Leadership and Employee Well-Being in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) Industry
Publication: Journal of Management in Engineering
Volume 39, Issue 4
The special collection on Leadership and Employee Well-Being in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) Industry is available in the ASCE Library (https://ascelibrary.org/jmenea/leadership_employee_aec).
Leadership and employee well-being are two key contributors to project and organizational performance. Although these two topics are well researched in disciplines such as psychology, management, and organizational behavior, they remain insufficiently explored in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) literature. This lack of an in-depth and comprehensive understanding of leadership and well-being has led to missed opportunities for AEC firms to develop and implement innovative, effective, and evidence-based strategies to support leadership development and employee well-being.
Extant literature has acknowledged the importance of context in influencing leadership behavior and employee well-being. To this end, the AEC industry is different from other business contexts due to its highly complex and labor-intensive production processes, fragmented and risk-prone business environment, and stressful and hazardous working conditions. These unique features have called for further conceptual, theoretical, and empirical investigation into whether (and to what extent) the well-developed leadership and employee well-being theories and practices in other disciplines are (or are not) applicable to the AEC industry.
This special collection thus aims to be a catalyst to seeking contributions that deepen and broaden the leadership and employee well-being research and practices in the AEC industry. To achieve this aim, this collection was envisaged to solicit more research in this field, including (1) constructive (or destructive) leadership behaviors, styles, skills, and traits at different levels (e.g. executives, project managers, or on-site supervisors) for managing AEC teams with various employment conditions (e.g., trades, union/nonunion, and temporary employment); (2) the underlying conditions and consequences of constructive or destructive leadership; (3) the definitions, constituent, antecedents, and consequences of employee well-being; (4) the influence of constructive (or destructive) leadership on employee well-being and their boundary conditions; (5) the educational and industry practices and technologies that support leadership development at different management levels and employee well-being; (6) the interactive effect of leadership and employee well-being on individual, project and/or organizational performance; (7) the influence of contexts (e.g., project types, project complexity, and organizational culture) on leadership behavior, employee well-being, and the well-being of the leadership–employee relationship; and (8) evidence-based research (e.g., cyber, physiological, or psychological-driven studies) in the contexts of leadership and employee well-being in the AEC industry.
In response to a call for papers issued in May 2020, a total of 42 extended abstracts were received for this special collection. Among these, authors of the 33 accepted abstracts were invited to submit full manuscripts. Out of the 18 full manuscripts received, five were accepted for publication after a rigorous peer-review process. To ensure a comprehensive coverage of the knowledge base, the guest editors also examined prior publications that are aligned with the aims and scope of this collection in the Journal of Management in Engineering (JME) between 2010 and May 2020. This has led to the inclusion of another 13 articles. In total, 18 articles are included.
Among the 18 articles included, two focused on leadership at different organizational levels for managing AEC teams with various employment conditions; four on the underlying conditions and consequences of constructive or destructive leadership; 10 on the definitions, constituent, antecedents, and consequences of employee well-being; one on the influence of constructive (or destructive) leadership on employee well-being and their boundary conditions; and one on the educational and industry practices and technologies that support leadership development at different management levels and employee well-being. Key insights from these papers are summarized as follows.
Constructive (or Destructive) Leadership Behaviors, Styles, Skills, and Traits at Different Levels for Managing AEC Teams with Various Employment Conditions
There are two review articles in this collection focusing on prevailing leadership styles and practices in AEC industry.
Through a systematic review, Graham et al. (2020) found that much research has focused on vertical leadership in construction projects while there is an increasing focus on studying horizontal leadership. However, we have limited knowledge on balanced leadership in construction. Under the circumstances, they proposed to investigate the balanced leadership archetype in construction to enhance the leadership theory of the field.
Similarly, through a literature review, Simmons et al. (2017) identified the leadership paradigms that were used to develop civil engineering and construction students and professionals. They indicated that most research in the field of engineering and construction has focused on traditional leader-centric approaches rather than contemporary leadership paradigms. They argued that the field could benefit from more contemporary frames, such as emotional intelligence, which emphasizes a more comprehensive view of leadership.
Underlying Conditions and Consequences of Leadership
There are four articles in this collection focused on this research area. Of these, three were related to innovation management, while the remaining article focused on contributions of leadership styles to project success.
Liu and Chan (2017) found the moderating effects of innovation climate on the relationship between intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent rewards, and innovation. Additionally, the self-efficacy (learning transfer climate factor) was found to moderate the relationship between intellectual stimulation, contingent rewards, and innovation. These findings revealed the interrelationships among leadership, climates, and innovation and highlighted the needs to tactically adopt and nurture various leadership and management climates in dynamic organizational environments.
Ozorhon et al. (2014) investigated the key enablers and barriers to innovation adoption in the innovation process. In this regard, change resistance, lack of experience, and lack of related innovative products were found to be the main barriers. To overcome these barriers, it is important to have the participation of the project stakeholders and effective leadership.
Chan et al. (2014) studied the effect of leadership on the innovation climate in construction organizations. They identified three leadership factors, including transformational leadership, exchange leadership, and corrective avoidant leadership. Their findings further showed that an innovation climate is positively related to transformational leadership while negatively related to the development of exchange leadership.
Larsson et al. (2015) studied which leadership styles have an impact on project outcomes and are suitable for specific scenarios. The results showed that leadership indeed drove project performance (with respect to cost, time, and quality). In particular, a project manager’s leadership style is found to be a critical project success factor; yet different leadership styles are needed for various situations. This has highlighted the importance of a contingency perspective in leadership.
Definitions, Constituents, Antecedents, and Consequences of Employee Well-Being
This research area has attracted the most interest among researchers. In this collection, 10 out of 18 articles have focused on this research area. One deals with definitions, another with constituents, five concern antecedents, and three examine consequences of employee well-being.
Aiming to identify the antecedents of psychological well-being (PWB) and provide organizations with systemic guidance in this regard, Li et al. (2022) reviewed the literature on PWB and its theoretical perspectives with. With reference to a three-dimensional taxonomy of PWB in the social science literature, they revealed five themes of PWB antecedents, namely motivational, relational, working environment, personal attributes, and social cognitive, in the construction community.
Simmons et al. (2022) validated the resilience at university (RAU) scale using a sample of graduate students in civil engineering and building construction in the United States. The results confirmed a 15-item multidimensional scale of resilience that consists of five factors, namely managing stress, maintaining perspective, building networks, staying healthy, and finding your calling. Educators could use the validated RAU scale to understand and support the well-being of future employees in the construction industry.
Using self-determination theory (SDT) and conservation of resources (COR) theory, Wang et al. (2022) investigated how job stressors and psychological needs could affect the well-being of employees in Chinese AEC projects. In summary, SDT and COR, in combination, provided multiple equifinal configurations that could lead to high or low employee well-being, and that SDT was more salient than COR for the interpretation of employee well-being in their study context. In addition, role overload and role conflict were found to have an impact on employee well-being when certain psychological conditions were met. Particularly, role ambiguity should be avoided for the sake of employee well-being. Finally, the need for relatedness was important for employee well-being in the Chinese culture.
Xia et al. (2022) found the positive impact of psychological capital on project initiative behavior, and the mediating effect of work engagement in this regard. To elaborate, decision authority strengthened the direct impact of psychological capital on work engagement and its indirect impact on project initiative behavior. These findings highlighted the antecedents and the underlying mechanisms of project initiative behavior. By confirming the reinforcing interaction between psychological capital and decision authority, this study also shades new insights into the job demands–resources theory.
Liang et al. (2021) examined the stressors and stress experienced by construction professionals (CPs) in Hong Kong (HK) and Suzhou. They found that CPs in HK experienced a higher level of objective stress but a lower level of subjective stress as compared with those in Suzhou. CPs in different cities faced different stressors at work. In particular, work overload and poor work environment were critical stressors for CPs in both cities; yet the group cohesion only significantly affected the stress of CPs in Suzhou.
Ling and Loo (2015) showed that several job characteristics (i.e., salary, work autonomy, and task significance) affected construction project managers’ job satisfaction. In addition, personal characteristics, such as job fit among the manager, the firms, the presence of promotion, and self-development opportunities, were found to lead to construction project managers’ job satisfaction.
Tuuli et al. (2015) found that an individual’s cultural values, status, and quality of relationships affect their psychological empowerment among project management-level staff in Hong Kong.
Cheung et al. (2022) investigated the underlying mechanisms of how work-life balance (WLB) could have an impact on organizational commitment (OC) through the mediation effect of psychological well-being [i.e., positive emotions (PE) and sense of purpose (SP)]. Contrary to previous studies, findings from this study showed that WLB did not have a direct effect on OC. Rather, it only affects OC through the mediation effects of SP and PE. This finding highlights the importance for construction firms, rather than emphasizing enhanced WLB, to improve SP and PE to yield greater organizational commitment.
Johari and Jha (2020) found the effect of motivation, extrinsic regulation (social), introjected regulation, and identified regulation on construction labor productivity (CLP). They also showed that extrinsic regulation (material) and intrinsic motivation did not influence CLP. Overall, this study highlighted that workers’ productivity and the likelihood to stay and work at a particular site would increase substantially when their motivation is increased.
Leung et al. (2016) concluded that job certainty, coworker support, and safety equipment were strong predictors of physical stress. Additionally, supervisor support and job certainty were strong predictors of psychological stress; and supervisor support and physical stress predicted safety behavior. Finally, by enacting safety behavior, the risk of accidents could be reduced. In contrast, a high level of job control increases it.
Influence of Constructive (or Destructive) Leadership on Employee Well-Being and Their Boundary Conditions
Only one article in this collection focused on the influence of leadership on employee well-being.
Building on the social information processing theory and conservation of resource theory, Liu et al. (2021) proposed a moderated mediation model. They proposed that the presence of a horizontal leader (HL) influences the remaining team members’ job burnout in AEC project teams; and this influence is mediated by perceived career opportunity (PCO). Their findings also revealed the dependence of the relationship between HL’s presence and job burnout on the level of status conflict in project teams and the linkage to the PCO of the remaining team members.
Educational and Industry Practices and Technologies that Support Leadership Development at Different Management Levels and Employee Well-Being
Similarly, there is only one article in this collection that focused on the practices and technologies that support leadership development and employee well-being.
Nwaogu et al. (2022) evaluated the mix of measures that could be used to promote good mental health in the construction industry. They concluded that healthy coping and individual resilience did not necessarily mitigate mental health stressors, and highlighted the importance of including primary intervention measures in a workplace’s mental health intervention.
Future Research Directions
Although the included articles have provided valuable insights into fostering leadership and employee well-being in the AEC industry, they are limited to relatively few of the research directions this collection set out to explore; this collection is strongly skewed toward research focusing on the definitions, constituents, antecedents, and consequences of employee well-being. Against this backdrop, the guest editors see great potential in the following topics for further investigation:
•
What leadership behaviors, style, skills, and traits are required at different organizational levels (e.g., senior executive, project managers and on-site supervisors) to manage AEC teams with different employment statuses (e.g., trades, union/nonunion, and temporary employment)?
•
What are the antecedents and consequences of destructive leadership in the AEC industry?
•
What are the well-being leading indicators that could affect the well-being level and job performance of employees at different organizational levels in the AEC industry?
•
What are the interactive effects of leadership and employee well-being on individual, project, and/or organizational performance?
•
What is the influence of contexts (e.g., project types, complexity, and organizational culture) on leadership behavior, employee well-being, and the leadership–employee well-being relationship?
•
How can evidence-based research (e.g., cyber, physiological, or psychological-driven studies) be conducted in the contexts of leadership and employee well-being in the AEC industry?
References
Chan, I. Y., A. M. Liu, and R. Fellows. 2014. “Role of leadership in fostering an innovation climate in construction firms.” J. Manage. Eng. 30 (6): 06014003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000271.
Cheung, C. M., P. Bowen, K. Cattell, and J. Davis. 2022. “How the well-being of construction professionals mediates the effect of work–life balance on their commitment to the organization.” J. Manage. Eng. 38 (4): 04022028. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0001053.
Graham, P., N. Nikolova, and S. Sankaran. 2020. “Tension between leadership archetypes: Systematic review to inform construction research and practice.” J. Manage. Eng. 36 (1): 03119002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000722.
Johari, S., and K. N. Jha. 2020. “Impact of work motivation on construction labor productivity.” J. Manage. Eng. 36 (5): 04020052. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000824.
Larsson, J., P. E. Eriksson, T. Olofsson, and P. Simonsson. 2015. “Leadership in civil engineering: Effects of project managers’ leadership styles on project performance.” J. Manage. Eng. 31 (6): 04015011. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000367.
Leung, M. Y., Q. Liang, and P. Olomolaiye. 2016. “Impact of job stressors and stress on the safety behavior and accidents of construction workers.” J. Manage. Eng. 32 (1): 04015019. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000373.
Li, K., D. Wang, Z. Sheng, and M. A. Griffin. 2022. “A deep dive into worker psychological well-being in the construction industry: A systematic review and conceptual framework.” J. Manage. Eng. 38 (5): 04022051. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0001074.
Liang, Q., M. Y. Leung, and S. Zhang. 2021. “Examining the critical factors for managing workplace stress in the construction industry: A cross-regional study.” J. Manage. Eng. 37 (5): 04021045. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000931.
Ling, F. Y. Y., and C. M. Loo. 2015. “Characteristics of jobs and jobholders that affect job satisfaction and work performance of project managers.” J. Manage. Eng. 31 (3): 04014039. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000247.
Liu, A. M., and I. Y. Chan. 2017. “Understanding the interplay of organizational climate and leadership in construction innovation.” J. Manage. Eng. 33 (5): 04017021. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000521.
Liu, B., G. Wu, R. Müller, H. Chen, and L. Li. 2021. “Exploring the effects of horizontal leaders’ presence on team members’ job burnout: A moderated mediation model.” J. Manage. Eng. 37 (6): 04021073. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000975.
Nwaogu, J. M., A. P. Chan, and J. A. Naslund. 2022. “Measures to improve the mental health of construction personnel based on experts’ opinion.” J. Manage. Eng. 38 (4): 04022019. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0001045.
Ozorhon, B., C. Abbott, and G. Aouad. 2014. “Integration and leadership as enablers of innovation in construction: Case study.” J. Manage. Eng. 30 (2): 256–263. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000204.
Simmons, D. R., A. D. Chau, and M. Turner. 2022. “Validating resilience at university scale with future civil engineering and construction professionals.” J. Manage. Eng. 38 (5): 04022044. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0001073.
Simmons, D. R., N. A. Clegorne, and T. Woods-Wells. 2017. “Leadership paradigms in construction: Critical review to inform research and practice.” J. Manage. Eng. 33 (4): 02517001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000518.
Tuuli, M. M., S. Rowlinson, R. Fellows, and A. M. Liu. 2015. “Individual-level antecedents of psychological empowerment.” J. Manage. Eng. 31 (2): 1061–1070. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000239.
Wang, L., M. Jiang, F. Zhu, and P. Song. 2022. “Untangling employee well-being in projects: A configural analysis of job stressors and psychological needs.” J. Manage. Eng. 38 (4): 04022026. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0001048.
Xia, N., N. Sun, and S. Ding. 2022. “How psychological capital drives the initiative of project managers in the Chinese construction industry: The rolesof work engagement and decision authority.” J. Manage. Eng. 38 (4): 04022031. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0001066.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Management in Engineering
Volume 39 • Issue 4 • July 2023
History
Received: Jan 30, 2023
Accepted: Feb 8, 2023
Published online: Apr 28, 2023
Published in print: Jul 1, 2023
Discussion open until: Sep 28, 2023
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.