Cheung, C M; Bowen, P; Cattell, K and Davis, J (2019) Measuring what counts: Workplace well-being of project professionals. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 35th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2019, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
Increasingly it has been recognised that financial success, coupled with employee well-being, is a more fulsome and appropriate measure of enterprise success. Ample evidence exists relating to the adverse health consequences of stressful and adverse working condition on employees. Impaired well-being, both physical and psychological, costs the UK economy up to £57 billion a year in lost productivity through a combination of absenteeism and presentism. This picture is mirrored globally. Although workplace well-being has been regarded as a strong indicator of work performance, very limited research has focused on studying the well-being levels of project professionals (PPs) who are responsible for delivering projects, programmes and portfolios of strategic importance to organisations in all industries, including the construction industry. The better PPs and their teams perform, the better organisations are able to deliver on strategy. Funded by the Association for Project Management (APM), this study assesses current levels of workplace well-being of PPs, identifies factors contributing to their well-being, and explores interventions designed to facilitate improvement. Self-reported data were collected from APM members using a psychometrically validate instrument, A Shortened Stress Evaluation Tool (ASSET), administered via an online survey. A total of 130 responses were received. The data were analysed using ANOVA and structural equation modelling. The preliminary results revealed that PPs' well-being levels with respect to balanced workload, work relationships, and feedback on performance were atypical and constituted high-risk. Although some of these issues could be address at the individual and organisational level, those that are widespread and deeply rooted in the culture of the project management profession will require formal mental health promotion programmes at the level of professional organisations.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | workplace well-being; asset; apm; project professionals; stress; psychological health; project managers |
| Index terms: | well-being, profession, evidence, construction industry, evaluation tool, mental health, project management, work performance, psychological health, project manager, absenteeism, promotion, productivity, structural equation modelling, strategy, survey, programme, workload |
| Subjects: | management, project management theory and practice, health conditions and diseases, project controls, statistical analysis, industry analysis, mental health and wellbeing, profession, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, institututions, operations management |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Roles and Professions, Human Resources, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here