Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Automated Mobility-On-Demand Strategies in Dense Urban Areas: A Case Study of the Tel Aviv Metropolis in 2040
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Deforestation on Foraging Behavior, Ectoparasites, and Adult Survival in the Vulnerable La Selle Thrush, Turdus swalesi, in Haiti
Previous Article in Special Issue
Proposing a Method Based on Artificial Neural Network for Predicting Alignment between the Saudi Nursing Workforce and the Gig Framework
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 22
10.3390/su152216036
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Organisational Interventions for Improving Mental Health of Project Management Practitioners during COVID-19 in Architecture, Engineering and Construction Sectors in Australia

by
Xiaohua Jin
1,*,
Robert Osei-Kyei
1,
Srinath Perera
1,
James Bawtree
2 and
Bashir Tijani
3
1
Centre for Smart Modern Construction, School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment, Western Sydney University, Sydney 2751, Australia
2
PMLogic, Manly 2095, Australia
3
New South Wales Department of Education, Parramatta 2150, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(22), 16036; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152216036
Submission received: 14 August 2023 / Revised: 13 November 2023 / Accepted: 14 November 2023 / Published: 17 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Solutions for Promoting Occupational Health and Safety)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The introduction of COVID-19-related psychosocial risks to the Australian architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) project organisation has triggered the development of innovative organisational interventions for mitigating the risks and promoting of positive mental health among project management (PM) practitioners. Therefore, the paper aims to explore the COVID-19-related organisational interventions for improving mental health in the AEC project organisation. Through a comprehensive literature review, 20 organisation interventions were retrieved, and an online expert forum was conducted with nine industry experts. The results of the expert opinion confirmed the 20 organisational interventions identified from the literature. Moreover, the organisational interventions were used to develop a questionnaire survey distributed among PM practitioners via convenient sampling. Mean score ranking analysis was used to analyses the survey responses from 58 participants. The research findings show that the identified organisational interventions are important, but are ranked differently by architecture, engineering and construction sectors based on their importance in promoting mental health.

1. Introduction

The project management environment is nefarious for poor mental health due to the complexity and dynamism involved in the management of projects [1,2]. Schedule management, cost management, risk management and project methodologies are some of the core project management practices that expose PM practitioners to poor mental health in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) project organisations in Australia [3,4,5]. The demand to meet up with tight project schedules, stringent project budgets and project risk management resulted in poor mental health among PM practitioners [6]. Poor mental health negatively impacts productivity, well-being and project performance, which makes it a significant occupational health concern in project management [7,8].
Owing to the proliferation of poor mental health among PM practitioners in the AEC project organisation, several studies have been conducted to examine the organisational interventions for addressing mental health. For instance, Love and Edwards [9] reported that organisational support is an intervention for improving project managers’ mental health. In another study, company management systems including project management and staff management institutions were established as organisational interventions to mitigate burnout among construction project professionals [3]. Tijani, Jin [10] found that project organisational elements, including knowledge management, integrated project delivery and project governance positively correlate with the mental health of project managers in the AEC project organisation.
The emergence of the novel coronavirus pandemic outbreak, COVID-19, in late-March 2020 in Australia has challenged the traditional organisational interventions for the mental health of PM practitioners in the AEC firm because of the introduction of COVID-19-related psychosocial risks that required innovative organisational interventions capturing the COVID-19-related psychosocial risks. Despite the urgent need to develop organisational interventions for mental health during the COVID-19 era, it is surprising that there is a scarcity of studies focusing on interventions in the AEC firm for promoting positive mental health. Hence, this study aims to identify and analyse organisational interventions during COVID-19 for the promotion of positive mental health among PM practitioners in the AEC project organisation in Australia.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Mental Health

Over the last couple of decades, there has been a disagreement among scholars on the conceptualisation of mental health in the workplace. Some consider the absence of work stress or mental illness as good mental health among workers, while others regard good mental health as a possession of a sense of well-being and a meaningful life [11]. Kamardeen and Sunindijo [12] conceptualised mental health to comprise anxiety, depression and stress. Nevertheless, substantial empirical evidence has criticised the assumption that an absence of mental illness is equivalent to a mentally healthy workplace [13,14].
Given the criticism regarding the definition of mental health as the absence of mental illness, mental health should be redefined as a positive sense of well-being and an underlying belief in others’ dignity and worth [15]. Moreover, Al-Maskari, Shah [16] defined mental health as the ‘state of well-being in which every individual realizes his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stress of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community’. Mental health is crucial for the health of workers and positively influences the onset of mental illness, physical problems and the recovery process. In a working environment, mental health has a positive relationship with job satisfaction [17].

2.2. Organisational Interventions

Organisational interventions refer to as planned, behavioural and theoretical-based actions designed to change work design through structure, policies, management, culture, roles and tasks to reduce psychosocial risk and improve the mental health of the workforce [18]. Organisational interventions are proactive approaches for improving individual mental health and organisational outcomes, such as workers turnover, sickness absence and productivity [19,20]. Theoretically, organisational intervention is underpinned by the concept of organisational change as it views interventions as the process of changing the state of the organisation from one state to another through several planned steps [18,21].
The resurgence of COVID-19-related psychosocial risks demands the altering of work design by changing organisation elements, such as processes, structure and programme to improve mental health of workers [19,22]. The organisational interventions alleviate COVID-19-related psychosocial risks to promote positive mental health [23]. In relation to AEC project organisations, organisational interventions alleviate the psychosocial risks introduced by COVID-19 to the project environment to improve mental health [24]. The organisational interventions specifically targeted project organisation due to differences in the general workplace and project environment.
The operationalisation of a construct is crucial to confirm the measurement items for designing data collection instruments. Critical literature reviews and expert forums have shown various items for measuring organisational interventions. In this study, organisational interventions were operationalised into 20 measurement items, presented in Table 1. The measurement items were codified from COOPM 1 to COOPM 20.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Research Design

An exploratory sequential research design was adopted for this study due to the aim of the research, which calls for the development of organisational interventions for improving the mental health of PM practitioners in the AEC project organisation during the COVID-19 era. The research design is because of the limited studies and measuring instruments for COVID-19-related organisational interventions for mental health in the AEC project organisation. Owing to exploratory sequential research design, a literature review was initially conducted, followed by an online expert forum and then the development of a survey for the collection of data from PM practitioners. These three approaches were integrated to collect relevant information on organisational interventions for mental health.

3.2. Literature Review Process

Given the scanty studies on COVID-19-related organisational interventions influencing the mental health of PM practitioners in the AEC project organisation, a comprehensive literature review was conducted to reveal COVID-19-related organisational interventions from high-risk industries. A literature review is one of the effective methodologies for understanding the current state of the arts of a topic [39]. A three-stage approach was adopted for the literature review process. In stage 1, highly reputable journals, conferences and government documents were searched through Scopus, Web of Science and government websites. Stage 2 involved a visual examination of the retrieved journals, conference papers and government documents in stage 1 to remove irrelevant documents. Out of the 50 journals, conference papers and government documents retrieved from stage 1, 35 were recovered for further examination after visualisation of the abstract of the documents. Further, an in-depth reading of the 35 journals, conference papers and government documents was carried out in the stage 3. By doing that, 21 relevant journals, 1 conference paper and 2 government documents were found relevant to this study. The review of the documents identified the COVID-19-related organisational interventions influencing the mental health.

3.3. Expert Opinion Method

The expert opinion method is a method of collecting reliable information from experts on a certain subject [40]. It offers validity and reliability of the research when it is mandatory to gather evidence of the research [41,42]. Hence, the opinion of competent experts on the subject matter underpinned the basis for embracing serious discussion, including implementation of innovation recommended by experts in order to obtain the relevant results [42,43]. Generally, the process seeks judgement by selected experts through brainstorming, which mitigates some of the expected bias. Moreover, careful selection of experts determines the reliable outcomes of the expert opinion method. In this research, the identified on COVID-19-related organisational interventions from the literature review were subjected to expert opinion for further analysis.

3.4. Selection Process for Expert Opinion

As recommended by [44], a two-step process was involved in the selection of experts from the project management industry to contribute to the identification of COVID-19-related psychosocial risk and organisational interventions.
In the first step of the selection process, the industry experts, which consisted of PM practitioners, were chosen from the researchers’ network of professionals. As is typical of expert opinion method, the sampling method involved was convenience sampling; therefore, inference to the whole of the Australian AEC industry population might be limited. Through the researchers’ network of professionals, a list of 9 potential experts was created. This number of experts is sufficient as the minimum number of experts required is 7 [45].
In the second step of the selection process, an email was sent to the 9 experts who gave their consent to participate in the research. The email requested information concerning their qualifications, education, project management experience and professional membership. The consent form and project participant information sheet were also attached to the email to seek their consent. The aim of requesting this information is to establish whether the contacted experts are qualified to provide information on COVID-19-related psychosocial risk and organisational interventions.
Table 2 presents the profiles of the experts who were involved in the expert forum.

3.5. Online Expert Opinion

A questionnaire survey was designed as a data collection instrument as part of the expert opinion process. The survey aims to collect information from the expert panel concerning the COVID-19-related organisational interventions related to the mental health of PM practitioners in the AEC project organisation. Before sending the questionnaire to experts, the questionnaire was piloted with four individuals (two from academics and two from industry) who were not selected on the expert forums.
The experts were asked to suggest the applicability of the identified the COVID-19-related organisational interventions in the literature in the AEC project organisation. Moreover, the experts were given the opportunity to include additional factors that were not added to the survey. Moreover, all the 20 identified organisational interventions identified from the literature were considered applicable to the mental health of PM practitioners in the AEC project organisation without any addition.

3.6. Questionnaire Survey Development

To obtain a broader opinion from the PM practitioners, the 20 COVID-19-related organisational intervention practices identified through the combination of a literature review and expert opinion were used to design a questionnaire survey. The questionnaire consists of two sections. The first section included respondents’ demographic information (e.g., educational qualification, work experience, project-related experience) and the second section covered information on COVID-19-related organisational interventions. Accordingly, respondents were asked to indicate the level of agreement using a five-point Likert scale (between 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) for each item found in the section.

3.7. Validity and Reliability of the Survey

Content validity of the questionnaire was established on the basis that the measurement items regarding COVID-19-related organisational intervention practices are underpinned by both literature review and expert opinion. Face validity of the questionnaire was established through a pilot study in which the data collection instrument was sent to experts through an email to identify problems concerning the wordings of the questions, appropriateness of the questions in relation to AEC projects and evaluation of the completion time. Three experts with 5 years in project management and one associate professor in project management with 5 publications in mental health were involved in the pilot study.
The reliability of the questionnaire can be confirmed with variables showing Cronbach’s alpha values greater than 0.7 [46]. The reliability of the measurement items for COVID-19-related organisational interventions was evaluated and generated Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.967.

3.8. Sampling and Data Collection

Convenience sampling was selected in recruiting PM practitioners to provide reliable information on the mental health in the AEC project organisation during COVID-19. The sampling method was chosen because of the time frame of the research and easiness of accessing the respondents. Further, there is an absence of construction associations registerered on the numbers of AEC firms in Australia; therefore, the selection of convenience sampling is appropriate for this research.
Of the 200 online surveys distributed among AEC firms in Australia, 58 valid responses were received with a response rate of 29%. This sample size is sufficient for this research. Furthermore, ref. [47] proposed that for convenient sampling, sample sizes larger than 30 and less than 500 are appropriate for most research. Similar studies, including [48,49] used sample sizes less than 40 for convenience sampling strategy in their empirical studies, indicating the appropriateness of low sample size in convenience sampling.

4. Data Analysis

4.1. Profile of the Respondents

The profile of the respondents who completed the questionnaire is presented in Table 3. Most respondents have completed 1–5 projects (51.7%), and the least have completed 11–15 projects and 16–20 projects (6.9%). Most of the participants had project management (PM)-oriented work experience of 16 years or above (48.3%), and the minority of them had 11–15 years (12.1%). Most respondents completed a Master’s degree (32.8%) and the minority of them had a vocational education certificate (1.7%).

4.2. Expert Forum Result and Analysis

Table 4 depicts the result of the expert forum that established the applicability of the organisational interventions revealed from the literature. In total, 20 organisational interventions were considered adequate to improve the mental health of PM practitioners in the AEC project organisation.

4.3. Mean Score Ranking

Mean score ranking analysis was conducted to determine the mean values and ranking of each organisational intervention in the AEC project organisation. The analysis commenced by presenting the tables for coding the measurement items for organisational interventions, followed by tables presenting the mean values and ranking of the constructs furnished by the architecture, engineering and construction sectors. Table 5 shows the coding for organisational interventions.
Table 5 illustrates the mean score analysis and rankings for each organisational intervention in the AEC project organisation. Overall, the mean scores indicate that the organisational interventions ranged between 2.16 and 3.29. As shown in Table 5, the mean value furnished by the architecture sector ranged from 2.00 to 3.40, whereas the mean values provided by the engineering and construction sectors ranged from 2.33 to 2.83 and 2.05 to 3.44, respectively. It has been found that the top three organisational interventions for improving PM practitioners’ mental health during COVID-19 are “Hiring additional PM practitioners to distribute project workload” (COOPM 12), “Providing training on how to balance work and family” (COOPM 10) and “Providing additional childcare supports” (COOPM 9). However, “Hiring additional PM practitioners to distribute project workload” (COOPM 12) is shown to be the most highly ranked organisational intervention across the architecture and construction sectors, and the second highest ranked intervention in the engineering sector. Moreover, “Providing training on how to balance work and family” (COOPM 10) was ranked eighth by the architecture sector, fifth by the engineering sector and second by the construction sector.
In contrast, the bottom three organisational interventions in the AEC project organisation are “Enforcing the use of personal protective equipment” (COOPM 8), “Providing support for working remotely” (COOPM 1) and “Provide flexible work schedule to promote social distance during COVID period” (COOPM 2).

4.4. Discussion

The above result established that “Hiring additional PM practitioners to distribute project workload” (COOPM 12), “Providing training on how to balance work and family” (COOPM 10) and “Providing additional childcare supports” (COOPM 9) are the top three ranked organisational interventions for promoting positive mental health among PM practitioners. These findings are consistent with previous studies, refs. [50,51,52] that confirmed that the provision of adequate staff, implementation of work-life balance policy and family support mitigates work stress among workforces. Moreover, ref. [53] argued that management interventions including work-life balance initiatives and workload management are effective for improving workplace mental health.
Furthermore, “Providing additional childcare supports” (COOPM 9) was positioned at sixteenth, fifteenth and third position in architecture, engineering and construction sectors, respectively. The differences in ranking can be attributed to the project complexity and organisational size, which influence the development of organisation interventions for mental health. This is consistent with the findings of Martin, Karanika-Murray [54] and Parker, Van den Broeck [55] that established the negative impact of company size and organisational design on workplace mental health interventions.
Inconsistent with extant studies [56,57], this study reported that “Enforcing the use of personal protective equipment” (COOPM 8), “Providing support for working remotely” (COOPM 1) and “Provide flexible work schedule to promote social distance during COVID period” (COOPM 2) are the bottom three organisational interventions in the AEC project organisations. A considerable amount of research revealed that remote work and social distance are critical for the improvement of mental health during COVID-19 [57,58,59]. The inconsistency in the findings can be attributed to the differences in working environments, as previous studies focused on general workplaces, while this study focused on a projected-oriented environment with multiple organisations working concurrently to achieve project goals.

5. Conclusions

The study investigated the organisational interventions for the improving mental health of of PM practitioners in the AEC project organisation during the COVID-19 era through the combination of a literature review, expert opinion and a question survey. The results of the literature review and expert opinion established 20 organisational interventions for positive mental health. This study further explored the perception of respondents from the three sectors (architecture, engineering and construction sectors) on the identified organisational interventions. Through the questionnaire survey, data on organisational interventions for mental health were gathered from 58 PM practitioners from architecture, engineering and construction sectors in Australia. A mean score ranking analysis on the 58 responses reveals that the highest-ranking organisational interventions by the architecture, engineering and construction sectors were “Hiring additional PM practitioners to distribute project workload” (COOPM 12), “Providing training on how to balance work and family” (COOPM 10) and “Providing additional childcare supports” (COOPM 9). and the least ranking interventions by them were “Enforcing the use of personal protective equipment” (COOPM 8), “Providing support for working remotely” (COOPM 1) and “Provide flexible work schedule to promote social distance during COVID period” (COOPM 2).
This study has certain limitations, which do not impede the research outcome. First, the sample size is low due to disruption caused by COVID-19. Although the sample size is sufficient for this study based on the established response rate for questionnaire the survey. Future studies should employ large samples to validate the findings.
Theoretically, this study contributes to the body of literature by confirming COVID-19-related organisation interventions and their related importance in promoting positive mental health among PM practitioners in the AEC project organisation. It further supports job demand resource theory by establishing that organisational resources mitigate work stress. Moreover, the practical implication of the study is that AEC sectors should implement and promote COVID-19-related interventions, including “Hiring additional PM practitioners to distribute project workload” (COOPM 12), “Providing training on how to balance work and family” (COOPM 10) and “Providing additional childcare supports” (COOPM 9) to tackle work stress.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.J., R.O.-K. and S.P.; methodology, X.J., R.O.-K. and S.P.; software, X.J. and B.T.; validation, X.J. and J.B.; formal analysis, X.J. and B.T.; investigation, X.J., R.O.-K. and S.P.; resources, X.J. and J.B.; data curation, X.J. and J.B.; writing—original draft preparation, X.J. and B.T.; writing—review and editing, X.J. and R.O.-K.; visualization, X.J. and S.P.; supervision, X.J., R.O.-K. and S.P.; project administration, X.J.; funding acquisition, X.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded through the PGCS Research Grant by the PGCS Ltd., Australia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Western Sydney University (Approval Number H14637 and approved on 12 November 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical reasons.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the participation of anonymous project management professionals, the in-kind support from Western Sydney University and PMLogic, as well as the support from the Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM), the International Centre for Complex Project Management (ICCPM), the Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB), the Co-operative Network of Building Researchers (CNBR), and the Mosaicproject’s Blog.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Tijani, B.; Jin, X.; Osei-Kyei, R. Theoretical model for mental health management of project management practitioners in architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) project organizations. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2023, 30, 914–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pinto, J.K.; Dawood, S.; Pinto, M.B. Project management and burnout: Implications of the Demand–Control–Support model on project-based work. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 578–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yang, F.; Li, X.; Zhu, Y.; Li, Y.; Wu, C. Job burnout of construction project managers in China: A cross-sectional analysis. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1272–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gustavsson, T.K. Organizing to avoid project overload: The use and risks of narrowing strategies in multi-project practice. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tijani, B.; Falana, J.N.; Jin, X.; Osei-Kyei, R. Suicide in the construction industry: Literature review. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2023, 10, 1684–1693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yang, F.; Li, X.; Song, Z.; Li, Y.; Zhu, Y. Job Burnout of Construction Project Managers: Considering the Role of Organizational Justice. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04018103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Delisle, J. Working time in multi-project settings: How project workers manage work overload. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2020, 38, 419–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Leung, M.Y.; Chan, I.Y.; Olomolaiye, P. Impact of stress on the performance of construction project managers. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2008, 134, 644–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Love, P.E.; Edwards, D.J. Taking the pulse of UK construction project managers’ health: Influence of job demands, job control and social support on psychological wellbeing. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2005, 12, 88–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tijani, B.; Jin, X.; Osei-Kyei, R. Effect of project organization elements on the mental health of project management practitioner in AEC projects. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ryff, C.D.; Love, G.C.; Urry, H.L.; Muller, D.; Rosenkranz, M.A.; Friedman, E.M.; Davidson, R.J. Psychological Well-Being and Ill-Being: Do They Have Distinct or Mirrored Biological Correlates? Psychother. Psychosom. 2006, 75, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kamardeen, I.; Sunindijo, R.Y. Personal Characteristics Moderate Work Stress in Construction Professionals. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bowen, P.; Govender, R.; Edwards, P. Structural equation modeling of occupational stress in the construction industry. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, 04014042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Keyes, C.L.; Martin, C.C. The Complete State Model of Mental Health. In Wellbeing, Recovery and Mental Health; Jarden, A., Oades, L., Slade, M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 86–98. [Google Scholar]
  15. Leung, M.Y.; Chan, I.Y. Exploring stressors of Hong Kong expatriate construction professionals in Mainland China: Focus group study. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Al-Maskari, F.; Shah, S.M.; Al-Sharhan, R.; Al-Haj, E.; Al-Kaabi, K.; Khonji, D.; Schneider, J.D.; Nagelkerke, N.J.; Bernsen, R.M. Prevalence of depression and suicidal behaviors among male migrant workers in United Arab Emirates. J. Immigr. Minor. Health 2011, 13, 1027–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Meliá, J.L.; Becerril, M. Psychosocial sources of stress and burnout in the construction sector: A structural equation model. Psicothema 2007, 19, 679–686. [Google Scholar]
  18. Naghieh, A.; Montgomery, P.; Bonell, C.P.; Thompson, M.; Aber, J.L. Organisational interventions for improving wellbeing and reducing work-related stress in teachers. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Mousa, M.; Boyle, J.; Skouteris, H.; Mullins, A.K.; Currie, G.; Riach, K.; Teede, H.J. Advancing women in healthcare leadership: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of multi-sector evidence on organisational interventions. EClinicalMedicine 2021, 39, 101084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Rickard, G.; Lenthall, S.; Dollard, M.; Opie, T.; Knight, S.; Dunn, S.; Wakerman, J.; MacLeod, M.; Seiler, J.; Brewster-Webb, D. Organisational intervention to reduce occupational stress and turnover in hospital nurses in the Northern Territory, Australia. Collegian 2012, 19, 211–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bambra, C.; Gibson, M.; Sowden, A.; Wright, K.; Whitehead, M.; Petticrew, M. Working for health? Evidence from systematic reviews on the effects on health and health inequalities of organisational changes to the psychosocial work environment. Prev. Med. 2009, 48, 454–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Giménez-Espert, M.d.C.; Prado-Gascó, V.; Soto-Rubio, A. Psychosocial risks, work engagement, and job satisfaction of nurses during COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 566896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Chirico, F.; Ferrari, G. Role of the workplace in implementing mental health interventions for high-risk groups among the working age population after the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Health Soc. Sci. 2021, 6, 145–150. [Google Scholar]
  24. Borg, N.; Scott-Young, C.M.; Naderpajouh, N.; Borg, J. Surviving adversity: Personal and career resilience in the AEC industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2023, 41, 361–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pamidimukkala, A.; Kermanshachi, S. Impact of COVID-19 on field and office workforce in construction industry. Proj. Leadersh. Soc. 2021, 2, 100018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kniffin, K.M.; Narayanan, J.; Anseel, F.; Antonakis, J.; Ashford, S.P.; Bakker, A.B.; Bamberger, P.; Bapuji, H.; Bhave, D.P.; Choi, V.K. COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. Am. Psychol. 2021, 76, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Hamouche, S. COVID-19 and employees’ mental health: Stressors, moderators and agenda for organizational actions. Emerald Open Res. 2020, 2, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. World Health Organization; International Labour Organisation Office. Preventing and Mitigating COVID-19 at Work; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
  29. Alsharef, A.; Banerjee, S.; Uddin, S.; Albert, A.; Jaselskis, E. Early impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the United States construction industry. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Deloitte Development LLC. COVID-19 Workforce Strategies for a Post-COVID-19 Recovery Workbook; Deloitte Development LLC: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  31. Firm, T.P. Here’s How COVID-19 Is Changing the Construction Industry. Available online: https://www.perecman.com/blog/2020/may/heres-how-covid-19-is-changing-theconstruction-/ (accessed on 10 October 2022).
  32. Raoufi, M.; Fayek, A.R. Identifying actions to control and mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on construction Organizations: Preliminary Findings. Public Work. Manag. Policy 2021, 26, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Safapour, E.; Kermanshachi, S.; Kamalirad, S. Analysis of effective project-based communication components within primary stakeholders in construction industry. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2020, 11, 157–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. McKinsey & Company. Reopening Workplaces: A Collection of Workforce-Protection Interventions; McKinsey & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  35. Stiles, S.; Golightly, D.; Ryan, B. Impact of COVID-19 on health and safety in the construction sector. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2021, 31, 425–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Koch, J.; Schermuly, C.C. Managing the Crisis: How COVID-19 Demands Interact with Agile Project Management in Predicting Employee Exhaustion. Br. J. Manag. 2021, 32, 1265–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sharma, K.; Deng, L.; Noguez, C.C. Field investigation on the performance of building structures during the 25 April 2015, Gorkha earthquake in Nepal. Eng. Struct. 2016, 121, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Stephany, F.; Stoehr, N.; Darius, P.; Neuhäuser, L.; Teutloff, O.; Braesemann, F. The CoRisk-Index: A data-mining approach to identify industry-specific risk assessments related to COVID-19 in real-time. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2003.12432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, Z.; Shen, G.Q.; Xue, X. Critical review of the research on the management of prefabrication construction. Habitat Int. 2014, 43, 240–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hallowell, M.R.; Gambatese, J.A. Qualitative research: Application of the Delphi method to CEM research. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bogner, A.; Littig, B.; Menz, W. Introduction: Expert interviews—An introduction to a new methodological debate. In Interviewing Experts; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  42. Cuhls, K. Delphi surveys. In Proceedings of Teaching Material for UNIDO Foresight Seminars; United Nations Industrial Development Organization: Vienna, Austria, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  43. Iriste, S.; Katane, I. Expertise as a research method in education. Rural Environ. Educ. Pers. 2018, 11, 74–80. [Google Scholar]
  44. Karakhan, A.A.; Gambatese, J.A.; Simmons, D.R.; Al-Bayati, A.J. Identifying pertinent indicators for assessing and fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion of the construction workforce. J. Manag. Eng. 2021, 37, 04020114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Linstone, H.A. The Delphi Technique. In Environmental Impact Assessment, Technology Assessment, and Risk Analysis. NATO ASI Series; Covello, V.T., Mumpower, J.L., Stallen, P.J.M., Uppuluri, V.R.R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R.; Tatham, R. Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed.; Cengage Learning: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sekaran, U.; Bougie, R. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  48. Peterson, R.A.; Merunka, D.R. Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1035–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Winton, B.G.; Sabol, M.A. A multi-group analysis of convenience samples: Free, cheap, friendly, and fancy sources. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2022, 25, 861–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tetrick, L.E.; Winslow, C.J. Workplace stress management interventions and health promotion. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015, 2, 583–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cox, T.; Karanika, M.; Griffiths, A.; Houdmont, J. Evaluating organizational-level work stress interventions: Beyond traditional methods. Work. Stress 2007, 21, 348–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bhui, K.; Dinos, S.; Galant-Miecznikowska, M.; de Jongh, B.; Stansfeld, S. Perceptions of work stress causes and effective interventions in employees working in public, private and non-governmental organisations: A qualitative study. BJPsych Bull. 2016, 40, 318–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Ohadomere, O.; Ogamba, I.K. Management-led interventions for workplace stress and mental health of academic staff in higher education: A systematic review. J. Ment. Health Train. Educ. Pract. 2021, 16, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Martin, A.; Karanika-Murray, M.; Biron, C.; Sanderson, K. The Psychosocial Work Environment, Employee Mental Health and Organizational Interventions: Improving Research and practice by taking a multilevel Approach. Stress Health 2016, 32, 201–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Parker, S.; Van den Broeck, A.; Holman, D. Work design influences: A synthesis of multilevel factors that affect the design of jobs. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2017, 11, 267–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ingusci, E.; Signore, F.; Giancaspro, M.L.; Manuti, A.; Molino, M.; Russo, V.; Zito, M.; Cortese, C.G. Workload, techno overload, and behavioral stress during COVID-19 emergency: The role of job crafting in remote workers. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 655148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Galanti, T.; Guidetti, G.; Mazzei, E.; Zappalà, S.; Toscano, F. Work from home during the COVID-19 outbreak: The impact on employees’ remote work productivity, engagement, and stress. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2021, 63, e426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rutkowska, A. Remote Interventions to Support Students’ Psychological Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Narrative Review of Recent Approaches. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chang, C.-H.; Shao, R.; Wang, M.; Baker, N.M. Workplace interventions in response to COVID-19: An occupational health psychology perspective. Occup. Health Sci. 2021, 5, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Operationalisation of organisational interventions.
Table 1. Operationalisation of organisational interventions.
CodeOrganisational InterventionsReferences
COOPM 1Providing support for working remotely.[25,26,27]
COOPM 2Providing flexible work schedules.[25,28,29]
COOPM 3Providing training on how to detect and manage stress.[30]
COOPM 4Providing training on how to enhance the use technologies of for project delivery.[31,32]
COOPM 5Establishing a system to maintain effective communication.[33]
COOPM 6Providing routine COVID-19 screening.[34,35]
COOPM 7Regularly disinfecting the project workplace.[28,34]
COOPM 8Enforcing the use of personal protective equipment.[28]
COOPM 9Providing additional childcare support.[34]
COOPM 10Providing training on how to manage and balance work and family.[26,29]
COOPM 11Providing unlimited access to self-care apps.[30,34]
COOPM 12Hiring additional PM practitioners to distribute project workload.[30]
COOPM 13Offering specific pandemic-related leaves.[34]
COOPM 14Providing Employee Assistance Program.[34]
COOPM 15Providing additional technical facilities for virtual and remote work.[26]
COOPM 16Encouraging the sharing of ideas and suggestions to improve project delivery.[36]
COOPM 17Encouraging the adoption of non-tradition project delivery methodologies.[36]
COOPM 18Taking additional measures to manage the supply chain of materials.[37,38]
COOPM 19Managing and maintaining collaboration between PM practitioners and stakeholders.[36]
COOPM 20Providing additional PM training.[25]
Table 2. Profile of the experts.
Table 2. Profile of the experts.
EducationSectorPM-Oriented Work ExperienceNumber of Projects ManagedProfessional Membership
EXP 1Master’s degreeEngineering16 years above21 projects abovePMI
EXP 2Master’s degreeConstruction6 years16 projectsAIPM
EXP 3Master’s degreeConstruction16 years above10 projectsNot disclosed
EXP 4Master’s degreeConstruction16 years above20 projectsNot disclosed
EXP 5DiplomaConstruction10 years11 projectsNot disclosed
EXP 6Master’s degreeConstruction11 years6 projectsAIPM and PMI
EXP 7Master’s degreeEngineering16 years above21 projects aboveNot disclosed
EXP 8Master’s degreeArchitecture and Construction16 years above21 projects aboveAIPM
EXP 9Master’s degreeEngineering16 years above21 projects or aboveAIPM
Table 3. Respondents’ profile.
Table 3. Respondents’ profile.
CharacteristicsFrequencyPercentage
Number of projects worked during COVID-19
1–5 projects3051.7
6–10 projects2034.5
11–15 projects46.9
16–20 projects46.9
Gender
Male4577.6
Female1322.4
Background education
High school23.4
Vocational education11.7
Diploma610.3
Bachelor’s degree1831.0
Master’s degree1932.8
Doctoral degree1220.7
Respondent’s experience in PM-oriented work
0–5 years1118.9
6–10 years1220.7
11–15 years712.1
16 years or above2848.3
Total58100
Table 4. Result of experts on organisational interventions.
Table 4. Result of experts on organisational interventions.
Expert
Organisational Interventions123456789
1. Offering support to PM practitioners who worked remotely during COVID-19 period.√√√√√√√√√
2. Providing flexible work schedules to promote social distancing during COVID-19 period√√√√√√√√√
3. Providing training on how to detect and manage stress during COVID-19 period.√√√√√√√√√
4. Providing training on how to enhance the use of technologies for project delivery during COVID-19 period√√X√√√√√√
5. Establishing a system to maintain effective communication between PM practitioners, project teams, leadership and stakeholders during COVID-19 period.√√X√√√√√√
6. Providing routine COVID-19 screening to PM practitioners√√√√√√√√X
7. Regularly disinfecting the project workplace environment during COVID-19 period.√√X√√√√√X
8. Enforcing the use of personal protective equipment in the project environment during COVID-19 period. √√√√X√√√√
9. Providing additional childcare supports for PM practitioners during COVID-19 period.X√√X√√√√√
10. Providing training on how to manage and balance work and family during COVID-19 period.X√√√√√√X√
11. Providing unlimited access to self-care apps for mental health and psychological support (e.g., digital mental health app and or therapy) to PM practitioners during COVID-19 period.√√√√√√√√√
12. Hiring additional PM practitioners to distribute project workload during COVID-19 period.√√X√X√√√√
13. Offering specific pandemic-related leaves (e.g., vaccination leave, leave for self-isolation) for PM practitioners COVID-19 during the project delivery.√√√√√√√√√
14. Providing Employee Assistance Program (EAP) to help alleviate the distress associated with work-family conflict during COVID-19 period. √√X√√√√√√
15. Providing additional technical facilities for virtual and remote work during COVID-19 period.√√XXX√√√√
16. Encouraging PM practitioners to share ideas and suggestions to improve project delivery during COVID-19 period.√√√√X√√√√
17. Encouraging the adoption of agile PM methodologies to promote autonomy, social interactions and breaking down of project activities in various phases during COVID-19 period. √√X√√X√XX
18. Taking additional measures to manage the supply chain of materials for project delivery.√√√√XX√X√
19. Managing and maintaining collaboration between PM practitioners and stakeholders during COVID-19 period.√√X√X√√X√
20. Providing additional PM training (e.g., quality management, budget management and time management) during COVID-19.√√X√X√√XX
Note: √ = Applicable; X = Not applicable.
Table 5. Mean score ranking for organisational interventions.
Table 5. Mean score ranking for organisational interventions.
CodeArchitectureEngineeringConstructionTotal
MeanS.D.RankMeanS.D.RankMeanS.D.RankMeanS.D.Rank
COOPM 12.401.140152.420.900162.051.161202.161.10520
COOPM 22.000.707202.330.778192.221.151182.221.04419
COOPM 32.801.48352.501.087122.851.29552.781.2575
COOPM 42.601.51792.500.798132.661.23792.621.1679
COOPM 52.401.673132.500.798142.461.075142.471.06315
COOPM 62.601.140122.670.65172.661.217102.661.1018
COOPM 72.201.304182.670.65182.441.246152.471.14316
COOPM 82.400.894172.250.622202.201.145192.221.02718
COOPM 92.400.894162.500.674153.121.20832.931.1223
COOPM 102.601.51782.671.07353.121.24922.981.2352
COOPM 113.001.41432.750.96532.871.18942.851.1454
COOPM 123.401.51712.751.05523.441.32413.291.2981
COOPM 132.801.48362.750.96542.511.247122.591.20011
COOPM 143.001.41422.831.11512.411.204162.551.20212
COOPM 152.801.48342.580.90092.491.186132.531.14313
COOPM 162.801.14072.330.778182.681.15082.621.10510
COOPM 172.601.140112.670.88862.801.18862.761.1136
COOPM 182.401.342142.420.793172.561.097112.521.04714
COOPM 192.200.837192.580.669112.291.006172.340.92817
COOPM 202.601.517102.580.900102.781.23572.721.1827
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jin, X.; Osei-Kyei, R.; Perera, S.; Bawtree, J.; Tijani, B. Organisational Interventions for Improving Mental Health of Project Management Practitioners during COVID-19 in Architecture, Engineering and Construction Sectors in Australia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16036. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152216036

AMA Style

Jin X, Osei-Kyei R, Perera S, Bawtree J, Tijani B. Organisational Interventions for Improving Mental Health of Project Management Practitioners during COVID-19 in Architecture, Engineering and Construction Sectors in Australia. Sustainability. 2023; 15(22):16036. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152216036

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jin, Xiaohua, Robert Osei-Kyei, Srinath Perera, James Bawtree, and Bashir Tijani. 2023. "Organisational Interventions for Improving Mental Health of Project Management Practitioners during COVID-19 in Architecture, Engineering and Construction Sectors in Australia" Sustainability 15, no. 22: 16036. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152216036

APA Style

Jin, X., Osei-Kyei, R., Perera, S., Bawtree, J., & Tijani, B. (2023). Organisational Interventions for Improving Mental Health of Project Management Practitioners during COVID-19 in Architecture, Engineering and Construction Sectors in Australia. Sustainability, 15(22), 16036. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152216036

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop