Construction Management and Economics (November 2005) 23, 891–903
Impacts of stress on estimation performance in Hong
Kong
MEI-YUNG LEUNG1*, PAUL OLOMOLAIYE2, ALICE CHONG3 and
CHLOE C. Y. LAM1
1
Department of Building and Construction, and 3Department of Applied Social Studies, City University of Hong Kong,
Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong
2
School of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Wolverhampton, UK
Received 1 September 2003; accepted 29 September 2004
Cost estimation not only requires precise technical and analytical input from estimators but also involves the
use of subjective judgement. An investigation on the impact of stress on estimation performance was conducted
involving 177 professional estimators in Hong Kong. Using correlation analysis, regression analysis and
structural equation modelling, the relationships between stress and various aspects of estimation performance
are examined and a causal structural model is developed. The results indicate that stress is a cause of negative
estimation performance (resulting in weak interpersonal relationships, unfamiliarity with organization and
ineffective process), while, simultaneously, it is beneficial to the professional estimation performance.
Furthermore, there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between stress and the organizational relationship.
Keywords: Cost estimation, interpersonal, organization, performance, stress, task
Introduction
Construction cost estimators are often pressed to
produce accurate cost predictions or valuations within
a rigid yet hasty timeframe. The situation is worsened
in the case where there is a lack of co-operation
between various project participants, such as planners,
project managers, sub-contractors, suppliers, etc., as
cost estimation relies heavily on data associated with
the construction schedule, methods, materials, quantities and component costs. In fulfilling their roles,
estimators are subjected to stresses of various magnitudes. While a reasonable amount of stress might
enhance one’s performance, psychologists and neurobiologists believe that too much stress can in turn
compromise the personal intellect and emotion of
decision makers (Jex, 1998). According to Cherrington
(1994), under excessively stressful situations, decisions
might become more rigid, simplistic and superficial
(e.g. when making assumptions for estimation). This
type of behaviour could affect estimating accuracy.
*Author for correspondence. E-mail: [email protected]
The significance of occupational stress has provoked
research into the origin of stress pertaining to various
disciplines, such as nurses (Dailey et al., 1986),
managers (Davidson and Cooper, 1986) and teachers
(Byosiere, 1988). The findings of these studies revealed
that stress could be related to: (i) physical condition
(Braham, 1994); (ii) organizational culture (Moorhead
and Griffin, 1995; Cooper, 2001); (iii) interpersonal
conflict (Toates, 1995; Cooper, 2001); (iv) personal
characteristics (Cooper and Roden, 1985; Dailey et al.,
1986; Caudron, 1998; Evers, 2000; Bliese, 2001); and
(v) job nature (Matteson and Ivancevich, 1987). Other
research has focused on relationships between the stress
levels and job performance of various professions, such
as physicians (Richardson and Burke, 1991), managers
(Jex, 1998), construction site managers (Sutherland
and Davidson, 1989; Djebarni, 1996), nurses (Jeanie,
2001), teachers (Sadowski et al., 1986; Chaplain,
1995), police (Storch and Panzarella, 1996) and civil
engineers (Lingard, 2003).
Recently, Leung et al. (2002, 2003) investigated the
relationships between stressors and stress in the
estimation process and found that role conflict, work
Construction Management and Economics
ISSN 0144-6193 print/ISSN 1466-433X online # 2005 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0144619042000326701
892
overload, job ambiguity and work environment are key
stressors in the cost estimation process. As a result of
this work, it was considered valuable to investigate the
impact of stress on estimation performance, in order to
understand the effect of stress on the estimation
process. This paper reports the findings of a study that
was aimed at measuring estimation performance and at
examining the relationship between stress and performance in the estimation process.
Estimation consequences
The nature of the cost estimating activity suggests that
three types of performance consequences are likely to
be important:
Personal consequences
According to Mind Tools Ltd (1996), some forms of
stress have only a short-term effect, while others can
have longer-term implications. Short-term stress may
occur during difficult meetings, sporting events or
confrontational situations, but the effects may not be
significant if the stress vanishes quickly. On the
contrary, long-term stress can induce physical and
psychological fatigue, which can in turn affect one’s
health and undermine team morale.
The individual personal consequences of stress can
be divided into three categories: psychological, medical
and behavioural (Schuler, 1980; Whitfield, 1994,
Sommerville, 1994). The psychological consequences
of stress, which relate to an individual’s mental health
and well-being, may lead to family problems and sexual
Leung et al.
difficulties. Medical consequences resulting from too
much stress, which affect a person’s physical wellbeing, induce some common medical problems including headaches and stomach or other illnesses.
Behavioural consequences are the responses that may
harm the person under stress. Examples of the three
different outcomes are summarized in Figure 1.
The consequences of an individual’s stress not only
affects the person in their daily life, but also influences
the interrelationships between the person’s peers/fellow
project participants, the performance of construction
projects they are involved in and their organization
either directly or indirectly. Stress induces a lack of
concern for colleagues (as shown in Figure 1), as well as
disrespect for, distrust and dislike, of those with whom
they are working (Buck, 1972; Defrank and Cooper,
1987; Holt, 1993). It definitely affects assigned tasks.
The relationships between project participants and the
satisfaction of construction clients can all suffer, along
with the motivation to perform at high levels
(Wolfgang, 1991).
Task consequences
In general, occupational stress encompasses the harmful physical and emotional responses that occur when
there is a conflict between job demands on the
employee and the amount of control available to the
employee in taking over those demands (i.e. the
capabilities, resources, or needs of the employee).
The combination of high demands in a task and a
low amount of control over the situation can lead to
stress. A decline in job performance is one of the clear
organizational consequences of being under too much
Figure 1 Individual personal consequences (refer to Schuler, 1980; Whitefield, 1994; Sommerville, 1994)
893
Stress and estimation performance
stress (Anderson, 1976; Djebarbi, 1996). For workers,
a decline in job performance can mean poor quality
work or a drop in productivity. For managers, it can
mean faulty decision making or disruptions to working
relationships as people become irritable and hard to get
along with. In construction estimation, stress can affect
the accuracy of budget estimation as well as the
effectiveness of planning schedules. The precise pattern
of occupational stress is likely to vary from one task to
another (Djebarni, 1996).
Organizational consequences
Job stressors have not only been linked to employee
behaviours and specific projects, but also to organizational outcomes, which are especially important to
employers. Some consequences of stress have adversely
and directly influenced organizations. The employee
may exhibit withdrawal behaviour due to the gap
between their personal values and the organizational
values (Defrank and Cooper, 1987; Djebarni, 1996).
The most important forms of withdrawal behaviour are
absenteeism from project meetings and/or finally
quitting the company (Gupta and Beehr, 1979;
Schuler, 1982; Nandram and Bert, 1993).
Stress and performance
Stressful working conditions not only turn up the
pressure on employees and bring about health concerns, but also affect their job performance. These
effects have organizational consequences, such as poor
performance-quality/quantity, low job involvement, a
loss of responsibility and creativity, a lack of concern
for the organization, voluntary turnover and accident
prone behaviour (Sommerville, 1994). While too much
stress leads to negative impacts on human behaviours,
Cooper and Marshall (1981) and Gmelch and Chan
(1994) found that insufficient stress, on the other hand,
induces boredom, a lack of concentration, and a lack of
initiative/motivation to contribute the best possible
effort (Varhol, 2000). Too little stress, in the sense of
operating in a stimulus-impoverished environment, can
be understimulating. Hence, Moorhead and Griffin
(1995) and Schuler and Buller (2000) have pointed out
that stress might cause one to burn out (when there is
too much stress) or rust out (in the absence of stress). A
moderate level of stress produces a positive impact on
performance (Djebarni, 1996). Some research studies
on stress (Anderson, 1976; Meglino, 1977; Rilley and
Zaccaro, 1987; Cherrington, 1994; Jex, 1998) have
asserted that there is an inverted U-shaped relationship
between degrees of stress and levels of performance
(see Figure 2), while some reveal a negative linear
relationship between them (Jamal, 1984; Abramis, 1994).
Figure 2 The relationship between stress and performance
(Anderson, 1976; Meglino, 1977; Rilley and Zaccaro, 1987;
Jex, 1988)
However, some previous research has noted that task
differences are important in predicting the relationship
between stress and performance. Zajonc (1965) and
Meglino (1977) predicted that the relationship between
stress and performance is a monotonic, positive relation
for a simple and well-learned task, while the inverted
U-shape relationship is only predicted for complex
tasks where many cues are involved. They argued that
the change in direction after the optimum occurs
because high stress causes cognitive narrowing and
rigidity of behaviour. This has particularly serious
effects on complex tasks where novel responses,
problem solving or attention to various task elements
are necessary. To re-iterate, high stress in some cases
increases the likelihood of habitual behaviour and
depresses the probability of new responses, thus
supporting a negative linear relationship to be predicted
between stress and performance.
Methodology
In establishing the level of stress, Gmelch (1982)
proposed measurement of the deviations between the
expectation and actual abilities of people in handling
their stressors; stress would become apparent when the
actual abilities were lower than what would have been
expected (Kahn et al., 1964; French and Caplan, 1972;
McGrath, 1976; Schuler, 1980). To compare the
abilities of estimators in handling stress, the respondents in the current study were asked to rate their
actual abilities and expectations of selected stressors
based on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (no
impact) to 7 (a great deal of impact). The overall level
of stress was derived by the sum of all differences
between expectation and the actual ability.
To measure the estimation performance under stress, a
list of 17 questions (see Table 1) stemming from the
literature review ((inter)personal (Miller, 1983), task
894
Table 1
Leung et al.
Scale items, factor loadings and coefficient alpha reliabilities for various effects
Factor (Performance Effect)
Item
Nature of
question
Description
P1 Weak interpersonal relationship
v1
2
v2
2
v3
2
v4
2
v5
2
v6
2
v7
2
v8
+
v9
+
v10
+
v11
+
v12
2
v13
2
v14
v15
2
+
v16
+
v17
+
I often feel less respect for those with
whom I am working.
I often feel less trust in those with whom I
am working.
I often feel less liking for those with
whom I am working.
It would take changes to leave my
company.
It feels difficult to achieve my personal
goals.
I often dislike the organizational design
and structure.
I find that my values and the
organization’s values are very different.
I estimate the budget of the project
without overrunning.
I can meet the client’s requirements
easily.
I have made few calculation or transfer
mistakes.
I am satisfied with the relationship
between myself and my colleagues.
I have limited alternatives within my
decision process.
I have an ineffective schedule during
planning.
I always forget some important data.
I have an efficient construction planning
schedule.
I am proud to tell others that I am part of
this organization.
I would accept almost any type of job
assignment in order to keep the
organization working.
P22Organizational relationship
P3 Professional performance
P4 Ineffective process
P5+Organizational relationship
Factor loading
0.889
Alpha
0.917
0.888
0.819
0.752
0.759
0.723
0.769
0.646
0.827
0.748
0.758
0.739
0.587
0.730
0.737
0.696
0.608
20.541
0.826
0635
0.717
Note: All items were measured on a seven-point scale ranging from disagree strongly to agree strongly. Cumulative variance567.051%; KaiserMeyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy50.806
(Miller, 1983; Abramis, 1994; Inzana, 1996) and organizational consequences (Zahra, 1984)) was set to be
answered via a self-administered questionnaire. Respondents were asked to rate performance-related effects under
stress based on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(extremely disagree) to 7 (extremely agree).
The survey was forwarded to 300 cost estimators in
Hong Kong. All questionnaires were delivered by post
or by fax, before/after a verbal tele-conversation made
to the respondents. To enhance the validity of the
findings, all of the subjects were required to possess
actual cost estimation experience on construction
projects, which is usually confined to the more
experienced estimators in the industry. A total of 177
completed questionnaires were returned, representing a
response rate of 59%.
The participants possessed a wide range of cost
estimation experience: 24 respondents (i.e. 13.55%)
had less than three years, 31 (17.51%) had three–five
years, 41 (21.16%) had 5–10 years, 58 (32.77%) had
10–20 years and 23 (12.99%) had over 20 years. The
respondents were working for various construction
stakeholders including developer (6.21%), private
consultants (48.02%), main contractors (20.9%) and
public clients (24.86%).
Results
Estimation performance effects
To identify the main categories of estimation performance, the ‘expected’ responses to the seventeen items
895
Stress and estimation performance
Table 2
Classification of estimation performance effects
Estimation
performance effect
Personal
P1 Poor interpersonal
relationship
P22Organizational
relationship
P3 Professional
performance
P4 Ineffective process
P5+Organizational
relationship
Task
Organization
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Note: ‘+’ represents positive ; ‘2’ represents negative.
were subjected to a Factor Analysis with varimax
rotation (eigenvalue51 was used as a cut-off). In order
to ensure similar characteristics for each category, only
those items with factor loadings greater than 0.5 were
accepted as the principal performance effects for
estimation (Rahim et al., 2000). These, together with
the coefficient alpha reliabilities, are summarized in
Table 1.
Except for item 15 which shares a relatively low
loading (20.541 and 0.515) with the Ineffective
Process (P4) and the Organizational Relationship
(P5), the results clearly indicate that all items mainly
load to one main factor. The items related to the
organizational relationship had been split into two main
factors (P2: Negative Organizational Relationship; P5:
Positive Organizational Relationship). The personal
and interpersonal outcomes (items 5 and 11) had
been transformed into the ‘Negative Organizational
Relationship’ factor (P2) and ‘Professional Performance’
factor (P3) from the original ‘Personal/Interpersonal
relationship’ factor (P1). Since professional performance covers both objective and subjective outcomes,
it is still reasonable to form the ‘Professional Performance’ (P3) with items 8, 9, 10 and 11. The results
Table 3
also reveal that estimate respondents emphasize the
‘difficulties’ on the item 5 rather than personal goals,
so that the item 5 is used to form part of ‘Negative
Organizational Relationship’ factor (P2). Of the six
factors, the reliabilities for five factors (i.e. P1–P5)
were verified as being within acceptable ranges for
newly created performance effects (i.e. a.0.60) (refer
to Rahim et al., 2000; Crocker et al., 2003).
The five estimation performance factors were further
classified into three major groups: (1) personal, (2)
task-related and (3) organization-related (Table 2).
The ‘poor interpersonal relationship’ and ‘ineffective
process’ effect were classified into the personal group
and the task-related group respectively. Two ‘organizational relationship’ factors were treated as being
between the personal and organizational groups as it
involves the personal and organizational values, while
‘professional performance’ was classified as being
between the personal and task-related groups due to
the teamwork emphasized on construction projects.
Inter-relationship between stress and estimation
performance effects
The relationships between stress and performance
effects were examined by correlation, multiple regression and structural equation model analyses. Table 3
reveals that stress has significant relationships (p,0.01)
with all estimation performance effects, especially
Professional Performance (P3: 20.330). In the correlation analysis, stress2 was added to crosscheck whether
there was an inverted U-shaped relationship between
stress and the various effects. The results indicate that
the stress squared is also related to the Negative
Organizational Relationship (P2: 0.214) and the
Professional Performance (P3: 20.250).
Apart from the stress and the stress squared, the
Negative Organizational Relationship effect (P2) was
Means, standard deviations and correlations between stress and performance effects
Performance Effects
Stress
Stress2
P1 Poor interpersonal
relationship
P22Organizational
relationship
P3 Professional
performance
P4 Ineffective process
P5+Organizational
relationship
Alpha
Stress
Stress2
3.62 6.826
59.45 78.30
8.81 3.40
0.917
1
0.515***
0.244**
1
0.130
1
14.72
4.01
0.759
0.294***
0.214**
0.481***
17.28
3.66
0.748
20.330*** 20.250** 20.119
14.02
8.79
2.70
2.20
0.737
0.635
0.231**
20.201**
M
SD
0.208*
20.086
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
1
20.076
1
0.395***
.0.366*** 20.262***
1
20.132
20.259***
0.326*** 20.230
1
Note: - n5177 construction estimators; - ‘+’ represents positive; ‘2’ represents negative; *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); **
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); and *** Correlation is significant at the or below the 0.000 level (2-tailed).
896
Leung et al.
found to be correlated significantly (p,0.01) with the
following performance outcomes: Poor Interpersonal
Relationship (P1: 0.430), Ineffective Process (P4:
0.366) and Positive Organizational Relationship (P5:
20.259), while there was a close relationship between
P1 and P4 (0.395). Although P3 was not found to be
correlated to P2 in the study, it is still significantly
related to the stress/stress2 (20.330/20.250), the
Ineffective Process (P4: 20.262) and the Positive
Organizational Relationship (P5: 0.326). Therefore,
inter-relationships were found to occur between the
stress/stress2 and the five identified estimation performance effects.
Ordinary least-squares, forward-stepwise multiple
regression analysis (MRA) was used to predict the final
performance effect caused by stress or any performance
during the estimation process (cf: Pallant, 2001;
Morgan et al., 2001). Five models are established for
each estimation performance effects, while stress,
stress2 and all other performance effects are considered
as independent factors in each model.
It is interesting to note that no Stress2 variable was
involved in all regression models 1–5 (see Table 4),
though the results of bivariate correlations shown that
both P2 and P3 have significant relationship with
Stress2. Only models 2 and 3 for the Negative
Organizational Relationship (P2) and Professional
Performance (P3) respectively can be predicated by
the stress in the study.
In order to further test the validation and reliability
for measuring latent variables and analyse the relationship between the latent variables (Lehaman, 1991;
Arbuckle and Wothke, 1999), a Structural Equation
Model was also applied to develop an integrated
structural model. This allows crosschecking of the
inter-relationships between the estimation performances outcomes (Long and Kahn, 1992; McManus
et al., 2002). It is a multivariate technique for testing
structural theory, incorporating both observed/measured (indicators) and unobserved (latent) variables
(Schumacker and Lomax, 1996). A full structural
equation model typically comprises two elements: (i)
the measurement model – for describing how each
latent variable is measured or operationalized by
corresponding manifest performance; and (ii) the
structural model – for describing the relationships
amongst stress and the performance and indicating
the amount of unexplained variance. For measuring
and assessing an acceptable model, goodness-of-fit (or
badness-of fit) criteria were formulated using Amos
program (Bollen, 1989; Bentler, 1996; Arbuckly and
Wothke, 1999; Raykov and Marcoulides, 2000) during
the structural equation modelling, including chi-square
(x2), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodnessof-fit index (AGFI) and comparative fit index (CFI).
Based on the results of the correlation coefficient
and regression analysis, three structural models
were established using Amos: Model A (a full model
Table 4
Stepwise regression models based on the all respondents
Model
Dependent
variables
Variables
B
t
Sig.
R
R2
1
P1
0.312
P3
0.447
0.199
4
P4
0.491
0.241
5
P5
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.027
0.030
0.039
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.039
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.558
3
2.925
5.644
3.680
8.525
5.242
22.224
2.187
2.083
12.080
23.499
3.412
22.077
2.996
3.458
23.198
2.958
7.807
4.426
23.385
0.287
P2
2.440
0.329
0.261
11.862
0.432
20.267
0.188
8.16E–02
15.185
20.133
0.403
20.164
4.220
0.254
20.192
0.184
7.496
0.185
20.129
0.536
2
Constant
P2
P4
Constant
P1
P5
P4
stress
Constant
Stress
P5
P4
Constant
P1
P3
P2
Constant
P3
P2
0.402
0.162
Note: P1–P5 refer Tables 1 or 2; R positively from independent variable to dependent variable; and
dependent variable.
Remark
Stress
Q
P2
P3
o
o
P1 « P4
P5
negatively from independent variable to
897
Stress and estimation performance
Table 5
Goodness-of-fit indices from the structural equation model
Model
Df
x2
RMSEA
GFI
AGFI
RFI
CFI
A
B
C
139
146
146
307.62
315.08
317.49
0.083
0.081
0.082
0.85
0.84
0.84
0.79
0.80
0.80
0.72
0.73
0.73
0.86
0.86
0.86
Note: df5degree of freedom; x25chi-square; RMSEA5root mean square error of approximation; GFI5Goodness-of-Fit Index;
AGFI5Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index; RFI5Relative Fit Index; and CFI5Comparative Fit Index.
(based on the correlation results) with correlation
amongst the five performance effects and causal
relationships between stress and the five performance effects); Model B (a modified model (based on
the model A) created by converting part paths to
one-way causal relationships instead of the simple
correlation: P1RP2, P4RP2 and P3RP5 instead of
correlation paths between P1–P2, P4–P2 and P3–P5);
and Model C (an optimised model (based on the
model B) created by deleting part causal paths:
StressRP2/P5 and Stress2RP3/P4). Table 5 presents
the Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the three structural
models.
Although all these three models obtained similar
goodness-of-fit indices, a number of parameters of
Models A and B involves non-significant paths
amongst the stress and the five estimation performances (P1–P5). The parameters (path coefficients)
of Model C, along with their respective maximumlikelihood estimates, standard errors and t-statistics
are listed in Table 6. Each estimate has the expected
sign that matches with the results of factor analysis, e.g.
the latent poor interpersonal relationship variables
(distrust and disrespect) are positively related to the
observed poor interpersonal relationship variables
(indicators). Examinations of the p-values, which are
mainly lower than 0.05 (cf: Arbuckly and Wothke,
1999), suggesting that all parameters are significant in
Model C.
Observation
The results of correlation analysis reveal that stress/
stress2 is related to all performance effects in the
estimation process. However, there were only two
regression models involving stress variable in the study.
Figure 3 integrates the results found using the correlation coefficient, the regression models and the
optimized structural equation model (C). The interrelationships between the estimation performance
effects are rather similar across these three analysis
techniques (see Tables 3, 4 and 5). Interpersonal
relationships (P1), negative organizational relationship
(P2) and ineffective process (P4) were found to have
close inter-relationships in the estimation process,
while P2 is inter-related to the positive organizational
relationship (P5) (refer correlation, regression and
SEM). The P5 outcome is not directly affected by the
stress/stress2 (refer regression and SEM), but it is
significantly correlated to negative organizational relationship (P2) and good professional performance (P3).
According to the integrated results from correlation,
regression and SEM (see Figure 3), P2 and P3 are
major impact factors directly influenced by the Stress/
Stress2 (stressRP3 and stress2RP2), while the organizational relationship (P2 and P5) is the final outcome
of estimation performance (P1RP2, P4RP2 and
P3 RP5).
The results of the analysis demonstrate that stress
can also be a factor affecting the interpersonal relationship (P1), professional performance (P3) and estimation process (P4). The results in this study do not find
an inverted U-shaped relationship between stress and
estimation performance, but it confirms the results
found by Friend (1982), Jamal (1984) and Abramis
(1994): job performance has a strong, negative linear
relationship with the level of stress (either related to the
subjective workload or the objective time urgency).
Perhaps, there involves too much stress in the existing
construction estimation process (refer to the lines from
points C/D to E in Figure 2). Estimators who work with
such stress induce ineffective schedules and missing
data on construction project(s), and disrespect/distrust/
dislike from colleagues/project participants. Therefore,
the impact of stress not only negatively affects
construction projects but also involves interpersonal
relationships amongst estimating team members. Once
the estimators distrust/dislike the partners with whom
they work, their relationship with the organization will
then be affected negatively. This definitely affects
construction projects of the kind undertaken in Hong
Kong that generally last for two or three years.
All three analysis techniques (see Figure 3) indicate
negative linear relationship between P2 and P5, while
correlation coefficient and the SEM reveal a U-shaped
relationship between stress and the negative organizational relationship (P2) (i.e. an inverted U-shaped
relationship between stress and organizational relationship) (see Figure 3). Stress is a factor leading to a
positive impact on the organizational relationship
898
Table 6
Leung et al.
Analysis of path coefficients of model C
Part of model
Measurement
Part
Structural
Equation
Part
Causal relations
Poor Interpersonal relationship (P1)
Rv1
Rv2
Rv3
– Organizational relationship (P2)
Rv4
Rv5
Rv6
Rv7
Professional performance (P3)
Rv8
Rv9
Rv10
Rv11
Ineffective process (P4)
Rv12
Rv13
Rv14
Rv15
+ Organizational relationship (P5)
Rv16
Rv17
Stress
RP1
RP3
RP4
Stress2
RP2
Poor Interpersonal relationship (P1)
RP2
_ P4
– Organizational relationship (P2)
_ P5
Professional performance (P3)
RP5
Ineffective process (P4)
RP2
Maximum
likelihood
estimates
Standard
errors
Critical
value
p-value
1.00
0.83
0.94
0.051
0.051
16.09
18.49
0.000
0.000
1.00
1.15
1.18
0.96
0.19
0.18
0.16
6.16
6.55
5.94
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.00
0.73
0.92
0.62
0.11
0.12
0.09
6.55
7.49
6.65
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.00
1.48
1.27
20.61
0.24
0.22
0.16
6.28
5.89
23.89
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.00
1.15
0.27
4.31
0.000
0.08
22.01
0.044
0.29
20.69
0.07
0.36
3.95
21.92
0.000
0.055
20.15
0.06
22.30
0.021
0.42
0.11
3.80
0.000
0.30
0.14
2.14
0.033
1.00
20.15
1.00
1.00
Note: – significant relationship; and R significant causal relationship.
(Djebarni, 1996). Relationship between estimators and
the organization will then fall beyond a certain stress
level (refer to points B to D in Figure 2). Such an ‘updown’ phenomenon represents that estimators may not
understand the organization’s value and have weak
belongingness in the organization in small doses, while
sufficient stress causes them to focus and engage in
challenging projects; and enables them to work in team
in the organization. This positive reaction to stress lets
us make the push to accept the organizational values
and familiar with the organization (Schuler, 1982;
Varhol, 2000). However, too much stress (over-stress)
can result in ‘burn-out’ (refer to points D to E in
Figure 2). Estimators cannot achieve their personal
goal from the tasks, dislike the organizational structure and, finally, no longer remain in the company.
A low-to-moderate level of stimulation is often
required to keep the individual alert on task in the
organization. Therefore, there is an optimal level of
stress required for effective functioning in a construction company.
There is a linear relationship between stress and P1
(i.e. the more stress, the poorer is the interpersonal
relationship between project participants). Estimators
maintain good relationships with those they are working with, while they are acting under insufficient level of
899
Stress and estimation performance
Figure 3 Interrelationships between stress and estimation performance effects
stress. In contrast, the relationships between estimators
and their project participants will become worse with
increasing levels of stress. Practically, it is ineffective to
estimate the complicated construction projects using an
individual estimator only. Perhaps the situation is such
that uneven distributions of workload among the
project participants causes disrespect or distrust among
project team members.
In sum, a moderate stress level motivates estimators
to enhance their relationship with the organization.
However, it simultaneously induces ineffective estimation process, poor professional performance and weak
interpersonal relationships with the project participants. Project managers and senior estimators have to
pay attention to this phenomenon, since too weak an
interpersonal relationship amongst project participants
900
and too poor a process performance can also cause an
intention to leave the company.
Recommendations
Practical implications
Each estimator has distinctive personal characteristics
and working experiences, and individual could therefore have different levels of resistance to stress (Lee and
Ashforth, 1990). Those who are extremely competitive,
committed to work and strong in timelines urgency, for
example, are more likely to be subject to emotional
distress and suffer from stress symptoms (Chesney and
Rosenman, 1980; Ganster, 1986; Lee and Ashforth,
1990). The study mainly shows the downward linear
relationships between stress and the estimation performance effects and, thus, reveals over-stress for estimators in the construction industry in Hong Kong. In fact,
it is difficult to change the perceptive stress of
estimators. In order to equip estimators properly with
appropriate stress-management skills, staff development programmes involving stress coping strategies of
both the emotion-based and problem-based varieties
are recommended. An estimator with an appropriate
coping behaviour is not only an essential asset for
optimizing performance in estimation, but can also
improve the entire organizational relationship for the
consultant firm/construction company.
The findings in the paper carry some important
practical implications with regard to estimating on a
construction project. Workload revision and team
building are suggested as important processes in a
consulting firm/contracting company. At first, the
company is suggested to employ junior staff to support
the calculation and scheduling processes in the
estimate. This not only improves the process/outcome
performance (e.g. less calculation errors, accurate
budget estimates), but also shares the workload with
professional estimators, which is especially important
within a short estimation period. Although the basic
cost of the estimation process is increased due to the
additional labour cost, an accurate estimating budget
with reduced errors is more important for the client and
the consulting firm/contracting company. It may determine the project success and ultimately the profit margin.
Secondly, various working periods (from a few hours
to a few months) are involved in the estimation for
different construction projects. It is difficult to allocate
the dynamic estimation tasks equivalently to each
estimator in practice and thereby enhance their interpersonal relationship during a hastened estimation
period. Frequent workload revision exercises and regular
meetings are thus suggested in both consulting firms
Leung et al.
and contracting companies. In order to enhance the
inter-personal relationships between estimators in a
company, regular monthly or quarterly meetings/workshops can provide an opportunity to professional
estimators to share their emotional feelings, exchange
their ideas, understand the direction of the company
and reinforce the teamwork spirit. Once a staff
member understands the current situation of the
contracting company, s/he can realistically forecast
the level of risk and the expected profit of the company on the proposed project. This can increase the
sense of belongingness of estimators in the organization
and the inter-personal relationship amongst staff working together. Subsequently, this should avoid the
discrepancy between personal values and organizational values and reduce the rate of turnover in a
company.
Thirdly, in the temporary construction project team,
clients also have to pay attention and take action to
establish a good interrelationship amongst team members (e.g. aesthetic design by architect, structural
calculation by structural engineering and budgeting
by quantity surveyor), for example, scheduling regular
weekly/bi-weekly meeting in the estimate stage, increasing the communication, arranging value management
workshop to stimulate the conflict amongst team
members and to specify the project goal clearly.
Further research
Despite the useful findings regarding the impact of
stress on estimating performance revealed in the study,
several potential limitations of our research design
should be noted. The study relied upon self-reporting
measures. There is a potential risk of common method
variance. Therefore, several factors have been applied
to reduce this concern. First, an extensive literature
review of estimation performance effects have been
undertaken (e.g., Gmelch and Chan, 1994; Djebarbi,
1996; Jex, 1998). Second, the scales used for the
measurement of stress and performance effects have
been broadly used previously for stress management
(e.g. Schuler, 1980; Gmelch, 1982; Djebarbi, 1996).
Third, all the respondents in the survey conducted were
identified as professional estimators through the membership records of various professional institutions
including the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors
and the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors. They have
all had direct professional experience in the estimation
process on construction projects. Therefore, we are
confident that our results are not biased by differential
responses to the measured variables.
International estimators involve different working
experiences in different working environments (e.g.
consultant firms/construction companies) and with
901
Stress and estimation performance
different levels of stress tolerance. Although the study
included 177 estimators in the survey, the samples were
still limited to the estimators in Hong Kong on the
manageability of stress. The data, thus, could not be
generalized to other societies simply. However, the
present study provides useful baseline information
about the relationship between stress and performance
to investigate cost estimators globally and, also, point to
directions for large-scale studies in the future.
Three statistical techniques were applied in this
study to examine the relationship between the construct of stress and those of job performance and
satisfaction. The causal relationships, partially supported by the analytical techniques, are recommended
for further research, in order to confirm their relationship. Some qualitative analysis (e.g. via longitudinal
case studies or experimental test) is recommended to
crosscheck the results in a controllable environment
and fully understand the causal relationship between
stress and estimate performance in real world, since
lateral studies can only be effective when confounding variables are constrained and controlled.
Triangulation should, therefore, be employed to
provide the necessary ‘leverage’ to ensure a better
understanding and generalization of the causal relationship through exploratory case studies, lateral research
and their interaction. It would be desirable to fortify
our understanding on how stress could influence
construction estimation and in turn impact an entire
construction project.
Finally, this study did not investigate appropriate
coping behaviours towards stress in the estimation
process. Further research investigating the relationships
between stress, coping behaviour and performance at
the personal and organizational levels is greatly desired.
This would help to determine how stress management
could be best applied to improve the performance of
estimators.
Conclusion
Stressful, threatening, or demanding situations can lead
to a number of undesirable consequences including
heightened anxiety and a decrement in performance.
The research confirms this statement and indicates that
stress is the cause of poor interpersonal relationships
(refer to the trust/respect between estimators and his/
her colleagues), poor estimation process and professional performance (refer to the estimation accuracy,
the planning schedule and the satisfaction with the
estimation outcome for a construction project). In
addition, an inverted U-shaped relationship was found
between stress and the organizational relationship in
the study (refer to the internalization of estimators in
the organization). This research has investigated the
impact of stress on estimation performance and,
simultaneously, has revealed that the performance
effects themselves are the causes of the other outcomes
(e.g. interpersonal/organizational relationship). Hence,
stress not only affects personal psychology, but it also
influences the construction project, inter-personal
relationships amongst project team members and
finally the organizational relationship. Managers in
estimation consulting firms have to be aware of the
impact of stress on the relationships between their
estimators, in order to improve the estimation performance, enhance inter-relationships amongst estimators, establish team spirit in the organization and,
finally, avoid staff turnover amongst estimators.
Workload revision amongst estimators, development
of estimate team building, arrangement of training
programme with stress coping strategies and scheduling
of regular project meeting with the innovative decision
making techniques (e.g. value management) are
recommended in the paper to proactively manage the
stressful estimators for optimizing the estimation
performance in the industry.
Acknowledgement
The work described in this paper was fully supported
by a grant from CityU (Project No. 7100209).
References
Abramis, D.J. (1994) Relationship of job stressor to job
performance: linear or an inverted-U. Psychological Report,
75(1), 547.
Anderson, C.R. (1976) Coping behaviors as intervening
mechanisms in the inverted-U stress-performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(1), 30–4.
Arbuckle, J.L. and Wothke, W. (1999) Amos 4.1 user’s guide,
Marketing Department, SPSS Inc., SmallWaters
Corporation, Chicago.
Bentler, P.M. (1996) Comparative fit Indexes in structural
models. Psychological Bulletin, 39, 464–82.
Bliese, P.D. and Britt, T.W. (2001) Social support, group
consensus and stressor-strain relationships: social context
matter. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(4), 425.
Bollen, K.A. (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables,
Wiley, New York.
Braham, B.J. (1994) Managing Stress: Keeping Calm under
Fire, Irwin Professional Publishing, Burr Ridge, IL.
Buck, V. (1972) Work under Pressure, Staples Press, London.
Byosiere, P.H. (1988) Effects of societal, organizational, and
individual factors on job performance, job satisfaction, and
job strain: multiple structural equation modeling in a three
902
wave longitudinal panel study of new teachers, DissertationAbstracts-International, 48(11-A), 2831–2.
Caudon, S. (1998) Job stress is in job design. Workforce,
77(9), 21–4.
Chaplain, R.P. (1995) Stress and job satisfaction: a study of
English primary school. Educational Psychology, 15(4),
473–90.
Cherrington, D.J. (1994) Organizational Behavior: The
Management of Individual and Organizational Performance,
Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Cooper, C. (2001) Organization Stress: a Review and Critique
of Theory, Research, and Application, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Cooper, C.L. and Marshall, J. (1981) Coping with Stress at
Work: Case Studies from Industry, Gower, Aldershot.
Cooper, C. and Roden, J. (1985) Mental Health and
Satisfaction among Tax Officers, Wiley, New York.
Dailey, R.C., Ickinger, W. and Coote, E. (1986) Personality
and role variables as predictors of tension discharge rate in
three samples. Human-Relations, 39(11), 991–1003.
Davidson, M.J. and Cooper, G.L. (1986) Executive women
under pressure. International Review of Applied Psychology,
35(3), 301–26.
Defrank, R.S. and Cooper, C.L. (1987) Worksite stress
management interventions: their effectiveness and conceptualization. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2, 4–10.
Djebarni, R. (1996) The impact of stress in site management
effectiveness. Construction Management and Economics,
14(4), 281–94.
Evers, A. (2000) Revisions and further developments of the
occupational stress indicator: LISREL results from four
Dutch studies. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 73, 221–41.
French, J.R.P. and Caplan, R.D. (1972) Organizational stress
and individual strain, in Marrow, A.J. (ed.) The Failure of
Success, Amacom, New York, pp. 30–66.
Friend, K.E. (1982) Stress and performance: effects of
subjective work load and time urgency. Personnel
Psychology, 35, 623–33.
Gmelch, W.H. (1982) Beyond Stress to Effective Management,
Wiley, New York.
Gmelch, W.H. and Chan, W. (1979) Thriving on Stress for
Stress, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Gupta, N. and Beehr, T.A. (1979) Job stress and employee
behaviours.
Organizational
Behavior
and
Human
Performance, 23, 373–87.
Holt, R.R. (1993) Occupational stress, in Goldberger, L. and
Breznitz, S. (eds) Handbook Of Stress: Theoretical and
Clinical Aspects, Free Press, New York, pp. 342–67.
Jamal, M. (1984) Job stress and job performance controversy:
an empirical assessment. Organizational Behavior and
Human performance, 33(1), 1–22.
Jeanie, G. (2001) Simple strategies for managing stress. RN,
Montvale, 64(12), 65–8.
Jex, S.M. (1998) Stress and Job Performance: Theory, Research
and Implications for Managerial Practice, Sage, Thousand
Oaks.
Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J.D. and
Rosenthal, R.A. (1964) Organizational Stress: Studies in Role
Conflict and Ambiguity, Wiley, New York.
Leung et al.
Lehman, R.S. (1991) Statistics and Research Design in the
Behavioral Sciences, Wadsworth, Pacific Grove, CA.
Leung, M.Y. and Lam, C.C.Y. (2002) Factors causing stress
to estimators in the construction industry. Proceedings of the
Conference on Re-engineering Construction: Enabling and
Motivating Excellence, Asian Construction Management
Association, Chartered Institute of Building (HK), and
the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (Building
Division), H.K., pp. 103–8.
Leung, M.Y., Skitmore, M., Ng, S.T. and Cheung, S.O.
(2005) Stressors of cost estimation in Hong Kong.
Construction Management and Economics, forthcoming.
Lingard, H. (2003) The impact of individual and job
characteristics on ‘burnout’ among civil engineers in
Australia and the implications for employee turnover.
Construction Management and Economics, 21(1), 69–80.
Long, B.C. and Kahn, S.E. (1992) Causal model of stress
and coping: women in management. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 39(2), 227–40.
Matteson, M.T. and Ivancevich, J.M. (1987) Controlling
Work Stress: Effective Human Resource and Management
Strategies, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
McGrath, J.E. (1976) Stress and behavior in organizations,
in Dunnette, M.D. (ed.) Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago,
pp. 1351–95.
McManus, I.C., Winder, B.C. and Gordon, D. (2002) The
causal links between stress and burnout in a longitudinal
study of UK doctors. Lancet, 359, 2089–90.
Meglino, B.M. (1977) The stress-performance controversy.
MSU Business Topics, 25, 53–9.
Mind Tools Ltd (2002) Understanding the importance of
optimum stress levels, 1996. available online: http://
www.mindtools.com/smoptstr.html (accessed 15 January).
Moorhead, G. and Griffin, R.W. (1995) Organizational
Behavior: Managing People and Organizations, HoughtonMifflin, Boston, MA.
Morgan, G.A., Groegp, O.V. and Gloeckner, G.W. (2001)
SPSS for Windows: An Introduction to Use and Interpretation
in Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Nandram, S.S. and Bert Klandermans, B. (1993) Stress
experienced by active members of trade unions. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 14, 415–31.
Pallant (2001) SPSS survivial manual: a step by step guide to
data analysis using SPSS for Windows (Version 10), Allen &
Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW.
Rahim, A., Magner, N.R. and Shapiro, D. (2000) Do justice
perceptions influences styles of handling conflict with
supervisions? International Journal of Conflict Management,
11(1), 9–31.
Raykov, T. and Marcoulides, G.A. (2000) A First Course in
Structural Equation Modelling, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Richardson, A.M. and Burke, R.J. (1991) Occupational stress
and job satisfaction among physicians: sex differences.
Social-Science-and-Medicine, 33(10), 1179–87.
Rilley, A.W. and Zaccaro, S.J. (1987) Occupational Stress and
Organizational Effectiveness, Praeger, New York, Westport,
CT & London.
Stress and estimation performance
Sadowski, C.J., Blackwell, M.W. and Willard, J.L. (1986)
Assessing locus of control, perceived stress, and performance of student teachers. Education, 106(3), 352–4.
Schuler, R.S. (1980) Definition and conceptualization of
stress in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 25, 184–215.
Schuler, R.S. (1982) An integrative transactional process
model of stress in organizations. Journal of Occupational
Behavior, 3, 5–19.
Schuler, R.S. and Buller, P.F. (2000) Managing organizations
and people cases in management, Organizational Behavior
and Human Resources, Cincinnati.
Schumacker, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (1996) A Beginner’s
Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Sommerville, J. (1994) Multivariate influences on the people
side of projects: stress and conflict. International Journal of
Project Management, 12(4), 234–44.
903
Storch, J.E. and Panzarella, R. (1996) Police stress: state-trait
anxiety in relation to occupational and personal stressors.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 24(2), 99–102.
Sutherland, V.J. and Davidson, M.J. (1989) Stress among
construction site managers: a preliminary study. Stress
Medicine, 5, 221–35.
Toates, F.M. (1995) Stress: Conceptual and Biological Aspects,
Wiley, New York.
Varhol, P. (2000) Identify and manage work-related stress.
Electronic Design, 48(26), 123–4.
Whitefield, J. (1994) Conflicts in Construction: Avoiding,
Managing, Resolving, Macmillan, London.
Wolfgang, A.P. (1991) Job stress, coping and dissatisfaction
in health professions: a comparison of nurses and pharmacists, in Perrewe, Pamela L. (ed.). Handbook on Job Stress,
a Special Issue of the Journal Of Social Behavior And
Personality, 6(7), 199–212.
Zajonc, R.B. (1965) Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–74.