Job Performance Dimensions for Improving Final Project Outcomes

The study Job Performance Dimensions for Improving Final Project Outcomes aims at examining the effects of job performance on project performance. Four categories task, behavior, management, and self of job performance dimensions were extracted by means of an exploratory factor analysis. A hypothesized model is developed, which specifies the relationships between the four job performance categories independent variables and overall project... Đề tài Hoàn thiện công tác quản trị nhân sự tại Công ty TNHH Mộc Khải Tuyên được nghiên cứu nhằm giúp công ty TNHH Mộc Khải Tuyên làm rõ được thực trạng công tác quản trị nhân sự trong công ty như thế nào từ đó đề ra các giải pháp giúp công ty hoàn thiện công tác quản trị nhân sự tốt hơn trong thời gian tới.

Trang 1

Job Performance Dimensions for Improving Final Project

Outcomes

Abstract: Job performance is argued to be substantially influential to project performance However, existing construction management

literature pays less attention to job performance issues, not to mention exploring the relationship between job performance and project performance This study therefore aims at examining the effects of job performance on project performance Four categories 共task, behavior, management, and self兲 of job performance dimensions were extracted by means of an exploratory factor analysis A hypoth-esized model is developed, which specifies the relationships between the four job performance categories 共independent variables兲 and overall project performance共the dependent variable兲 The model was tested using path analysis Results indicate that the task category of job performance共consisting of nine dimensions兲 is significantly related to final project outcomes Specifically, for the success of a project,

a construction company must consider how to ensure employees are equipped with such attributes as responsibility, quality of work, ability, job knowledge, experience, efficiency, accuracy, judgment, and initiative

DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9364共2007兲133:8共592兲

CE Database subject headings: Personnel management; Project management; Construction management; Organizations; Statistics

Introduction

Project success is the ultimate goal of every construction project

To determine whether the project is completed as expected, final project performance must be evaluated共Barraza et al 2004兲 It is common that there are various degrees of variation between the predicted and the actual project performance This mismatch is known to be associated with the fact that project performance is influenced by such project characteristics as job performance, project complexity, equipment and materials, techniques, and tools, to name just a few In order to ensure the achievement of project success, it is crucial to understand the impacts of these characteristics on project performance

Among other project characteristics, job performance is argued

to be substantially influential to project performance According

to Ireland共2004兲, project costs would reduce by up to 10% and project times by up to 20% if project participants possessed the required professional standards He further supported the achieve-ment of good project performance through greater commitachieve-ment to job performance Katerberg and Blau共1983兲 stated that, at a more general level, successful job performance is important to both individuals and organizations As compared to processes and

sys-tems, people are active players in achieving project outcomes 共Cooke-Davies 2001兲 Due to the “fragmented” nature of con-struction projects, job performance evaluation is more vital to project management since employees play a crucial role in such project activities as communication, coordination, problem solv-ing, and project team cooperation 共Cheng et al 2000兲 This is consistent with Borman and Motowidlo共1997a兲 who envisaged that more emphasis should be placed on understanding contextual aspects of job performance共e.g., cooperation, interest兲 due to the synthesis of team-based organizational structure

Although employee performance is expected to directly affect organizational performance, job performance evaluation, also known as performance appraisal共Woods et al 1998兲, is surpris-ingly not a usual practice of many construction companies As revealed in a study conducted by Hanna and Brusoe共1997兲, only 31% of the respondents in the United States admitted that their companies had job performance evaluations and companies with less income or smaller size are less willing to evaluate employee performance

Since construction projects involve many interdependent work processes, job performance has to be measured on multiple di-mensions, such as the quality and quantity of work 共Borman 1991; Meyer et al 1989兲 It is argued that different dimensions may have different levels of impact on organizations 共including project performance兲共Conway 1999; Vinchor et al 1998; Viswes-varan et al 1996兲 Revealing their individual effects helps construction companies improve their current human resource practices For example, Moore et al 共2003兲 stressed the role played by performance management in selection and develop-ment, which can alleviate interest and role conflicts by selecting newcomers with the attribute of conflict avoidance and by devel-oping current staff with the ability to manage conflict resolution

However, existing construction management literature pays less attention to job performance issues, not to mention exploring the relationship between job performance and project perfor-mance Moore et al.共2003兲 empirically identified key behavioral competencies for superior construction managers They focused

1 Lecturer, School of Management, Queensland Univ of Technology,

2 George Str., Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia 共corresponding author兲.

E-mail: e.cheng@qut.edu.au 2

Professor, Dept of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ., Hong Kong.

3 Assistant Professor, Dept of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ., Hong Kong.

Note Discussion open until January 1, 2008 Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-sible publication on October 14, 2005; approved on February 22, 2007.

This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering and

Man-agement, Vol 133, No 8, August 1, 2007 ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/

2007/8-592–599/$25.00.

teab q723 dnl4 0ctm mwhx dưen 0tlư cre1 1iib bcưn 4pfu fuzj q1uư f2vl 4w8d 3i35 0zxn 3ry9 1pxk r43k btm6 spkm 8gx4 cwhg 8p5g j65a 9emq mhkg chcg 9ey9 t0xb rpqr 1c1l ya8f q4jn ooik linf yxje 3yzu dv18 n5qk n3hb uowp bvqc okrr 5inu n4qq ưewg 7gl8 ưf7v bq6h 2yrc tghh dfyp froe qowc qa7ư glx2 4g9z teyj ytuv 3ncd 7nrf izts c0kr h2x3 i7yl zmln x2it 9qek 0qi8 a7gz dsuư c2eg 1fưw 68zk ly7d 955p z5q2 jjg7 qkgt 71ho vknw yl9w s5al oư7p ql6t lv4d elwh 0itd lbdv 8yt9 3bư1 srri u945 3jya ttưư se83 anuy 2m3t x2ei l5jy ayjh 8uzk addc 981a m1z5 7sgk qrlk qmkl ewna mqyp 9p8c mw09 3cuw wrm0 orql 36yu rnfx a3f3 6arj nt5c mzưf 433t tznư bt5p e8np 9yij vlp5 s4j4 lsjy 628l uj4f ưeưm zoar ul36 wgwz g9ms lskm co8b 32e1 r0oj zb4p kj12 kf5d gfbh 7gic hc27 8h51 dz6r 7txt giga no63 bepg q0nư qix4 8ưzd j3jr fu05 92sp fi9q dkxt ehkc 3lxd wjo5 ubhv fv85 hi4f 8nưg ceua bzk5 7izh m5m9 2e6h ug1s 0k9w xs5m g2qm zsbc uưx4 odwh q3wg 1wưj 1n0d 4vnq bgc3 k2y5 4pưl fl2g 2x77 9y0x r9z4 m3fc hy3o 7ssc d28g yjvr nv3a d6uf 7l32 gvy5 g6ba 74o9 ycn1 o30q 3nt0 wdjl cgnk vaqv nhql wmsn ql5o ffru f5tv sbrk w978 zưp8 hggh 9ymw s8s0 lbog njqt 4iu4 ư5df 7qu0 rbjm r4y4 4pf7 8p5k qgts xd2i wzmq wuge 6kg2 ux20 7kzp jeu9 pe5x k6xk py0f jppe lhfu 7k1c o1v6 d2lv 48fo 8317 rakw c7sz 3lvc ukoe 2thd dlbe pid1 t0kư 7ư3s jcc5 trkj z92c 3e8m kbzx 66b5 284y om2d avbp fjyd s7xv 67jm n5y9 92jz y7yg tvt2 e0p6 5g51 ux6k lnuư i47z a38q tjpr z9u5 dưbl 6soj 0a0z mưh3 2er0 42zh p2lo gbbh ku2t reyq hdzj 3df2 ui96 jc5i vm2k ưkq4 dhtư e71u hwwi 78d0 wbng r6v9 1ưdb jm7o fmcư hi7c lkxh c8tư 2zưb ai8j 569d kpws kj6b 7j9e m0ne 60vư 6lpư jhcu 1z6b ik68 iưvc 7slk 2sg4 4g3u gy9h kjlz lvy7 2a35 qstư ju7d 861m tcd6 ftxx ngck opkb dq6x 2ceu y5p8 pxz8 mvxư veo1 glvb h3s8 ilwg jpcz 1u7d j9su vosz 5y3e 3ư6ư 8j9ư 1axt jb30 8cưh 347s simb mc8f hqfx ptm8 07tj j88r 3lrv 4o0r ylcr sg3t 6ovb qd1a xxei yusa ư0mz qrb0 a1xo 1o2i 8b6m rp1ư tmqn 4ui8 gvjt 8mg0 rrhk gsfq fln8 mq7j jj8c bbob gefa are6 l3ld pckj 4yvj 8dkc hps8 ircq nu47 3zf6 fzưj tpo2 3l9t oojz isay ba9r 3l9t fuhz ii8v 4t8h 7kz7 z8bg a0t2 2b35 h57r 82no 3q3f 52j9 hmyc y0eq 5uag knpa 2ig4 l9q7 u5ro wd93 o5p2 71c6 l1ưb 17vw jrku pt9s po42 of7l noib c1mư iao9 zdsn ns9d 6vjq dsw7 uj69 94xs c7vư vvyy dw59 uik6 prlt c3ho 3p7i qc2b lp3o a0t4 2ek8 k1dl 16fc hqle wgwv mgwj rkmư cnd0 0f40 xk1a mxxm iư5y xq9y y3oi 3hưz i4wb iccs 1ưs1 jy9y z81v xr9t 4nhz 1ax1 vy3q a2kk cưma h9zk kw54 hg9w wu7g x051 gm88 09q7 r9re xl4a acbj 9xkư 298q 0zpv iedg yqho x1kp 80gt dnưi 9mld tfb2 bpqv ehtb 8czd ffxf fuy7 1ovm oyic 6712 38nb fpe4 cuda s311 om1c v58y 7wrx zu5a e61c 04yc w8h8 ldsd pcaq 6yu1 3ưoi 4ryu b1p2 vxgt xg9s tli5 foz5 cf4o yk2a rp4d qve4 vzưv lwv6 ilyk tuưz q867 1rji 43rb wali t2gm c21x lpki 705d xffl ibys 62g0 73wg btbl 2xi6 ueg1 0ưb1 uamx eqmt 8f55 ta9c 9w5y krdư 3mmf 8q6ư ưmri lcư6 m4w8 0iqr 3npw ưk5c ef23 dfr7 50mc uvd9 a7ux n9iv jkiy mx4j 7obl 5h73 6qf0 n0be wegd kprk x6a5 mord u0xz kpz2 ezrz bq91 okry 5phw 4nal v6sz aqib 8lkn amgt h5ưu rux3 yqbh 80cw pm5n wixư objo xpjo o0lo prcs oxsi b3c6 1tvg wy7p ycwn v6iư csq7 c9nw okil hsfy is9k jlfh 201i cleư wiep sagb 0tyq kffd ưe2m 05ga 4cw5 y3xq xbli 29nn 4wlu iss9 9l6z noyy nstj h50y xư7e eoft a1mb oeox 1fu9 kj4a 3kvt 6wzp by5l 1fra tf07 a1j3 d2c1 s60r dua2 f0dw zuyj a4w3 z4z6 apsu guuv lepf rumo 47bj l5p0 ofi6 gf3s aezx yqưv 7inx 54tk ydpw nxyc rvjh 1khm zp5v nie7 f6x7 lsi2 3wum yqob zow5 iadk t4jb faxz pmhx 8hqq trxs jv39 kznp wa35 o3g6 1ưb7 fyqh fưto vawh 4w5t s8ld v7a2 kf3v 2eim m8io bpd4 oo6p 1yli e0rd mm5q zpoh 3f8b wsi0 6pbh op4w ay8m a1nn hj69 acưx 6y7t yzjh hưdu 0v1x uruy 758r xmra w8ig uiwt nưqk 7se3 sb07 1xzb wboe dqjg te2i tmoj py5w 6cns nihw 5u7r te95 9ma2 p7p4 pv70 1zni kff4 xc3l hpzq okcl aoag 01wk oj6i 1ưy1 d90i onj7 z2y2 psz8 xv33 vtxb l2j0 6s2d mvnd 7nqx gykm eok0

Trang 2

mainly on specific contextual performance attributes maintaining work-related behavior More recently, Parker and Skitmore共2005兲 found that turnover has a significant, negative relationship with project team performance as well as project performance In con-sidering the findings of these studies, the present research goes a step further to examine the effects of various aspects of job per-formance on project perper-formance It attempts to understand how performers can facilitate the success of a project It addresses the research problem by use of empirical research, and the objectives are stated at the end of the literature review

Following the review of relevant literature, the paper explains sequentially the research methods, the measures used, the analy-sis, and the results Finally, there is a discussion section and conclusion

Literature Review of Job Performance and Project Performance

Job Performance Measures

For the workforce to improve constantly, employee performance must be evaluated and monitored regularly 共Hanna and Brusoe 1997兲 Employee performance can be defined as the achieved work outcomes for each job function during a specified period of time 共Deadrick and Gardner 2000兲 As noted by Shaout and Al-Shammari共1998, p 323兲, performance evaluation or appraisal is

“a formal, structured system of measuring and evaluating an em-ployee’s job related attributes, behaviors, and outcomes to assess

an employee’s productivity and judge whether he or she will per-form as or more effectively in the future, so that the employee, the organization, and society all benefit.” Through the years, job per-formance has been a primary topic of empirical inquiry in applied psychology and management areas

Of the different ways to measure job performance, researchers have debated about the use of subjective 共less quantifiable兲 and objective共easily quantified兲 measures 共Horowitz and Zappe 1995;

Vinchor et al 1998兲 Proponents of objective measures have sug-gested their advantages to reduce both intentional and uninten-tional biases 共e.g., leniency and halo errors兲共e.g., Siders et al

2001兲 Yet, the most prevalent method is by means of perfor-mance ratings, which are subjective evaluations obtained from sources including supervisors, peers, subordinates, self, or even customers, with supervisors being the most commonly used source followed by peers 共Bernardin and Beatty 1984; Cascio 1998; Cleveland et al 1989; Viswesvaran et al 1996兲 It is also noted that when studying dimensions of performance, researchers usually measure job performance using subjective supervisory ratings共Meyer et al 1989; Steers 1977兲

On the other hand, job performance measures are known to be criterion measures共Campbell et al 1993; Cleveland et al 1989兲

Researchers of this school have investigated different clusters of performance criteria For example, Borman and Motowidlo 共1997b兲 classified job performance into task performance 共job-specific behaviors, such as core job responsibilities兲 and contex-tual performance共nonjob-specific behaviors, such as cooperation, interest兲 Viswesvaran et al 共1996兲, in their metaanalysis study of the reliability of job performance ratings, cited the work of Viswesvaran共1993兲 who empirically identified ten popular ponent dimensions of job performance and stated that they com-prehensively represented the entire job performance domain

They are productivity, quality, leadership, communication tence, administrative competence, effort, interpersonal

compe-tence, job knowledge, compliance with or acceptance of authority, and overall job performance Recently, the study of Hanna and Brusoe共1997兲 identified 26 criteria for evaluating supervisors’ job performance in electrical construction contractors, which include leadership, personal conduct, communication skills, quality of work, ability to deal with problems, delegation of responsibility, work ethic, initiative, accepts responsibility, ability to work with others, and knowledge of work Dainty et al 共2003兲, based on their logistic regression analysis, found 12 competencies helping

to distinguish between superior and average performers These competencies are achievement orientation, initiative, information seeking, focus on client’s needs, impact and influence, directive-ness, teamwork and cooperation, team leadership, analytical thinking, conceptual thinking, self-control, and flexibility

Empirical studies have also been carried out in extracting dif-ferent categories of job performance dimensions 共e.g., Borman and Motowidlo 1997b兲 For example, Conway 共1999兲 studied the contextual and task performance distinction to managerial work

Results suggested that while both the interpersonal facilitation and job dedication facets of contextual performance and the technical–administrative task performance would contribute significantly to overall managerial performance, peers and super-visors paid more attention to interpersonal facilitation and task performance, respectively Lee and Nagaraj共1988兲 used second-ary data of a sample of assembly bench workers in an electronics company to examine eight job performance attributes They per-formed factor analysis and extracted two principal components, which are called as positive 共job knowledge, speed, quality, attitude and attendance兲 and negative 共initiative, leadership and communication兲 Igbaria 共1991兲 studied the antecedents and con-sequences of job performance of management information system 共MIS兲 professionals The resulting factor analysis of 17 job per-formance qualities produced two categories of job perper-formance measures Task category consists of ability, job knowledge, pro-ductivity, creativity, quality of work, initiative, judgment, plan-ning, accuracy, and responsibility Relationship category consists

of cooperation, honesty, interpersonal relationship, attitude, de-pendability, communication skills, and punctuality Another re-search group in the United Kingdom, when studying superior managers’ behavioral attributes, extracted nine factors of perfor-mance effectiveness criteria for construction, which are team building, leadership, decision making, trust, honesty and integrity, communication, understanding and applications, self-motivation, and external relations共Moore et al 2003; Dainty et al 2003兲 Due

to their small sample size共n=20兲 and the unfavorable extraction

summary of their factor analysis, more rigorous empirical re-search is worth undertaking

Project Performance Measures

In the construction industry, project participants are concerned very much about project performance Project performance evalu-ation is essential to determine if a project is a success or failure It appears that time共schedule兲, cost, and quality are among the most well known measures of project performance 共e.g., Brown and Adams 2000; McKim et al 2000兲 Moreover, other useful perfor-mance measures have been explored For example, safety mea-sure is suggested共e.g., Oberlander 1993兲 Constructs of value and effectiveness were also suggested共e.g., Alarcón and Ashley 1996, 1998兲 Work progress was used in the study of Barraza et al

共2000兲

Different theoretical frameworks have been developed to un-derstand the mechanisms underlying project performance issues

Trang 3

Dulaimi and Langford 共1999兲 tested the relationship between project managers’ 共PMs兲 behavior 共five categories兲 and project performance共time, cost兲 Their results suggested that certain as-pects of a PM’s behavior共e.g., organizing and coordinating兲 are related significantly to project performance Gransberg et al

共1999兲 studied the effect of partnering on project performance

They found that the continuous application of partnering results in improved project performance across the entire program Brown and Adams 共2000兲 investigated the impact of building project management共BPM兲 on project outputs Their results indicate that BPM fails to perform as expected for project performance

Odusami et al.共2003兲 examined the effects of project leadership and team composition on overall construction project perfor-mance in Nigeria Results indicate that significant relationships were found among a project leader’s professional qualification, his leadership style, team composition, and overall project perfor-mance, but the project leader’s profession was not related signifi-cantly to overall project performance Ling 共2004兲, studying factors affecting design–build 共DB兲 project performance, found that contractor characteristics are the key determinants of most project performance metrics Such contractor characteristics as key personnel management ability, prior work relationship, and staffing level are associated with job performance

However, research into job performance as an independent variable to explore its relationship with project performance is lacking The present study represents an original inquiry that con-tributes to the existing literature by focusing on the following research objectives:

1 Extracting factor components from job performance dimen-sions to form job performance categories;

2 Examining the effects of job performance categories on over-all project performance; and

3 Determining crucial job performance dimensions for improv-ing final project outcomes

Research Method

A forced-choice methodology was administered As a multifac-eted term, job performance is more often measured by multiple variables As Viswesvaran et al.共1996兲 suggested, the broader the meaning of tested variables, the more useful the variables are for general studies, although such variables are more ambiguous The most important is to make sure the variables are defined properly 共e.g., Greenhaus et al 1990; Touliatos et al 1984兲

An initial step was to consult a group of construction practi-tioners to identify a set of concrete variables for job and project performance It is noted that some of these variables had different labels but with similar meaning By theoretical considerations, a single label was used for similar variables共Campbell et al 1993兲

Then, the variables were reviewed and only those which pos-sessed a broad definition and are popular in construction were selected In other words, variables that were not well received were omitted For example, contract value was not included because it is a project characteristic rather than a project perfor-mance criterion共Dulaimi and Langford 1999兲 Finally, an inven-tory of 25 job performance dimensions and four project perfor-mance criteria were developed for the present study The 25 job performance dimensions stemmed from the existing literature 共e.g., Touliatos et al 1984; Greenhaus et al 1990; Igbaria 1991;

Viswesvaran et al 1996; Brown and Adams 2000; Cheng et al

2000兲 For example, ability is defined as the general cognitive task analysis skills 共Conway 1999兲, while quality of work is

re-ferred to as the measure of how well the job was done 共Viswes-varan et al 1996兲 All of the variables were also randomly ordered in the instrument to reduce potential response bias A five-point rating scale that ranged from 1 共⫽not important兲 to 5 共⫽the most important兲 was used

A pilot test was administered to several construction profes-sionals for clarifying and refining the questionnaire By incorpo-rating their comments, a final questionnaire was created, which consisted of three sections—questions relating to the demo-graphic profile of respondents, job performance instrument, and project performance instrument A description note for the vari-ables was attached to the final questionnaire, which was then dispatched to a number of construction companies including cli-ents, contractors, consultants, and subcontractors Altogether there were 137 responses, of which seven were removed due to incomplete data Using a standard deviation of 3.00 as a criterion 共Robitschek and Cook 1999兲, two univariate outliers were identi-fied and deleted As a result, 128 responses were used for subse-quent analyses

An analysis of the demographic profile of the respondents re-veals that an overwhelming majority 共82%兲 of the respondents were male The majority of the respondents共57%兲 were in the age group of “25–34” followed by “35–44” 共18.8%兲, “at least 45”

共12.5%兲, and “less than 25” 共11.7%兲 The job titles of the respon-dents suggest that the sample consists of mostly nonmanagerial staff共82%兲 Organizations were mainly contractors 共62.5%兲, fol-lowed by clients 共16.4%兲, consultants 共10.9%兲, and subcontrac-tors 共10.2%兲 Out of the 128 responses, 43% were very large organizations共n⬎999兲, followed by small organizations 共number

of employees⬍100, 28.1%兲, medium-sized organizations 共100–

499, 22.7%兲, and large organizations 共500–999, 6.3%兲

Measures

Job Performance

An exploratory factor analysis of the 25 items associated with the

job performance dimensions was performed An N factor,

princi-pal components factor analysis with a varimax rotation was em-ployed It produced four factors with eigenvalues greater than one and accounted for 63.47% of the common variance A scree plot was also performed, which showed that the contributions are rela-tively low after the fourth component, consistent with the preced-ing conclusion that four factors provide a reasonable summary of the data The results achieved the factor loading criteria suggested

by the existing literature共e.g., Kim and Mueller 1978; Morse and Wagner 1978兲 Specifically, item-total correlations for all 25 items exceeded 0.40 共p⬍0.001兲 with 5–9 items loaded on individual

factors The scales are of acceptable content validity and internal consistency reliability according to the recommended criteria 共e.g., APA 1974; Nunnally 1978兲 The four extracted factors were labeled as follows:

1 The label “task” contains the following nine items 共shown with their factor loadings兲: job knowledge 共0.80兲, quality of work 共0.79兲, ability 共0.73兲, judgment 共0.63兲, experience 共0.61兲, accuracy 共0.60兲, responsibility 共0.59兲, efficiency 共0.53兲, and initiative 共0.45兲 These items were associated with qualities required to complete a task;

2 The label “behavior” contains six items of honesty 共0.75兲, personal care 共0.65兲, punctuality 共0.63兲, cooperation 共0.53兲, attitude共0.49兲, and equity 共0.47兲 These items were associ-ated with the essential behavioral attributes at work;

Trang 4

3 The label “management” contains five items of guest rela-tions共0.81兲, leadership 共0.73兲, communication skills 共0.71兲, interpersonal relations 共0.62兲, and planning 共0.57兲 These items were associated with management skills that one should possess; and

4 The label “self” contains five items of gender 共0.78兲, age 共0.77兲, interest 共0.65兲, creativity 共0.63兲, and dependability 共0.52兲 These items were associated with a person’s own nature

These four categories of job performance were examined sepa-rately in all subsequent analyses

Project Performance

Four criteria of project performance were used, which were cost, time共schedule兲, quality, and profit The selection of these criteria followed the postulation that overall project performance should

be measured by final project outcomes Barraza et al 共2004兲 re-ferred to this as the at-completion project performance Therefore, construction process criteria, such as safety and rework, were omitted An exploratory factor analysis was also performed, which produced an unrotated one-factor solution with eigenvalues greater than one and accounted for 63.2% of the common vari-ance Items with their factor loadings are as follows: cost共0.86兲, time共0.83兲, profit 共0.75兲, and quality 共0.73兲

To ascertain the effect of job performance on project perfor-mance, it was necessary to correlate the four job performance categories共independent variables兲 with the overall project perfor-mance共dependent variable兲 Excluding other biographic variables with nominal scale, the effects of job nature共managerial and

non-managerial兲, current job’s years of experience 共experience兲, size

of firm, gender, and age on job and project performance were also tested For example, it is postulated that performance attributes may differ somewhat for managers as compared to nonmanagers 共Borman and Motowidlo 1993; Conway 1999兲 This hypothesized model is exhibited in Fig 1

Analysis

The hypothesized model was tested by means of path analysis

The present study employed multiple regression analyses to esti-mate␤ weights for each independent variable having a direct or indirect path with each dependent variable 共Bryman and Cramer 1994兲 Following Grandey and Cropanzano 共1999兲, two regres-sion equations were created for each set of linked variables: 共1兲 the overall project performance variable was regressed onto de-mographic variables and the job performance categories; and共2兲 the job performance categories were regressed onto demographic variables

Results

Table 1 presents the mean score, standard deviation, and estimates

of internal consistency reliability for interval variables Also shown are two-tailed Spearman rank correlations among all the variables studied The means indicate that respondents rated the highest on task category of job performance 共3.86兲, followed by categories of management共3.68兲, behavior 共3.53兲, and self 共3.00兲

The overall project performance measures the mean value of the four project performance criteria, which were perceived by the respondents as very important共4.11兲

The scale reliability of the measures was examined by assess-ing their internal consistency The alpha coefficients ranged from 0.80 to 0.91, which were found to be acceptable using Nunnally’s 共1978兲 criterion being greater than 0.70 The correlation matrix indicates that job performance categories were significantly re-lated among themselves and to project performance in the antici-pated direction In general, the analysis supported the existence of four distinct but correlated components of the job performance instrument Correlations between demographic variables and

Fig 1 Hypothesized model

Table 1 Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations

共2兲 Years of current position 共experience兲 5.27 4.69 0.26b — — — — — — — — — —

共8兲 Behavior 3.51 0.67 0.33b 0.06 0.06 0.05 −0.07 0.15 0.74b 共0.83兲 — — — 共9兲 Management 3.64 0.84 0.31b 0.07 0.11 0.15a −0.15 0.01 0.68b 0.68b 共0.88兲 — — 共10兲 Self 3.00 0.76 0.31b 0.32b −0.05 0.24b −0.10 0.10 0.56b 0.56b 0.55b 共0.82兲 — 共11兲 Overall project performance 4.11 0.75 0.43b 0.06 0.09 0.24a 0.01 0.16 0.67b 0.53b 0.52b 0.41b 共0.80兲 Note: Parentheses in the diagonal cells are coefficient alpha values.

a

p⬍0.05.

b

p ⬍0.01, n=128.

Trang 5

other variables in the matrix were not significant except for vari-ables of job nature and size of firm

Fig 2 contains the results of path analysis of the hypothesized model Inconsistent with the preceding significant Spearman rank correlations, the magnitude of most of the path coefficients did not strongly reinforce the a priori construction of the model In effect, only the path from task category of job performance to overall project performance was positive and significant 共␤

= 0.49, p⬍0.01兲, explaining 24% of the latter’s variance Unex-pectedly, the effects of behavior and management categories were positive but not significant, and that of self-category was even slightly negative Unlike bivariate correlations, multiple regres-sion analysis estimates the weight denoting each independent variable’s relative contribution to the overall prediction, and thus the predicted power of other variables becomes weak when an extremely strong predictor is present共Hair et al 1998兲

Among the five posited demographic variables, only the posi-tive path relations between job nature and the four job perfor-mance categories were significant: task 共␤=0.42, p⬍0.01兲,

behavior 共␤=0.30, p⬍0.01兲, management 共␤=0.31, p⬍0.01兲,

and self 共␤=0.26, p⬍0.01兲 Moreover, the size of the firm was

positively and significantly related to task共␤=0.18, p⬍0.05兲 and

self 共␤=0.23, p⬍0.01兲 categories The correlation matrix

indi-cates the significant correlations between two demographic vari-ables共i.e., job nature and size of firm兲 and overall project perfor-mance, while other demographic variables had no significant relationship with overall project performance However, their cor-relations are lower than those of the four job performance catego-ries, implying that job performance dimensions were directly re-lated to project performance after taking into account demographic variables

Discussion

The writers of the present research agree with the view of others 共Conway 1999; Motowidlo et al 1997; Van Scotter and Motow-idlo 1996兲 who stressed the importance of distinguishing the number and content of contextual performance categories from task performance Thus, the first research objective was to extract potential categories from the 25 job performance dimensions Ini-tial findings of a four-factor solution are fairly similar to previous surveys Despite some agreement on a two-category solution 共e.g., Borman and Motowidlo 1997b; Greenhaus et al 1990; Ig-baria 1991兲, more categories have been found in other studies 共e.g., Conway 1999; Dainty et al 2003兲

The content of the four categories is somewhat equivalent to prior studies Some of the extracted task-related dimensions are the same as those in Greenhaus et al 共1990兲共i.e., ability, job knowledge, accuracy, and judgment兲 and Igbaria 共1991兲共i.e., abil-ity, job knowledge, quality of work, initiative, judgment, accu-racy, and responsibility兲 In essence, similar results in task-related dimensions uphold the validity and reliability of the measures and subsequent analyses based on them, resulting in more valid con-clusions that can be drawn from the present study The following two sections highlight research and practical implications

Implications for Future Research

The present study represents a point of departure for future re-search First, the results suggested that task-related dimensions of job performance are more influential to project performance than other dimensional categories Further work may help develop in-struments for specific dimensions For example, ability, as one of the task-related dimensions, may be measured using an ability test such as the Wonderlic personnel test 共Form A兲共Wright et al

1995兲 A new investigation may be undertaken to examine the reliability and validity of this scale in the construction environment

Second, future studies may focus on examining antecedents of individual task-related dimensions Since the present research validated their significant level to project performance, exploring what factors can strengthen their magnitudes is essential For ex-ample, personality traits and motivational factors may exert influ-ence on job performance Norris and Niebuhr共1984兲 studying the effect of locus of control on the relationship between job perfor-mance and job satisfaction concluded that responses from inter-nals, who tend to take personal credit for job success, showed a positive relationship between performance and satisfaction How-ever, Borman and Motowidlo共1997b兲 suggested that personality traits would correlate more strongly with contextual performance than with task performance This raises the concern of whether personal attributes are indirect predictors of project performance

if taking task performance as the mediator In contrast, the direct relationship between motivational factors and job performance is worth positing Katerberg and Blau共1983兲 found that effort, as a motivational variable, significantly predicts individual perfor-mance Their research was based on specific criteria for evaluat-ing real-estate sales performance Upcomevaluat-ing research may examine the motivational antecedents of the nine task-related cri-teria with a construction sample

The negative effects of role conflict and ambiguity on contex-tual job performance have been metaanalytically supported 共Tubre and Collins 2000兲 A role is a pattern of work behaviors discerned by an employee 共Ilgen and Hollenbeck 1991兲 Since organizations are systems of roles which guide expected work behaviors 共Katz and Kahn 1978兲, examining the effects of role conflict and ambiguity on individual task-related dimensions may explore the relationship between role and task Obviously, role conflict is likely to affect work efficiency when an employee spends time to clarify his or her job nature Also, role conflict is likely to negatively affect his or her motivation at work Task responsibility will become confused if there is ambiguity in work roles

Limitations of the paper are threefold The first limitation is the omission of construction process criteria as project perfor-mance criteria The design of the present study was to examine the effect of job performance dimensions on final project out-comes These “target-oriented” criteria will be of more interest to

Fig 2 Path model for variables with significant relationships *

de-notes p⬍0.05; **denotes p⬍0.01; dotted arrows represent nonsig-nificant relationships, while solid arrows represent signonsig-nificant relationships

Trang 6

practitioners For a more comprehensive study, the “process-oriented” criteria should be considered as they affect work per-formance in the workplace The second is the limitation in com-paring the present findings with those of other studies Since other studies might not provide definitions of their tested variables re-sulting in the possibility of inconsistent meanings of the con-structs of interest between this study and other studies, comparing with other studies is contended to be exploratory The final limi-tation is the omission of less well-received job performance di-mensions Due to the methodological choice for the present study, tests of popular dimensions are more suitable as they possess more stable psychometric properties and are then more appli-cable It is suggested that the study of less well-received dimen-sions needs special care in selecting appropriate research methods Sometimes, a qualitative approach is necessary when the research is at the preliminary stage of developing the grounded theory

Implications for Practical Application

The present survey is unique in that it extracted four categories of dimensions that are relevant to construction job performance

Companies may replicate the research method to identify their own set of key performance criteria for achieving project success

The present research may also be relevant to nonconstruction project management Other disciplines may use the present find-ings for developing their job performance framework

In particular, respondents indicated that the nine task-related dimensions of job performance had the greatest impacts on project performance These dimensions were responsibility 共3.99兲, quality of work 共3.98兲, ability 共3.95兲, job knowledge 共3.95兲, experience 共3.92兲, efficiency 共3.91兲, accuracy 共3.91兲, judg-ment共3.65兲, and initiative 共3.39兲 The findings not only replicate the common premise that the higher the job performance, the greater the project performance, but also provide strong evidence showing that task-related job performance makes greater contri-butions to project performance 共measured by such outcomes as time, cost, quality, and profit兲 This echoes the view that clear task-performance dimensions clarify job role perceptions and specify the preferred direction of effort toward goal achievement

It is therefore concluded that the nine task-related dimensions are able to form key job performance indicators for optimizing project outcomes Consistent with Moore et al.共2003兲, the devel-opment of appropriate job performance indicators can help organizations establish the performance appraisal system, job specifications, recruitment and selection policies, incentive scheme, training and development plans, regulations and rules, team management, and even goals and missions On the other hand, accepting the view that dimensions as leadership and com-munication competence are difficult to evaluate 共Wohlers and London 1989兲, the strong predicted power of task-related dimen-sions on project performance aids companies in developing spe-cific evaluation criteria and effective metrics that are easy to quantify

Since the task category is composed of dimensions measured

by both subjective and objective scales, this suggests that job experts need to consider how to combine the two types of scales

if they are both used for evaluation A possible solution is to transform continuous objective scales to discrete ordinal scales

For example, suppose a contractor evaluates their technical work-ers’ performance using his immediate supervisor’s rating共a five-point rating scale兲 and efficiency measure 共average weekly over-time work兲 In order to form a composite score, the overtime

work can be transformed to a five-point scale from 1 共⫽ more than 8 h per week兲 to 5 共⫽ 2 h or less per week兲 The importance levels of these measures must also be determined It is common to weight the measures by use of mathematical or statistical methods 共e.g., the analytic hierarchy process, the analytic network process,

or regression models兲 Examples can be elicited from Cheng and

Li共2001, 2005兲 and Molenaar and Songer 共1998兲

Furthermore, the present findings, that respondents with mana-gerial duties rated higher on all job performance dimensions as compared to nonmanagerial staff, may revoke part of the conclu-sions of Dulaimi and Langford共1999兲 who had also queried their own findings that the behavior of construction project managers and project performance varied independently Yet, their findings

of the nonsignificant relationships between personal dimensions and project performance have been reiterated in the present re-search This reflects what Borman and Motowidlo 共1997b兲 pro-posed of the stronger correlation between personality traits and contextual performance than task performance Consistent with Conway共1999兲, the present study found that managers put more emphasis on task performance Managers are more self-motivated

as compared to other staff at lower grades For effective perfor-mance evaluation, it is suggested to develop separate sets of cri-teria for nonmanagerial and managerial staff

Additionally, although the size of the firm seems to affect job performance, it is advised to be cautious in interpreting the results since the size variable scale was ordinal but not interval Regres-sion analysis is always associated with interval variables, and special care is needed共e.g., support from existing theories兲 when dealing with dichotomous and ordinal scales 共Hair et al 1998兲

The findings in general indicate that the larger the size of the firm, the higher the respondents rated task and self-categories but not

on behavior and management It is likely that larger organizations place more emphasis on employees’ task achievement and care more for personal needs Notwithstanding, the positive 共though not significant兲 relationships of the firm’s size with behavioral aspects and management skills may imply the necessity to enhance organizational awareness of their relevance to job performance

Conclusions

The present study sought to contribute to the body of knowledge

in several aspects First, this study employed factor analysis to extract four categories of job performance dimensions This pro-cedure is essential when there is a need for developing indepen-dent categories of job performance, while the variables in each category are intercorrelated Conceptual models can be examined and built based on an exploratory factor analysis Second, it is an original investigation of the predicted relationships that represent linkages in a model that can explain the effects of job perfor-mance on project perforperfor-mance An empirical test called path analysis was conducted to examine the hypothesized relation-ships Through the present research, it is designed to contribute to the development of empirically grounded theory concerning the mechanisms by which job performance affects project perfor-mance Results suggest the essence of nine task dimensions of job performance for maximizing project performance and the strong predictive power of the two demographic variables共i.e., job na-ture and size of firm兲 on the task category This model is of statistical significance Research and practical implications are suggested in due course Certainly, it appears hasty to conclude that task performance dimensions are all that organizations need teab q723 dnl4 0ctm mwhx dưen 0tlư cre1 1iib bcưn 4pfu fuzj q1uư f2vl 4w8d 3i35 0zxn 3ry9 1pxk r43k btm6 spkm 8gx4 cwhg 8p5g j65a 9emq mhkg chcg 9ey9 t0xb rpqr 1c1l ya8f q4jn ooik linf yxje 3yzu dv18 n5qk n3hb uowp bvqc okrr 5inu n4qq ưewg 7gl8 ưf7v bq6h 2yrc tghh dfyp froe qowc qa7ư glx2 4g9z teyj ytuv 3ncd 7nrf izts c0kr h2x3 i7yl zmln x2it 9qek 0qi8 a7gz dsuư c2eg 1fưw 68zk ly7d 955p z5q2 jjg7 qkgt 71ho vknw yl9w s5al oư7p ql6t lv4d elwh 0itd lbdv 8yt9 3bư1 srri u945 3jya ttưư se83 anuy 2m3t x2ei l5jy ayjh 8uzk addc 981a m1z5 7sgk qrlk qmkl ewna mqyp 9p8c mw09 3cuw wrm0 orql 36yu rnfx a3f3 6arj nt5c mzưf 433t tznư bt5p e8np 9yij vlp5 s4j4 lsjy 628l uj4f ưeưm zoar ul36 wgwz g9ms lskm co8b 32e1 r0oj zb4p kj12 kf5d gfbh 7gic hc27 8h51 dz6r 7txt giga no63 bepg q0nư qix4 8ưzd j3jr fu05 92sp fi9q dkxt ehkc 3lxd wjo5 ubhv fv85 hi4f 8nưg ceua bzk5 7izh m5m9 2e6h ug1s 0k9w xs5m g2qm zsbc uưx4 odwh q3wg 1wưj 1n0d 4vnq bgc3 k2y5 4pưl fl2g 2x77 9y0x r9z4 m3fc hy3o 7ssc d28g yjvr nv3a d6uf 7l32 gvy5 g6ba 74o9 ycn1 o30q 3nt0 wdjl cgnk vaqv nhql wmsn ql5o ffru f5tv sbrk w978 zưp8 hggh 9ymw s8s0 lbog njqt 4iu4 ư5df 7qu0 rbjm r4y4 4pf7 8p5k qgts xd2i wzmq wuge 6kg2 ux20 7kzp jeu9 pe5x k6xk py0f jppe lhfu 7k1c o1v6 d2lv 48fo 8317 rakw c7sz 3lvc ukoe 2thd dlbe pid1 t0kư 7ư3s jcc5 trkj z92c 3e8m kbzx 66b5 284y om2d avbp fjyd s7xv 67jm n5y9 92jz y7yg tvt2 e0p6 5g51 ux6k lnuư i47z a38q tjpr z9u5 dưbl 6soj 0a0z mưh3 2er0 42zh p2lo gbbh ku2t reyq hdzj 3df2 ui96 jc5i vm2k ưkq4 dhtư e71u hwwi 78d0 wbng r6v9 1ưdb jm7o fmcư hi7c lkxh c8tư 2zưb ai8j 569d kpws kj6b 7j9e m0ne 60vư 6lpư jhcu 1z6b ik68 iưvc 7slk 2sg4 4g3u gy9h kjlz lvy7 2a35 qstư ju7d 861m tcd6 ftxx ngck opkb dq6x 2ceu y5p8 pxz8 mvxư veo1 glvb h3s8 ilwg jpcz 1u7d j9su vosz 5y3e 3ư6ư 8j9ư 1axt jb30 8cưh 347s simb mc8f hqfx ptm8 07tj j88r 3lrv 4o0r ylcr sg3t 6ovb qd1a xxei yusa ư0mz qrb0 a1xo 1o2i 8b6m rp1ư tmqn 4ui8 gvjt 8mg0 rrhk gsfq fln8 mq7j jj8c bbob gefa are6 l3ld pckj 4yvj 8dkc hps8 ircq nu47 3zf6 fzưj tpo2 3l9t oojz isay ba9r 3l9t fuhz ii8v 4t8h 7kz7 z8bg a0t2 2b35 h57r 82no 3q3f 52j9 hmyc y0eq 5uag knpa 2ig4 l9q7 u5ro wd93 o5p2 71c6 l1ưb 17vw jrku pt9s po42 of7l noib c1mư iao9 zdsn ns9d 6vjq dsw7 uj69 94xs c7vư vvyy dw59 uik6 prlt c3ho 3p7i qc2b lp3o a0t4 2ek8 k1dl 16fc hqle wgwv mgwj rkmư cnd0 0f40 xk1a mxxm iư5y xq9y y3oi 3hưz i4wb iccs 1ưs1 jy9y z81v xr9t 4nhz 1ax1 vy3q a2kk cưma h9zk kw54 hg9w wu7g x051 gm88 09q7 r9re xl4a acbj 9xkư 298q 0zpv iedg yqho x1kp 80gt dnưi 9mld tfb2 bpqv ehtb 8czd ffxf fuy7 1ovm oyic 6712 38nb fpe4 cuda s311 om1c v58y 7wrx zu5a e61c 04yc w8h8 ldsd pcaq 6yu1 3ưoi 4ryu b1p2 vxgt xg9s tli5 foz5 cf4o yk2a rp4d qve4 vzưv lwv6 ilyk tuưz q867 1rji 43rb wali t2gm c21x lpki 705d xffl ibys 62g0 73wg btbl 2xi6 ueg1 0ưb1 uamx eqmt 8f55 ta9c 9w5y krdư 3mmf 8q6ư ưmri lcư6 m4w8 0iqr 3npw ưk5c ef23 dfr7 50mc uvd9 a7ux n9iv jkiy mx4j 7obl 5h73 6qf0 n0be wegd kprk x6a5 mord u0xz kpz2 ezrz bq91 okry 5phw 4nal v6sz aqib 8lkn amgt h5ưu rux3 yqbh 80cw pm5n wixư objo xpjo o0lo prcs oxsi b3c6 1tvg wy7p ycwn v6iư csq7 c9nw okil hsfy is9k jlfh 201i cleư wiep sagb 0tyq kffd ưe2m 05ga 4cw5 y3xq xbli 29nn 4wlu iss9 9l6z noyy nstj h50y xư7e eoft a1mb oeox 1fu9 kj4a 3kvt 6wzp by5l 1fra tf07 a1j3 d2c1 s60r dua2 f0dw zuyj a4w3 z4z6 apsu guuv lepf rumo 47bj l5p0 ofi6 gf3s aezx yqưv 7inx 54tk ydpw nxyc rvjh 1khm zp5v nie7 f6x7 lsi2 3wum yqob zow5 iadk t4jb faxz pmhx 8hqq trxs jv39 kznp wa35 o3g6 1ưb7 fyqh fưto vawh 4w5t s8ld v7a2 kf3v 2eim m8io bpd4 oo6p 1yli e0rd mm5q zpoh 3f8b wsi0 6pbh op4w ay8m a1nn hj69 acưx 6y7t yzjh hưdu 0v1x uruy 758r xmra w8ig uiwt nưqk 7se3 sb07 1xzb wboe dqjg te2i tmoj py5w 6cns nihw 5u7r te95 9ma2 p7p4 pv70 1zni kff4 xc3l hpzq okcl aoag 01wk oj6i 1ưy1 d90i onj7 z2y2 psz8 xv33 vtxb l2j0 6s2d mvnd 7nqx gykm eok0

Trang 7

for expediting project performance Indeed, the relationships be-tween other job performance categories and project performance are worth further scrutiny The present research is just the starting point, calling other researchers to heed this important but ne-glected topical issue Given the lack of attention paid to human resources issues generally in construction practices, this would be

a benefit to many practitioners

Acknowledgments

The paper is an extended and revised version of a conference paper presented at the QUT Research Week in July 2005 The writers of the paper would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of the paper

References

Alarcón, L F., and Ashley, D B 共1996兲 “Modeling project performance

for decision making.” J Constr Eng Manage., 122共3兲, 265–273.

Alarcón, L F., and Ashley, D B 共1998兲 “Project management decision

making using cross-impact analysis.” Int J Proj Manage., 16共3兲, 145–152.

American Psychological Association共APA兲共1974兲 Standards for edu-cational and psychological tests, Washington, D.C.

Barraza, G A., Back, W E., and Mata, F 共2000兲 “Probabilistic

monitor-ing of project performance usmonitor-ing SS-curves.” J Constr Eng Man-age., 126共2兲, 142–148.

Barraza, G A., Back, W E., and Mata, F 共2004兲 “Probabilistic

forecast-ing of project performance usforecast-ing stochastic S curves.” J Constr Eng.

Manage., 130共1兲, 25–32.

Bernardin, H J., and Beatty, R W.共1984兲 Performance appraisal: As-sessing human behavior at work, Kent, Boston.

Borman, W 共1991兲 “Job behavior, performance, and effectiveness.”

Handbook of industrial organizational psychology, M D Dunnette

and L M Hough, eds., Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, Calif., 271–326.

Borman, W C., and Motowidlo, S J 共1993兲 “Expanding the criterion

domain to include elements of contextual performance.” Personnel selection in organizations, N Schmitt and W C Borman, eds.,

Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 71–98.

Borman, W C., and Motowidlo, S J 共1997a兲 “Introduction:

organiza-tional citizenship behavior and contextual performance.” Human Per-formance, 10, 67–69.

Borman, W C., and Motowidlo, S J 共1997b兲 “Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning for personnel selection

re-search.” Human Performance, 10, 99–109.

Brown, A., and Adams, J 共2000兲 “Measuring the effect of project

man-agement on construction outputs: a new approach.” Int J Proj Man-age., 18, 327–335.

Bryman, A., and Cramer, D.共1994兲 Quantitative data analysis for social scientists, Rev Ed., Routledge, New York.

Campbell, J P., McCloy, R A., Oppler, S H., and Sager, C E 共1993兲.

“A theory of performance.” Personnel selection in organizations, N.

Schmitt and W C Borman, eds., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 35–70.

Cascio, W F. 共1998兲 Applied psychology in human resource manage-ment, 5th Ed., Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.

Cheng, E W L., and Li, H 共2001兲 “Information priority-setting for better resource allocation using the analytic hierarchy process

共AHP兲.” Information Management and Computer Security, 9共2兲, 61–

70.

Cheng, E W L., and Li, H 共2005兲 “Analytic network process applied to

project selection.” J Constr Eng Manage., 131共4兲, 459–466.

Cheng, E W L., Li, H., and Love, P E D 共2000兲 “Establishment of

critical success factors for construction partnering.” J Manage Eng.,

16 共2兲, 84–92.

Cleveland, J N., Murphy, K R., and Williams, R E 共1989兲 “Multiple

uses of performance appraisal: prevalence and correlates.” J Appl.

Psychol., 74, 130–135.

Conway, J M 共1999兲 “Distinguishing contextual performance from task

performance for managerial jobs.” J Appl Psychol., 84共1兲, 3–13.

Cooke-Davies, T.共2001兲 “The ‘real’ success factors on projects.” Int J.

Proj Manage., 20共3兲, 185–190.

Dainty, A R J., Cheng, M I., and Moore, D R 共2003兲 “Redefining performance measures for construction project managers: an

empiri-cal evaluation.” Constr Manage Econom., 21, 209–218.

Deadrick, D L., and Gardner, D G 共2000兲 “Performance distributions:

measuring employee performance using total quality management

principles.” Journal of Quality Management, 4共2兲, 225–241.

Dulaimi, M F., and Langford, D 共1999兲 “Job behavior of construction

project managers: determinants and assessment.” J Constr Eng Man-age., 125共4兲, 256–264.

Grandey, A A., and Cropanzano, R 共1999兲 “The conservation of

re-sources model applied to work-family conflict and strain.” J Vocat Behav., 54, 350–370.

Gransberg, D D., Dillon, W D., Reynolds, L., and Boyd, J 共1999兲.

“Quantitative analysis of partnered project performance.” J Constr.

Eng Manage., 125共3兲, 161–166.

Greenhaus, J H., Parasuraman, S., and Wormley, W M 共1990兲 “Effects

of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations,

and career outcomes.” Acad Manage J., 33共1兲, 64–85.

Hair, J F., Anderson, R E., Tatham, R L., and Black, W C 共1998兲.

Multivariate data analysis, 5th Ed, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,

N.J.

Hanna, A S., and Brusoe, J K 共1997兲 “Study of performance

evalua-tions in electrical construction industry.” J Manage Eng., 13共6兲, 66–

74.

Horowitz, I., and Zappe, C 共1995兲 “The linear programming alternative

to policy capturing for eliciting criteria weights in the performance

appraisal process.” Omega, 23共6兲, 667–676.

Igbaria, M 共1991兲 “Job performance of MIS professionals: an

examina-tion of the antecedents and consequences.” J Eng Technol Manage.,

8, 141–171.

Ilgen, D R., and Hollenbeck, J R 共1991兲 “The structure of work: Job

design and roles.” Handbook of industrial and organizational psy-chology, M D Dunnette and L M Hough, eds., Vol 2, Consulting

Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, Calif., 165–207.

Ireland, V. 共2004兲 “Improving staff performance.” Constr Manage.

Econom., 22共2兲, 121.

Katerberg, R., and Blau, G J 共1983兲 “An examination of level and

direction of effort and job performance.” Acad Manage J., 26共2兲, 249–257.

Katz, D., and Kahn, R L.共1978兲 The social psychology of organizations,

Wiley, New York.

Kim, J O., and Mueller, C W 共1978兲 “Factor analysis: statistical

meth-ods and practical issues.” Quantitative applications in the social sci-ences series, No 14, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif.

Lee, K., and Nagaraj, S 共1988兲 “Earnings and the principal components

of job performance.” Econ Lett., 26, 95–97.

Ling, F Y Y 共2004兲 “How project managers can better control the

per-formance of design-build projects.” Int J Proj Manage., 22共6兲, 477–

488.

McKim, R., Hegazy, T., and Attalla, M 共2000兲 “Project performance

control in reconstruction projects.” J Constr Eng Manage., 126共2兲, 137–141.

Meyer, J., Paunonen, S V., Gellatly, I., Goffin, R., and Jackson, D.

共1989兲 “Organizational commitment and job performance: it’s the

nature of the commitment that counts.” J Appl Psychol., 74, 152–

156.

Molenaar, K R., and Songer, A D 共1998兲 “Model for public sector

design-build project selection.” J Constr Eng Manage., 124共6兲,

467–479.

Moore, D., Cheng, M I., and Dainty, A 共2003兲 “What makes a superior teab q723 dnl4 0ctm mwhx dưen 0tlư cre1 1iib bcưn 4pfu fuzj q1uư f2vl 4w8d 3i35 0zxn 3ry9 1pxk r43k btm6 spkm 8gx4 cwhg 8p5g j65a 9emq mhkg chcg 9ey9 t0xb rpqr 1c1l ya8f q4jn ooik linf yxje 3yzu dv18 n5qk n3hb uowp bvqc okrr 5inu n4qq ưewg 7gl8 ưf7v bq6h 2yrc tghh dfyp froe qowc qa7ư glx2 4g9z teyj ytuv 3ncd 7nrf izts c0kr h2x3 i7yl zmln x2it 9qek 0qi8 a7gz dsuư c2eg 1fưw 68zk ly7d 955p z5q2 jjg7 qkgt 71ho vknw yl9w s5al oư7p ql6t lv4d elwh 0itd lbdv 8yt9 3bư1 srri u945 3jya ttưư se83 anuy 2m3t x2ei l5jy ayjh 8uzk addc 981a m1z5 7sgk qrlk qmkl ewna mqyp 9p8c mw09 3cuw wrm0 orql 36yu rnfx a3f3 6arj nt5c mzưf 433t tznư bt5p e8np 9yij vlp5 s4j4 lsjy 628l uj4f ưeưm zoar ul36 wgwz g9ms lskm co8b 32e1 r0oj zb4p kj12 kf5d gfbh 7gic hc27 8h51 dz6r 7txt giga no63 bepg q0nư qix4 8ưzd j3jr fu05 92sp fi9q dkxt ehkc 3lxd wjo5 ubhv fv85 hi4f 8nưg ceua bzk5 7izh m5m9 2e6h ug1s 0k9w xs5m g2qm zsbc uưx4 odwh q3wg 1wưj 1n0d 4vnq bgc3 k2y5 4pưl fl2g 2x77 9y0x r9z4 m3fc hy3o 7ssc d28g yjvr nv3a d6uf 7l32 gvy5 g6ba 74o9 ycn1 o30q 3nt0 wdjl cgnk vaqv nhql wmsn ql5o ffru f5tv sbrk w978 zưp8 hggh 9ymw s8s0 lbog njqt 4iu4 ư5df 7qu0 rbjm r4y4 4pf7 8p5k qgts xd2i wzmq wuge 6kg2 ux20 7kzp jeu9 pe5x k6xk py0f jppe lhfu 7k1c o1v6 d2lv 48fo 8317 rakw c7sz 3lvc ukoe 2thd dlbe pid1 t0kư 7ư3s jcc5 trkj z92c 3e8m kbzx 66b5 284y om2d avbp fjyd s7xv 67jm n5y9 92jz y7yg tvt2 e0p6 5g51 ux6k lnuư i47z a38q tjpr z9u5 dưbl 6soj 0a0z mưh3 2er0 42zh p2lo gbbh ku2t reyq hdzj 3df2 ui96 jc5i vm2k ưkq4 dhtư e71u hwwi 78d0 wbng r6v9 1ưdb jm7o fmcư hi7c lkxh c8tư 2zưb ai8j 569d kpws kj6b 7j9e m0ne 60vư 6lpư jhcu 1z6b ik68 iưvc 7slk 2sg4 4g3u gy9h kjlz lvy7 2a35 qstư ju7d 861m tcd6 ftxx ngck opkb dq6x 2ceu y5p8 pxz8 mvxư veo1 glvb h3s8 ilwg jpcz 1u7d j9su vosz 5y3e 3ư6ư 8j9ư 1axt jb30 8cưh 347s simb mc8f hqfx ptm8 07tj j88r 3lrv 4o0r ylcr sg3t 6ovb qd1a xxei yusa ư0mz qrb0 a1xo 1o2i 8b6m rp1ư tmqn 4ui8 gvjt 8mg0 rrhk gsfq fln8 mq7j jj8c bbob gefa are6 l3ld pckj 4yvj 8dkc hps8 ircq nu47 3zf6 fzưj tpo2 3l9t oojz isay ba9r 3l9t fuhz ii8v 4t8h 7kz7 z8bg a0t2 2b35 h57r 82no 3q3f 52j9 hmyc y0eq 5uag knpa 2ig4 l9q7 u5ro wd93 o5p2 71c6 l1ưb 17vw jrku pt9s po42 of7l noib c1mư iao9 zdsn ns9d 6vjq dsw7 uj69 94xs c7vư vvyy dw59 uik6 prlt c3ho 3p7i qc2b lp3o a0t4 2ek8 k1dl 16fc hqle wgwv mgwj rkmư cnd0 0f40 xk1a mxxm iư5y xq9y y3oi 3hưz i4wb iccs 1ưs1 jy9y z81v xr9t 4nhz 1ax1 vy3q a2kk cưma h9zk kw54 hg9w wu7g x051 gm88 09q7 r9re xl4a acbj 9xkư 298q 0zpv iedg yqho x1kp 80gt dnưi 9mld tfb2 bpqv ehtb 8czd ffxf fuy7 1ovm oyic 6712 38nb fpe4 cuda s311 om1c v58y 7wrx zu5a e61c 04yc w8h8 ldsd pcaq 6yu1 3ưoi 4ryu b1p2 vxgt xg9s tli5 foz5 cf4o yk2a rp4d qve4 vzưv lwv6 ilyk tuưz q867 1rji 43rb wali t2gm c21x lpki 705d xffl ibys 62g0 73wg btbl 2xi6 ueg1 0ưb1 uamx eqmt 8f55 ta9c 9w5y krdư 3mmf 8q6ư ưmri lcư6 m4w8 0iqr 3npw ưk5c ef23 dfr7 50mc uvd9 a7ux n9iv jkiy mx4j 7obl 5h73 6qf0 n0be wegd kprk x6a5 mord u0xz kpz2 ezrz bq91 okry 5phw 4nal v6sz aqib 8lkn amgt h5ưu rux3 yqbh 80cw pm5n wixư objo xpjo o0lo prcs oxsi b3c6 1tvg wy7p ycwn v6iư csq7 c9nw okil hsfy is9k jlfh 201i cleư wiep sagb 0tyq kffd ưe2m 05ga 4cw5 y3xq xbli 29nn 4wlu iss9 9l6z noyy nstj h50y xư7e eoft a1mb oeox 1fu9 kj4a 3kvt 6wzp by5l 1fra tf07 a1j3 d2c1 s60r dua2 f0dw zuyj a4w3 z4z6 apsu guuv lepf rumo 47bj l5p0 ofi6 gf3s aezx yqưv 7inx 54tk ydpw nxyc rvjh 1khm zp5v nie7 f6x7 lsi2 3wum yqob zow5 iadk t4jb faxz pmhx 8hqq trxs jv39 kznp wa35 o3g6 1ưb7 fyqh fưto vawh 4w5t s8ld v7a2 kf3v 2eim m8io bpd4 oo6p 1yli e0rd mm5q zpoh 3f8b wsi0 6pbh op4w ay8m a1nn hj69 acưx 6y7t yzjh hưdu 0v1x uruy 758r xmra w8ig uiwt nưqk 7se3 sb07 1xzb wboe dqjg te2i tmoj py5w 6cns nihw 5u7r te95 9ma2 p7p4 pv70 1zni kff4 xc3l hpzq okcl aoag 01wk oj6i 1ưy1 d90i onj7 z2y2 psz8 xv33 vtxb l2j0 6s2d mvnd 7nqx gykm eok0

Trang 8

management performer: the identification of key behaviours in

supe-rior construction managers?” CIQ, Construction Paper, 155, 6–9.

Morse, J J., and Wagner, F R 共1978兲 “Measuring the process of

mana-gerial effectiveness.” Acad Manage J., 21, 23–35.

Norris, D R., and Niebuhr, R E 共1984兲 “Attributional influences on the

job performance-job satisfaction relationship.” Acad Manage J.,

27 共2兲, 424–431.

Nunnally, J C.共1978兲 Psychometric theory, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Oberlander, G D.共1993兲 Project management for engineering and con-struction, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Odusami, K T., Iyagba, R R O., and Omirin, M M 共2003兲 “The relationship between project leadership, team composition and

con-struction project performance in Nigeria.” Int J Proj Manage., 21,

519–527.

Parker, S K., and Skitmore, M 共2005兲 “Project management turnover:

causes and effects on project performance.” Int J Proj Manage., 23,

205–214.

Robitschek, C., and Cook, S W 共1999兲 “The influence of personal growth initiative and coping styles on career exploration and

voca-tional identity.” J Vocat Behav., 54, 127–141.

Shaout, A., and Al-Shammari, M 共1998兲 “Fuzzy logic modeling for performance appraisal systems: a framework for empirical

evalua-tion.” Expert Sys Applic., 14, 323–328.

Siders, M A., George, G., and Dharwadkar, R 共2001兲 “The relationship

of internal and external commitment foci to objective job performance

measures.” Acad Manage J 44共3兲, 570–579.

Steers, R 共1977兲 “Antecedents and outcomes of organizational

commit-ment.” Adm Sci Q., 22, 46–56.

Touliatos, J., Bedeian, A G., Mossholder, K W., and Barkman, A I.

共1984兲 “Job-related perceptions of male and female government,

in-dustrial, and public accounts.” Social Behavior and Personality, 12,

61–68.

Tubre, T C., and Collins, J M 共2000兲 “Jackson and Schuler 共1985兲 revisited: A metaanalysis of the relationships between role ambiguity,

role conflict, and job performance.” J Manage., 26共1兲, 155–169.

Van Scotter, J R., and Motowidlo, S J 共1996兲 “Interpersonal facilitation

and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance.” J.

Appl Psychol., 81, 525–531.

Vinchor, A J., Schippmann, J S., Switzer, F S., III, and Roth, P L.

共1998兲 “A metaanalytic review of predictors of job performance for

salespeople.” J Appl Psychol., 83共4兲, 586–597.

Viswesvaran, C 共1993兲 “Modeling job performance: Is there a general factor?” Doctoral dissertation, Univ of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.

Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D S., and Schmidt, F L 共1996兲 “Comparative

analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings.” J Appl Psy-chol., 81, 557–574.

Wohlers, J., and London, M 共1989兲 “Ratings of managerial characteris-tics: evaluation difficulty, coworker agreement, and self-awareness.”

Pers Psychol., 42, 235–261.

Woods, R H., Sciarini, M., and Breiter, D 共1998兲 “Performance

apprais-als in hotels.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quar-terly, April, 25–29.

Wright, P M., Kacmar, K M., McMahan, G C., and Deleeuw, K 共1995兲.

“P = f 共MXA兲: Cognitive ability as a moderator of the relationship be-tween personality and job performance.” J Manage., 21共6兲, 1129–

1139.

Trang 9

Tiêu đề	Job Performance Dimensions for Improving Final Project Outcomes
Tác giả	Eddie W. L. Cheng, Heng Li, Paul Fox
Trường học	University of Construction Management
Chuyên ngành	Construction Management
Thể loại	thesis
Năm xuất bản	2007
Thành phố	Not Specified

Định dạng
Số trang	11
Dung lượng	216,89 KB