How Individual’s Proactive Behavior Helps Construction Sustainability: Exploring the Effects of Project Citizenship Behavior on Project Performance
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- At present, research on sustainable construction mainly focuses on the planning and designing phase, such as the management strategies [5], framework [6], and practical procedures [7,8]. However, due to the complexity and flexibility of a construction project, unanticipated changes and risks may arise at any moment. Thus, relying on the pre-design to achieve the aim of sustainable development is not sufficient [9]. Research on how to deal with uncertainties and improve sustainability in the implementation and maintenance phase is urgently needed. However, project team members are the direct decision makers and implementers who can react to risks and changes immediately. Thus, it may help to take the capability and behaviors of project team members as predictors for the construction sustainability.
- Many studies have been conducted on the sustainable use of resources and materials [10,11], focusing on how to improve the utilization efficiency of land [12], gas [13], and other non-renewable resources [14]. However, even though human resources are a vital resource in construction project management [15], few studies have investigated the sustainable use of human resources. In this paper, the individual’s proactive behaviors are regarded as the human resource input in the implementation of construction projects; the project performance and cooperation relationships are the outcomes for evaluating the sustainability performance, while the upcoming cooperation in the future can be considered as the cyclic utilization of human resources.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Sustainable Construction
2.2. Project Citizenship Behavior
2.3. Relationships between PCB and Construction Sustainability Performance
3. Methodologies
3.1. Selection of Respondents and Distribution of Questionnaires
3.2. Measurement
3.2.1. Affiliative Citizenship Behavior
3.2.2. Challenging Citizenship Behavior
3.2.3. Project Complexity
3.2.4. Construction Sustainability Performance
3.3. Analysis
3.3.1. Reliability
3.3.2. Validity
3.3.3. Hierarchical Regression Analysis
4. Test of the Hypotheses
4.1. PCB and Construction Sustainability Performance
4.2. Project Complexity as the Moderator
5. Discussions
- Helping behavior, which is the most representative affiliative citizenship behavior, has positive effects on project quality, project time, and relationship sustainability. When helping behavior occurs in the construction project, tasks and problems can be solved more efficiently, and the quality and schedule of the project can be improved. Moreover, a feeling of kindness and friendliness will be generated during the process of helping behavior among team members, which may trigger the desire for future cooperation and improve relationship sustainability in the construction projects.
- Project-based compliance, the other dimension of affiliative citizenship behavior, has positive effects on project quality and project cost. A higher level of project-based compliance leads to team members better obeying the operation procedures and regulations, which helps in avoiding a decrease in project quality, and reduces project costs.
- Taking charge, which is one dimension of challenging citizenship behavior, has positive effects on project cost and project time but showed a negative effect on relationship sustainability. One of the key characteristics of construction projects is ambiguity, which means job requirements or expectations for project team members may not be very clear. Taking charge helps in clarifying the scope of each member’s duty and decreases the negative effect of ambiguity, which further promotes the achievement of cost and time goals. However, taking charge is sometimes regarded as aggressive behavior and may cause competition and lead to an unequal status among the team members, and this may be the reason it has a negative effect on relationship sustainability.
- Personal initiative was tested to have a positive effect on relationship sustainability. Compared with taking charge, personal initiative is less aggressive and may give other team members the impression that the team member displaying this behavior is responsible and aspiring; as a result, others may prefer to cooperate again with team members with higher levels of personal initiative.
- The degree of complexity of projects acts as a moderator between PCB and construction sustainability performance. Specifically, PCB shows a more obvious promotion degree for construction sustainability performance in projects with higher degrees of complexity. The reason may be that complex projects are more challenging for team members, encouraging them to tackle difficulties and solve problems.
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Daly, H.E. Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecol. Econ. 1990, 2, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rusinko, C. Green manufacturing: An evaluation of environmentally sustainable manufacturing practices and their impact on competitive outcomes. IEEE. Trans. Eng. Manag. 2007, 54, 445–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hill, S.B.; MacRae, R.J. Conceptual framework for the transition from conventional to sustainable agriculture. J. Sustain. Agric. 1996, 7, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hill, R.C.; Bowen, P.A. Sustainable construction: Principles and a framework for attainment. Constr. Manag. Econ. 1997, 15, 223–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, N.; Lior, N.; Jin, H. The energy situation and its sustainable development strategy in China. Energy 2011, 36, 3639–3649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sev, A. How can the construction industry contribute to sustainable development? A conceptual framework. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 17, 161–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oke, A.; Aghimien, D.; Aigbavboa, C.; Musenga, C. Drivers of sustainable construction practices in the Zambian construction industry. Energy Procedia 2019, 158, 3246–3252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aigbavboa, C.; Ohiomah, I.; Zwane, T. Sustainable construction practices: “A lazy view” of construction professionals in the South Africa construction industry. Energy Procedia 2017, 105, 3003–3010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, G.; Forsythe, P.J. Sustainable construction: Life cycle energy analysis of construction on sloping sites for residential buildings. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2013, 31, 254–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raut, S.P.; Ralegaonkar, R.V.; Mandavgane, S.A. Development of sustainable construction material using industrial and agricultural solid waste: A review of waste-create bricks. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 4037–4042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Safinia, S.; Al-Hinai, Z.; Yahia, H.A.M.; Abushammala, M.F.M.; Abushammala, M.F. Sustainable construction in sultanate of oman: Factors effecting materials utilization. Procedia Eng. 2017, 196, 980–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ristić, V.; Maksin, M.; Nenković-Riznić, M.; Jelena, B. Land-use evaluation for sustainable construction in a protected area: A case of Sara mountain national park. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 206, 430–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hassan, A.M.; Mahmoud, M.A.; Al-Majed, A.A.; Al-Shehri, D.; Al-Nakhli, A.R.; Bataweel, M.A. Gas Production from Gas Condensate Reservoirs Using Sustainable Environmentally Friendly Chemicals. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dalgliesh, C.D.; Bowen, P.A.; Hill, R.C. Environmental sustainability in the delivery of affordable housing in South Africa. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2010, 4, 23–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Druker, J.; White, G. Misunderstood and Undervalued? Personnel Management in Construction. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2010, 5, 77–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braun, T.; Ferreira, A.I.; Sydow, J. Citizenship behavior and effectiveness in temporary organizations. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 862–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braun, T.; Müller-Seitz, G.; Sydow, J. Project citizenship behavior?—An explorative analysis at the project-network-nexus. Scand. J. Manag. 2012, 28, 271–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingels, J.; Maenhout, B. Employee substitutability as a tool to improve the robustness in personnel scheduling. OR Spectr. 2017, 39, 623–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Radziszewska-Zielina, E.; Śladowski, G.; Kania, E.; Sroka, B.; Szewczyk, B. Managing information flow in self-organising networks of communication between construction project participants. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2019, 65, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parkhe, A. Strategic alliance structuring: A game theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation. Acad. Manag. J. 1993, 36, 794–829. [Google Scholar]
- Zuo, J.; Jin, X.H.; Flynn, L. Social sustainability in construction—An explorative study. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2012, 12, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akadiri, P.O.; Olomolaiye, P.O. Development of sustainable assessment criteria for building materials selection. Eng. Constr. Archit. Ma. 2012, 19, 666–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, P.; Chan, E.H.W. ANP model for sustainable Building Energy Efficiency Retrofit (BEER) using Energy Performance Contracting (EPC) for hotel buildings in China. Habitat Int. 2013, 37, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, L.; Huang, Y.; Huang, Z.; Lou, Y.; Ye, G.; Wong, S.W. Improved coupling analysis on the coordination between socio-economy and carbon emission. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 94, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del RM, M.; Izquierdo Gracia, P.; Weis Azevedo, I.S. Sustainable construction: Construction and demolition waste reconsidered. Waste Manag. Res. 2010, 28, 118–129. [Google Scholar]
- Gutierrez, M.P.; Lee, L.P. Multiscale Design and Integration of Sustainable Building Functions. Science 2013, 341, 247–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, G.K.C. Sustainable construction—The role of environmental assessment tools. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 86, 451–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chang, R.; Soebarto, V.; Zhao, Z.; Zillante, G. Facilitating the transition to sustainable construction: China’s policies. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 131, 534–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, T.; Shi, Q.; Zuo, J.; Chen, R. Critical factors for implementing sustainable construction practice in HOPSCA projects: A case study in China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 37, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pitt, M.; Tucker, M.; Riley, M.; Longden, J. Towards sustainable construction: Promotion and best practices. Constr. Innov. 2009, 9, 201–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- She, Y.; Shen, L.; Jiao, L.; Zuo, J.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Yan, H. Constraints to achieve infrastructure sustainability for mountainous townships in China. Habitat Int. 2018, 73, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bateman, T.S.; Organ, D.W. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Acad. Manag. J. 1983, 26, 587–595. [Google Scholar]
- Organ, D.W. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome; Lexington Books: Lexington, MA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Graham, J.W. An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 1991, 4, 249–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dyne, L.; Graham, J.W.; Dienesch, R.M. Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 765–802. [Google Scholar]
- Ferreira, A.I.; Braun, T.; Sydow, J. Citizenship behavior in project-based organizing: Comparing German and Portuguese project managers. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2013, 24, 3772–3793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, N.; Zhong, R.; Wang, X.; Tiong, R. Cross-domain negative effect of work-family conflict on project citizenship behavior: Study on Chinese project managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 512–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, L.J.; Anderson, S.E. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 601–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; Mackenzie, S.B.; Paine, J.B.; Bachrach, D.G. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. J. Manag. 2000, 26, 513–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skinner, L.R.; Autry, C.W.; Lamb, C.W. Some measures of interorganizational citizenship behaviors: Scale development and validation. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2009, 22, 228–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearce, C.L.; Herbik, P.A. Citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis: The effects of team leadership, team commitment, perceived team support, and team size. J. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 144, 293–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, C.A.; Organ, D.W.; Near, J.P. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. J. Appl. Psychol. 1983, 68, 653–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borman, W.C.; Motowidlo, S.J. Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include Elements of Contextual Performance; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1993; pp. 71–98. [Google Scholar]
- McAllister, D.J.; Kamdar, D.; Morrison, E.W.; Turban, D.B. Disentangling role perceptions: How perceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality, and efficacy relate to helping and taking charge. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 1200–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Morrison, E.W.; Phelps, C.C. Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Acad. Manag. J. 1999, 42, 403–419. [Google Scholar]
- Morrison, E.W. Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2011, 5, 373–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hastings, R.P. Do challenging behaviors affect staff psychological well-being? Issues of causality and mechanism. Am. J. Ment. Retard. 2002, 107, 455–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. Our Common Future, Report from the World Commission on Environment and Development; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Artiach, T.; Lee, D.; Nelson, D.; Walker, J. The determinants of corporate sustainability performance. Account. Financ. 2010, 50, 31–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Searcy, C. Corporate sustainability performance measurement systems: A review and research agenda. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 107, 239–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicolăescu, E.; Alpopi, C.; Zaharia, C. Measuring corporate sustainability performance. Sustainability 2015, 7, 851–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chang, D.S.; Kuo, L.C.R.; Chen, Y.T. Industrial changes in corporate sustainability performance—An empirical overview using data envelopment analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 56, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, K.; Zhu, W.; Shan, Y.; Li, S. Effects of market competition on the sustainability performance of the construction industry: China case. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141, 04015025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kucukvar, M.; Gumus, S.; Egilmez, G.; Tatari, O. Ranking the sustainability performance of pavements: An intuitionistic fuzzy decision making method. Automat. Constr. 2014, 40, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, C.Y.; Chang, A.S. Framework for developing construction sustainability items: The example of highway design. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 20, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trufil, G.; Hunter, K. Development of a sustainability framework to promote business competitiveness in construction SMEs. In Proceedings of the Symposium on sustainability and value through construction procurement, Salford, UK, 29 November–1 December 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.; Okudan, G.E.; Riley, D.R. Sustainable performance criteria for construction method selection in concrete buildings. Automat. Constr. 2010, 19, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, L.Y.; Hao, J.L.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Yao, H. A checklist for assessing sustainability performance of construction projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2007, 13, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, R.K.; Murty, H.R.; Gupta, S.K.; Dikshit, A.K. Development of composite sustainability performance index for steel industry. Ecol. Indic. 2007, 7, 565–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, D.W.; Kumaraswamy, M.M. An evaluation of construction time performance in the building industry. Build. Environ. 1996, 31, 569–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ugwu, O.O.; Haupt, T.C. Key performance indicators and assessment methods for infrastructure sustainability—A south African construction industry perspective. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 665–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keeble, J.J.; Topiol, S.; Berkeley, S. Using indicators to measure sustainability performance at a corporate and project level. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 44, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, Y.; Shen, L.; Yao, H. Sustainable construction practice and contractors’ competitiveness: A preliminary study. Habitat Int. 2011, 35, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goyal, P.; Rahman, Z.; Kazmi, A.A. Corporate sustainability performance and firm performance research: Literature review and future research agenda. Manag. Dec. 2013, 51, 361–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wijethilake, C. Proactive sustainability strategy and corporate sustainability performance: The mediating effect of sustainability control systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 196, 569–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tam, W.Y.; Tam, C.M.; Shen, L.Y.; Zeng, S.X.; Ho, C.M. Environmental performance assessment: Perceptions of project managers on the relationship between operational and environmental performance indicators. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2006, 24, 287–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, B.G.; Leong, L.P. Comparison of schedule delay and causal factors between traditional and green construction projects. Technol. Econ. Dev. Eco. 2013, 19, 310–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Srdić, A.; Šelih, J. Integrated quality and sustainability assessment in construction: A conceptual model. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2011, 17, 611–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kibert, C.J. Establishing principles and a model for sustainable construction. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Sustainable Construction, Tampa, FL, USA, 6–9 November 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Pfeffer, J. Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2010, 24, 34–45. [Google Scholar]
- Suprapto, M.; Bakker, H.L.M.; Mooi, H.G. Relational factors in owner–contractor collaboration: The mediating role of teamworking. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1347–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frese, M.; Zempel, J. Personal initiative at work: Differences between east and west Germany. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 37–63. [Google Scholar]
- Pheng, L.S.; Chuan, Q.T. Environmental factors and work performance of project managers in the construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006, 24, 24–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qureshi, S.; Kang, C.W. Analysing the organizational factors of project complexity using structural equation modeling. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 2nd ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
Characteristics | Items | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 121 | 80% |
Female | 31 | 20% | |
Age | 19–30 | 22 | 14% |
31–40 | 62 | 41% | |
40–50 | 50 | 33% | |
Over 50 | 18 | 12% | |
Experience | 3–5 years | 23 | 15% |
6–10 years | 30 | 20% | |
11–15 years | 61 | 40% | |
More than 15 years | 38 | 25% | |
Type of occupation | Project manager and team leader | 97 | 64% |
Consultant | 29 | 19% | |
Engineer | 26 | 17% | |
Type of project | Infrastructure | 46 | 30% |
Civil engineering | 56 | 37% | |
Public building | 30 | 20% | |
Commercial building | 12 | 8% | |
Industry factory | 8 | 5% |
Variables | Dimensions | Items | Corresponding Research | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Project Citizenship Behavior | ACB | Helping behavior | 2 | Braun et al. [16] |
Project-based compliance | 5 | |||
CCB | Taking charge | 6 | Morrison and Phelps [45] | |
Personal initiative | 7 | Frese et al. [72] | ||
Project performance | 4 | Pheng and Chuan [73] | ||
Project complexity | 6 | Qureshi and Kang [74] |
Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient | |
---|---|
Project citizenship behavior | 0.92 |
Affiliative citizenship behavior | 0.89 |
Helping behavior | 0.91 |
Project-based compliance | 0.75 |
Challenging citizenship behavior | 0.90 |
Taking charge | 0.82 |
Personal initiative | 0.89 |
Sustainable construction performance | 0.87 |
Project complexity | 0.88 |
FL | AVE | CR | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Project citizenship behavior | 0.594 | 0.967 | ||
Affiliative citizenship behavior | 0.641 | 0.926 | ||
Helping behavior | HB_01 | 0.917 | 0.945 | 0.972 |
HB_02 | 0.917 | |||
Project-based compliance | P-BC_01 | 0.839 | 0.643 | 0.900 |
P-BC_02 | 0.887 | |||
P-BC_03 | 0.830 | |||
P-BC_04 | 0.826 | |||
P-BC_05 | 0.842 | |||
Challenging citizenship behavior | 0.540 | 0.937 | ||
Taking charge | TC_01 | 0.789 | 0.672 | 0.925 |
TC_02 | 0.870 | |||
TC_03 | 0.885 | |||
TC_04 | 0.882 | |||
TC_05 | 0.865 | |||
TC_06 | 0.817 | |||
Personal initiative | PI_01 | 0.855 | 0.564 | 0.900 |
PI_02 | 0.776 | |||
PI_03 | 0.839 | |||
PI_04 | 0.774 | |||
PI_05 | 0.761 | |||
PI_06 | 0.754 | |||
PI_07 | 0775 | |||
Project performance | PP_01 | 0.879 | 0.638 | 0.875 |
PP_02 | 0.872 | |||
PP_03 | 0.873 | |||
PP_04 | 0.781 | |||
Project complexity | PC_01 | – | 0.673 | 0.911 |
PC_02 | 0.863 | |||
PC_03 | 0.844 | |||
PC_04 | 0.904 | |||
PC_05 | 0.817 | |||
PC_06 | 0.852 |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Helping behavior | (0.972) | |||||
2. Project-based compliance | 0.731 ** | (0.802) | ||||
3. Taking charge | 0.685 ** | 0.709 ** | (0.820) | |||
4. Personal initiative | 0.784 ** | 0.651 ** | 0.710 ** | (0.751) | ||
5. Project performance | 0.694 ** | 0.663 ** | 0.633 ** | 0.715 ** | (0.799) | |
6. Project complexity | 0.588 ** | 0.655 ** | 0.787 ** | 0.631** | 0.734 ** | (0.820) |
Quality | Cost | Time | Relationship Sustainability | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step 1 | ||||||||||||||||
Gender | −0.01 | −0.02 | −0.02 | −0.02 | −0.16 | −0.13 * | −0.17 | −0.19 * | −0.03 | 0.02 | −0.03 | −0.03 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.05 *** | 0.06 |
Age | −0.02 | 0.01 | −0.01 | −0.02 | −0.20 | −0.14 | −0.13 | −0.12 | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.15 | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.02 | −0.03 |
Tenure | 0.18 ** | 0.20 * | 0.19 | 0.17 | 0.24 | 0.20 * | 0.19 * | 0.18 | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.05 | −0.02 | 0.03 |
TO | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.00 | −0.01 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
TP | −0.22 * | −0.20 * | −0.18 * | −0.24 ** | −0.23 * | −0.19 * | −0.19 ** | −0.18 ** | −0.29 * | −0.25 ** | −0.22 * | −0.24 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.03 |
Step 2 | ||||||||||||||||
HB | 0.15 ** | 0.22 ** | 0.21 ** | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.14 * | 0.12 * | 0.12 * | 0.03 * | 0.0 2* | 0.02 * | ||||
P-BC | 0.20 *** | 0.18 *** | 0.17 *** | 0.18 ** | 0.15 ** | 0.12 ** | 0.13 * | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.14 * | 0.15 | 0.12 | ||||
TC | −0.09 * | 0.13 * | −0.10 * | 0.13 | 0.10 | 0.06 * | 0.06 ** | 0.09 ** | 0.04 ** | −0.06 ** | −0.04 ** | −0.07 ** | ||||
PI | −0.13 | −0.15 | −0.09 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.19 ** | 0.22 ** | 0.15 ** | ||||
Step3 | ||||||||||||||||
PC | −0.04 ** | −0.02 ** | −0.14 * | −0.08 * | 0.03 | −0.02 | 0.10 ** | 0.07 ** | ||||||||
Step 4 | ||||||||||||||||
HB × PC | 0.07 ** | 0.03 | 0.10* | 0.03 * | ||||||||||||
P-BC × PC | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.02 | ||||||||||||
TC × PC | 0.06 | 0.16 | 0.03 ** | 0.04 | ||||||||||||
PI × PC | 0.13 * | 0.33 ** | 0.04 ** | 0.03 | ||||||||||||
△R2 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.07 |
F | 1.24 | 2.33 | 2.75 ** | 3.47 ** | 3.21 * | 4.76 * | 3.65 * | 4.13 | 3.54 * | 2.27 * | 4.03 ** | 4.42 ** | 1.39 | 1.77 | 2.49 | 2.24 ** |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Guo, S.; Wang, X.; Fu, L.; Liu, Y. How Individual’s Proactive Behavior Helps Construction Sustainability: Exploring the Effects of Project Citizenship Behavior on Project Performance. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6922. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246922
Guo S, Wang X, Fu L, Liu Y. How Individual’s Proactive Behavior Helps Construction Sustainability: Exploring the Effects of Project Citizenship Behavior on Project Performance. Sustainability. 2019; 11(24):6922. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246922
Chicago/Turabian StyleGuo, Sijia, Xueqing Wang, Lipeng Fu, and Yunfeng Liu. 2019. "How Individual’s Proactive Behavior Helps Construction Sustainability: Exploring the Effects of Project Citizenship Behavior on Project Performance" Sustainability 11, no. 24: 6922. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246922
APA StyleGuo, S., Wang, X., Fu, L., & Liu, Y. (2019). How Individual’s Proactive Behavior Helps Construction Sustainability: Exploring the Effects of Project Citizenship Behavior on Project Performance. Sustainability, 11(24), 6922. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246922