Perceived Organizational Politics Weakens the Benefits of Diversity Climate: Evidence from an Explanatory Sequential Mixed-Methods Study of Construction Professionals

Abstract

Retaining skilled professionals has become a major challenge for construction organizations as project-based work, workforce mobility, and increasing workforce diversity continue to reshape the industry. Although previous studies have examined diversity climate and perceived organizational politics independently, there is limited evidence on how these organizational conditions jointly influence employee attitudes and withdrawal behavior in construction. This study examines associations among employees’ perceptions of diversity climate, perceived organizational politics, job satisfaction, and organizational withdrawal using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. Survey data from 392 permanent construction professionals in private organizations across Tamil Nadu, India, were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling, followed by semi-structured interviews with 14 professionals. The quantitative findings indicate a positive association between diversity climate and job satisfaction and negative associations between diversity climate, job satisfaction, and organizational withdrawal. Perceived organizational politics moderated the relationship between diversity climate and job satisfaction, such that the positive association was weaker at higher levels of perceived organizational politics. The indirect relationship between diversity climate and organizational withdrawal, mediated by job satisfaction, also varied across levels of perceived organizational politics. The interview findings highlighted fairness, recognition, managerial behavior, and transparent communication as important aspects of employees’ workplace experiences. The findings suggest that diversity-supportive practices are more favorably associated with employee outcomes when organizational processes are perceived as fair and transparent. Given the cross-sectional design, the findings should be interpreted as relationships rather than causal effects.

1. Introduction

The construction industry is a major contributor to economic growth, supporting infrastructure development, employment generation, and national productivity in both developed and developing economies. Globally, the sector accounts for approximately 13% of the gross domestic product (GDP) and employs over 7% of the world’s workforce [1,2]. Despite its economic importance, the industry still faces a persistent labor shortage that affects organizational performance and long-term sustainability. Human resource (HR) management has become a strategic focus for construction companies owing to high employee turnover, increasing competition for skilled labor, tight project schedules, and changing workforce expectations [3,4]. This is especially relevant for the Indian construction industry, the second largest employer after agriculture and contributing nearly 9% to the country’s GDP [5,6]. Rapid urbanization and infrastructure development have increased the demand for skilled construction professionals, while project-based employment, changing work locations, and low employee retention continue to create workforce instability [7,8,9].

In addition to these workforce challenges, the construction workforce has changed dramatically in the last two decades, and construction projects increasingly depend on multidisciplinary teams comprising professionals with diverse educational, cultural, linguistic, and demographic backgrounds [8]. Although workforce diversity promotes knowledge sharing, innovation, and problem-solving, it may also create communication and inclusion challenges when organizational practices are perceived as unfair or inconsistent [10,11]. Consequently, research has shifted from examining workforce diversity itself to understanding employees’ perceptions of how organizations manage diversity [12].

These changing workplace conditions have led to a focus on diversity climate (DC), which refers to employees’ perceptions of whether their organization values diversity, promotes inclusion, and applies workplace policies and practices fairly across different employee groups [13,14]. In the present study, DC is examined through individual employees’ perceptions of it within their organizations. Positive DC has been linked to several positive employee outcomes, including higher job satisfaction (JS), increased organizational commitment, higher work engagement, and lower turnover intentions [15,16]. Employees who perceive their organization as fair and inclusive will have a more positive attitude toward their work and, in turn, demonstrate greater commitment and continued performance. Conversely, perceptions of exclusion and unfair treatment reduce employees’ sense of belonging and weaken job satisfaction and work engagement [14,16,17].

However, positive DC alone may not be enough to maintain positive employee attitudes. Construction organizations operate through temporary project teams with changing reporting relationships and decentralized decision-making, giving managers considerable discretion over work allocation, performance evaluation, and career opportunities [18]. Under these conditions, employees may perceive workplace decisions as influenced by favoritism, informal networks, and personal relationships rather than by merit. Perceived organizational politics (POP) refers to employees’ beliefs that organizational decisions are driven by self-interest rather than transparent and merit-based procedures [19,20]. Previous studies consistently show that higher POP is associated with lower trust, reduced organizational commitment, emotional exhaustion, and lower JS across various organizational settings [21,22]. Even when organizations implement inclusive policies, employees may question the credibility of those policies if promotion, recognition, and resource allocation are perceived to depend on political influence rather than merit [23]. Consequently, POP may condition the association between DC and employee outcomes. Despite its theoretical importance, construction management research has paid limited attention to examining POP as a boundary condition that influences these relationships.

POP has been extensively researched as a predictor of employee attitudes or a mediator of the influence of organizational conditions on behavioral outcomes [24,25,26]. However, these perspectives suggest that political perceptions directly explain employees’ reactions to workplace experiences. The present study adopts a different perspective, conceptualizing POP as a contextual condition in which favorable perceptions of DC are more or less strongly associated with JS. This position is supported by Social Exchange Theory (SET), which suggests that employees evaluate organizational practices in relation to the wider organizational environment to determine appropriate reciprocal attitudes and behaviors [27]. While organizations may endorse fairness, inclusion, and equal opportunities, employees may doubt the credibility and consistency of such practices when decision-making processes are perceived as politically motivated. Consequently, POP is expected to alter the strength of the relationship between DC and JS rather than constitute an intermediate explanatory mechanism. Viewing POP as a moderator therefore provides additional theoretical insight into the organizational conditions under which diversity-supportive practices are more or less strongly associated with employee outcomes and withdrawal-related experiences.

JS represents employees’ overall evaluation of their work and organizational environment [23,28]. Satisfied employees tend to be more motivated, committed, and willing to go beyond the formal duties, while dissatisfaction usually results in withdrawal from the organization [29]. Organizational withdrawal (OW) includes both psychological withdrawal, such as emotional detachment and reduced discretionary effort, and physical withdrawal, including absenteeism, lateness, and voluntary turnover [30,31,32]. These behaviors are particularly costly in construction because they disrupt project continuity, increase recruitment and training costs, and reduce the retention of organizational knowledge. Understanding the organizational conditions that strengthen or weaken employee satisfaction is therefore essential for improving workforce stability in the construction industry.

Although research on employee behavior in construction has expanded considerably, important gaps remain. Existing studies have generally examined DC and POP as independent predictors of JS, organizational commitment, and withdrawal-related outcomes [5,26,33,34,35,36,37,38]. Consequently, limited evidence explains how organizational politics influences the effectiveness of diversity-supportive practices within construction organizations. Furthermore, construction management research has relied predominantly on quantitative, cross-sectional designs that establish statistical relationships but provide limited understanding of the workplace experiences underlying those relationships [39]. Although recent qualitative evidence suggests that perceptions of organizational politics develop through employees’ everyday experiences of fairness, recognition, and managerial decisions, these insights have rarely been integrated with quantitative findings [22]. Consequently, the organizational mechanisms through which perceived organizational politics influences the effectiveness of diversity climate remain insufficiently understood.

This gap is particularly relevant in Tamil Nadu, one of the fastest-growing construction regions in India. Temporary project teams characterize the state’s construction sector, changing reporting relationships and a diverse professional workforce comprising individuals from different linguistic, cultural, and regional backgrounds [40]. These organizational conditions require employees to continually evaluate fairness, managerial support and career opportunities while adapting to new project environments. Such characteristics make Tamil Nadu an appropriate context for examining how DC and POP interact to influence employee attitudes and behaviors in project-based organizations.

This study builds on the authors’ earlier quantitative examination of DC, JS, and OW [8]. The earlier study analyzed 318 responses from the same survey program and focused on the mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationships between DC and psychological and physical withdrawal [8]. The present study uses the expanded final sample of 392 responses. It addresses a different research question by examining perceived organizational politics as a boundary condition of the DC–JS association and its indirect association with OW through JS. It also extends the earlier quantitative approach through an explanatory sequential qualitative phase.

To address these gaps, this study adopts an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design that integrates quantitative and qualitative evidence. In the quantitative phase of this study, the relationships among DC, POP, JS, and OW are examined. In contrast, the qualitative phase explores how construction professionals experience and interpret these relationships in their daily work. The use of both types of evidence allows for a more holistic understanding of the organizational processes that impact employee behavior in construction. Specifically, this study seeks to (1) investigate the relationships between DC, POP, JS, and OW; (2) examine whether POP moderates the relationship between DC and JS and its indirect effect on OW; and (3) interpret these relationships based on the lived experiences of construction professionals.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the theoretical background and develops the research hypotheses. Section 3 describes the research methodology, followed by the presentation of quantitative and qualitative findings, integrated discussion, implications, and conclusions.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Theoretical Foundation

Organizational dependence is determined not only by formal employment relationships but also by employees’ perceptions of their treatment in their daily work environments. This study is grounded in the theoretical framework of Social Exchange Theory (SET) [27] and Equity Theory [41]. It provides a framework for understanding how employees interpret organizational practices in relation to their workplace attitudes and behaviors. SET suggests that organizations’ fair treatment of employees is associated with more favorable work attitudes and behaviors. Organizations that treat their employees fairly, promote their development, and encourage inclusive practices are generally associated with stronger employee commitment and more favorable evaluations of the work environment [42].

SET is interested in the relations between the parties. Still, Equity Theory provides a complementary perspective that employees are in ongoing comparison of their own inputs and outcomes with those of others [41]. Perceived inequity arising from unequal recognition, promotion opportunities, or managerial decisions is associated with dissatisfaction and behavioral withdrawal. In project-based construction organizations, where work allocation, performance evaluation, and career opportunities frequently depend on project managers, employees become particularly sensitive to perceptions of fairness. Consequently, DC and POP represent two contrasting organizational conditions that may be jointly associated with employee satisfaction and withdrawal. Together, these theories provide an appropriate foundation for examining both the direct and conditional relationships proposed in this study.

2.2. Diversity Climate and Job Satisfaction

Positive DC refers to employees’ perceptions that organizational policies and managerial practices are fair, inclusive, and provide equal opportunities. These perceptions concern how employees experience their treatment and inclusion within the organizational environment, irrespective of differences in their personal or professional backgrounds [13,14]. From the perspective of SET, employees who perceive their organization as fair and supportive tend to report more favorable levels of job attitudes [42]. Furthermore, a meta-analysis by Holmes et al. [16] has reinforced the finding that positive diversity and inclusion climates are consistently associated with more positive job attitudes, particularly job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Similar findings have been reported in the construction sector, where favorable perceptions of DC and inclusivity were associated with higher JS and lower withdrawal intentions among construction professionals [8]. Based on this, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1. 

DC is positively associated with JS among construction professionals.

2.3. Job Satisfaction and Organizational Withdrawal

JS represents employees’ overall evaluation of their work experiences and is consistently associated with their attachment to the organization [28]. Employees reporting higher levels of JS tend to report more positive attitudes towards work, greater willingness to undertake responsibilities beyond formal requirements, and stronger commitment to organizational goals. In contrast, lower JS has been associated with psychological withdrawal, reduced discretionary effort, absenteeism, and voluntary turnover [30,31,32]. Previous organizational research has also identified job satisfaction as an important predictor of turnover intention and withdrawal-related behaviors [35,43]. These findings provide a basis for examining the relationship between JS and OW in the construction context.

H2. 

JS is negatively associated with OW among construction professionals.

2.4. The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction

Previous research has identified JS as an important attitudinal pathway linking organizational conditions to employee behavioral outcomes. Employees who perceive the organization’s efforts in terms of diversity, fair policies, and an inclusive work environment tend to have a positive job evaluation. This positive evaluation is associated with stronger attachment to the organization and lower reported intentions to disengage from work. Conversely, less favorable perceptions of the work environment have been associated with lower JS and a greater propensity for withdrawal behaviors [16,23]. Recent organizational studies have shown that JS mediates the relationship between positive workplace practices and desirable employee outcomes, thereby supporting JS as a mediator between organizational climate and behavioral responses [44,45]. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H3. 

JS mediates the relationship between DC and OW.

2.5. Direct Relationship Between Diversity Climate and Organizational Withdrawal

A supportive DC may also be associated with OW beyond its relationship with JS. Employees who perceive organizational practices as fair, inclusive, and consistently applied are more likely to experience a sense of belonging and organizational support, which may reduce their tendency to withdraw psychologically or consider leaving the organization [46]. From the perspective of SET, fair and supportive treatment may be associated with stronger reciprocal attachment and sustained participation. In contrast, exclusion and perceived inequity may weaken the employee–organization relationship and encourage withdrawal [47]. Equity Theory similarly proposes that perceived inequity can lead to dissatisfaction and disengagement when employees believe their inputs and outcomes are not equitably balanced with those of others [48]. In construction organizations, where project assignments, recognition, and access to opportunities may vary across teams and reporting structures, perceptions of diversity-related fairness may therefore be directly associated with withdrawal behavior. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H4. 

DC is negatively associated with OW among construction professionals.

2.6. The Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Politics

Positive DC is generally associated with positive employee attitudes, but this relationship might be contingent on employees’ perceptions of the organizational environment. POP refers to employees’ perceptions that organizational decisions, resource allocation, and workplace outcomes are influenced by self-interest, informal influence, personal relationships, or political considerations rather than by transparent and merit-based procedures [20]. Such perceptions may arise from interactions with different workplace actors, including supervisors and managers at the hierarchical level and peers or coworkers at the interpersonal level [49]. Political behavior originating from different workplace actors may operate through different mechanisms. Politics involving supervisors or managers may affect employees’ perceptions of fairness through decisions regarding recognition, promotion, work allocation, and access to organizational resources. In contrast, peer-related political behavior may influence job satisfaction through interpersonal relationships, group affiliation, cooperation, and access to informal information. Therefore, the same overall level of perceived organizational politics may not necessarily have identical implications for the relationship between DC and JS depending on its primary source [20,49]. However, because the present study measures POP as an overall perception, these source-specific moderating effects cannot be examined empirically in the current analysis. In politically charged environments, employees may be more skeptical about organizational initiatives, which may be reflected in a weaker association between diversity-related practices and JS. Previous studies have consistently reported negative associations between perceived organizational politics and employees’ trust, commitment, and work engagement, together with positive associations with unfavorable workplace attitudes [26,35]. From the perspective of Equity Theory, political behavior may be interpreted as a source of unfairness, which can be associated with less favorable responses to organizational support [41]. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H5. 

POP negatively moderates the relationship between DC and JS, such that the relationship is weaker when POP is high.

2.7. The Moderated Mediation Effect of Perceived Organizational Politics

Although JS provides a potential explanatory pathway between DC and OW, the strength of this indirect relationship may vary according to the organizational context in which employees interpret diversity-related practices. Specifically, JS, which can reduce withdrawal behaviors, is likely related to employees’ perceptions of the organization’s fairness and inclusiveness. However, if organizational decisions are perceived as influenced by political behavior, favoritism, or informal networks, employees may be skeptical of the authenticity of diversity-supportive practices and less likely to respond favorably to them. Therefore, the positive association between DC and JS may correspond to a weaker indirect association with OW when POP is high.

From the perspective of SET, employees reciprocate favorable organizational treatment only when they perceive organizational actions as genuine and trustworthy [27]. These reciprocal exchanges are undermined by political work environments in which employees attribute organizational decisions to self-serving motives, rather than fair organizational practices. Also, Equity Theory suggests that the perception of inequity reduces employees’ positive evaluation of organizational support and thus diminishes the motivational value of diversity-related initiatives [41]. So, the indirect effect of DC on OW via JS is expected to vary with employees’ perceptions of organizational politics. This line of reasoning is consistent with the conditional process theory, which posits that mediating mechanisms often operate differently across organizational contexts when important contextual variables alter the strength of one or more paths in the mediation process [50,51].

Accordingly, POP is expected to moderate the indirect relationship between DC and OW by weakening the positive association between DC and JS. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H6. 

POP moderates the indirect relationship between DC and OW through JS, such that the negative indirect association becomes weaker when POP is high.

2.8. Conceptual Framework

The present study proposes an integrated framework that connects DC, JS, POP, and OW from the perspectives of SET, Equity Theory, and the proposed conditional process model. The framework hypothesizes a positive relationship between DC and JS (H1), and a negative relationship between JS and OW (H2). JS is further expected to mediate the relationship between DC and OW (H3), while DC is also expected to have a direct negative association with OW (H4). In addition, POP is proposed to negatively moderate the relationship between DC and JS, such that the positive association between DC and JS becomes weaker as perceived organizational politics increases (H5). Because POP moderates the DC–JS relationship, the indirect association between DC and OW through JS is also expected to vary with POP levels (H6). Thus, the framework represents a first-stage moderated mediation model in which the mediating role of JS is conditional on employees’ perceptions of organizational politics. Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework and the hypothesized relationships among DC, JS, POP, and OW.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

The present research employed an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach to explore the associations among DC, POP, JS, and OW among construction professionals in Tamil Nadu, India. In this design, quantitative data were collected and analyzed first, followed by a qualitative phase to explore how participants experienced and interpreted the workplace conditions reflected in the quantitative findings. Combining the two forms of evidence provided a broader account of workplace dynamics than either approach alone and supported contextual interpretation of the quantitative findings. This approach is particularly suitable for complex organizational phenomena that benefit from statistical assessment and contextual interpretation [52,53].

This study comprised three phases. First, a pilot study was conducted to assess the clarity, reliability, and suitability of the measurement instrument. Second, a cross-sectional questionnaire survey was administered and analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Third, semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore workplace experiences relevant to the quantitative findings. The qualitative phase was therefore intended to complement the statistical analysis rather than to test the proposed relationships independently.

3.2. Sample and Data Collection

The target population comprised permanent white-collar professionals employed in private construction organizations in Tamil Nadu, including project managers, engineers, architects, supervisors, and quality and safety personnel. A non-probability convenience sampling approach was adopted because construction professionals are geographically dispersed, work across temporary projects, and cannot readily be identified through a comprehensive sampling frame [54,55]. To obtain variation within the quantitative sample, respondents were recruited from different professional roles, organizational settings, and project environments across 26 districts in Tamil Nadu. An a priori power analysis using G*Power 3.1.9.7 indicated a minimum sample size of 210 (α = 0.05, power = 0.80, f² = 0.05) [56,57,58]. Considering the proposed moderated mediation model, 500 questionnaires were distributed through face-to-face and online administration. After screening, 392 valid responses were retained, yielding a response rate of 78.4%.

The present quantitative analysis uses the expanded final dataset of 392 valid responses from the same survey program reported previously [8]. The earlier publication analyzed a subset of 318 responses from this dataset, whereas the present study includes the expanded sample and applies a different analytical framework.

The quantitative analysis was conducted at the level of individual respondents. Accordingly, DC represents each employee’s perception of the diversity climate within the organization in which they worked rather than an aggregated organization-level or project-level climate measure. The analysis therefore examines associations among employees’ perceptions of diversity-related fairness, inclusion, and equal treatment and their reported JS and withdrawal. Organization- and project-level identifiers were not available for constructing aggregated climate measures or examining potential clustering; consequently, this study does not estimate shared climate effects or differences between firms or project teams.

Following completion of the quantitative phase, 14 construction professionals were recruited independently for the qualitative phase using purposive sampling. None of these participants took part in the questionnaire survey, so their individual DC and POP scores were unavailable and not used to identify contrasting cases. The selection sought variation in gender, age, educational qualification, professional role and work experience to obtain diverse perspectives relevant to the quantitative findings [59]. Interviews were conducted in person and lasted approximately 45–60 min. Participants were interviewed in either Tamil or English according to their preference. With their consent, all interviews were audio-recorded. Interviews conducted in English were transcribed in English, whereas those conducted in Tamil were translated into English and transcribed, preserving the intended meaning of participants’ responses.

The semi-structured interview guide was developed from the study objectives, conceptual framework, and quantitative findings. Questions addressed participants’ experiences of DC, POP, JS, and OW, with follow-up probes to elicit specific examples regarding fairness, recognition, managerial practices, political behavior, and withdrawal-related experiences. The guide also enabled participants to share workplace experiences not anticipated by the quantitative framework.

The qualitative sample was not structured to ensure representation across specific construction project types or organizational categories. The 14 interviews were conducted in the Tamil Nadu construction context. They were not treated as separate strata by residential, infrastructure, or other project types, or by small, medium, and large organizations. The qualitative phase was therefore intended to provide contextual insight rather than statistical representation. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was reached. Saturation was assessed iteratively by comparing codes and emerging themes from successive interviews with those developed from earlier transcripts. Interviews were continued until no substantially new concepts, categories, or explanations relevant to the study objectives emerged. This criterion was met after the 14th interview, as subsequent interviews largely repeated or elaborated on the existing thematic structure [60,61].

3.3. Measurement Instrument and Data Quality

The survey instrument was developed from established measures and refined through expert review and a pilot study involving 76 construction professionals. The initial pilot instrument contained 78 items. Following respondent feedback and assessment of reliability and factor structure, items with weak loadings, problematic cross-loadings or unclear wording were removed or refined, resulting in a 57-item instrument for the main survey. The final questionnaire comprised 21 DC items, 14 POP items, 6 JS items and 16 OW items. Demographic information was collected separately. DC covered fairness, inclusion, interpersonal valuing and anti-discrimination; POP covered general political behavior, going along to get ahead, and pay and promotion policies; and OW covered psychological and physical withdrawal. The complete item wording, item codes, construct dimensions, measurement sources and contextual adaptations are provided in Appendix A (

Table A1. List of Questionnaire Items.

Construct	Item Code	Item Description
DIVERSITY CLIMATE
DC—Fairness	A1	Promotion decisions are based solely on job performance and qualifications, without regard for factors like race, gender, or age.
	A2	Pay and benefits are distributed equitably across all employee groups, regardless of background.
	A3	My organization ensures that all employees have equal access to professional development opportunities.
	A4	I often feel that my contributions are overlooked compared to those of my colleagues from different backgrounds. (Reverse-coded)
	A5	Layoff decisions are made without bias, considering only job performance and organizational needs.
DC—Inclusion	B1	My organization actively seeks to create a sense of belonging for all employees, regardless of their background.
	B2	Employees from diverse backgrounds are involved in key decision-making processes.
	B3	My organization promotes the inclusion of employees from all backgrounds in social and work-related activities.
	B4	There are clear initiatives in place to support the inclusion of employees from underrepresented groups (e.g., women, minorities).
	B5	I believe that my organization values the unique contributions of all employees, regardless of their background.
DC—Interpersonal Valuing	C1	My colleagues and I openly share ideas and perspectives, regardless of our differences.
	C2	Employees in my organization respect and appreciate the cultural differences of their colleagues.
	C3	I feel comfortable interacting with colleagues from different cultural or social backgrounds.
	C4	I occasionally feel that my ideas are dismissed because of my background. (Reverse-coded)
	C5	Managers actively seek input from employees of different demographic groups in problem-solving and decision-making.
DC—Anti-Discrimination	D1	The organization has clear procedures in place for reporting and addressing incidents of discrimination.
	D2	Managers are committed to eliminating any forms of bias and discrimination within the workplace.
	D3	The organization responds quickly and effectively to any incidents of discrimination.
	D4	I sometimes worry that reporting discrimination may lead to negative consequences for me. (Reverse-coded)
	D5	I feel safe from discrimination in my workplace.
	D6	There is a culture of intolerance towards discrimination, which is reinforced by the organization’s leadership.
PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS
POP—General Political Behavior	E1	People in this organization often try to improve their status by undermining others.
	E2	There is a group of people in this organization who have a lot of power and influence, and no one dares to challenge them.
POP—Go Along to Get Ahead	F1	This organization encourages its employees to openly express their views, even if they challenge established ideas. [R]
	F2	There is no place for ‘yes’-men around here; good ideas are desired even if it means disagreeing with superiors. [R]
	F3	The best way to get ahead in this organization is to agree with the people in power.
	F4	It’s best to keep quiet and avoid causing any trouble in this organization.
	F5	Sometimes it is easier to go along with the system than to fight it.
	F6	In this organization, it’s sometimes better to say what others want to hear rather than the truth.
	F7	In this organization, it’s safer to accept what you’re told rather than forming your own opinion.
POP—Pay and Promotion Policies	G1	I have never observed political bias in the application of pay and promotion policies in this organization. [R]
	G2	I don’t recall any instance where a pay raise or promotion was given contrary to the stated policies. [R]
	G3	My pay increases have not followed the company’s policies.
	G4	The stated pay and promotion policies in this organization are irrelevant when it comes to determining pay raises and promotions.
	G5	Promotions around here are not valued much because the way they are determined is so political.
ORGANIZATIONAL WITHDRAWAL
OW—Psychological Withdrawal	H1	I often find myself occupied with irrelevant things at work.
	H2	I frequently surf the web or use the internet for non-work purposes.
	H3	I put effort into looking busy, even when I’m not actually working.
	H4	I often chat with colleagues about non-work-related topics.
	H5	I constantly check the time, waiting for the workday to end.
	H6	I put in less effort than what is normally expected of me at work.
	H7	I spend time making long personal calls during work hours.
	H8	I often talk about wanting to leave the company.
	H9	I frequently ask others to do tasks that are my responsibility.
OW—Physical Withdrawal	I1	I take leave or sick days even when I am not actually sick.
	I2	I arrive late for work without a valid reason.
	I3	I leave work early without obtaining permission.
	I4	I avoid participating in important meetings or company events (e.g., performance reviews, group meetings).
	I5	I do not return to the office or site after completing off-site work early.
	I6	I take longer breaks than I am allowed.
	I7	I often disappear from the worksite or office without informing anyone.
JOB SATISFACTION
Job Satisfaction	J1	I am satisfied with the work I do.
	J2	I am satisfied with my supervisor.
	J3	I am satisfied with the relations I have with my co-workers.
	J4	I am satisfied with the pay I receive for my job.
	J5	I am satisfied with the opportunities, which exist in this organization for advancement (promotion)
	J6	All things considered; I am satisfied with my current job situation.

Note: [R]—Reverse-coded.

).

Although the questionnaire was organized according to these content dimensions, the quantitative model specified DC, POP and OW as overarching constructs because the hypotheses concerned the overall relationships among these variables rather than dimension-specific effects. The dimensions were retained to ensure adequate coverage of each construct domain and to organize the adapted indicators. The construct-level specification was therefore adopted because examining the individual dimensions separately would require a different analytical model with dimension-specific hypotheses and structural paths. Accordingly, the present analysis does not assess whether individual dimensions differ in their relationships with the other study constructs.

The measurement items were adapted to the construction context during expert review and pilot testing, with revisions intended to improve contextual clarity without altering the underlying meaning of the original measures. DC was assessed using scales from [13,14]; POP was measured using the revised Perceptions of Politics Scale [20]; JS was measured using the Generic Job Satisfaction Scale [62]; and OW was measured using an instrument developed by [30,31]. DC, POP, and JS items were measured on a five-point agreement scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, whereas OW items were measured on a five-point frequency scale from 1 = never to 5 = always. Reverse-worded items were retained where present and reverse-coded before analysis; their coding status is reported in Appendix A. Higher scores indicate more favorable perceptions of DC, stronger perceptions of POP, greater JS, and more frequent OW. The questionnaire was administered in English; consequently, no translation or back-translation procedure was required.

Ethical approval was obtained before data collection (EC No.: 8776/IEC/2024), and participation was voluntary, anonymous, and based on informed consent. To enhance data quality and minimize common method bias, respondents were assured of confidentiality, questionnaire sections were clearly separated, and completed responses were screened for missing values, inconsistent response patterns, and outliers before analysis. In addition, the common method bias was assessed using Harman’s single-factor test. The unrotated exploratory factor analysis showed that the first factor explained 38.0% of the total variance, which is below the recommended value of 50%. This suggests that common method bias was unlikely to be a serious concern in the present study [62]. Because Harman’s test provides only a preliminary diagnostic, a full collinearity assessment was also conducted within the PLS-SEM framework [63]. The full-collinearity VIF values ranged from 1.645 to 2.582, remaining below the conservative threshold of 3.3. These results provide no indication of substantial common method bias in the data.

3.4. Data Analysis

The quantitative data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics V23 and SmartPLS 4.0. SPSS was used for data screening, descriptive statistics, and preliminary analyses, whereas SmartPLS was used to evaluate the measurement and structural models. The measurement model was assessed using indicator reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, average variance extracted (AVE), and the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT) following established PLS-SEM guidelines [56]. The structural model was evaluated using 5000 bootstrap resamples to assess the significance of the estimated relationships. Path coefficients, R², Q², f², mediation, moderation, and moderated mediation were examined.

The qualitative data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using ATLAS.ti 9 through thematic analysis involving familiarization, coding, theme development, and interpretation [64,65]. The first author coded the transcripts. Repeated reading of the transcripts was used to develop initial codes, which were subsequently reviewed and refined by comparing interviews. Related codes were grouped into categories and synthesized into broader themes in accordance with the study objectives and patterns emerging from the data. Variations across participants were retained during interpretation rather than excluded in favor of convergence with the quantitative findings.

3.5. Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Phases

Integration was undertaken at the interpretation stage in accordance with the explanatory sequential mixed-methods design [53]. The quantitative findings were first examined to identify statistically significant relationships requiring further contextual interpretation. These findings informed the development of the semi-structured interview guide, which focused on participants’ experiences of DC, POP, JS and OW in construction workplaces. Because the qualitative participants were recruited independently of the quantitative survey, the qualitative phase was not intended to compare participants according to quantitative DC or POP scores. Instead, the interviews explored how construction professionals understood and experienced workplace conditions represented in the quantitative model.

The qualitative themes were subsequently compared with the quantitative findings to identify convergence, complementarity and variation. The qualitative evidence was used as contextual material for interpreting the quantitative associations rather than as independent statistical confirmation of those relationships. Although the qualitative accounts were broadly consistent with the directions of the quantitative findings, participants did not uniformly describe workplace experiences. Variation occurred in the circumstances and in the intensity with which fairness, recognition, political behavior, and withdrawal were experienced. These differences were retained during interpretation alongside the convergent themes.

4. Results

4.1. Respondent Characteristics

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents.

Variable	Category	Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	297	75.8
	Female	95	24.2
Age (years)	18–28	89	22.7
	29–38	163	41.6
	39–48	117	29.9
	Above 48	23	5.8
Educational qualification	Diploma	67	17.1
	Undergraduate	157	40.1
	Postgraduate	141	36.0
	Ph.D./Postdoctoral	8	2.0
	Others	19	4.8
Overall work experience	<2 years	24	6.1
	2–5 years	62	15.8
	6–15 years	171	43.6
	16–25 years	92	23.5
	>25 years	43	11.0
Working context	Construction site	147	37.5
	Office	129	32.9
	Both site and office	116	29.6

shows the demographic profiles of the 392 construction professionals who participated in the quantitative survey. The sample was predominantly male (75.8%), which is characteristic of the Indian construction industry workforce. Most of the respondents belonged to the age group of 29–38 years (41.6%), followed by 39–48 years (29.9%), indicating that the sample was mainly composed of mid-career professionals. The respondents were also highly educated, with 76.1% holding undergraduate or postgraduate qualifications. In terms of professional experience, 43.6% of the total had 6–15 years in the industry, and 23.5% had 16–25 years. The survey reached professionals with considerable industry exposure. Regarding work setting, the majority (37.5%) worked predominantly on construction sites, followed by office environments (32.9%) and both (29.6%). The sample was diverse in demographic and occupational characteristics, providing a suitable basis for examining the proposed relationships among DC, POP, JS and OW.

4.2. Descriptive Statistics

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and Spearman rank correlations among the study constructs.

Construct	Min	Max	Mean	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	DC	POP	JS	OW
DC	1	5	3.855	1.035	−1.258	2.134	1
POP	1	5	4.004	1.135	−1.492	2.745	−0.592	1
JS	1	5	3.857	0.942	−1.045	1.652	0.625	−0.645	1
OW	1	5	3.775	1.058	−1.221	1.932	−0.644	0.681	−0.721	1

presents the descriptive statistics and Spearman rank correlations for the four study constructs. The mean scores ranged from 3.775 to 4.004. DC (M = 3.855) and JS (M = 3.857) were relatively high, whereas POP (M = 4.004) indicated comparatively strong perceptions of organizational politics and OW (M = 3.775) indicated relatively frequent withdrawal experiences. The standard deviations ranged from 0.942 to 1.135, indicating meaningful variation across respondents. All four constructs showed negative skewness, with values ranging from −1.492 to −1.045, indicating that responses were concentrated toward the upper end of the respective scales. Kurtosis values ranged from 1.652 to 2.745. Because the distributions were non-normal, Spearman’s rank correlation was used to examine the bivariate associations among the constructs. The correlation coefficients showed that DC was positively associated with JS and negatively associated with POP and OW, whereas POP was negatively associated with JS and positively associated with OW. JS was also negatively associated with OW. All correlations were statistically significant at p < 0.01.

The observed bivariate associations were consistent with the hypothesized directions and provided an initial assessment of the relationships among the study constructs before evaluation of the measurement and structural models.

4.3. Measurement Model Evaluation

The measurement model was evaluated for indicator reliability, internal consistency reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity following the guidelines for PLS-SEM [56]. Outer loadings were used to assess indicator reliability, with loadings greater than 0.70 deemed adequate for representing the latent construct. Internal consistency reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha, rho_A, and composite reliability. Values above 0.70 were considered satisfactory. Convergent validity was evaluated using the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), where values greater than 0.50 indicate that the construct explains more than half of the variance in its indicators [66]. The variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to assess multicollinearity among the indicators. Values lower than 5.00 indicate that multicollinearity was not a problem [56]. The measurement model was evaluated at the overarching construct level specified in the structural model. The dimension labels used during questionnaire development were not entered as separate latent variables. The reported reliability and validity statistics therefore refer to the overarching constructs rather than to the individual questionnaire dimensions.

The results in

Table 3. Measurement model assessment.

Construct	Outer Loading Range	Indicator VIF Range	Cronbach’s α	rho_A	Composite Reliability	AVE
DC	0.742–0.912	1.241–3.587	0.962	0.963	0.965	0.568
POP	0.728–0.905	1.312–3.425	0.944	0.946	0.950	0.576
JS	0.821–0.908	1.564–2.983	0.921	0.923	0.938	0.717
OW	0.733–0.901	1.286–3.764	0.953	0.955	0.957	0.583

show that all constructs met the recommended measurement criteria. The outer loadings ranged from 0.728 to 0.912. The VIF values ranged from 1.241 to 3.764, well below the recommended threshold. Cronbach’s alpha (0.921–0.962), rho_A (0.923–0.963), and composite reliability (0.938–0.965) were all higher than 0.70, indicating that internal consistency was good. Similarly, the AVE ranged from 0.568 to 0.717, indicating acceptable convergent validity. The findings suggest that the measurement model is reliable and appropriate for further evaluation of the structural model.

In addition, discriminant validity was assessed using the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio, as it provides a more rigorous assessment of the construct’s distinctiveness than traditional correlation-based approaches [67].

Table 4. Discriminant validity using the HTMT ratio.

Constructs	DC	POP	OW	JS
DC	—
POP	0.612	—
OW	0.658	0.721	—
JS	0.745	0.684	0.801	—

shows that all HTMT values were between 0.612 and 0.801, which are below the recommended cut-off of 0.85 by Henseler et al. [67]. The results thus provide additional evidence for the empirical distinctness of the study constructs and the measurement of different theoretical constructs.

4.4. Structural Model Assessment

Following confirmation of the measurement model, the structural model was evaluated using PLS-SEM. Bootstrapping with 5000 resamples was used to assess the significance of the estimated relationships. The assessment considered structural collinearity, path coefficients, explanatory power, effect sizes, predictive relevance, mediation, and moderated mediation. Statistical significance was evaluated at the 5% level [56]. To clearly distinguish among the different types of estimated effects, the results are presented in three stages: structural paths and associated model diagnostics (

Table 5. Structural model assessment and hypothesis testing.

Structural Path	β	SD	t	p	95% CI [LL, UL]	VIF	f2	Decision
DC → JS (H1)	0.446	0.061	7.315	<0.001	[0.328, 0.568]	2.201	0.208	Supported
JS → OW (H2)	−0.361	0.079	4.575	<0.001	[−0.519, −0.209]	2.798	0.187	Supported
DC → OW (H4)	−0.291	0.072	4.036	<0.001	[−0.431, −0.149]	2.072	0.128	Supported
DC × POP → JS (H5)	−0.186	0.054	3.452	0.001	[−0.294, −0.082]	1.750	0.052	Supported
POP → JS	−0.344	0.060	5.733	<0.001	[−0.460, −0.224]	2.155	0.122	---

), mediation (

Table 6. Mediation analysis.

Structural Path	β	SD	t	p	95% CI [LL, UL]	Decision
DC → JS → OW (H3)	−0.161	0.045	3.584	<0.001	[−0.247, −0.071]	Supported

), and conditional indirect effects and the index of moderated mediation (

Table 7. Conditional indirect effects of DC on OW through JS at different levels of POP.

POP Level	Conditional Indirect Effect (β)	SD	t	p	95% CI [LL, UL]
Low (−1 SD)	−0.228	0.058	3.931	<0.001	[−0.339, −0.110]
Mean	−0.161	0.031	5.194	<0.001	[−0.219, −0.098]
High (+1 SD)	−0.094	0.026	3.615	<0.001	[−0.142, −0.041]
Index of moderated mediation (H6)	0.067	0.021	3.208	0.001	[0.029, 0.112]

).

4.4.1. Structural Paths and Model Diagnostics

Structural collinearity was assessed using the variance inflation factor (VIF). The predictor VIF values ranged from 1.750 to 2.798, remaining below the conservative threshold of 3.3 for PLS-SEM applications [56]. The results therefore indicate that the predictor constructs did not exhibit problematic collinearity in the structural model.

As shown in Table 5, the structural relationships support H1, H2, H4, and H5. DC was positively associated with JS (β = 0.446, p < 0.001), while JS was negatively associated with OW (β = −0.361, p < 0.001). DC was also significantly and negatively associated with OW (β = −0.291, p < 0.001). The lower-order POP → JS relationship was negative and statistically significant (β = −0.344, p < 0.001), indicating that greater perceptions of organizational politics were associated with lower JS after accounting for the other terms in the model.

The interaction between DC and POP was also negative and statistically significant (β = −0.186, p = 0.001). This result supports H5 and indicates that the positive association between DC and JS was weaker at higher POP levels. The interaction effect should therefore be interpreted as a change in the strength of the DC–JS association rather than as an independent positive or negative relationship between the interaction term and JS.

The f² statistics provide information on the contribution of individual predictors to the explained variance in the endogenous constructs [58]. The effect of DC on JS was 0.208, while JS showed an f² of 0.187 for OW. The corresponding effects of POP and the DC × POP interaction on JS were 0.122 and 0.052, respectively, while the effect of DC on OW was 0.128. These values indicate that the structural relationships varied in magnitude, with DC and JS making comparatively larger contributions to their respective endogenous constructs.

The model’s explanatory and predictive performance was assessed using R² and Q². The model accounted for 28.5% of the variance in JS (R² = 0.285) and 38.1% of the variance in OW (R² = 0.381). The corresponding Q² values were 0.174 for JS and 0.239 for OW, indicating predictive relevance for both endogenous constructs. These results suggest that the proposed model has meaningful explanatory and predictive capability in the present construction industry sample.

The standardized structural relationships are presented in Figure 2.

4.4.2. Mediation Analysis

The mediating role of JS was examined using the bootstrapped indirect effect of DC on OW through JS. The results are presented in Table 6.

As shown in Table 6, the indirect association between DC and OW through JS was statistically significant (β = −0.161, p < 0.001), and the 95% confidence interval did not contain zero. These findings support H3 and indicate that JS forms an important mediating pathway through which the association between DC and OW is expressed. Given the significant direct DC → OW association reported in Table 5, the pattern is consistent with partial rather than complete mediation.

4.4.3. Conditional Indirect Effects and Moderated Mediation

Because POP was specified as a moderator of the DC → JS relationship, the indirect association between DC and OW through JS was examined at low, mean, and high levels of POP. The results are presented in Table 7.

The conditional indirect effects in Table 7 were negative at all three levels of POP, but their magnitude decreased as POP increased. The effect was −0.228 at low POP, −0.161 at the mean level of POP, and −0.094 at high POP. This pattern indicates that the negative indirect association between DC and OW through JS was stronger when POP was lower and weaker when POP was higher.

The index of moderated mediation was positive and statistically significant (β = 0.067, SD = 0.021, t = 3.208, p = 0.001, 95% CI [0.029, 0.112]). Because the conditional indirect effects are negative, the positive index indicates that the negative indirect association became less pronounced as POP increased. Thus, the results support H6 and indicate that POP attenuated the indirect association between DC and OW through JS.

The interaction underlying H5 is illustrated with a simple slopes analysis in Figure 3. The figure shows the predicted relationship between DC and JS at low (−1 SD), mean, and high (+1 SD) levels of POP.

The low-POP condition displays the steepest positive DC–JS slope, whereas the high-POP condition displays the flattest positive slope. This pattern provides a visual representation of the negative interaction coefficient reported in Table 5.

4.4.4. Overall Assessment of the Structural Model

Taken together, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 and Figure 2 and Figure 3 provide evidence for the direct, mediating, moderating, and conditional indirect relationships specified in the conceptual framework. H1, H2, H4, and H5 were supported by the structural path estimates, H3 was supported by the significant indirect association through JS, and H6 was supported by the significant index of moderated mediation and the observed variation in the conditional indirect effects across levels of POP. The quantitative findings establish the statistical relationships among the study variables, while the subsequent qualitative analysis provides contextual insight into how construction professionals experience fairness, organizational politics, job satisfaction, and withdrawal in their everyday work settings.

4.5. Qualitative Findings

4.5.1. Profile of Interview Participants

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 construction professionals selected through purposive sampling from the private construction organizations of Tamil Nadu to explain the quantitative results. The participants represented a range of technical and managerial positions, including principal engineers, project managers, planning engineers, structural designers, quantity surveyors and design engineers as shown in

Table 8. Demographic profile of interview participants.

Participant	Gender	Age	Designation	Education	Experience (Years)
P01	Male	36	Principal Engineer	Postgraduate	13.8
P02	Male	34	Assistant Project Manager	Postgraduate	10.2
P03	Male	34	Planning Executive	Postgraduate	10.6
P04	Female	25	Rebar Detailer	Diploma	4.6
P05	Female	30	Assistant Manager	Postgraduate	8.4
P06	Female	29	Estimation and Quantity Surveyor	Undergraduate	6.3
P07	Male	32	Senior Structural Designer	Postgraduate	8.8
P08	Male	34	Structural Design Engineer—R&D	PhD	10.3
P09	Male	42	Senior Planning Engineer	Postgraduate	14.0
P10	Female	28	Structural Engineer	Undergraduate	4.5
P11	Male	36	Assistant Engineering Manager	Postgraduate	7.5
P12	Male	33	Resident Engineer	Undergraduate	10.1
P13	Male	41	Senior Project Manager	PhD	13.4
P14	Female	25	Design Engineer	Undergraduate	3.2

. The sample consisted of nine males and five females, aged 25–42 years, and with professional experience ranging from 3.2 to 14.0 years. The participants varied in their educational backgrounds from diploma, undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral levels, which provided perspectives from different professional and organizational levels. The variation in professional roles, work experience and educational backgrounds provided perspectives from different positions within construction organizations and supported the exploration of workplace experiences relevant to the study objectives.

4.5.2. Development of Themes

The qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis supported by ATLAS.ti 9. The coding process began with repeated reading of the interview transcripts to familiarize the researchers with the participants’ workplace experiences. Initial open coding generated 61 codes, representing recurrent ideas related to DC, POP, JS, and OW. Through an iterative process of comparison and refinement, conceptually similar codes were combined into eight code groups, which were subsequently synthesized into four overarching themes. These themes explain how construction professionals experience diversity practices, organizational politics and employee withdrawal within project-based work environments. Representative quotations are presented to illustrate the participants’ perspectives while maintaining anonymity through participant identifiers (P01–P14).

Diversity Climate Shapes Employees’ Workplace Experiences

The first theme explains how DC is experienced by employees through everyday interactions and not just formal organizational policies. It was developed from three code groups comprising 24 codes: Fairness, Equity and Inclusion Climate (8 codes), Gender-Based Barriers and Bias (7 codes), and Exclusion and Marginalization (9 codes). Together, these code groups demonstrate that employees evaluate DC based on fairness, inclusion, equal opportunities and the extent to which they feel respected and involved in workplace decisions. These findings complement the quantitative results by explaining why a supportive diversity climate was positively associated with job satisfaction.

Participants in the interviews repeatedly said that they trusted, felt confident and collaborated well when they felt treated fairly and included in the work practices. “When everyone is treated equally, it builds trust. You feel motivated to work harder. You don’t mind putting in extra effort because you know it’ll be valued,” participant P03 said. Similarly, another participant said “When people feel included, they’re more willing to coordinate, help, and share knowledge” (P01). These accounts imply that employees judge DC on the basis of everyday working experiences (e.g., communication, teamwork and merit-based task allocation) rather than on written organizational policies.

Despite these positive experiences, participants also described conditions that dampened their sense of inclusion. Women said long hours, poor facilities at sites and traditional expectations of their role were obstacles to their involvement, while junior staff often felt excluded from discussions and decision-making. As one participant said “Freshers are the ones who usually feel left out. Their suggestions aren’t taken seriously, and even if they say something useful, someone senior will take the credit. It’s demotivating” (P05). These findings suggest DC as a function not only of organizational commitment to inclusion but also of consistent managerial practices for providing fair treatment to employees regardless of gender, experience and professional role. Employees’ understandings of diversity were grounded in their everyday experiences of diversity in the workplace, as well as in formal organizational policies. These qualitative results provide contextual insight into the positive association between DC and JS by showing how employees relate fairness and inclusion to their experiences JS.

Organizational Politics and the Conditional Relationship Between Diversity Climate and Job Satisfaction

The second theme concerns employees’ accounts of how organizational politics were associated with perceptions of organizational fairness and with less favorable experiences of diversity-supportive practices. Participants described situations in which favoritism, informal relationships and unequal access to opportunities were perceived to reduce the credibility of organizational fairness and inclusion. These accounts provide contextual insight into the weaker association between DC and JS observed in the quantitative analysis. This theme was derived from the code group, Organizational Politics and Favoritism, which included nine codes: Backbiting and manipulation to gain favor, Favoritism affects fairness, Favoritism impacts diversity, Getting benefits due to favoritism, Organizational politics reduce motivation and satisfaction, Partiality based on role or department, Regional grouping, Senior taking credit, and Unequal access to promotion guidance. Collectively, these codes indicate that employees evaluated organizational fairness not only through formal policies but also through everyday experiences of recognition, promotion, managerial support and access to organizational resources.

Accounts of preferential treatment were particularly evident in participants’ descriptions of access to organizational resources and routine workplace decisions. One participant explained “Some people are close to managers, so they get things done faster like getting leave approved or getting a laptop replaced. Others have to wait.” (P04). This account emphasizes the significance of informal relationships with managers in employees’ perceptions of equal treatment. Another participant described the consequences of unequal recognition: “Once, I stayed late fixing a bridge alignment issue, and my section head just presented it like he did everything. Stuff like that really hits your morale.” (P01). Together, these accounts suggest how perceptions of favoritism and the unequal attribution of recognition may undermine employees’ trust in the fairness of organizational processes and affect their motivation.

The qualitative findings therefore help explain the statistical moderation result without being interpreted as independent evidence of moderation. Participants’ experiences suggest that the perceived value of diversity-supportive practices may depend partly on whether employees regard organizational decisions and interpersonal treatment as fair and consistently applied. When recognition, access to resources or other workplace outcomes were perceived to depend on informal relationships rather than merit, formal commitments to fairness and inclusion appeared less credible. Such experiences provide a plausible contextual explanation for why the positive association between DC and JS was weaker under higher levels of POP.

The interviews also indicated that organizational politics could be experienced through different types of workplace relationships. Some accounts involved supervisors or senior personnel, particularly in relation to preferential treatment, recognition and access to organizational resources. Other codes, including backbiting, regional grouping, manipulation to gain favor and partiality based on role or department, reflected broader interpersonal and group-level dynamics. These patterns are consistent with the possibility that the consequences of perceived politics may vary according to the source and nature of the political behavior. However, the qualitative phase was not designed to classify political behavior systematically according to its source or to compare supervisor-versus peer-related politics. The findings should therefore be interpreted as contextual indications of how employees experience organizational politics rather than as evidence of differential effects of specific political sources on the DC–JS relationship.

Recognition and Fair Human Resource Practices in Job Satisfaction

The third theme concerns participants’ accounts of recognition, career development opportunities and human resource practices in relation to JS. It emerged from two groups of codes with 13 codes, namely Recognition, Motivation and Growth (6 codes) and Promotion, Recognition and HR Practices (7 codes). The codes included appreciation from supervisors, motivation through recognition, career growth opportunities, learning and development, transparent promotion process, performance-based recognition, and human resource support. Together, these code groups show that employees associate JS not only with financial rewards but also with professional recognition, opportunities for development, and confidence in fair organizational procedures. These experiences were associated with stronger attachment to work and greater reported commitment among the participants.

The participants always cited recognition as an important source of motivation and professional confidence. As one participant said “When our work is valued, we feel that our works are meaningful. It makes us more responsible and it makes us better at what we do.” (P11). Another participant added “Recognition doesn’t always have to be financial. A simple appreciation from the project manager makes us feel respected and motivates us to give more.” (P05). These replies showed that employees appreciated prompt acknowledgment and helpful feedback as indications that the organization recognized their contribution.

Likewise, career progression and clear promotion policies were also identified as important factors of JS. Some participants also pointed out that their lack of confidence in organizational support stemmed from inconsistent promotion procedures. As one participant stated, “There should be clear guidance about promotions. Employees should know what is expected instead of depending on informal recommendations.” (P09). Participants said that transparent HR practices build trust in the organization, while uncertainty about career progression gradually reduces motivation and commitment. The qualitative findings explain the significant negative relationship between JS and OW identified in the quantitative analysis. It suggests that employees who feel recognized, supported, and treated fairly are more likely to remain committed to their organization and less likely to demonstrate withdrawal behaviors.

Workplace Dissatisfaction and Organizational Withdrawal

The fourth theme describes participants’ accounts of how persistent negative workplace experiences were associated with psychological and physical forms of OW. It was derived from two groups of codes with 14 codes: Withdrawal and Dissatisfaction Drivers (11 codes) and Site Conditions and Operational Challenges (3 codes). The codes included poor work–life balance, excessive workload, lack of appreciation, limited career growth, inadequate communication, stress, long working hours, intention to leave, poor site facilities, safety concerns, and challenging site conditions. Collectively, these code clusters show that OW is rarely triggered by a single incident. Participants described OW as developing alongside prolonged unmet expectations, demanding working conditions, and reduced confidence in organizational support.

Participants consistently described heavy workloads, extended working hours and poor work–life balance as major sources of dissatisfaction. One participant explained “Sometimes we stay at the site until late at night for several weeks. After a point, you lose interest because there is no balance between work and personal life.” (P09). Another participant stated “When the pressure continues every day and nobody recognizes the effort, people stop giving their best. They do the work which is given to them and then they go.” (P03). These reports suggest that long-term workplace demands gradually diminish employees’ emotional attachment to the organization before observable withdrawal behaviors occur.

Interviewees also cited challenging site environments and poor organizational support as factors reinforcing these intentions to withdraw. One respondent said “Site conditions are not always comfortable. If basic facilities and support are missing for a long time, people naturally start looking for other opportunities.” (P10). Participants said that it was not just poor working conditions that drove them away; it was when those conditions were compounded by little recognition, little managerial support, and few opportunities for career advancement. The qualitative findings provide contextual insight into the negative associations identified in the quantitative analysis. Participants associated supportive organizational practices with more favorable work experiences, whereas persistent dissatisfaction was accompanied by greater psychological detachment and stronger intentions to leave the organization.

4.6. Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings

The purpose of the qualitative phase was to provide contextual insight into the statistically significant relationships identified in the quantitative analysis and to develop a fuller understanding of employees’ workplace experiences. The two phases were integrated at the interpretation stage to examine areas of convergence, complementarity and variation. The quantitative findings established the direction and strength of the estimated relationships among DC, POP, JS and OW. In contrast, the qualitative accounts illustrated how employees described the workplace conditions represented in the model. The integration therefore provides contextual interpretation of the quantitative findings rather than independent evidence of the statistical relationships. The integrated findings are presented in

Table 9. Integration of qualitative and quantitative findings.

Quantitative Finding	Qualitative Evidence	Representative Participant Quotation	Integrated Interpretation
DC was positively associated with JS (H1).	Employees associated a positive DC with fair treatment, inclusion, respectful communication, and equal opportunities. These experiences fostered trust, collaboration, and confidence within the organization.	P03: “When everyone is treated equally, it builds trust. You feel motivated to work harder. You don’t mind putting in extra effort because you know it’ll be valued.”	The positive association between DC and JS appears to be closely related to employees’ everyday experiences of fairness and inclusion rather than to formal organizational policies alone.
JS was negatively associated with OW (H2).	Employees who received recognition, constructive feedback, and transparent career opportunities expressed stronger organizational commitment, whereas dissatisfaction gradually reduced motivation and work engagement.	P03: “When the pressure continues every day, and nobody recognizes the effort, people stop giving their best. They do the work which is given to them, and then they go.”	JS represents an important attitudinal pathway linking employees’ workplace experiences with withdrawal-related experiences.
JS mediated the relationship between DC and OW (H3).	The interviews demonstrated that fair treatment and inclusive work practices increased employees’ satisfaction, while recognition and transparent human resource practices strengthened their organizational commitment.	P11: “When our work is valued, we feel that our works are meaningful. It makes us more responsible, and it makes us better at what we do.”	The qualitative accounts provide contextual insight into the mediating relationship by linking experiences of fairness and inclusion with job satisfaction and, in turn, with reported engagement and withdrawal-related experiences.
DC was negatively associated with OW (H4).	Participants explained that withdrawal developed gradually through repeated experiences of exclusion, excessive workload, limited organizational support, and unfavorable site conditions rather than through isolated incidents.	P05: “Freshers are the ones who usually feel left out. Their suggestions aren’t taken seriously, and even if they say something useful, someone senior will take the credit. It’s demotivating.”	The negative association between DC and OW is consistent with participants’ accounts that experiences of respect, inclusion and organizational support were accompanied by stronger psychological connection to the organization and lower reported withdrawal.
POP negatively moderated the relationship between DC and JS (H5).	Participants reported that favoritism, informal influence, regional grouping and unequal recognition reduced their confidence in organizational fairness despite the presence of diversity-supportive practices.	P04: “Some people are close to managers, so they get things done faster, like getting leave approved or getting a laptop replaced. Others have to wait.”	The weaker DC–JS association at higher levels of POP may be understood in relation to employees’ accounts of managerial behavior, informal influence, and perceived inconsistencies in the application of organizational policies.
POP negatively moderated the indirect relationship between DC and OW through JS (H6).	Participants consistently described political behavior as reducing the motivational value of diversity-supportive practices by weakening trust in organizational decisions, recognition, and career advancement.	P06: “People who are close to seniors or managers get benefits, regardless of how much they actually work.”	The conditional indirect relationship can be interpreted in light of participants’ accounts of organizational fairness and political behavior. These accounts provide contextual insight into the quantitative pattern rather than independent evidence of the conditional indirect relationship. Diversity initiatives are less effective when employees believe that workplace decisions are influenced by informal relationships rather than by merit.

. To make the relationship between the quantitative and qualitative findings more transparent, the table includes a representative quotation from the interview data for each statistically examined relationship. These quotations are not treated as independent confirmation of the statistical findings; rather, they provide concrete illustrations of the workplace experiences through which participants interpreted the organizational conditions represented in the quantitative model.

The integration of the two phases showed convergence in several areas, while participants also described differences in the circumstances through which fairness, recognition, political behavior, and withdrawal were experienced. DC, POP, and JS were identified as significant predictors of OW in the quantitative analysis. The interviews provided contextual insight into how employees experienced the workplace conditions represented in the quantitative model. Participants evaluated the DC not as a set of organizational policies but through their interactions with supervisors, coworkers, and organizational procedures. Similarly, employees were affected by organizational politics not because political behavior was present, but because it eroded confidence in the fairness and consistency of organizational decisions.

The integrated findings also provide contextual insight into the mediation and moderated mediation relationships identified in the structural model. The interviews indicate that participants associated diversity-supportive practices with perceptions of fairness, recognition, and organizational support, which, in turn, were described alongside more favorable experiences of JS. Participants reporting greater satisfaction also described stronger psychological engagement and commitment to their organizations. These accounts provide contextual insight into the statistical relationships identified in the quantitative phase, but they do not independently establish temporal or causal relationships among the constructs. The qualitative accounts also linked experiences of political behavior with lower confidence in managerial decisions, promotion practices, and recognition systems. Consequently, the qualitative findings provide contextual insight into how employees experienced the organizational conditions represented in the quantitative model and why the reported relationships may vary across workplace circumstances. This integrated interpretation extends construction management research by highlighting the importance of transparent, merit-based management practices in understanding employees’ experiences of diversity-supportive practices and workplace outcomes.

5. Discussion

The findings indicate that employees’ perceptions of DC are closely connected with how they experience their work and their relationship with the organization. In construction, where work is organized around temporary project teams, changing reporting relationships, and multidisciplinary coordination, employees form their perceptions of DC through routine workplace interactions and formal organizational policies. The interview evidence points particularly to fair treatment, respectful communication, equitable work allocation, recognition, and opportunities to contribute as salient features through which employees evaluate the diversity climate of their workplace. This interpretation is consistent with evidence that DC is associated with trust, employee attitudes and retention-related outcomes [14,16,68]. It also accords with SET and Equity Theory, according to which employees interpret organizational treatment in terms of reciprocity and perceived fairness [27,41,42]. The construction setting adds an important contextual dimension because the meaning of organizational practices may vary across supervisors, project teams, and immediate work environments.

The association between DC and OW also warrants consideration beyond JS’s role. The quantitative analysis was conducted at the individual-respondent level; therefore, the findings describe associations among employees’ perceptions of DC, JS, POP, and OW rather than differences in shared diversity climate across organizations or project teams. DC was not aggregated across employees to represent an organization-level climate. Accordingly, the interpretation of the findings is limited to how individual construction professionals perceive and respond to diversity-related conditions in their workplaces. The partial mediation pattern suggests that employees’ perceptions of DC are related to withdrawal through JS while retaining a distinct direct association with withdrawal. This is theoretically plausible because DC encompasses employees’ broader judgments about inclusion, interpersonal treatment and fairness, which may be relevant to withdrawal independently of their overall evaluation of the job. Previous research has similarly linked DC to retention- and turnover-related outcomes [15,68]. In the present study, participants described exclusion, unequal recognition, and limited opportunities to contribute as experiences that could weaken their connection with the organization. These accounts do not independently establish the statistical pathway, but they provide a workplace context in which the observed association between DC and OW can be understood.

The mediating role of JS further suggests that employees’ general evaluation of their work may be an important link between organizational experiences and withdrawal-related outcomes. This interpretation is compatible with research identifying JS as a central job attitude associated with withdrawal behavior [29,30] and with studies connecting organizational climate and employee outcomes through attitudinal mechanisms [44,45,46]. The qualitative accounts add specificity to this relationship. Recognition, constructive feedback and meaningful opportunities were associated in participants’ accounts with more favorable work experiences, whereas persistent dissatisfaction was described alongside reduced initiative and psychological disengagement. Such accounts are particularly relevant to construction workplaces, where dissatisfaction may emerge from repeated interactions across projects rather than from a single organizational event.

A more important theoretical implication concerns the role of POP as a boundary condition. The findings indicate that the positive association between DC and JS is less pronounced when employees report stronger perceptions of organizational politics. This supports the conceptualization of POP as a contextual condition rather than simply another antecedent of employee attitudes. From an SET perspective, diversity-supportive practices may be evaluated less favorably when employees simultaneously perceive organizational decisions as politically driven. Equity Theory provides a complementary explanation: when recognition, promotion, or access to resources appears to depend on relationships rather than contribution, the perceived fairness of otherwise supportive practices may be questioned [41]. This interpretation is consistent with previous evidence linking POP with job dissatisfaction and unfavorable employee attitudes [69] and with research in construction showing that political perceptions are related to evaluations of organizational processes [39].

The quantitative analysis identifies a weaker DC–JS association at higher POP levels, whereas the qualitative interviews provide contextual evidence of workplace experiences that may help interpret this pattern. Participants described preferential treatment, unequal recognition, inconsistent promotion practices, and informal influence as experiences that shaped their perceptions of organizational fairness. These accounts do not independently establish the statistical interaction. Some experiences concerned supervisors and senior personnel, whereas others involved interpersonal and group-level behaviors such as regional grouping, backbiting, and role-based partiality [49,70]. Because POP was assessed as an overall construct, the present study cannot determine whether political behavior from supervisors and peers has different moderating consequences. This distinction should therefore be examined directly in future research rather than inferred from the present qualitative evidence.

The conditional indirect relationship between DC and OW through JS further refines the proposed framework. Moderated mediation provides a means of examining whether an indirect relationship varies with a contextual variable [50,51]. In the present study, the pattern suggests that the association between DC and withdrawal through JS is contingent on the organizational political context. In practical terms, diversity-supportive experiences may carry less favorable attitudinal implications when employees simultaneously perceive organizational decisions as politically influenced. This interpretation is consistent with research showing that perceptions of organizational politics are associated with employee attitudes, strain, and behavioral outcomes [21,26]. Participants described reduced motivation due to favoritism, unrecognized contributions, and limited advancement. These accounts provide contextual material that is compatible with the quantitative pattern but do not demonstrate the conditional indirect relationship itself. They instead illustrate workplace experiences through which the statistical association can be interpreted. This distinction is important because the cross-sectional design permits examination of associations but does not establish temporal or causal relationships.

The findings also refine the application of SET and Equity Theory to project-based construction organizations. Both perspectives emphasize that employees evaluate organizational exchanges in part through the fairness and reciprocity of treatment [27,41,42]. The relevant issue is therefore not simply whether diversity-supportive practices exist, but whether employees experience those practices as credible and consistently applied. Research on diversity, inclusion and organizational politics similarly indicates that political conditions can shape how employees interpret organizational practices and their implications for well-being [23]. Formal inclusion measures may have limited perceived value when everyday decisions concerning recognition, resources or advancement are regarded as politically influenced. This interpretation is consistent with evidence linking perceived organizational politics with employee attitudes and workplace outcomes [21,26]. For construction organizations, the findings highlight the importance of consistent supervisory decisions, recognition practices and access to opportunities across project teams.

The present study extends the authors’ earlier work [8] in both analytical scope and research question. Whereas the earlier study examined JS as a mediating pathway between DC and withdrawal dimensions, the present analysis examines POP as a moderating condition of the DC–JS association and the resulting indirect association with OW. The qualitative phase further provides contextual insight into how employees experience fairness, recognition and political behavior in construction workplaces.

Overall, the mixed-methods evidence indicates that DC, JS and OW should be considered within the wider political context of construction workplaces. The quantitative model identifies the proposed relationships, while the interviews provide contextual insight into how employees describe fairness, recognition and interpersonal experiences in their organizational environment. This interpretation is consistent with research demonstrating the relevance of diversity climate to employee attitudes and withdrawal-related outcomes [14,15,16,68], and with evidence linking job attitudes with OW [29,30]. At the same time, the regional and context-specific nature of the qualitative sample limits transferability, while the cross-sectional quantitative design limits causal interpretation. Because the quantitative analysis was conducted at the individual level and organization- and project-level identifiers were unavailable to examine potential clustering, the findings should not be interpreted as evidence of shared climate effects or of differences between firms or project teams. The quantitative estimates therefore represent associations among the measured constructs rather than evidence of temporal or causal relationships. Within these boundaries, the study contributes by showing how employees’ perceptions of DC, JS and POP are interconnected with withdrawal-related experiences in project-based construction workplaces.

6. Implications

This study makes several theoretical contributions to the body of knowledge in construction management and organizational behavior. First, it extends the application of SET and Equity Theory by indicating that JS partly explains the association between DC and OW and varies with employees’ perceptions of organizational politics. By integrating these constructs within a first-stage moderated mediation framework, the study advances current understanding of how fairness perceptions, political behavior, and employee attitudes jointly shape withdrawal in project-based construction organizations. Furthermore, the mixed-methods design complements the statistical findings by providing contextual insight into the workplace experiences associated with these relationships. The qualitative findings identify context-specific aspects of DC, including supervisory fairness, transparent communication, recognition, and inclusive team interactions, thereby extending evidence on diversity climate in project-based construction settings.

The results have practical implications for construction firms and point to three priorities. First, practices that support diversity need to be improved through consistent recognition, fair distribution of work, respectful communication and open access to opportunities within project teams. Second, given the moderating role of POP, organizations should improve the transparency of promotion, performance appraisal, and recognition procedures and establish accessible channels for employees to express concerns about preferential treatment or inconsistent decision-making. Third, managers need to be alert to the early indications of dissatisfaction and withdrawal, particularly in areas where employees report recurring concerns about fairness, recognition, or career progression. These priorities are closely aligned with the quantitative findings and the workplace experiences reported by participants. Longitudinal or intervention studies are needed to investigate longer-term effects on JS and workforce stability.

7. Limitations and Future Directions

This study should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, the quantitative phase employed a cross-sectional research design, which limits conclusions regarding causal relationships among DC, POP, JS, and OW. Longitudinal or time-lagged designs might offer stronger evidence for temporal ordering across different phases of construction projects. Accordingly, the reported coefficients represent statistical associations within the observed sample and should not be interpreted as evidence of temporal causation. Second, this study was carried out with professionals across different organizational roles and 26 districts of Tamil Nadu. Still, the generalizability of the results to other regions and construction sectors may be limited due to convenience sampling. Future research could use probability-based sampling or multi-country comparative designs to strengthen external validity. Third, the quantitative data were based on self-reported questionnaires and may therefore be affected by social desirability and common method bias despite the procedural and statistical measures adopted to reduce these concerns. Fourth, the quantitative analysis was conducted at the individual-respondent level, with DC representing employees’ perceptions of DC within their workplaces. Organization- and project-level identifiers were not available to examine potential clustering or shared climate effects; consequently, the findings should not be interpreted as evidence of organization- or project-level differences. Future studies could collect suitable group-level information and apply multilevel or cluster-aware methods.

The qualitative phase also has contextual limitations. Although purposive sampling sought variation in gender, age, educational qualification, professional role and work experience, project type and organizational size were not used as specific criteria. The 14 interviews, therefore, do not establish whether the identified experiences extend across residential, infrastructure, and other project types, or across small, medium, and large organizations. In addition, all qualitative participants were drawn from Tamil Nadu. The qualitative findings should consequently be viewed as context-specific explanations rather than universal patterns. Future research could employ maximum-variation purposive sampling across project types, organizational sizes, geographical regions and project delivery contexts to assess the transferability of the identified themes.

8. Conclusions

This study adopted an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach to examine the relationships among DC, POP, JS, and OW in project-based construction organizations. The results show that a positive DC is associated with higher levels of JS and lower levels of OW, but this relationship is contingent on employees’ perceptions of organizational politics. Specifically, higher levels of POP were associated with a weaker positive relationship between DC and JS, and the indirect relationship between DC and OW through JS varied with POP level. The qualitative accounts indicated that participants evaluated organizational support through everyday workplace experiences involving managerial fairness, recognition, transparent communication, and equal treatment rather than through formal organizational policies alone. These accounts provide contextual insight into workplace experiences associated with the statistical relationships and deepen understanding of workforce dynamics in construction organizations. This study contributes to existing knowledge on workforce management in the construction industry by providing quantitative evidence alongside employees’ lived experiences. It illustrates the value of combining statistical modeling with qualitative inquiry when examining complex organizational phenomena. Overall, the findings suggest that favorable employee outcomes in project-based construction settings are associated not only with diversity-supportive practices but also with transparent, merit-based, and consistently implemented management processes. These findings should be interpreted as evidence of statistical relationships rather than causal effects, and further longitudinal research is needed to examine how these relationships develop over time.