Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja

ISSN: 1331-677X (Print) 1848-9664 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rero20

Intrinsic psychosocial stressors and construction

worker productivity: impact of employee age and
industry experience

Ahsen Maqsoom, Abdul Mughees, Umar Safdar, Bilal Afsar & Badar ul Ali
Zeeshan

To cite this article: Ahsen Maqsoom, Abdul Mughees, Umar Safdar, Bilal Afsar & Badar ul Ali
Zeeshan (2018) Intrinsic psychosocial stressors and construction worker productivity: impact
of employee age and industry experience, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 31:1,
1880-1902, DOI: 10.1080/1331677X.2018.1495571

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2018.1495571

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 13 Feb 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 492

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rero20
ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRA
ZIVANJA
2018, VOL. 31, NO. 1, 1880–1902
https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2018.1495571

Intrinsic psychosocial stressors and construction worker

productivity: impact of employee age and
industry experience
Ahsen Maqsooma, Abdul Mugheesa, Umar Safdarb , Bilal Afsarc and
Badar ul Ali Zeeshana
a
Department of Civil Engineering, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Wah Campus,
Pakistan; bDepartment of Business and Management, Information Technology University, Lahore,
Pakistan; cDepartment of Management Science, Hazara University, Pakistan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper aims to study the impact of employee age and indus- Received 20 September 2017
trial experience on intrinsic psychosocial stressors of construction Accepted 28 June 2018
workers. Using an integrated theoretical approach, this study
KEYWORDS
examines the intrinsic (top management, career development,
Intrinsic psychosocial
social support, motivation and work stress) psychosocial stressors stressors; social support
that influence the productivity of Pakistani construction contract- theory; self-efficacy theory;
ing firms workers having varied ages and industry experiences. coping theory; motivation
Data were collected through a postal questionnaire survey. A
comparative analysis of these data was undertaken for employees JEL CLASSIFICATION
of varied ages and industrial experiences. Findings show that M1; M; M54
employees of varied ages did not concur over several top man-
agement, career development, social support, motivation and
work stress related psychosocial stressors, whereas employees of
varied industrial experience were in disagreement over some
work stress related psychosocial stressors. Due to the need to
overcome intrinsic psychological stresses, firm support is direly
needed, especially for the less-experienced employees that are
more susceptible to demotivation, mental stress and health and
safety risks at the sites. The study provides valuable insights into
worker productivity by showing how employee varied age and
diverse industry experience are associated with the intrinsic psy-
chosocial stressors that influence worker productivity. This study
will help regulatory bodies to deal with the critical psychosocial
stressors and devise such policies that improve the worker prod-
uctivity of their construction contracting firms.

1. Introduction
Worker productivity in the workplace is a clear objective of any organisation. In
order to improve worker productivity, there is a need to reduce the stresses at the

CONTACT Umar Safdar [email protected]

ß 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAZIVANJA 1881

workplace (Javad & Aghajeri, 2014). Reports and scientific literature show that psy-
chosocial risks are a growing challenge related to worker safety and productivity
(Leka, & Jain, 2010). Work-related stress is believed to be a major cost to organisa-
tions and countries as it affects productivity, notably through absenteeism and pres-
entism (OSHA, 2012). Furthermore, workers are not only an organisational resource
but also the driving force for the country. This becomes even more important in con-
struction firms, as workers are the critical driving force (Maqsoom & Charoenngam,
2014; Razzaq, Thaheem, Maqsoom, & Gabriel, 2018). The increase in worker product-
ivity leads an organisation to behave competitively (Robescu & Iancu, 2016). A strong
pool of human capital contributes to better production and revenue management
internally, which on a larger scale reflects in national propensity (Heckman, 2005).
Unmotivated and passive manpower leads to recession and underdevelopment of the
organisation (Robescu & Iancu, 2016).
Psychological and social aspects of work are important factors in every workplace,
and acceptance that these factors have an impact on the health and well-being of
workers has grown in recent decades (Galletta et al., 2016). Psychological and social
aspects of work create the psychosocial stresses that critically influence the perform-
ance of employee in an organisation (Safdar, Badir, & Afsar, 2017). Psychosocial
stressors include the way work is carried out, i.e., deadlines, workload and work
methods; and the context in which work occurs, i.e., relationships and interactions
with managers or supervisors, coworkers and clients or customers (Stajkovic &
Luthans, 2003). Psychosocial stressors such as work organisation, time allocation,
social relationships, job content and high workload put considerable mental and
social demands on the worker. According to a World Health Organisation (WHO)
report, several researchers showed the importance of the effects of psychosocial stres-
sors on employee well-being (Leka & Jain, 2010). In fact, scientific evidence shows
that in the long term, external stresses and burnout can contribute to hypertension,
health problems and lower productivity (Aslam & Safdar, 2012; Galletta et al., 2016).
Few contributions have been made by previous studies to our understanding of
the work environment and country economy-related psychosocial stressors, and their
influence on organisational and employee performance; however, these studies have
not done significant work on intrinsic psychosocial factors (Idrees, Hafeez, & Kim,
2017; Sobeih, Salem, Daraiseh, Genaidy, & Shell, 2006). Further, no study has exam-
ined the association of psychosocial stressors with employee age and industry experi-
ence (Beehr, Jex, Stacy, & Murray, 2000; Sobeih et al., 2006). In their study, Ibrahim
and Brobbey (2015) found that young employees need more motivation for their per-
formance as compared to older employees. Another study revealed that career devel-
opment-related psychosocial factors such as lack of training programmes and career
mentoring greatly influence the performance of younger employees as compared to
older employees (Kakui, 2016). Hence, a broad range of opinions are evident among
the existing literature with little consensus on a specific approach to tackling psycho-
social stressors influence on the productivity of emerging economies’ workers.
Therefore, it is difficult to fully understand the phenomenon of psychosocial stressors
among construction contracting firms’ workers of emerging economies, specifically
the existence of an association between construction workers’ internal psychosocial
stressors vis-a-vis their age and industry experience.
1882 A. MAQSOOM ET AL.

In Pakistan, the construction industry is troubled with psychosocial and organisa-

tional factors which influence employees’ productivity and also project performance.
The employee is the basic unit of an organisation and becomes a crucial ingredient
for the organisation to progress. Most of the projects in Pakistan suffer risk and fail-
ure due to poor worker performance (Maqsoom, Charoenngam, Masood, & Awais,
2014; Ahmad, Thaheem, & Maqsoom, 2018). Although these psychosocial parameters
are difficult to remove, they can be reduced considerably, if managed properly. This
paper aims to investigate the effect of intrinsic psychosocial stressors on worker prod-
uctivity in Pakistani construction contracting firms. Various stressors related to the
top management, career development, social support, motivation and work stress
influencing the construction worker productivity are examined. Also, the current
paper analyses the impact of intrinsic psychosocial stressors on construction worker
productivity in accordance with worker age and worker industry experience. The
findings of this study will contribute to the psychosocial stress and employee product-
ivity literature, where there is a scarcity of literature relating to the association
between psychosocial stressors, employee age and experience.

2. Conceptual framework
The International Labor Office (ILO) defines psychosocial stressors as ‘interactions
between and among work environment, job content, organizational conditions and
workers’ capacities, needs, culture, personal extra-job considerations that may,
through perceptions and experience, influence health, work performance and job sat-
isfaction’ (ILO, 1986). A simpler definition would be conditions that lead to stress at
work and which are associated with health, performance and safety problems.
Various scholars have provided the definitions for the psychosocial stressors, among
these our study chose the definition provided by (Sobeih et al., 2006), i.e.,
‘Psychosocial stressors, as the word implies, reflect both psychological and social
aspects involving the subject and his/her surrounding environment’.
To understand the theoretical underpinnings of the effect of psychosocial stressors
on construction worker productivity, different theories and models have been fur-
nished by scholars in the past. The social support theory postulates how social rela-
tionships affect the health and performance of a person. Cassel (1976) discovered the
concept of social support and suggested three dimensions of social support: (1) social
integration, that is, the type of social relationships like marriage and participation in
voluntary organisations; (2) social network, that is, the size, density and structure of
social relationships; and (3) social support, i.e., emotional, instrumental, appraisal and
informational. Two alternative models were further presented in support of social
theory. One model proposed that the social support is related to the well-being only
for persons under stress (Cohen & Wills, 1985). This is termed as the Buffering
model because it supports the theory that social support buffers an individual from
stressful events. The other model proposed that social relationships have significant
positive effect irrespective of whether a person is under stress (Gonzalez, Goeppinger,
& Lorig, 1990). This is termed as the Main Effects model as it is based on the


ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAZIVANJA 1883

statistical results of previous studies, providing the evidence for the effect of afore-
mentioned three dimensions on the well-being of a person both physically
and mentally.
Self-efficacy theory deals with the individual belief in their self-capabilities to
mobilise the motivation and series of actions needed to meet given situational
demands (Bandura, O’Leary, Taylor, Gauthier, & Gossard, 1987). This theory deals
with the judgements of what a person can do with whatever skill he has, and not
with his regular skills. In the self-efficacy theory expectations are related only to an
individual’s ability to carry out specific behaviours in specific situations. The self-effi-
cacy of a person can be enhanced by four empirically verified ways, i.e., (1) skills
mastery, (2) modelling, (3) reinterpretation of physiological signs and symptoms and
(4) persuasion. Notably, the four basic ways mentioned are the crucial elements to
produce self-efficacy in employees in an organisation.
The coping theory proposed by (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986) rec-
ognises the changing cognitive and behavioural efforts of a person to manage specific
external and internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the person’s
resources. In light of this definition, the coping efforts are not constant over time,
but change according to new situations faced by an individual. For instance, the cop-
ing behaviour of a person facing a situation today may be very different from the
way that person copes tomorrow, even in the same situation. There are eight different
ways of coping which include confronting, distancing, self-control, seeking social sup-
port, accepting responsibility, escape-avoidance, problem-solving and positive
reappraisal. Every person does things and thinks in different ways to meet specific sit-
uations. To stimulate coping efforts, the situation must seem overwhelming to
the individual.
While attempting to explain the complex phenomena that show how intrinsic psy-
chosocial stressors influence construction worker productivity, scholars generally tend
to stick to a single theoretical approach to get the phenomena (Galletta et al., 2016;
Gonzalez et al., 1990). The current study used a combination of the three theoretical
models presented above in order to develop a conceptual framework (Figure 1) of
the study.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework. Source: Cassel (1976), Folkman et al. (1986), Bandura
et al. (1987).
1884 A. MAQSOOM ET AL.

Table 1. Usage of theoretical models in the conceptual framework of study.

Theories Key components for psychosocial stress Usage in framework
Social support theory Social support has a significantly positive Top management, social
(Cassel, 1976) effect irrespective of whether persons support, motivation
are under stress.
Three dimensions include (1) social
integration, (2) social network and
(3) social support
Self-efficacy theory The person’s belief in their own capabilities Career development, motiv-
(Bandura et al., 1987) to mobilise the motivation and the ser- ation, work stress
ies of actions needed to meet given
situational demands.
A combination of (1) skills mastery,
(2) modelling, (3) reinterpretation of
physiological signs and symptoms and
(4) persuasion
Coping theory Changing the behaviour of people in Social support, work stress
(Folkman et al., 1986) different situations.
Perceptions and experience of a person to
cope with different complex tasks
Source: Self-developed

This study now uses the literature above and applies relevant aspects of it to the
five features of intrinsic psychosocial stressors. The conceptual framework shown in
Figure 1 analyses top management stresses using social support theory, career devel-
opment stresses using self-efficacy theory, while the social support-related psycho-
social stressors are evaluated using the social support theory and coping theory. The
framework incorporates motivation-related psychosocial stressors by using both the
social support and self-efficacy theories and work stress-related psychosocial stressors
by using self-efficacy theory and coping theory (Table 1).

2.1. Psychosocial stressors influencing worker productivity

The previous literature on the subject reveals that psychosocial stressors negatively
influence employee productivity and cause health problems in employees associated
with cardiovascular disease, muscular skeletal disorders and immune-related disorders
(Bongers, Kremer, & Laak, 2002; Jenkins, 1979; Kang & Fox, 2001). The few publica-
tions related to the psychosocial stressors (Galletta et al., 2016; Gonzalez et al., 1990;
Leka & Jain, 2010; Sobeih et al., 2006; Useche, Ortiz, & Cendales, 2017) were the
major source of reference for this research. Moreover, relevant publications from
health and environment sector were also considered in this study (Sobeih et al., 2006;
Galletta et al., 2016).
The support from top management including vision sharing, innovativeness, sup-
portiveness and decision-sharing strongly enhances employee productivity and satis-
faction with the organisation (Niehoff, Enz, & Grover, 1990). Previous studies suggest
that top management that induces stress on employees are associated with increased
risk of hypertension (Spruill, 2010). Occupations having high job demand and low
job control are commonly overrepresented among ethnic minorities (Buchanan et al.,
2010). Occupation-related stressors can include unfriendly work environments (e.g.,
threatened, helpless, bullied or harassed by anyone while on the job), job insecurity,


ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAZIVANJA 1885

schedule pressures, work hazards and other work conditions like sedentary and
uncontrollable tasks (Rosenthal & Alter, 2012).
Career development is of great importance for both an individual employee and
an organisation (Armstrong-Stassen & Ursel, 2009). Pareek and Rao (2008) posit that
the career development of employees is an investment, not a cost; and bad perform-
ance, negative commitment to duty and ignorance are very costly barriers in the
organisation. Dharmaratne and Gunasekara (2017) found that providing internal pro-
motions creates a feeling that career development produces good career growth
opportunity which, in his opinion, will keep employees committed to the firm. Some
researchers (Boone, Van Olffen, Van Witteloostuijn, and De Brabander, 2004; De
Witte & N€aswall, 2003) found that higher feelings of job insecurity are associated
with lower job satisfaction and weak organisational commitment. Gutteridge (1993)
in his study about career development concluded that careers are always the signifi-
cant concern for the workers; however, they have very little time to properly manage
it. An employee tries to enhance or develop his career through a continuous acquisi-
tion of professional skills and experience that may bring rewards and promotions to
him. This was supported by Bennett (2011) in his study that career development
includes higher status and responsibilities which can occur in an organisation or
through movement between organisations.
Race- and ethnicity-related aspects of social experience may adversely affect health
and productivity of employees (Dolezsar, McGrath, Herzig, & Miller, 2014).
Discrimination can erode an individual’s health through negative psychological and
physiologic responses and unpleasant health maintenance and behaviours (Cuffee,
Hargraves, & Allison, 2012). Various scholars have identified that workplace social
support is related to interpersonal behaviours between providers and recipients that
enhance an individual’s psychological or behavioural functioning, i.e., psychological
well-being (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Safdar et al., 2017) through demonstration
of human heartedness at workplace (Schutte & Loi, 2014). Such workplace social sup-
port can be considered a valuable tool for preventing work-related stress which
results from organisational change (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Sundin, Bildt, Lisspers,
Hochw€alder, & Setterlind, 2006). The workers who are exposed to a high level of job
demands and low levels of social support have greater stress reactions and risk mor-
tality in their physical and mental health (L opez-Araujo & Segovia, 2011; Ng &
Feldman, 2010). In his study, Chou (2015) found that the supervisor, in particular, is
the main source of support at the workplace. Supervisors should practice open, trust-
ful and caring behaviour with their subordinates to create a supportive work atmos-
phere within the organisation.
The motivation of employees is considered the most serious problem that con-
fronts managers during the instruction of subordinates (Tabassi & Bakar, 2009).
Ruthankoon and Olu Ogunlana (2003) said that motivation is directly related to
employees’ productivity. Liao and Chuang (2004) reported that motives are the key to
human behaviour that plays an essential role in employee performance and other
activities and as such managers should be aware of what motivation is and how
employees are motivated for better performance. Researchers from their study identi-
fied that the more employees are exposed to emotional depletion, the more they will
1886 A. MAQSOOM ET AL.

lose eagerness and emotional contribution to their job (Aslam & Safdar, 2012; Leiter
& Maslach, 2005). Analysis of a study based on a large national sample revealed that
higher levels of goal-striving stress were associated with the prevalence of self-
reported hypertension among white Americans, African Americans and Caribbean
black people, and race or ethnicity did not moderate the relationship between goal-
striving stress and hypertension (Sellers, Neighbors, Zhang, & Jackson, 2012).
Stress at work is declared as the primary complaint among workers by the European
Foundation and European Commission (Paoli & Costa, 1994). Researchers from their
study made a link between the employment characterised by job strain and various
unwanted results in terms of workers physical and mental health and a considerable
increase of self-perceived fatigue at work (Sluiter, 1999). It is estimated by the
American Institute of Stress that the organisational costs of workplace stress for U.S.
employees is more than $US 300 billion annually (Beehr et al., 2000). Role stress is
usually studied as work stress at the individual level, owing to that roles are integral to
work-related functions of employees. It is significant to distinguish the concepts of gen-
eral fatigue and work-related fatigue (Useche et al., 2017). Both general and work-
related fatigue is related to decreased job performance and negative health outcomes
(De Croon, Sluiter, & Frings-Dresen, 2006; De Vries, Michielsen, & Van Heck, 2003).
The findings of the literature discussed above conclude that five features of intrin-
sic psychosocial stressors influence the productivity of employees, i.e., top manage-
ment, career development, social support, motivation and work-related psychosocial
stressors. These stressors vary among the employees having different age and industry
experience. Hence, the current study will examine the impact of aforementioned
intrinsic psychosocial stressors on construction worker productivity in accordance
with worker age and worker industry experience.

3. Methodology
According to the objective of the study presented in Section 1 and the findings of the
literature discussed above, the following research questions are proposed.
RQ1. What are top-management-related psychosocial stressors that influence the
productivity of Pakistani construction contracting firms’ (CCFs’) construction workers of
varied age and industry experience?

RQ2. What are career development-related psychosocial stressors that influence the
productivity of Pakistani CCFs’ construction workers of varied age and
industry experience?

RQ3. What are social support-related psychosocial stressors that influence the
productivity of Pakistani CCFs’ construction workers of varied age and
industry experience?

RQ4. What are motivation-related psychosocial stressors that influence the productivity
of Pakistani CCFs’ construction workers of varied age and industry experience?

RQ5. What are work stress-related psychosocial stressors that influence the productivity
of Pakistani CCFs’ construction workers of varied age and industry experience?


ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAZIVANJA 1887

For examining the above research questions, a questionnaire was sent to the con-
struction site workers in order to investigate intrinsic psychosocial factors influence
on construction worker productivity. Pilot testing of the questionnaire was carried
out by interviewing the Operating Officer of Construction Association of Pakistan
(CAP), two managers, two junior engineers and three foremen of seven different con-
struction contracting firms. An improved questionnaire was developed by making
essential adjustments based on the recommendations and feedback received during
the pilot phase. The questionnaire was divided into three sections. The first section
consisted of five questions related to the general background of the respondents and
five questions related to the background of the firm. The second section consisted of
eight questions related to worker productivity and project performance. The third
section consisted of five questions related to psychosocial stressors influencing the
construction worker’s productivity. In the third section, the first question consisted of
seven items related to top management-related psychosocial stressors; the second
question consisted of seven items related to career development-related psychosocial
stressors; the third question consisted of seven items related to social support-related
psychosocial stressors; the fourth question consisted of seven items related to motiv-
ation-related psychosocial stressors; and the last question consisted of eight items
related to work stress-related psychosocial stressors influencing the construction’s
worker productivity.
In order to ensure the content validity of the questionnaire, the contemporary
approach developed by Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, and Lankau (1993)
was used. The respondents were asked to rank the intrinsic stressors (i.e., top man-
agement, career development, social support, motivation and work stress-related vari-
ables) using a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
To reduce common method variance (CMV) bias, respondents were told that there
were no right or wrong responses, also they were assured of the confidentiality of the
research so they can respond honestly (Lindell & Whitney, 2001; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). In October 2016, 300 questionnaires were sent
to different workers employed at 150 construction sites in Pakistan. All respondents
were registered with Pakistan Engineering Council, which is the stationary body
responsible for the issuance of licences to employees working in engineering busi-
nesses in Pakistan. Out of 300 questionnaires that were sent to different construction
projects in Pakistan, 163 complete responses were returned representing a response
rate of 54%. No responses were collected from the remaining 137 workers due to
unwillingness to respond. The profile of the survey respondents is provided in
Table 2.
After receiving the responses, the authors divided the sample into old vs. young
workers and highly experienced vs. less experienced worker’s categories according to
worker age and experience. Different classifications have been used to categorise
employees according to their age and experience in the previous studies. For instance,
in previous studies, older age employees are considered to be those with age >35 and
40 years, while highly experienced employees are considered to be those with industry
experience >5 and 10 years. In this study, older workers according to age were con-
sidered to be those with age >40 years and highly experienced workers were
1888 A. MAQSOOM ET AL.

Table 2. Profile of the survey respondents.

Characteristics Frequency Percentage
Age (years)
<25 19 12
25–35 39 24
36–45 77 46
>45 29 18
Professional experience (years)
<5 42 26
6–10 36 22
11–15 33 20
>15 52 32
Project type
Civil works 54 33
Mechanical and electrical 32 20
Multi morks 77 47
Position attained (at site)
Senior engineer 37 23
Junior engineer 67 41
Foreman 59 36
Source: questionnaire survey.

considered to be those with experience >10 years (the same classification has been
used by Idrees et al., 2017).
The data collected were then analysed using the Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS). The Shapiro–Wilk test was run to analyse the normality of data. The
results from this test showed that the data were not normally distributed, necessitat-
ing the use of a non-parametric test. Therefore, the non-parametric Mann–Whitney
U-test was used to compare the scores given by workers of various ages (older,
younger) and experience level (highly experienced, less experienced). Moreover, draw-
ing on 5000 bootstrap samples, the model was tested.

4. Findings and discussion

This section of the paper presents the findings of the research. Only those variables
which recorded statistically significant differences between older and younger workers
or highly experienced and less experienced workers are discussed in this section.
Other variables have significance two-tailed value (p-value) > 0.1 indicating no evi-
dence to reject the null hypothesis. The first stage of analysis is related to top man-
agement-related psychosocial stressors influencing the construction worker’s
productivity. These factors were derived from the previous studies based on social
support theory (Babakus, Yavas, Karatepe, & Avci, 2003; Ibrahim & Brobbey, 2015).
The results obtained indicate several significant differences in the responses given by
workers of varied ages and few significant differences in the responses given by work-
ers of varied experiences for top management-related psychosocial stressors influenc-
ing the construction worker’s productivity (see Table 3).
In terms of age, three variables are regarded as more important by younger work-
ers as compared to older workers: demanding more effort than required by the job
(mean rank ¼ 89.34 for younger workers and mean rank ¼ 77.26 for older workers
with a significance of 0.092), worker feels untrustworthy when authorities ask
questions from his domain (mean rank ¼ 92.31 for younger workers and mean


ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAZIVANJA 1889

Table 3. Top management-related psychosocial stressors influencing the construction worker’s

productivity.
Mean rank Mean rank
Highly Less
Older Younger Sig. experienced experienced Sig.
Variables workers workers (two-tailed) workers workers (two-tailed)
Setting unnecessary deadlines 85.23 77.00 0.247 80.16 84.11 0.571
complicates the job
Demanding more effort than 77.26 89.34 0.092 76.48 88.32 0.093
required by the job
The worker feels devalued due to 79.57 84.53 0.483 79.43 83.90 0.521
lack of support from the
organisation
The worker feels irritated getting 83.51 79.67 0.592 79.79 84.53 0.499
warned on minor local issues
The worker feels untrustworthy when 75.33 92.31 0.019 81.07 83.07 0.778
authorities ask questions from
his domain
Irresponsible attitude of 75.32 92.34 0.018 75.25 89.73 0.039
top-management with
their workers
Top-management being too strict 78.03 88.15 0.157 80.22 84.04 0.585
with their workers creates a
communication gap
Source: Results from questionnaire survey.
Significant at 0.05, significant at 0.1.

rank ¼ 75.33 for older workers with a significance of 0.019) and irresponsible attitude
of top management with their workers (mean rank ¼ 92.34 for younger workers and
mean rank ¼ 75.32 for older workers with a significance of 0.018).
Younger workers usually have more family responsibilities as compared to older
workers. They have their social life to maintain. Organisations demanding additional
effort at the workplace adversely affect their social life (De Vos, Buyens, & Schalk,
2003). On the other hand, older workers rated this aspect less important than did the
young workers as they are mainly responsible for supervision works guiding
the younger employees and hence diverting the additional effort required directly to
the younger workers (Tuuli & Karisalmi, 1999).
Irrelevant questions from supervisors create a feeling of untrustworthiness in
workers. Because of their immaturity and low confidence, younger workers do not
appreciate such behaviou from their superiors. Being relatively new in the field with
lesser work experience, having too many questions from superiors produces stress
conditions and they often tend to leave the job (Hunter & Schmidth, 1990; Tuuli &
Karisalmi, 1999). Younger workers need support and proper guidance during the ini-
tial stages of learning at their workplaces. Overly inquisitive attitude of management
produces feelings of insecurity about their career and their performance level
decreases drastically, whereas older workers are used to such questioning by their top
management and have the ability to manage and tolerate them due to the long time
spent at sites. They are mature and are more resistant to such type of stresses, thus
they can find their ways out (Bal, De Lange, Jansen, & Van Der Velde, 2008; Ng and
Feldman, 2010).
In terms of experience two variables are regarded as more important by less expe-
rienced workers as compared to highly experienced workers: demanding more effort
1890 A. MAQSOOM ET AL.

Table 4. Career development-related psychosocial stressors influencing the construction worker’s

productivity.
Mean rank Mean rank
Highly Less
Older Younger Sig. experienced experienced Sig.
Variables workers workers (two-tailed) workers workers (two-tailed)
Work load being higher than salary 81.35 83.00 0.815 83.39 80.41 0.664
Lack of opportunities for promotion 80.38 84.51 0.563 80.87 83.29 0.729
of workers
Not being promoted on regular basis 75.84 91.53 0.027 81.13 83.00 0.788
Lack of training programmes 77.39 89.13 0.103 78.75 85.72 0.322
Performance-based promotion to 74.93 92.94 0.012 81.27 82.84 0.823
the worker
Acknowledging and giving credit to 76.87 89.93 0.068 84.41 79.24 0.460
worker who has done well
Monetary benefits and different 79.2 86.34 0.311 76.63 88.15 0.097
allowances keeps worker
committed to the firm
Source: Results from questionnaire survey.
Significant at 0.05, significant at 0.1.

than required by the job (mean rank ¼ 88.32 for less experienced workers and 76.48
for highly experienced workers with a significance of 0.093) and irresponsible attitude
of top management with their workers (mean rank ¼ 89.73 for less experienced work-
ers and 75.25 for highly experienced workers with a significance of 0.039).
Less experienced workers often get bored by spending so much time on the same
task. Tasks demanding more time than required also affect their performance nega-
tively, causing extra stresses and risk of hypertension which they cannot handle due
to lack of maturity (Spriull, 2010). Therefore, they need mental and social support
from their organisation. Comparatively, highly experienced workers seem to realise
the complexity and attention required for the tasks. Highly experienced workers are
usually employed in high ranks and are not much affected by the stressful attitude of
top management, but rather pass the same down to the less experienced workers.
The second stage of analysis concerns career development-related psychosocial
stressors influencing the construction worker’s productivity. These factors were
derived from previous studies based on the self-efficacy theory (Leka & Jain, 2010;
Kakui, 2016). The results obtained indicate several significant differences in terms of
age and only one significant difference in terms of experience of workers for career
development-related psychosocial stressors influence on construction worker’s prod-
uctivity (see Table 4).
In terms of age, three variables are regarded as more important by younger work-
ers than older workers: not being promoted on a regular basis (mean rank ¼ 91.53
for younger workers and 75.84 for older workers with a significance of 0.27), per-
formance-based promotion to the worker (mean rank ¼ 92.94 for younger and 74.93
for older workers with a significance of 0.012) and acknowledging and giving credit
to a worker who has done good job (mean rank ¼ 89.93 for younger workers and
76.87 for older workers with a significance of 0.068).
Younger workers are more enthusiastic and energetic at initial phases of their car-
eer and they usually perform well. They need regular promotions on the basis of their
performance level in order to keep them motivated. Younger workers have energy


ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAZIVANJA 1891

and stamina to perform for the organisation and giving them performance-based pro-
motion motivates them to work harder and be more concerned about their future
goals as compared to older workers. Contrary to younger workers, older workers are
comparatively less motivated and thereby their performance level reduces with time
as they are concerned about their future (Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999;
Carstensen, Fung, & Charles, 2003). Older workers need relaxation and want to do
their job in an easy way. It appears either they get stuck in the same rank for a con-
siderable time with less desire for further promotions or they already stand at the
desired level of their career. Being fresh, younger workers usually face harsh condi-
tions imposed by their superiors. At initial phases of their career, younger workers
are in need of consistent support and appreciation for their work, which helps boost
their performance (Kakui, 2016). On the contrary, being mature, the older workers
do not seem to be concerned whether their work is being praised or not.
In terms of experience, only one variable is regarded more important by less expe-
rienced workers than highly experienced workers, i.e., monetary benefits and different
allowances keep workers committed to the firm (mean rank ¼ 88.15 for less experi-
enced workers and 76.63 for highly experienced workers with a significance of 0.097).
Less experienced workers see monetary benefits and allowances as an important
factor in their continuing good performance as compared to the more experienced
workers. Less experienced workers are not much settled in their lives, hence are in
need of extra benefits and allowances which are instrumental in raising their motiv-
ation level to perform better. Also, the monetary benefits and allowances guarantee
them a promising future in their careers (Carstensen et al., 2003). On the other hand,
highly experienced workers attach less importance to extra benefits and allowances
than stable remunerations and have long-term commitment and sincerity to their
organisations.
The third stage of analysis is related to social support-related psychosocial stressors
influencing the construction worker’s productivity. These factors were derived from
previous studies based on coping theory and social support theory (Beehr et al., 2000;
Chou, 2015). The results obtained indicate several significant differences in the
responses given by workers of varied ages; however, no significant difference was
observed in the responses given by workers of varied experience for social support-
related psychosocial stressors influence on the construction worker’s productivity (see
Table 5).
In terms of age, three variables are regarded as more important by younger work-
ers than older workers: decrease in work efficiency of a worker (mean rank ¼ 93.62
for younger workers and 74.49 for older workers with a significance of 0.008), job-
related stress is reduced considerably in the presence of co-workers’ support (mean
rank ¼ 97.27 for younger workers and 72.13 for older workers with a significance of
0.000) and a co-worker who listens to job-related problems is helpful in times when
things become difficult on the job (mean rank ¼ 91.37 for younger workers and 75.94
for older workers with a significance of 0.032). However, in terms of industrial
experience, no statistically significant difference is observed between the workers.
Support from a co-worker is a motivating factor for every worker, particularly for
younger workers in the current study. They often face problems regarding their work
1892 A. MAQSOOM ET AL.

Table 5. Social support-related psychosocial stressors influencing the construction worker’s

productivity.
Mean rank Mean rank
Highly Less
Older Younger Sig. experienced experienced Sig.
Variables workers workers (two-tailed) workers workers (two-tailed)
Lack of interaction between a worker 79.87 85.29 0.432 81.20 82.91 0.800
and his/her supervisor
Work group cohesion is enhanced 81.36 82.99 0.818 77.81 86.8 0.199
when co-workers discuss job-
related problems casually
High-stress work resulting in tension 79.23 86.28 0.320 83.72 80.03 0.595
and depression
Feeling valued, cared for and sup- 79.19 86.34 0.313 82.81 81.07 0.803
ported by one’s supervisor and
co-workers
Decrease in work efficiency of 74.49 93.62 0.008 83.20 80.63 0.716
a worker
Job-related stress is reduced 72.13 97.27 0.000 76.94 87.79 0.121
considerably in presence of
co-workers’ support
Co-worker who listens to job-related 75.94 91.37 0.032 81.56 82.51 0.893
problems is helpful in times when
things become difficult on job
Source: Results from questionnaire survey.
Significant at 0.01, significant at 0.05.

in an organisation, especially in situations where they don’t have the requisite expert-
ise and skill sets. Based on guidance and cooperation from senior colleagues at their
workplaces, the younger workers show considerable positive behavioural changes.
Whereas older workers have more realistic expectations regarding support from col-
leagues, they may not necessarily expect much effort from their co-workers to moder-
ate their workload (Rousseau, 2001; De Vos et al., 2003).
Decrease in work efficiency and co-worker support with regard to job-related
problems have a correlation. The work efficiency of younger workers is reduced due
to many reasons, especially when they are not being supported by their co-workers.
At their initial stages of a career, there are many areas where they have no or less
expertise and they need support from their co-workers. Younger workers, because of
their immaturity in the field, feel stressed in an environment that lacks support from
co-workers, resulting in less productivity, ultimately affecting organisational perform-
ance (De Vos et al., 2003). Nonetheless, older workers perform in a casual manner as
they have a greater range of coping resources and can adjust to the conditions at the
site (Diehl, Coyle & Labouvie-Vief, 1996; Barnes-Farrell, Rumery, & Swody, 2002).
The fourth stage of analysis concerns to motivation related to psychosocial stres-
sors influencing the construction worker’s productivity. These factors were derived
from previous studies based on the social support and self-efficacy theories (Gardner,
Dyne, & Pierce, 2004; Ibrahim & Brobbey, 2015; Galletta et al., 2016). The results
obtained indicate several significant differences in terms of age and only one signifi-
cant difference in terms of the experience of workers for the motivation-related psy-
chosocial stressors influence on the construction worker’s productivity (see Table 6).


ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAZIVANJA 1893

Table 6. Motivation-related psychosocial stressors influencing the construction worker’s

productivity.
Mean rank Mean rank
Highly Less
Older Younger Sig. experienced experienced Sig.
Variables workers workers (two-tailed) workers workers (two-tailed)
Achievement by worker when not 71.26 98.61 0.002 82.17 81.80 0.958
praised by an organisation
demotivates him
Some workers are willing to do any 77.62 88.78 0.117 83.50 80.28 0.644
job just to be treated as an equal
within a group structure
Workers feel that they will be 71.48 98.27 0.000 77.03 87.69 0.123
rewarded for their hard work
Lack of opportunities for a worker to 79.10 86.48 0.291 80.41 83.82 0.619
enhance his career
Goal-oriented environment between 77.75 88.58 0.127 77.76 86.85 0.190
the workers
Promotion of best workers to the 76.05 91.20 0.034 76.78 87.97 0.111
ranks they deserve
Recognition of a good job done by 78.13 87.98 0.166 75.41 89.54 0.043
the worker
Source: Results from questionnaire survey.
Significant at 0.01, significant at 0.05.

In terms of age, three variables are regarded as more important by younger work-
ers than by older workers: achievement by the worker when not praised by an organ-
isation demotivates him (mean rank ¼ 98.61 for younger workers and 71.26 for older
workers with a significance of 0.002), workers feel that they will be rewarded for their
hard work (mean rank ¼ 98.27 for younger workers and 71.48 for older workers with
a significance of 0.00) and promotion of best workers to the ranks they deserve
(mean rank ¼ 91.2 for younger workers and 76.05 for older workers with a signifi-
cance of 0.034).
At a younger age, workers are energetic and are willing to give their best perform-
ance to the organisation, for which in return they need to be praised, get rewarded
and be promoted. Praising younger workers motivates them to work harder and
implies job satisfaction in them. Regarding the promotion of the best workers,
younger workers have given more importance to this factor as compared to older
workers, as they are new in their career and want to be promoted on a regular basis
based on their performance. The reason is they want to achieve their goals early in
their careers and cannot afford any hurdle obstructing their career progression
(Peterson & Spiker, 2005). On the contrary, older workers do not give much import-
ance to these factors as they have relatively lesser intentions to be praised. Moreover,
at this age, they are tired of running for rewards and getting promoted for their work
by the organisational management (Ibrahim & Brobbey, 2015).
In terms of experience, only one variable is regarded more important by less expe-
rienced workers as compared to highly experienced workers, i.e., recognition of a
good job done by the worker (mean rank ¼ 89.54 for less experienced workers 75.41
for highly experienced workers with a significance of 0.043).
Recognition of good work develops a healthy environment between the workers
and organisation. The job done by less experienced workers when properly praised
1894 A. MAQSOOM ET AL.

Table 7. Work-related psychosocial stressors influencing the construction worker’s productivity.

Mean rank Mean rank
Highly Less
Older Younger Sig. experienced experienced Sig.
Variables workers workers (two-tailed) workers workers (two-tailed)
Weak organisational commitment 80.04 85.04 0.470 76.99 87.73 0.114
Role conflict and ambiguity 79.99 85.10 0.461 81.31 82.79 0.828
Effective commitment of workers to 75.86 91.49 0.029 79.56 84.79 0.455
organisation
Negative correlation of worker with 76.26 90.88 0.036 71.24 94.32 0.001
the job
Possibility of occurrence of health 73.33 95.41 0.002 75.57 89.36 0.051
and safety risk
Some tasks demand considerable 79.00 86.64 0.293 75.10 89.89 0.037
mental power from a worker
Occupational injuries and incidents 77.59 88.83 0.115 80.17 84.09 0.575
are the results of poor task and
workplace design
When the quantity exceeds the 69.83 100.83 0.000 78.67 85.82 0.309
capacity, the quality is at risk
Source: Results from questionnaire survey.
Significant at 0.01, significant at 0.05, significant at 0.1.

motivates them to continue their good performance. It also enhances their linkage
with the organisation and reduces absenteeism, as they feel that their full-time com-
mitment to their work will assure them a secure future with their organisation
(Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). Instead, highly experienced workers seem to feel that it is
their duty to perform well, whether or not the organisation praises. Hence, highly
experienced workers have less emotional exhaustion as compared to less experienced
workers (Foreman, 1996).
The fifth stage of analysis concerns work-related psychosocial stressors influencing
the construction worker’s productivity. These factors were derived from previous
studies based on the coping theory and self-efficacy theory (Anton, 2009; Leka &
Jain, 2010). The results obtained indicate several significant differences in the
responses given by workers of varied ages and industry experiences for the work-
related psychosocial stressors influence the construction worker’s productivity (see
Table 7).
In terms of age, four variables are regarded as more important by younger workers
as compared to older workers: effective commitment of workers to organisation
(mean rank ¼ 91.49 for younger workers and 75.86 for older workers with a signifi-
cance of 0.029), negative correlation of worker with the job (mean rank ¼ 90.88 for
younger workers and 76.6 for older workers with a significance of 0.036), possibility
of occurrence of health and safety risk (mean rank ¼ 95.41 for younger workers and
73.33 for older workers with a significance of 0.002) and when the quantity exceeds
the capacity, the quality is at risk (mean rank ¼ 100.83 for younger workers and 69.83
for older workers with a significance of 0.00).
Older workers are effectively committed to the organisation. They have strong
chances while applying for a job in some other firm because of their extensive experi-
ence. Also, they are very punctual in their job as they get bored when they do not


ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAZIVANJA 1895

have any work to do and are in idle mode (Ng & Feldman, 2010). Younger workers
at the initial stage like to get support and acknowledgement for their good work in
order to remain committed with the firm. For younger workers, this effective com-
mitment to the organisation is very necessary for their job and career and also for
the growth of an organisation. When these desires are not fulfilled, it builds up nega-
tive correlation with the job for younger workers as they get stressed very easily
because of not having much experience and often they leave the job or become
unpunctual (Carstensen et al., 1999; Carstensen et al., 2003).
Health and safety is a vital factor for younger workers, because in the case a
worker gets injured or something odd happens due to an unsafe work environment
at the site, it will have adverse bearings on his health, thus ultimately influencing his
future career. Workload being more than his potential is the basic factor for disturb-
ing his health (Barnes-Farrell et al., 2002). However, because of their age, older work-
ers are much more mature and used to such conditions at work sites. Because of
their seniority, older workers normally avoid doing work in an environment where
there is a health and safety risk.
Younger workers are more concerned with the quantity of work against their cap-
acity, as they are not experienced at this age and cannot bear the extra amount of
work load in terms of quality. They become stressed very easily when the quantity of
work increases or if because of its complexity they feel themselves stressed, ultimately
spoiling the quality (Barnes-Farrell et al., 2002). In contrast, the older workers have
spent more than half of their life in doing different jobs and can easily handle
such situations.
In terms of experience, three variables are regarded as more important by less
experienced workers as compared to highly experienced workers: negative correlation
of worker with the job (mean rank ¼ 94.32 for less experienced workers and 71.24 for
highly experienced workers with a significance of 0.001), the possibility of the occur-
rence of a health and safety risk (mean rank ¼ 89.36 for less experienced workers and
75.57 for highly experienced workers with a significance of 0.051) and some task
demands considerable mental power of a worker (mean rank ¼ 89.89 for less experi-
enced workers and 75.1 for highly experienced workers with a significance of 0.037).
When the less experienced workers are not satisfied with their job due to the delay
in salaries, no co-worker support, stress from the management and other factors, it
builds a negative correlation with the job for and makes them leave the job more
often (Hunter & Schmidth, 1990). Highly experienced workers, on the other hand,
have given less importance to the mentioned variable against their counterparts as
they know whether they like it or not, they have to perform the job anyway. Hence,
their job attitudes are positively long-lasting (Ng & Feldman, 2010).
Regarding health and safety risks, less experienced workers are mostly unaware of
the health and safety risks at the sites and mostly do not take precautions. Less expe-
rienced workers are not skilled; tasks demanding extra skills and experience raise the
chances of injuries and leave stress on their minds (Barnes-Farrell et al., 2002).
Highly experienced workers are skillful; they have not given much importance to the
variable as they might be taking necessary precautions. Mental power includes think-
ing power and stress management. From the results, less experienced workers seem
1896 A. MAQSOOM ET AL.

to be facing difficulties in managing themselves in the tasks that demand considerable

mental power. They have fewer skills and experience to handle such tasks as com-
pared to highly experienced workers who are skilled in managing such tasks while
avoiding any mental stress at the same time. Hence, such risk and mental stress cre-
ate an emotional exhaustion and burnout situation in less experienced workers
(Hunter & Schmidth, 1990; Foreman, 1996).
A brief summary of the findings has been presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Significant psychosocial stressors influencing the productivity of construction workers.

Varied age Varied experience
Highly Less
Older Younger experienced experienced
Psychosocial stressors workers workers workers workers
Top management
Demanding effort more than required by   – –
the job
Worker feels untrustworthy when author-   – –
ities ask questions from his domain
Irresponsible attitude of top-management    
with their workers
Career development
Not being promoted on a regular basis   – –
Performance-based promotion to   – –
the worker
Acknowledging and giving credit to a   – –
worker who has done good job
Monetary benefits and different – –  
allowances keeps worker committed to
the firm
Social support
Decrease in work efficiency of a worker   – –
Job-related stress is reduced considerably   – –
in the presence of co-workers support
A co-worker who listen to job related   – –
problem is helpful in times when things
become difficult on the job
Motivation
Achievement by worker when not praised   – –
by an organisation demotivates him
Workers feel that they will be rewarded   – –
for their hard work
Promotion of best workers to the ranks   – –
they deserve
Recognition of a good job done by – –  
the worker
Work stress
Effective commitment of workers to   – –
organisation
Negative correlation of worker with    
the job
Possibility of occurrence of health and    
safety risk
Some tasks demand considerable mental – –  
power from a worker
When the quantity exceeds the capacity,   – –
the quality is at risk
¼ More Important, ¼ Less Important.


ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAZIVANJA 1897

5. Conclusions
The stream of psychosocial literature has been explored from diverse dimensions by
various researchers. No broader consensus is available on a single approach for defin-
ing the impact of psychosocial stressors on employee productivity. However, some
researchers have identified the psychosocial factors in their studies and have given
information about how it affects organisational performance. Instead of relying on a
single approach to study the phenomenon of psychosocial stressors in workers of
Pakistani CCFs, an integrated framework bringing the key theories and models of
psychosocial stressors was utilised to gain insight.
Stress from top management demoralises the workers of varied age and experience.
The performance of younger workers is reduced when the demand of time on their
job is higher than that required. The untrustworthy and irresponsible attitude of top
management decreases the motivation in younger workers. Career development turns
out to be the most important factor for younger workers as compared to older work-
ers. Younger workers are more concerned about their careers as compared to older
workers and give importance to promotion based on performance. Furthermore,
younger workers need credit for their performance in the form of various monetary
benefits and allowances to keep them committed to the firm. Workers of varied age
and experience always need to be supported socially, either from their co-workers or
supervisors. Younger workers need more support from co-workers in tough job situa-
tions as they are not used to handling such situations. Firms need to create a healthy
and supportive workplace environment to eradicate such barriers hindering workers’
productivity.
Furthermore, younger age workers are more concerned with motivation-related
stressors, as indicated by the agreement on performance being enhanced by an appre-
ciation of work. Also, the promotion of the best workers is a greater motivating factor
for younger workers. Less experienced workers are more concerned with acknow-
ledgement of their performance. Exercises that act as a key motivating factor should
be made part of the system for less experienced workers. Construction workers of
both varied ages and experiences are considerably affected by different stresses at
work. Both younger and less experienced workers are mostly affected from an
unhealthy environment at the workplace, which produces absenteeism and negative
correlation with a job in them. Less experienced workers sometimes crumble under
pressure that demands considerable mental power. Organisations should divide the
work based on worker experience or less experienced workers should be provided
with essential support to carry out the tasks.

5.1. Implications
This paper contributes to the literature by adding to the limited empirical studies on
the psychosocial stressors in the construction workers. This study provides novel
insights on employee productivity by showing how varied age and diverse industry
experience in employees are associated with the intrinsic psychosocial stressors that
influence worker productivity (Beehr et al., 2000; Sobeih et al., 2006).
1898 A. MAQSOOM ET AL.

The findings of this research will help developing countries’ construction contract-
ing firms (CCFs) to try to eradicate psychosocial stress situations in their workers. In
order to overcome psychosocial barriers, firms must focus especially on younger
employees, as they are the major driving force of their work. Firms need to motivate
younger employees by giving them credit for their performance, regular promotions
and monetary benefits. Top management should build an environment of trust and
try to reduce the communication gap between the younger and older workers. The
findings from this study would be very helpful for the firms belonging to other ser-
vice industries such as consulting, architecture, housing, telecom, mining and power
as they share the same characteristics in terms of psychosocial stressors studied in
this paper.

5.2. Limitations and future research

The results of current research should be viewed taking into account that this study
is investigative in nature and focuses on construction workers from a single emerging
country (i.e., Pakistan), with a precise concentration on only one service sector (i.e.,
construction). Generalisation and applications of these study findings should be made
with careful. Additional research needs to cover more service industries and econo-
mies before any broad generalisations can be established. However, this study can be
generalised to other Asian and developing countries’ context such as Turkey, Iran
and India, who share the same profile in terms of economic development and con-
struction market structure. Furthermore, there is a need for future studies to conduct
a deeper analysis on the relationship between project managers’ psychosocial stressors
and project performance as psychosocial stressors have great influence on project
managers’ performance ultimately influencing the project. Also, the differences
between developed and developing economies relating to the impact of intrinsic psy-
chosocial stressors on employees’ productivity should be explored further. The study
if conducted longitudinally may yield valuable results.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Umar Safdar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7357-8319

References
Ahmad, Z., Thaheem, M. J., & Maqsoom, A. (2018). Building information modeling as a risk
transformer: An evolutionary insight into the project uncertainty. Automation in
Construction, 92, 103–119.
Anton, C. (2009). The impact of role stress on workers’ behaviour through job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. International Journal of Psychology, 44(3), 187–194.


ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAZIVANJA 1899

Armstrong-Stassen, M., & Ursel, N. D. (2009). Perceived organizational support, career satis-
faction, and the retention of older workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 82(1), 201–220.
Aslam, M. S., & Safdar, U. (2012). The Influence of job burnout on intention to stay in the
organization: mediating role of affective commitment. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific
Research, 2(4), 4016–4025.
Babakus, E., Yavas, U., Karatepe, O. M., & Avci, T. (2003). The effect of management commit-
ment to service quality on employees’ affective and performance outcomes. Journal of the
Academy of marketing Science, 31(3), 272–286.
Bal, P. M., De Lange, A. H., Jansen, P. G. W., & Van Der Velde, M. E. G. (2008).
Psychological contract breach and job attitudes: A meta-analysis of age as a moderator.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 143–158.
Bandura, A., O’leary, A., Taylor, C. B., Gauthier, J., & Gossard, D. (1987). Perceived self-effi-
cacy and pain control: opioid and nonopioid mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53(3), 563–571.
Barnes-Farrell, J. L., Rumery, S. M., & Swody, C. A. (2002). How do concepts of age relate to
work and off-the-job stresses and strain? A field study of health care workers in five nations.
Experimental Aging Research, 28, 87–98.
Beehr, T. A., Jex, S. M., Stacy, B. A., & Murray, M. A. (2000). Work stressors and coworker
support as predictors of individual strain and job performance. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 21(4), 391–405.
Bennett, R. (2011). Career advancement of marketing research managers: The role of profes-
sional marketing experience. Journal of Marketing Trends, 1(7), 1961–1998.
Bongers, P. M., Kremer, A. M., & Laak, J. T. (2002). Are psychosocial factors, risk factors for
symptoms and signs of the shoulder, elbow, or hand/wrist?: A review of the epidemiological
literature. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 41(5), 315–342.
Boone, C., Van Olffen, W., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & De Brabander, B. (2004). The genesis of
top management team diversity: Selective turnover among top management teams in Dutch
newspaper publishing 1970–1994. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 633–656.
Buchanan, S., Vossenas, P., Krause, N., Moriarty, J., Frumin, E., Shimek, J. A. M., & Punnett,
L. (2010). Occupational injury disparities in the US hotel industry. American Journal of
Industrial Medicine, 53(2), 116–125.
Carstensen, L. L., Fung, H. H., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and
the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 103–123.
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory
of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165–181.
Cassel, J. (1976). The contribution of the social environment to host resistance the fourth
wade hampton frost lecture. American Journal of Epidemiology, 104(2), 107–123.
Chou, P. (2015). The effects of workplace social support on employee’s subjective well-being.
European Journal of Business and Management, 7(6), 8–19.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological bulletin, 98(2), 310–357.
Cuffee, Y. L., Hargraves, J. L., & Allison, J. (2012). Exploring the association between reported
discrimination and hypertension among African Americans: a systematic review. Ethnicity
& Disease, 22(4), 422–432.
De Croon, E. M., Sluiter, J. K., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. (2006). Psychometric properties of the
Need for Recovery after work scale: test-retest reliability and sensitivity to detect change.
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(3), 202–206.
De Vos, A., Buyens, D., & Schalk, R. (2003). Psychological contract development during organ-
izational socialization: Adaptation to reality and the role of reciprocity. Journal of
Occupational Behavior, 24, 537–559.
De Vries, J., Michielsen, H. J., & Van Heck, G. L. (2003). Assessment of fatigue among work-
ing people: a comparison of six questionnaires. Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
60(1), 10–15.
1900 A. MAQSOOM ET AL.

De Witte, H., & N€aswall, K. (2003). Objective vs subjective job insecurity: Consequences of
temporary work for job satisfaction and organizational commitment in four European coun-
tries. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24(2), 149–188.
Dharmaratne, E. N., & Gunasekara, U. (2017). The relationships between career-related human
resources management practices and perceived organizational support on affective organiza-
tional commitment: Evidences from higher educational institutions of Sri Lanka.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 3(2), 45–52.
Diehl, M., Coyle, N., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (1996). Age and sex differences in strategies of cop-
ing and defense across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 11, 127–139.
Dolezsar, C. M., McGrath, J. J., Herzig, A. J., & Miller, S. B. (2014). Perceived racial discrimin-
ation and hypertension: A comprehensive systematic review. Health Psychology, 33(1),
20–34.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace.
Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331–351.
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA). (2012). Drivers and barriers for
psychosocial risk management: An analysis of the findings of the European Survey of
Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks. Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health sta-
tus and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3),
571–579.
Foreman, M. H. (1996). The relationship between burnout and depression subtypes among
clergy. Doctoral dissertation, United States International University, San Diego, CA.
Galletta, M., Portoghese, I., D’Aloja, E., Mereu, A., Contu, P., Coppola, R. C., & Campagna,
M. (2016). Relationship between job burnout, psychosocial factors and health care-associated
infections in critical care units. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 34, 59–66.
Gardner, D. G., Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). The effects of pay level on organization-based
self-esteem and performance: A field study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 77(3), 307–322.
Gonzalez, V. M., Goeppinger, J., & Lorig, K. (1990). Four psychosocial theories and their
application to patient education and clinical practice. Arthritis & Rheumatology, 3(3),
132–143.
Gutteridge, T. G. (1993). Organizational Career Development: Benchmarks for Building a
World-Class Workforce. Jossey-Bass Management Series, San Francisco.
Heckman, J. J. (2005). China’s human capital investment. China Economic Review, 16(1),
50–70.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ibrahim, M., & Brobbey, V. A. (2015). Impact of motivation on employee performance: The
case of some selected micro finance companies in Ghana. International Journal of
Economics, Commerce and Management United Kingdom, 3(2), 1218–1236.
Idrees, M. D., Hafeez, M., & Kim, J. Y. (2017). Workers’ age and the impact of psychological
factors on the perception of safety at construction sites. Sustainability, 9(5), 745–760.
International Labor Office (ILO). (1986). Psychosocial factors at work: Recognition and control.
Report of the Joint ILO/WHO Committee on Occupational Health, Geneva.
Javad, M., & Aghajeri, V. (2014). Investigating factors affecting labor productivity: A case study
in Eghtesad-e-Novin Bank, Iran. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences,
2(3), 3301–3310.
Jenkins, C. D. (1979). Evidence for the relation of psychosocial factors to coronary heart dis-
ease. Journal of the South Carolina Medical Association, 75(11), 537–547.
Kakui, I. M. (2016). Effects of career development on employee performance in the public sec-
tor: A case of national cereals and produce board. Strategic Journal of Business & Change
Management, 3(3), 307–324.


ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAZIVANJA 1901

Kang, D. H., & Fox, C. (2001). Th1 and Th2 cytokine responses to academic stress. Research
in Nursing & Health, 24(4), 245–257.
Leka, S., & Jain, A. (2010). Health impact of psychosocial hazards at work: An overview.
Institute of Work, Health & Organizations, University of Nottingham.
Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2004). A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee ser-
vice performance and customer outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 41–58.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-
sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.
Lopez-Ara ujo, B., & Segovia, A. O. (2010). The effect of some organizational variables on
health and occupational accidents. Anales de Psicologıa/Annals of Psychology, 26(1), 89–94.
Maqsoom, A., & Charoenngam, C. (2014). Motives and competitive assets of Pakistani inter-
national construction contracting firms: Impact of size and international experience. Journal
of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 19(2), 138–151.
Maqsoom, A., Charoenngam, C., Masood, R., & Awais, M. (2014). Foreign market entry con-
siderations of emerging economy firms: An example of Pakistani contractors. Procedia
Engineering, 77, 222–228.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). The relationships of age with job attitudes: A meta-
analysis. Personnel Psychology, 63, 677–718.
Niehoff, B. P., Enz, C. A., & Grover, R. A. (1990). The impact of top-management actions on
employee attitudes and perceptions. Group & Organization Studies, 15(3), 337–352.
Paoli, P., & Costa, J. (1994). Monitoring occupational stress factors among European workers
at national and European levels: Stress at work-A call for action. In European Conference
Proceedings, 31–33.
Pareek, U., & Rao, T. (2008). From a sapling to the forest: the saga of the development of
HRD in India. Human Resource Development International, 11(5), 555–564.
Peterson, S. J., & Spiker, B. K. (2005). Establishing the positive contributory value of older
workers: A positive psychology perspective. Organizational Dynamics, 34, 153–167.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Razzaq, A., Thaheem, M. J., Maqsoom, A., & Gabriel, H. F. (2018). Critical external risks in
international joint ventures for construction industry in Pakistan. International Journal of
Civil Engineering, 16(2), 189–205.
Robescu, O., & Iancu, A.G. (2016). The Effects of Motivation on Employees Performance in
Organizations. Valahian Journal of Economic Studies, 7(2), 49–56.
Rosenthal, T., & Alter, A. (2012). Occupational stress and hypertension. Journal of the
American Society of Hypertension, 6(1), 2–22.
Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psycho-
logical contract. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 511–541.
Ruthankoon, R., & Olu Ogunlana, S. (2003). Testing Herzberg’s two-factor theory in the Thai
construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 10(5),
333–341.
Safdar, U., Badir, Y. F., & Afsar, B. (2017). Who can I ask? How psychological safety affects
knowledge sourcing among new product development team members. The Journal of High
Technology Management Research, 28(1), 79–92.
Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J. (1993).
Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitative
approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type
instruments. Journal of Management, 19(2), 385–417.
Schutte, N. S., & Loi, N. M. (2014). Connections between emotional intelligence and workplace
flourishing. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 134–139.
Sellers, S. L., Neighbors, H. W., Zhang, R., & Jackson, J. S. (2012). The impact of goal-striving
stress on physical health of white Americans, African Americans, and Caribbean blacks.
Ethnicity & Disease, 22(1), 21–28.
1902 A. MAQSOOM ET AL.

Sluiter, J. K. (1999). The influence of work characteristics on the need for recovery and experi-
enced health: A study on coach drivers. Ergonomics, 42(4), 573–583.
Sobeih, T. M., Salem, O., Daraiseh, N., Genaidy, A., & Shell, R. (2006). Psychosocial factors
and musculoskeletal disorders in the construction industry: a systematic review. Theoretical
Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7(3), 329–344.
Spruill, T. M. (2010). Chronic psychosocial stress and hypertension. Current Hypertension
Reports, 12(1), 10–16.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (2003). Behavioral management and task performance in organ-
izations: conceptual background, meta-analysis, and test of alternative models. Personnel
Psychology, 56(1), 155–194.
Sundin, L., Bildt, C., Lisspers, J., Hochw€alder, J., & Setterlind, S. (2006). Organisational factors,
individual characteristics and social support: What determines the level of social support?
Work, 27(1), 45–55.
Tabassi, A. A., & Bakar, A. A. (2009). Training, motivation, and performance: The case of
human resource management in construction projects in Mashhad, Iran. International
Journal of Project Management, 27(5), 471–480.
Tuuli, P., & Karisalmi, S. (1999). Impact of working life quality on burnout. Experimental
Aging Research, 25, 441–449.
Useche, S. A., Ortiz, V. G., & Cendales, B. E. (2017). Stress-related psychosocial factors at
work, fatigue, and risky driving behavior in bus rapid transport (BRT) drivers. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 104, 106–114.