Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
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*
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.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm
Labour
productivity
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
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
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
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
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
TFP
Total output
Labour equipment materials energy
Labour
productivity
(2)
813
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
IJPPM
64,6
814
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
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
(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
Promotion opportunities
Timeliness of remuneration
Giving responsibility
Amount of remuneration
Labour Productivity
Motivation
Solving individual problems
Management Policies
and Leadership Strategies
Incentive payments
Periodical report
Good relationship with
colleagues
Penalty clause
Communications
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)
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
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
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)
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
Rank
Motivational factors
MSa
SDb
RII
Amount of remuneration
60
4.50
0.83
0.900
HE
Work satisfaction
60
4.36
0.82
0.872
HE
Promotion opportunities
60
4.13
0.85
0.826
HE
Solving individual problems
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
Giving responsibility
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
Competition with colleagues
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
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:
levels classification
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)
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
IJPPM
64,6
Rank
1
Timeliness of remuneration
60
2
Ethical behaviour of manager
60
3
Skilled workers
60
4
Welfare conditions on site
60
5
Training
60
818
60
6
Relation-oriented style leadership
60
7
Task-oriented style leadership
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
levels classification
(MP and LS)
Table V.
Ranking of 32 items
and their relevant
factors
MSa
SDb
RII
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
Management policies and leadership strategies
Management policies and leadership strategies
Motivation
Motivation
Motivation
Motivation
Management policies and leadership strategies
Motivation
Motivation
Management policies and leadership strategies
Management policies and leadership strategies
Project nature and working environment
Management policies and leadership strategies
Project nature and working environment
Management policies and leadership strategies
Management policies and leadership strategies
Project nature and working environment
Project nature and working environment
Management policies and leadership strategies
Management policies and leadership strategies
Project nature and working environment
Project nature and working environment
Project nature and working environment
Management policies and leadership strategies
Management policies and leadership strategies
Motivation
Motivation
Project nature and working environment
Motivation
Motivation
Amount of remuneration
Work satisfaction
Timeliness of remuneration
Ethical behaviour of manager
Promotion opportunities
Solving individual problems
Incentive payments
Job security
Skilled workers
Giving responsibility
Job permanence
Welfare conditions on site
Training
Procurement
Relation-oriented style leadership
Weather conditions
Task-oriented style leadership
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
Competition with colleagues
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
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
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
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
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).
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
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
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
IJPPM
64,6
822
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
Labour
productivity
823
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
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
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
Labour
productivity
825
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
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.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
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.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
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
Management, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 204-216.
Labour
productivity
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
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
Project Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 471-480.
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
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 23:45 12 September 2015 (PT)
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
Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 577-585.
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
Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 39-49.
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