (2009); a fact that is overlooked by Iranian
CEOs 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 most
importance as opposed to, the project nature and working environment which were
of low salience in their views. Additionally, it was revealed that CEOs regard major
aspects of HRM as the most effective factors to increase productivity in construction
projects. Likewise, monetary features of HRM such as amount and timeliness of
payments and remuneration and intrinsic aspects, e.g. satisfaction, ethical behaviour,
promotion, individual relationships and job security were among the factors perceived
by CEOs as the most influential determinant of productivity in road projects in
Iran. This shows that stance of CEOs in terms of managerial and financial aspects
are 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
practitioners in other levels such as project managers and workers as observed in

previous 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 attention
of 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 are
perceived by CEOs as of low priority. Furthermore, the conditions of construction sites
including safety and welfare of workers were ranked as lowest by the CEOs which is
similar with viewpoints of Iranian construction project managers. Such a widespread
insight about minor importance of health and safety aspects demonstrates the nature
of the safety culture governing the Iranian construction industry according to which
providing a safe and healthy condition on site is not a priority for managers.
Henceforth, given the pivotal role of CEOs in change management and strategic
decisions, 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 some
established determinant of productivity as identified by investigators.
According to Ofori and Toor (2012) one main cause for this misunderstanding is
the lack of research on some major productivity determinants (e.g. leadership and
safety) in developing countries. As such, future investigators could consider conducting
exploratory inquiries to shed some light on the overlooked areas as highlighted (including
leadership, communications, safety and welfare of workers) factoring in the influence of
culture and socioeconomic conditions of developing countries. Furthermore, investigating
major aspects of HRM (e.g. motivation, job satisfaction) for the Iranian construction
industry could be a productive approach given the awareness of the significance of role
of CEOs in road projects.
The study contributes to the field by revealing the perceptions of CEOs of road
construction companies in a developing country in regards to the factors affecting
productivity in construction projects. However, the findings of this study should be
considered in view of its limitations. This includes considering the potential lack of
awareness of CEOs regarding operational aspects of projects, which could be a reason
behind some discrepancies with findings of previous studies. Additionally, the
questionnaire was not formally piloted before the administration procedure as another
limitation to the data collection procedure. Another limitation concerns the fact that
the cultural and socioeconomic factors of the Iranian construction industry might
affect the viewpoints of CEOs. As a result, findings should be generalised in other
context with caution.
References
Ali, H.N., Monika, M., Kiamars, F.H. and Kalajahi, S.R.T. (2012), Identifying and prioritizing the
motivational factors of employees through MCDM approach, Journal of Basic and Applied
Scientific Research, Vol. 2 No. 10, pp. 9814-9821.
Antoniadis, D.N., Edum-Fotwe, F.T. and Thorpe, A. (2011), Socio-organo complexity and project
performance, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 808-816.
Arashpour, M., Shabanikia, M. and Arashpour, M. (2012), Valuing the contribution
of knowledge-oriented workers to projects: a merit based approach in the construction
industry, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 1-12.
Labour
productivity
825
IJPPM
64,6
826
Arshi Shakeel, F. and Sameh Monir, E.-S. (2006), Significant factors causing delay in the UAE
construction 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 within
construction 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: determining
appropriate sample size in survey research, Information Technology, Learning, and
Performance 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 and
productivity on large projects, Journal of the Construction Division, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 73-89.
Brown, B.B. (2003), Employees Organizational Commitment and Their Perception of Supervisors
Relations-Oriented and Task-Oriented Leadership Behaviors, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, Falls Church, Virginia.
Bruce Prince, J. (2003), Career opportunity and organizational attachment in a blue-collar
unionized 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 in
Hong Kong construction projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 55-63.
Chileshe, N. (2004), The application of TQM within small and medium sized construction
related organisations, unpublished PhD thesis, School of Environment, Sheffield Hallam
University, Sheffield.
Chileshe, N. and Haupt, T.C. (2010), The effect of age on the job satisfaction of construction
workers, 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 and
Productivity 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 construction
projects, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 30-40.
Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S. and Abushaban, S. (2009), Factors affecting the performance of
construction 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 labor
productivity, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 56
No. 4, pp. 358-368.
Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S., Mustafa, Z.A. and Mayer, P.E. (2007b), Factors affecting labour
productivity in building projects in the gaza strip, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 245-254.
Fayek, A.R. and Oduba, A. (2005), Predicting industrial construction labor productivity using
fuzzy expert systems, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131
No. 8, pp. 938-941.
Fu, W., Deshpande, S.P. and Zhao, X. (2011), The impact of ethical behavior and facets of job
satisfaction on organizational commitment of Chinese employees, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 104 No. 4, pp. 537-543.
Fulford, R. and Standing, C. (2014), Construction industry productivity and the potential for
collaborative 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 time
overrun (delays) in Irans dam construction projects, Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 8
No. 19, pp. 3423-3430.
Ghoddousi, P., Bahrami, N., Chileshe, N. and Hosseini, M.R. (2014a), Mapping site-based
construction workers motivation: expectancy theory approach, Australasian Journal of
Construction 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: An
International 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 Project
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 construction
project 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 the
construction industry worldwide: an overview of the turn of the century, Journal of
Productivity Analysis, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 89-99.
Hwang, B.G., Zhao, X. and Do, T.H.V. (2014), Influence of tradelevel coordination problems
on 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 of
personnel training policies of construction companies in Nigeria, Journal of Human
Ecology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 229-238.
Ismail, Z., Doostdar, S. and Harun, Z. (2012), Factors influencing the implementation of a safety
management 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 of
construction master craftsmen in Kuwait, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 446-454.
Jarkas, A.M., Radosavljevic, M. and Wuyi, L. (2014), Prominent demotivational factors
influencing the productivity of construction project managers in Qatar, International
Journal 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 road
construction projects in Zambia, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27
No. 5, pp. 522-531.
Labour
productivity
827
IJPPM
64,6
Kaming, P.F., Olomolaiye, P.O., Holt, G.D. and Harris, F.C. (1997), Factors influencing
construction time and cost overruns on high-rise projects in Indonesia, Construction
Management 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.
828
Kazaz, A. and Ulubeyli, S. (2007), Drivers of productivity among construction workers: a study
in 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 construction
workforce productivity in turkey, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 14
No. 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 in
Engineering, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 148-156.
Lingard, H. and Francis, V. (2004), The worklife experiences of office and sitebased employees
in 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 relationship
between workfamily conflict and burnout among construction professionals?, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 185-196.
Lingard, H. and Rowlinson, S. 2004, Occupational Health and Safety in Construction Project
Management, 1st ed., Taylor and Francis, Hoboken, NJ.
Locke, E.A. (1976), The nature and causes of job satisfaction, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, pp. 1297-1349.
Loosemore, M., Dainty, A. and Lingard, H. (2003), Human Resource Management in Construction
Projects : Strategic and Operational Approaches, Spon Press, New York, NY.
Love, P.E. and Edwards, D.J. (2005), Taking the pulse of UK construction project managers health:
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 instrumentation
and electrical systems: toward productivity improvement using system information
modeling, 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. 18
No. 6, pp. 609-617.
Maloney, W. and McFillen, J. (1985), Valence of and satisfaction with job outcomes, Journal of
Construction 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 in
Indonesian construction companies, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 299-309.
Mustapha, F.H. and Naoum, S. (1998), Factors influencing the effectiveness of construction site
managers, 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 the
productivity 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.
Nixon, P., Harrington, M. and Parker, D. (2012), Leadership performance is significant to project
success or failure: a critical analysis, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Labour
productivity
Odusami, K.T., Lyagba, R.R.O. and Omirin, M.M. (2003), The relationship between project
leadership, team composition and construction project performance in Nigeria, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 519-527.
Ofori, G. and Toor, S.-U.-R. (2012), Leadership and construction industry development in developing
countries, Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Ogunlana, S. (2009), Ineffective leadership: investigating the negative attributes of leaders and
organizational 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 in
matching project managers to construction projects in Bangkok, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 385-400.
Perera, B.A.K.S., Dhanasinghe, I. and Rameezdeen, R. (2009), Risk management in road
construction: 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 the
effectiveness 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 the
construction 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 construction
projects, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 7, pp. 765-773.
Sanders, S.R. and Thomas, H.R. (1993), Masonry productivity forecasting model, Journal of
Construction 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 and
demotivation 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 for
road projects, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 48, pp. 838-846.
Sunindijo, R., Hadikusumo, B. and Ogunlana, S. (2007), Emotional intelligence and leadership
styles in construction project management, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 23
No. 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 human
resource management in construction projects in mashhad, Iran, International Journal of
Tabassi, A.A. and Bakar, A.H.A. (2010), Towards assessing the leadership style and quality of
transformational leadership: the case of construction firms of Iran, Journal of Technology
Management 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
IJPPM
64,6
830
Thomas, H., Maloney, W., Horner, R., Smith, G., Handa, V. and Sanders, S. (1990), Modeling
construction labor productivity, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 116 No. 4, pp. 705-726.
Toor, S.R. and Ofori, G. (2008), Leadership for future construction industry: agende for authentic
leadership, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26, pp. 620-630.
Turner, R., Huemann, M. and Keegan, A. (2008), Human resource management in the projectoriented organization: employee well-being and ethical treatment, International Journal of
Van der Meer, P.H. and Wielers, R. (2013), What makes workers happy?, Applied Economics,
Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 357-368.
Walker, D.H.T. and Johannes, D.S. (2003), Construction industry joint venture behaviour in
Hong Kong designed for collaborative results?, International Journal of Project
Yang, J., Shen, G.Q., Ho, M., Drew, D.S. and Xue, X. (2011), Stakeholder management in
construction: an empirical study to address research gaps in previous studies,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 900-910.
Yi, W. and Chan, A. (2013), Critical review of labor productivity research in construction
journals, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 214-225.
Yisa, S.B., Holt, G.D. and Zakeri, M. (2000), Factors affecting management motivation in
the Iranian construction industry: a survey of site managers, Proceedings of the 16th
annual conference, ARCOM Association of Researchers in Construction Management,
Glasgow, 6-8 September.
Zakeri, M., Olomolaiye, P., Holt, G. and Harris, F. (1997), Factors affecting the motivation
of Iranian construction operatives, Building and Environment, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 161-166.
Zakeri, M., Olomolaiye, P.O., Holt, G.D. and Harris, F.C. (1996), A survey of constraints on Iranian
construction operatives productivity, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 14
No. 5, pp. 417-426.
Corresponding author
M. Reza Hosseini can be contacted at: Reza.Hosseini@unisa.edu.au
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Labour Productivity Journal Paper

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Labour Productivity Journal Paper

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management

Labour productivity in Iranian construction projects: Perceptions of chief

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

*Related content and download information correct at time of

Labour productivity in Iranian

Perceptions of chief executive officers

Nicholas Chileshe and M. Reza Hosseini

is a major measure to calculate productivity as captured in the following

Another common measure to consider productivity is single factor productivity in which

dominant in a project (Baiden et al., 2006). In addition to the aforementioned elements,

Task-oriented style leadership

Ethical behaviour of manager

Welfare conditions on site

Worker participation in decision

Health working conditions

Safe working conditions

Relative importance index (RII)

5. Results and discussions

Project nature and working environment

Management policies and leadership strategies

4.26 0.97 0.852

5.2.5 Overcrowding on the site. Although some previous studies in Iran

5.3 Management policies and leadership strategies factors

practitioners in other levels such as project managers and workers as observed in

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

Kazaz, A. and Ulubeyli, S. (2004), A different approach to construction labour in Turkey:

Вам также может понравиться