Kapogiannis, G; Fernando, T and Alkhard, A M (2021) Impact of proactive behaviour antecedents on construction project managers' performance. Construction Innovation, 21(4), pp. 708-722. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Many aspects of social behaviour are manifested in project managers in interaction with team members in the construction sector. Proactive behaviour as a social behaviour impacts on project and organizational effectiveness. This paper aims to explore and explain how project managers' proactive behaviour could be enhanced in a project by the use of integrated collaborative environments. The paper aims to discuss these issues. To investigate this interrelationship, researchers used a survey methodology involving gathering both quantitative and qualitative data, and used regression analysis to assess the strength of impact of proactive behaviour antecedents on project manages' performance on a construction project when using integrated collaborative technologies. For the qualitative data, researchers used content analysis. The research showed that by developing a proactive personality, the construction project manager is more likely to pre-identify "accurately" project time and costs, and to identify project culture, collaboration strategy and project risks. Moreover, co-worker trust as a proactive behaviour antecedent has been shown to impact on raising quality issues in a project. Furthermore, project managers' flexibility could assist them in designing procurement strategies as well as designing a project business plan and avoiding conflict. Nevertheless, flexibility, including self-efficacy, control appraisal, change orientation, job autonomy and supportive supervision, plays a significant role in the development of proactive behaviour in construction project managers and enhances project performance. The sample is limited, but the research methodology is acceptable because the authors use mixed approach to check the correlation. Practical implications: How project managers can use integrated collaborative technologies on developing their proactive behaviour and thus impacting project performance is observed. The value of this paper is to contribute understanding of the impact of the use of integrated collaborative technologies on developing project managers' proactive behaviour and thus impacting project performance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building information modelling; building design; proactive behaviour; project management |
| Index terms: | project performance, research methodology, quality issue, interaction, self-efficacy, project management, regression analysis, supervision, building design, building information modelling, project manager, personality, procurement strategy, organizational effectiveness, construction project, collaboration, proactive behaviour, social behaviour, methodology, construction sector, appraisal, manager, strategy, content analysis, survey |
| Subjects: | project management theory and practice, production management, research methods, management, factor and component analysis, quality assurance, behavioral psychology, information systems, statistical analysis, industry analysis, human factors and perception, control systems, practitioner, business, research design and methodology, data collection methods, profession, architectural design, contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics, psychology |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Digital Applications, Quality Management, Human Resources, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Project Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement |
| 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