Conflicts and Unsafe Behaviour in Construction

Projects: Exploring the moderated mediation of

conflict management climate on meaningfulness at
work

By
Umair Shehzad
CIIT/SP20-RPM-005

MS Thesis
In
Management Sciences

COMSATS University Islamabad

Wah Campus – Pakistan

Fall, 2021
 COMSATS University Islamabad

Conflicts and Unsafe Behaviour in Construction

Projects: Exploring the moderated mediation of
conflict management climate on meaningfulness at
work

A Thesis Presented to

COMSATS University Islamabad

In partial fulfillment
of the requirement for the degree of

MS Management Sciences

By
Umair Shehzad
CIIT/SP20-RPM-005

Fall, 2021
 Conflicts and Unsafe Behaviour in Construction
Projects: Exploring the moderated mediation of
conflict management climate on meaningfulness at
work

A Post Graduate Thesis submitted to Department of Management

Sciences as partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of
Degree of M.S.

Name Registration Number

Umair Shehzad CIIT/SP20-RPM-005

Supervisor

Dr. Hassan Ashraf

Assistant Professor Department of Civil Engineering
Comsats University Islamabad,
Wah Campus.
December, 2021
 Final Approval

This thesis titled

Conflicts and Unsafe Behaviour in Construction Projects:

Exploring the moderated mediation of conflict
management climate on meaningfulness at work

By

Umair Shehzad
CIIT/SP20-RPM-005

Has been approved

For the COMSATS University Islamabad, Wah Campus

Dr.
External Examiner: ________________________________________

Dr. Hassan Ashraf

Assistant professor Department of Civil Engineering

Supervisor: ______________________________________________

Dr. Abdul Qayum Khan

HOD Department of Management Sciences

HoD: ___________________________________________________
 Declaration

I Umair Shehzad, registration number CIIT/SP20-RPM-005 hereby declare that I have produced
the work presented in this thesis, during the scheduled period of study. I also declare that I have
not taken any material from any source except referred to wherever due that amount of
plagiarism is within acceptable range. If a violation of HEC rules on research has occurred in this
thesis, I shall be liable to punishable action under the plagiarism rules of the HEC.

Date: _________________

______________________________
Umair Shehzad
CIIT/SP20-RPM-005

Certificate
It is certified that Umair Shehzad, registration number CIIT/SP20-RPM-005 has carried out all
the work related to this thesis under my supervision at the Department of Management Sciences
COMSATS University Islamabad, Wah campus and the work fulfills the requirement for award
of MS degree.

Date: _________________

___________________________
Dr. Hassan Ashraf
Assistant Professor

_____________________________
Dr. Abdul Qayum Khan
HOD Department of Management Sciences
 DEDICATION

This research is dedicated first and foremost to me. I also dedicate this humble effort to my
family in hard times and my beloved parents for all their love, kindness and support.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, I am very grateful to Allah Subhanhu WaTa’allah, who gives me strength and effort to
complete this milestone. Secondly, it’s my privilege and honor to work under the supervision of
Dr. Hassan Ashraf, Department of Civil Engineer, Comsat University Islamabad, Wah Cantt. His
endless encouragement and familiar deeds have been the major driving force throughout my
research work. Without his help, it would have very difficult for me to complete this research.
I am very thankful to my best friend for their help and support. In the end, I would have been
especially like to mention my parents, sisters and brother who supported me throughout this
research. And without their prayers and support I am nothing.

Umair Shehzad
CIIT/SP20-RPM-005

ABSTRACT
Conflicts and Unsafe Behaviour in Construction Projects: Exploring the
moderated mediation of conflict management climate on meaningfulness
at work
Construction industry is one of the world’s most hazardous sectors. This is because of the high
risk of life that may increase accidental rate. The relationship between manager and his
employees is important but it is lacking in most of the construction area. This research aims to
examine and find out the influence of task conflict and relationship conflict on meaningfulness at
work and unsafe behavior. However, Conflict management climate is a moderator between them.
The main goal of this study is to observe the relationship of unsafe behavior with conflict
management in the construction sector of Pakistan. The hypothesis was supported by Heinrich
Domino theory from the past literature. The survey was conducted on 150 employees/workers
from different construction projects in Punjab, Pakistan. Smart PLS software was used for the
analysis of data. Data analysis was done by using assessment and measurement model through
reliability analysis, convergent and discriminate validity which shows results of above-
mentioned parameters. Then structural model assessment was done through, R 2, path coefficient
and indirect effects for the analysis of mediation. The result of the analysis indicated that
meaningfulness at work is insignificantly associated with safety behavior, conflict management
climate positively mediated the relationship between task conflict, relationship conflict and
safety behavior. This paper provides a theoretical basis for construction supervisors to develop
measures to improve employees ‘safety, by avoiding unsafe behaviour and it points out the
important role of conflict management climate in safety behavior.

Table of Contents
Chapter 1........................................................................................................................................14

1.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................15

1.2 Problem Statement...............................................................................................................17

1.3 Significance of Study...........................................................................................................17

1.4 Research Questions..............................................................................................................18

1.5 Research Objectives.............................................................................................................18

Chapter 2........................................................................................................................................19

2.1 Conflict management climate..............................................................................................20

2.1.1 Task conflict..................................................................................................................20

2.1.2 Relationship conflict......................................................................................................21

2.1.3 Task conflict and relationship conflict..........................Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.2 Meaningfulness at work.......................................................................................................21

2.3 Unsafe behavior...................................................................................................................22

2.3.1 Effective safety factors influencing workers' unsafe behaviours..................................23

Chapter 3........................................................................................................................................25

3.1 Heinrich Domino theory......................................................................................................26

3.2 Theoretical Framework........................................................................................................27

3.3 Research hypothesis.............................................................................................................27

3.3.1 Task conflict and unsafe behaviour...............................Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.3.2 Relationship conflict and unsafe behaviour..................................................................28

3.3.3 Task conflict, relationship conflict, conflict management climate, unsafe behaviour
and meaningfulness at work...................................................................................................29

Chapter 4........................................................................................................................................34

4.1 Research Strategy.................................................................................................................35

4.2 Research Design...................................................................................................................36

 4.3 Research Approach..............................................................................................................36

4.3.1 Quantitative and Qualitative Research..........................................................................36

4.4 Research Setting...................................................................................................................37

4.5 Type of study.......................................................................................................................37

4.5.1 Variables and their measure..........................................................................................37

4.6 Study Setting........................................................................................................................39

4.7 Time Horizon.......................................................................................................................39

4.8 Survey Instrument Development.........................................................................................39

4.8.1 Demographics................................................................................................................39

4.8.2 Measures of variables....................................................................................................40

4.9 Sample Selection..................................................................................................................40

4.10 Reliability and Validity......................................................................................................40

4.11 Ethical Consideration.........................................................................................................40

4.11.1 Informed Consent........................................................................................................40

4.11.2 Voluntary Participation...............................................................................................41

4.11.3 Confidentiality.............................................................................................................41

4.11.4 Privacy.........................................................................................................................41

4.11.5 Anonymity...................................................................................................................41

4.12 Trustworthiness..................................................................................................................41

Chapter 5........................................................................................................................................43

5.1 Measurement Model............................................................................................................46

5.2 Internal consistency reliability.............................................................................................46

5.3 Indicator reliability...............................................................................................................47

5.3.1 Outer loading.................................................................................................................47

5.4 Convergent Validity.............................................................................................................49

 5.5 Discriminant Validity...........................................................................................................49

5.5.1 Cross Loadings..............................................................................................................49

5.5.2 Fornell-Larcker Criterion..............................................................................................51

5.5.3 Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio...........................................................................................52

5.6 Structural Model Assessment...............................................................................................52

5.7 Collinearity Assessment.......................................................................................................53

5.8 Coefficient of Determination (R2 Value)............................................................................54

5.9 Mediation Analysis..............................................................................................................54

5.10 Result of Hypothesis..........................................................................................................56

5.11 Discussion..........................................................................................................................57

Chapter 6........................................................................................................................................59

6.2 Implications..........................................................................................................................60

6.3 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................61

References......................................................................................................................................63

List of Tables
Table 1 Frequencies and Percentages of Demographic Variables.................................................44
Table 2 Alpha Cronbach’s reliability of task conflict, relationship conflict, conflict climate
management, unsafe behavior, and meaningfulness at work........................................................47
Table 3 Outer loading....................................................................................................................48
Table 4 Average Variance Extracted.............................................................................................49
Table 5 Cross Loading of Indicators.............................................................................................49
Table 6 Fornell-Larcker Criterion Test Results.............................................................................51
Table 7 HTMT...............................................................................................................................52
Table 8 Collinearity Results..........................................................................................................53
Table 9 R2 value.............................................................................................................................54
Table 10 Mediation Analysis.........................................................................................................55
 Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1 Introduction
In any country construction sector plays a pivotal role related to the rise and fall of its
economics. Also, with the passage of time, construction projects and designs are becoming more
complicated and tough (Azhar et al., 2008). Although the construction industry employs around
7% of the global workforce, it accounts for 30-40% of all accidents in the workplace (Zhou et al.,
2015). But construction work is one of the world’s most hazardous sectors. The critical and
dangerous zone, according to accidental history, the construction industries are rated the top
listed of all industries (Zhang et al., 2017). However, there are many techniques which are being
used to reduce the risk and accidental ratio (Nabi et al., 2020).These techniques work in different
organizations and projects. But the challenges of safety risks are being faced on almost every
construction site which is causes of many unpredictable losses.

The first four incidents of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) are
directly related to the unsafe behavior of workers (Mitropoulos et al., 2009). Unsafe behavior is
defined as any behavior that an employee shows regardless of the safety rules, norms,
procedures, instructions and norms recorded in the system (Fam et al., 2012). Worker unsafe
behavior is most common in construction projects which are the major cause of accidents(Nabi et
al., 2020).Manet al. (2017) stated in his research, it was observed or investigated that the large
number of construction workers were injured during work sites. However, the employees’ unsafe
behaviors are the most common and straight causes of on-place accidents. So, they are needed to
be addressed immediately.

Fang et al. (2016) pointed out that staff misconduct is the most common and direct cause of on-
site accidents. Therefore, unsafe behavior is an important factor affecting the occurrence of
collisions and should be avoided. For collision prevention, existing studies have discussed the
relationship between unsafe behavior and various factors such as adverse events (Chi and Han,
2013), and inadequate management and organization (Jitwasinkul et al., 2016), but rarely discuss
the process and low level of unfavorable behavior leading to the accident. In the construction
industry unsafe behavior can lead to over budgeting and also can contribute towards
compromising the scope of projects (Yilmaz and Çelebi, 2015). In construction projects there are
many workers and resources working parallel. Using of many heavy machineries are also causes
of accidents. To control these accidents many techniques are used which are safety training,
inspection of safety officers and supervisors (Choe and Leite, 2017). In Pakistan construction
industry is the 3rd largest industry contributing towards the growth of economy (Azhar et al.,
2008). Also, in Pakistan there are many risks involved in the construction labor force related
processes like worker injuries and death etc. Comparing with other countries, Pakistan is also
facing serious unsafe conditions and management related problems in the construction projects
(Fang et al., 2016).
Many factors contribute to safety problems and accidents during construction. Occupational
safety in general and construction safety in particular is a complex phenomenon as previous
studies have shown that building is clearly an organic business (Khosravi et al., 2014). In
construction projects, not only does the workplace change for each group of workers, but each
workplace evolves with the progress of construction and the dangers to which the workers are
exposed on a weekly or even daily basis (McDonald's et al., 2009). These rapid changes also
have a major impact on the process of measuring safety performance in the construction
industry. The on-site accidents are common in case of construction workers. But these cases are
due to the unsafe behavior of labor and supervisors in construction sites. In this research topic we
are examining unsafe behavior of workers to improve the construction safety(Goh et al., 2018).
According to this purpose cognitive psychology are also used to change the workers behavior
and to reduce the risk on construction sites.

According to the above discussion “the behaviours that labours or employee or workers perform
in their regular jobs can have a straight and direct effect on health and safety”(Oah et al., 2018).
However according to the classic Domino Theory, “the unsafe behaviour, together with unsafe
situations, was measured as root causes of accidents”. According to Heinrich theory, “between
the direct causes, 87% are unsafe behaviour, 11% are unsafe conditions, and 2% are
unavoidable” (Nabi et al., 2020). A lot of researches have been done to determine the main
reasons of accidents in construction industry along with other areas such as: administration in
construction industry, supervision level in industry, causation models, and hazardous behaviour.
However, the safety behaviour importance in accident anticipation, behaviour-based safety has
established important courtesy later the 1971 s. There is no fix or proper description of
Behaviour-base safety, then it is often used as a fastening period for a diversity of protection
interferences that concentration on front employees’ safety behavior (Brian, 2018). Primary
claims of behavioral methods to safety can be outlined back to the 1971 s while constructive
support was a main component of behaviour base safety agendas. In the similar period, applied
parallel behavioral practices to decrease unsafe behaviour in nutrition trade business. Exertions
were made to control employees’ emotional environment by significant and satisfying safe
behavior (Nabi et al., 2020).

1.2 Problem Statement

Safety behavior is the backbone of construction industry. It helps us to prevent from risk on

construction site. Today, accidental risk is rising, and losses are its peak. According to statistics,
around 60,000 construction workers die every year around the world, which corresponds to one
accident every 9 minutes (ILO, 2006). The construction sector is characterized by intense work,
overcrowded workplaces and challenging environments and is therefore considered to be one of
the riskiest industries in the world (Aneziris et al., 2012; Zhou et al. 2018). Goh and Ali (2016)
explained that “in construction industry many factors influence unsafe behavior. Many steps are
taken to improve safety in construction industry”. Fruhen et al. (2019) stated that, construction
projects have unsafe behavior construction worker and high ratio of accidents. HSE (2016)
explained that over the past 25 years most of the accidents in construction industries occurred in
United Kingdom as compared to other countries. Similar accidents in construction industries are
also faced by Pakistan too.

This research is concerned with conflicts and their impact on meaningfulness at work of
construction workers. Also, conflicts have indirect effects on unsafe behavior which can be
mediated by meaningfulness at work in construction projects. Therefore, “the aim of this
research will examine and investigate the factors which are reduced unsafe behavior of
workforces in construction projects”. Moreover, to find out the influence of task conflict and
relationship conflict on meaningfulness at work. Other factor is that to investigate the
relationship of unsafely behavior with the conflict management climate on the construction
industry. Moreover, to examine the role of conflict management climate which are negatively
affected to task conflict and relationship conflict.

1.3 Significance of Study

Construction industries have many safety issues that need to be solved. Unsafe behavior is an
important part of the accident chain and therefore plays a major role in accident prevention
programs (Asilian-Mahabadi et al., 2018).This study is of significance for both theory and
practice. A lot of research work has been done on conflicts and unsafe behaviour of workers in
construction projects but the moderated mediation of conflict management climate on
meaningfulness at work is not very well understood. The mediator of meaningfulness at work
and construction workers and their relationship with conflict and unsafe behaviour of workers’ is
expected to enrich theory about the underlying mechanism with which this relationship
functions.

1.4 Research Questions

The research questions for the proposed study are given below:

Q1. What is influence of task conflict and relationship conflict on meaningfulness at work?

Q2. What is the role of conflict management climate on meaningfulness at work and unsafe
behaviour?

1.5 Research Objectives

This research’s aim is to understand the effect of conflict management on meaningfulness at
work and unsafe behaviour of workers in construction industry. The objectives are explained
below:

 To examine the relationship between conflict types and unsafe behavior of individuals
working on construction projects.
 To examine if meaningfulness at work mediates the relationship between conflicts and
unsafe behavior of individuals working on construction projects.
 To examine if conflict management climate negatively moderates the association between
conflict types with meaningfulness at work.
 Chapter 2
Literature review
This portion explains the literature on the selected variables to evaluate their relationship. This
portion is divided into task conflict, relationship conflict, conflict climate management,
meaningfulness at work and unsafe behaviour. Based on this literature, theoretical framework
will be designed.

2.1 Conflict management climate

In organizational projects which consists of multiple members there can be a difference in point
of view which can cause conflicts but these conflicts positively or negatively affect the progress
of the projects activities because of multiple diverse point of view of different individuals
(McKibben, 2017). According to (Boulding 1963) conflict is a severe dissimilarity or dispute,
normally a protected one. A physically powerful climate for conflict management is workers
′ idea that interpersonal conflicts are normally managed fine and reasonably in work place. The
common actions for the distribution of benefits and responsibility in the organization are
reasonable (Blattner and Franklin 2017; Cardador and Hill 2018; Schnell et al. 2013). According
to (Carnevale and Probst 1998), conflicts considerably decrease cognitive flexibility impairing
the capacity of individuals to build correct decisions , make helpful conclusions and hampering
the capability to take suitable decisions. Workers will be more likely to recognize that they may
seek support and guidance from team members and management in challenging situations if
there is a strong conflict management climate, which must also endorse perceived control
(Kostopoulos et al., 2011).According to prior research, the best ways to resolve disagreements
are to develop alternate solutions, have different perspectives, and encourage all members to
participate in deliberations and cooperate (Einarsen et al., 2018). Construction workers or
members are under great pressure from their groups to behave unsafely if unsafe behavior
prevails, and construction managers’ commitment to safety could be conflicting due to task with
the unsafe behavior of the construction coworkers (Tabassi et al., 2012).

2.1.1 Task conflict

Task Conflict arises when there are apparent disagreements in viewpoints, opinions and concepts
among group members (Simons and Peterson, 2000). Task conflict is commonly used to improve
the decision-making skill. Task conflict is effective to group progress (Amason et al. 1995; Jehn
1995). The cognitive process is involved in task conflict (Fruhen et al., 2019). According to
many researchers the task conflict is leading power to improve group decision and positively or
negatively effect on decision making (Tony L. Simons, 2000). Within an environment of safety
and trust, task conflict should provide a stand for helpful expression and identification of
mistakes for collaboration and solving common problems (Jehn, 1995). At situation of severe
task disagreements, psychosomatic safety must promote group colleagues to consider everyone
differing opinions neutrally, realize them, and exploit on the opportunities for innovation and
understanding that disagreeing views offer (Liao et al. 2017). In this research study I am using
task conflict as independent variable to show that how task conflict associates to meaningfulness
at work.

2.1.2 Relationship conflict

Relationship conflict is making disagreement between two persons or parties, which can work in
different goals, aims or objective to complete the project (Kostopoulos et al., 2011). Relationship
conflict has undesirable impact on quality of group decisions plus outcomes (Wu et al., 2017).
Group satisfaction and commitment is also affected negatively by relationship conflict(Yilmaz et
al., 2015). This is due to the fact that the team members are busy in spending a lot of time and
energy focusing on one other instead of the team’s issues (Simons and Peterson, 2000). Further,
relationship conflict increases tension and anxiety of team members(Sooyoung Choe, 2016).

The nature of interactions and the eventual outcomes of conflict management are heavily
influenced by team members' relationship and perceptions of how actions may affect their
desired goals (Deutsch, 1990).

Resultantly they do not understand the issues clearly and have trouble in making correct decision
(Jiang et al., 2015). This type of conflict results in poor decisions (Kostopoulos et al., 2011).
When colleagues facing incompatibility and apprehensions that are of a personal and
psychological also, which relates to power struggles or irreconcilabilities that effect in friction,
pressure, hostility, and disbelief can cause conflicts (Loosemore et al., 2003).

2.2 Meaningfulness at work

Work that is meaningful is important because it helps employees answer the question, "Why am
I here?" (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003) and contributes to positive outcomes such as job satisfaction,
motivation, engagement, and creativity (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003; Rosso et al., 2010).
Employees actively seek ways to construct meaningfulness, especially in circumstances of
repetitive drudgery, according to research (Bailey et al., 2017). Meaningful labour is defined as
"work that is experienced as particularly significant" in broad terms (Rosso et al., 2010). In
theory, all jobs can be perceived as more or less significant (Bailey and Madden, 2017). Work
meaning can come from a multitude of places, including discovering and becoming one's true
self, serving others, and realizing one's greatest potential (Lips-Wiersma and Morris, 2009;
Rosso et al., 2010).Meaningful work experiences can involve both meaningfulness at work and
meaningfulness in the workplace (Bailey et al., 2017; Pratt and Ashforth, 2003).
Individual or organizational meaning at work plays the most significant function during the
workday. However, the precise impact of meaningfulness in the workplace, which contributes to
a beneficial effect on risky behaviour, has yet to be completely explored in the literature
(Fürstenberg et al., 2020).People's instantaneous thought-action repertoires expand as a result of
positive emotions and conduct, expanding the range of possible opinions and acts. Workplace
meaning fosters innovation and encourages team members to widen their horizons. The model
predicts that people will strive to build knowing, communal, or psychological resources as their
mindset expands (Fürstenberg et al., 2020).Workplace meaning is one of the most essential
organizational elements that has a direct impact on the organization's success.

2.3 Unsafe behavior

In construction industry the unsafe behaviour of workers is the major cause of accident and
injuries. According to pervious research the construction supervisors and safety officers on
construction sites are responsible for checking the workers’ unsafe behaviour (Amponsah-
Tawaih et al., 2016). According to pervious research 90 percent accidents are ascribable to
workers’ unsafe behaviors (Fruhen et al., 2019).Workers, often known as workers, are essential
components of every organization or business. Varied firms employ various policies and tactics,
each of which has a different impact on employee behaviour. Safety behaviour is a concept used
to describe how one should protect oneself from any unexpected activity or accident (Erman
Noor Adi, 2021).The terms "safety compliance" and "safety instructions" are interchangeable.
Participation in safety is linked to behaviours that affect workers' safety. It entails encouraging
employees' behaviour, attempting a safety training programme, and adhering to safety
regulations (Amponsah and colleagues, 2016).
In light of the above concept, create a positive workplace environment through employee safety
behaviour or employee safety activity (Erman Noor Adi, 2021). Unsafe behavior increases the
rate of injuries, accidents, and mortalities (Hee-Chang Seo, 2015).During the work unsafe
behavior means that to take the works on site as casual and not only risking themselves but also
the others and not wearing safety uniform, gloves and protective gear and ignorance of the safety
rules and regulations. Incompliance for safety, proper safety protocols are followed and work is
completed in a safe manner which is good for employee and management as well (Khan et al.,
2017). All workers, safety officers, and management are responsible for enforcing safety rules.
As a result, everyone is responsible for their own safety conduct (Hee-Chang Seo, 2015).Unsafe
behaviour, on the other hand, is the polar opposite of what is indicated in the preceding three
sentences.

According to literature research, several recent studies have examined safety management to
prevent unsafe employee behavior (Chen et al., 2019). A person who deviates from the usual
security measures (Wu et al., 2017). The likelihood of accidents increases with the simultaneous
increase in these two proportions (Zhou et al., 2014). In addition, dynamic CI conditions can lead
to an interaction between unsafe conditions and unsafe behavior. In fact, unsafe situations (like
harsh environments) can influence unsafe behavior (like psychology) and vice versa. Much effort
has been made to prevent unsafe situations such as office building growth, guidelines, laws, and
education. Unsafe employee behavior has led to a large number of accidents (Awolusi & Marks,
2017) that require new decision-making measures to improve the CI safety management system
(Gunduz et al., 2018; Guo et al., 2017). Understanding the nature and origin of this type of
uncertainty can reduce the level of incompatibility and have reliable and robust consequences for
accident prevention.

2.3.1 Effective safety factors influencing workers' unsafe behaviours

The construction industry's (CI) distinctive, powerful, and transient nature has made it another
dangerous business (Fang et al., 2016), with significant numbers of accidents putting this
industry at the highest risk (Ghodrati and colleagues, 2018). CI emergencies are complicated
complications that can include, or be independent from, the social consequences of a risky
environment and a dangerous behaviour. Employees' unsafe behaviour might have an impact on
their visibility and performance at work. The effective elements that determine the changing
qualities of a CI, on the other hand, might be more complex, and extra attention should be made
to how these essential factors affect employee behaviour (Jiang et al., 2015).

Psychosomatic stress, weather safety (Fang et al., 2015), risk and occupational involvement,
intervention engagement with staff, full control, and collaboration have all been identified as
major elements influencing the behaviour of non-hazardous workers in previous studies
(Abudayyeh et al., 2006).The storage environment emerged as one of the primary types of
storage in the early 1980s, with a focus on administration rather than storage.

Employees' views of safety, according to Zohar (2010) and Cheng et al. (2012), guide their work
practices. The nature of the link between security policies, procedures, and practices is
highlighted in this idea. Other studies have discussed ESF and climate safety, such as the concept
of safety, working conditions, safety programmes, and management systems (Cheng et al.,
2012), where other studies have discussed ESF and climate safety, such as the concept of safety,
working conditions, safety programmes, and management systems (Cheng et al. Al., 2010).The
causes of occupational stress (WCF) are divided into two groups, each of which addresses the
mental and physical aspects of the job.
 Chapter 3
Theoretical Background & Hypothesis Development
3.1 Heinrich Domino theory
According to the Heinrich Domino theory, if the first domino (ancestry and social environment)
falls, the other dominos will fall in a predictable order. According to this hypothesis, if the
sequence of events is disrupted, building accidents can be avoided. Construction workers'
dangerous behaviour, for example, might be eliminated to prevent accidents and injuries. The
Heinrich Domino theory, on the other hand, has been accused for simplifying human behaviour
control in accidents, leading to a greater emphasis on management's role in accident prevention
(Hosseinian and Torghabeh, 2012).

The theories of human error, unlike Heinrich Domino's thesis, do not ascribe accidents to risky
human behaviour, but rather to the design of workplace tasks that do not account for human
limits (Hide et al., 2003).

Petersen (2000) suggested a multiple causality model that emphasizes the management system
over individuals. Unsafe activities and conditions were attributed to several sub-causes in the
multiple causation paradigms. Unsafe acts and conditions can be avoided by eliminating these
sub-causes. The importance of improving training and inspection methods, as well as better
responsibilities assignment and supervisory pre-task preparation, was emphasized. Fang et al.
(2016) suggested a cognitive model for understanding constriction worker risky behaviour that
used a five-stage approach.

Obtaining information, comprehending information, perceiving reactions, picking a response,

and taking action were the five processes, with obtaining information and selecting a response
being two of the most important. In a quantitative study to test a new model for understanding
the elements driving dangerous behaviour in the construction sector, Khosravi (2015) discovered
that physical condition had the strongest relationship with overall safety performance.

3.2 Information Processing Theory (IPT)

According to Theory of (IPT) conflicts considerably decrease cognitive flexibility impairing the
capacity of individuals to build correct decisions, make helpful conclusions and hampering the
capability to take suitable decisions (Carnevale and Probst 1998). Workers will be more likely to
recognize that they may seek support and guidance from team members and management in
challenging situations if there is a strong conflict management climate, which must also endorse
perceived control (Kostopoulos et al., 2011). According to Fang et al.’s (2016) there are five
stage model of construction worker’s unsafe behavior to show the importance of cognition in
proper management of hazards. According to this theory, task and relationship conflicts both will
lead to unsafe behavior of individuals owing to increase or decrease cognitive flexibility and
mental stress. Individuals occupied in conflict will be more liable to ignore the information
necessary to make out hazards and employ response mechanisms to deal with the situation
effectively (Fredrickson’s 2001). This study posits that negative emotions decrease individuals’
thought-action repertoire, which are causing severe injures (Fredrickson 2001). Therefore, in the
light of this theory, negative emotions induced by conflicts pave way for individuals to be less
effective in the identification and assessment of hazards owing to attention deficit caused by
negative emotions. Therefore, in the light of preceding theoretical reasoning, it is hypothesized
that:

3.3 Theoretical Framework

Conflict
Management
Climate
Task Conflict H1
H11

H3 H8 H 10

Meaningfulness H5 Unsafe
at Work Behavior
H9

H4
H2
Relationship
Conflict

The above model depicts the various ways in which they interact. In this, task conflict and
relationship conflict act as independent variable, while they are affected by conflict management
climate. Unsafe behaviour depends on task conflict and relationship conflict, while
meaningfulness at work acts as a mediator between them.
3.4 Research hypothesis
Based on theoretical framework, this section will explain hypothesis that represents the
relationship between independent and dependent variable along with mediating effect.

3.4.1 Task Conflict and Unsafe Behaviour

Various factors may lead to conflicting information such as conflict arise due to task and stimuli
regarding construction workers’ safety attitude (Guo et al., 2016), and those factors may come
from the individual level, the group level, and the organizational level. Construction crew
members are under great peer pressure from their groups to behave unsafely if unsafe behaviour
prevails, and construction managers’ commitment to safety could be conflicting due to task with
the unsafe behaviour of the construction coworkers. Task-related conflicts may also cause
together in the future. Although empirical evidence is unambiguous, there are reports of both
favorable (De Dreu, 2006; Jenh and Mannix, 2001) and negative (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003)
connections between task conflict and worker safety. The above discussion leads to the following
hypothesis: tension, antagonism, and unhappiness among group members and an unwillingness
to work
Hypothesis 1: There is a significant positive relationship between perceived task conflict
and unsafe behavior.

3.4.2 Relationship conflict and unsafe behavior

The ability to recognize conflict and the proficiency of managers in handling conflict at work are
critical to an organization's success and stability (Doherty, 2008). Conflict management refers to
the synthesis of all variables that can contribute to conflict resolution, such as problem-solving
talks (Fisher, 2005) or prevention, such as task conflict and relationship conflict.

Relationship conflict is a process whereby one side perceives those self-interests is adversely
influenced by another party’s actions (Wall & Callister, 1995). Conflicts among team members
can have either a negative or positive impact on project performance also, I can cause strife
which can lead to unsafe behaviour in the industry, depending on a variety of factors such as a
leader's conflict management style, the nature of the disagreement, team members' attitudes of
working with conflict, and so on (Wu et al., 2017). This discussion generates following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: There is a significant positive relationship between perceived relationship
conflict and unsafe behaviour.

3.4.3 Task conflict, relationship conflict, conflict management climate, unsafe

behaviour and meaningfulness at work
Task conflict is frequently linked to good decisions, while relational conflict is linked to bad
decisions. Pressure to reach an agreement (Baron, 1988), power differences (Zartman and
Touval, 1985), complexity of the organization's task (Chiocchio et al., 2011), unit
interdependence (Hall, 1986), and culture and leadership styles (Chiocchio et al., 2011; Kozan,
1989) all have an impact on how conflict should be handled.

Conflict is a process incorporating two or more people or groups within which one party has to
perceive the other party’s actions as in opposition to its own. Researchers have asserted that
conflict is a common trait in every teamwork activity and inherent within daily interactions (Jia
et al., 2011; Müller et al., 2016).

Inability to deal with conflict has two underlying causes in construction organizations: first,
failure to deal with technical disagreements arising from various role perspectives (Chen et al.,
2014), and second, distrust among team members or risky conduct (Tjosvold, 2008). As
previously indicated, disagreement is not always a bad thing. As a result, conflict must be
efficiently managed in order to achieve the best results and to avoid any unsafe behaviour
(Leung et al., 2014). As a result of the above discussion, the following hypothesis emerges:

Hypothesis 3: There is a significant negative relationship between perceived task conflict

and meaningfulness at work.

3.3.4 Relationship Conflict and Meaningfulness at Work

Jelodar et al. (2016a) have expanded on this systematic approach as well as specific activities
and techniques that help improve project team relationships. As a result, they've come up with a
way to think about relationship quality in the construction industry. Furthermore, while some
prominent research work (Jelodar et al., 2016b; Meng, 2010; Zou et al., 2014) has recently
placed a strong emphasis on relationship contracting in all of its forms, such as partnering and
alliancing, the events and factors that affect relationships during a project's lifecycle remain
unclear and unexplored. As a result of the above discussion, the following hypothesis emerges:

Hypothesis 4: There is a significant negative relationship between perceived relationship

conflict and meaningfulness at work.

3.3.5 Meaningfulness at Work and Unsafe behaviour

Researchers have concentrated on analyzing risky construction worker behaviour in order to

improve construction safety. Construction employees engaged in risky behaviour for a variety of
reasons, according to Choudhry et al (2008), including the desire to appear tough, a lack of
safety understanding, coworkers' attitudes, job pressure, and other organizational, economic, and
psychological variables. The construction industry's rapid growth of complicated projects around
the world has resulted in a variety of inter organizational conflicts (Hu et al., 2017; Wu et al.,
2017). As a result of the above discussion, the following hypothesis emerges:

Hypothesis 5: There is a significant negative relationship between perceived

meaningfulness at work and unsafe behaviour.

3.3.6 Task Conflict, Unsafe Behaviour and Meaningfulness at Work

The construction business remains one of the most dangerous in the world, despite significant
economic expansion and industrialization (Khosravi et al., 2014).The risk of a death in the
construction business is five times higher than in manufacturing, and the chance of a catastrophic
injury is two and a half times higher (Sawacha et al., 1999).According to Fleming and Lardner
(2002), around 80% of accidents are caused by dangerous human behaviour.

Meaningfulness at work (MAW) is a major topic that humans must address. Work not only
allows people to make a living, but it also has a significant impact on their self-actualization. The
MAW is characterized by organizational scholars as what members particularly experience in
their work and organization, and they underline that it is a basic concept that impacts how they
interpret such experiences (Rosso et al., 2010). The above discussion leads to the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6: Relationship between task conflict and unsafe behaviour is partially
mediated by meaningfulness at work

3.3.7 Relationship Conflict, Unsafe Behaviour and Meaningfulness at Work

The concept of relationship quality in construction procurement and projects was introduced by
Jelodar et al. (2017); however, the link between its attributes and inevitable people-related events
such as conflicts and disputes, as well as their handling and management styles, has not been
thoroughly explored. Several theoretical approaches to resolving interpersonal conflict have been
developed (Kleinman et al., 2003). The above discussion leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 7: Relationship between relationship conflict and unsafe behaviour is partially

mediated by meaningfulness at work

3.3.8 Task Conflict, Meaningfulness at Work and Conflict Management Climate

Effective styles lead to conflict resolution, increased work stability (Wu et al., 2017), increased
emotions of self-efficacy among team members, reduced the likelihood of bad conflicts in the
future, and long-term financial growth for a company (Cheung and Chuah, 1999; Rubin et al.,
1994). These theorists expand on Blake and Mouton's (1964) groundbreaking work, which
classified conflict-resolution tactics into five categories: forcing, retreating, smoothing,
compromising, and confrontation. The authors further classified these five techniques into two
broad categories that are linked to team leader behaviour: (1) concern for people, and (2) concern
for task. Thomas evaluated and updated Blake and Mouton's approaches for dealing with
conflicts in team contexts in 1976. (1976, cited in Rahim & Magner, 1995). Thomas also divided
conflict resolution techniques into five styles, with two main dimensions: (1) cooperativeness, in
which individuals' worries are focused on their peers, and (2) assertiveness, in which self-
concerns are prioritized. In addition to these two dimensions, five conflict resolution styles were
proposed, based on how cooperative or assertive an individual is: cooperative, competitive,
accommodating, avoiding, and compromise (Rahim & Magner, 1995). The above discussion
leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 8: The relationship between task conflict and meaningfulness at work will be
negatively moderated by the perceived conflict management climate.
3.3.9 Relationship Conflict, Meaningfulness at Work and Conflict Management
Climate

A fundamental concern for project team work is whether being a member of such teams enriches
people' working life and, more specifically, how organizational attempts to govern how such
teams function affect the meaningfulness of such work. Humans are driven by a need to find
purpose in their lives (Frankl, 1995). They have a proclivity to seek for the meaning of life for
themselves and others, and to live accordingly. Given that the 'work life' has a pivotal place
among the many diverse domains of existence, the search for antecedents and outcomes is
critical since the MAW has been shown to predict significant organizational variables including
organizational identity and work satisfaction (Pratt et al., 2006). The above discussion leads to
the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 9: The relationship between relationship conflict and meaningfulness at work

will be negatively moderated by the perceived conflict management climate.

3.3.10 Conflict Management Climate and Meaningfulness at Work

Workplace meaning is linked to the psychological factors that allow people to see their work as
having the potential to be meaningful (Rosso et al., 2010). But what must be present in the work
- or in the person - in order to identify the meaningfulness? What psychological mechanisms are
at play when you have a sense of purpose at work? Similar concepts of consistency and
authenticity have been employed by other authors to describe work meaning. The importance of
consistency or alignment between one's actions and beliefs of one's true self, for example, was
examined by Ryan and Deci (2001). In turn, Pratt and Ashforth (2003) in Quinn and Cameron
(2019) proposed that individuals acquire meaningfulness when their personal identity and the
activity they conduct are consistent.

Hypothesis 10: Conflict Management Climate is positively related to meaningfulness at

work.
3.3.11 Meaningfulness at Work, Conflict Management Climate and Unsafe
Behaviour

Some of the authors have used concepts from identity theory (Stryker, 1987) and social identity
theory (Tajfel, 1981) to construct a model in which the meaningful is a product of individuals'
continuous management of the social roles that they perform and with which they identify (self-
perceived or personal identity), and the commitments and requirements arising from their
membership in specific social/occupational groups (assigned or social identity), on the other
hand. The above discussion leads to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 11: Meaningfulness at work mediates the relationship between Conflict

Management Climate and Unsafe Behaviour.
 Chapter 4
Research Methodology
It is defined as set of practices that is used to recognize data related to research. The purpose of
this portion is to check how data was gathered and how it was evaluated (Wilkinson et al., 2000).
Research is completed through study, observation, experiments and analysis (Sam et al., 2013).
This portion finds out the relationship of task conflict, relationship conflict, conflict climate
management, and unsafe behavior with mediating effect of meaningfulness at work. Research
helps to find solution to the questions and uses methods, procedures and techniques that are
studied for reliability and validity. Validity defines as those procedures that are used for
answering the solution are correct. While reliability defines as those measurement procedures
that are provided for repeatability and accuracy.

4.1 Research Strategy

Research
Strategy

Research Research
Methods Design

Data Cross-
Data Analysis
Collection sectional
Methods
Methods Study

Qualitative Quantitative
Questionaires Interviews Observations
Method Method

Research strategy is defined as a precise set of practices or techniques used to identify, select,
practice and analyze data about the research(Sohu et al., 2017). The basic aim of this section is to
check, how will be data is collected and how it analyzed. Research is a practical and systematic
search useful for the data specific subject matte r(Guo et al., 2018). It is review of discovering
explanations for scientific and social problems through objective evaluation. Information may be
collecting from different sources i.e., Human beings, nature, experience etc. The aim of this
research is influences of conflict types on construction workers’ unsafe. The questionnaire base
survey is administering between construction labor on several construction projects in Pakistan.
The questionnaire is design in both English and Urdu.

4.2 Research Design

Sam Gounder, (2013) defined research design as a process that explains what the outcome of
research questions will be. According to Cooper (2013), it is defined as the process that helps in
solving the solution of research questions and achieving research objective is called research
design. This includes a set of decision related to what kind of research topic will be and what
kind of methods will be used. Research is divided into two categories (i.e., descriptive and
inferential). Descriptive research is used to review the research while inferential research is used
to make statement regarding research (Babbie, 2004).

A questionnaire-based research design is used to collect quantitative data through a sample

consist of construction employees and construction workers.

4.3 Research Approach

It is defined as research procedure that is used to achieve goals. Data can be gathered through
observation, experiments and surveys (Creswell and Garrett, 2008). There are two types of
research approaches that are employed by researchers to answer the research questions (Cooper
et al., 2013).

4.3.1 Quantitative and Qualitative Research

In developing our research case study, we were faced with the number of methodological
choices. There are essential distinctions between qualitative and quantitative methods.
Quantitative research is defined as exact and fixed measurement of attitudes, behavior and
knowledge while quantitative study is defined as the study in which research objectives is define
by researchers and wants empirical evaluation that are consisting of numeric data measurement
and investigate those objectives. While qualitative study is opposite to quantitative study.
Information is made through quantitative method. So, quantitative approach is used for this
study. In order to test the hypothesis, quantitative method is used because it collects data in
numeric form and interprets data through statistical techniques (Axinn and Pearce. 2006).
4.4 Research Setting
In this research questionnaires are developed to collect the information about safety on
construction sites. The sample for questionnaire is collected from construction workers in civil
and building projects in Pakistan. The design is adopting a cross-sectional based approach which
consists of data taken from representatives of different construction sites in Pakistan. These
sample contain larger and smaller sites, housing and general contracting, and regional areas in
Pakistan.

4.5 Type of study

There are two types of studies named as causal and correlational. Causal study is defined as
study in which researcher wants to explain the cause of problem while the correlational study is
defined as study in which researcher main focus on defining the variable linked with problem.
This study is correlational where the impact of unsafe behaviour on task and relationship
conflict, conflict management climate with mediating role of meaningfulness at work will be
measured.

4.5.1 Variables and their measure

4.5.1.1 Task Conflict
Task conflict is used as an independent variable (IV). Task conflict will be measured using four-
item scale developed by Jehn’s (1995).

i. How often do people in your work unit disagree about opinions regarding the work being
done?

ii. How frequently are there conflicts about ideas in your work unit?

iii. How much conflict about the work you do is there in your work unit?

iv. To what extent are their differences of opinion in your work unit?

4.5.1.2 Relationship Conflict

Relationship conflict is used as an independent variable (IV). Relationship conflict will be
measured using four-item scale developed by Jehn’s (1995).

i. How much friction is there among members in your work unit?

 ii. How much are personality conflicts evident in your work unit?

iii. How much tension is there among members in your work unit?

iv. How much emotional conflict is there among members in your work unit?

4.5.1.3 Conflict management climate

Scale for Conflict Management Climate is taken from the paper “Job demands as risk factors of
exposure to bullying at work: The moderating role of team-level conflict management climate.”

i. If I have a serious disagreement with someone at work, I know who I should talk to about
it.

ii. The way we deal with disagreements between employees in my unit works well.

iii. My superiors deal with conflicts in a good manner.

iv. We have good procedures and methods for raising disagreements and conflicts in my
workplace.

4.5.1.4 Meaningfulness at work

Meaningfulness at work is used moderating variable. “We used four items scale developed by
May et al. (2004)”.

i. The work I do on this job is very important to me.

ii. My job activities are personally meaningful to me.

iii. My job activities are significant to me.

iv. The work I do on this job is meaningful to me.

4.5.1.5 Safety Behavior

Safety behavior is used dependent variable (DV). Safety behavior will be measured using 7-
items scale developed by Neal et al, (2000).

i. I ignore safety regulations to get the job done.

ii. I break work procedures.
 iii. I take chances to get the job done.
iv. I bend rules to achieve the target.
v. I get the job done better by ignoring some rules.
vi. Conditions at the workplace stop me working to the rules.
vii. I take shortcuts which involve little or no risk.
viii. I carryout activities which are forbidden.
ix. I do not adhere to codes of practice when under pressure.
x. I break rules due to management pressure.

4.5.2 Treatment of scales

All the study variables will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale.

4.6 Study Setting

Different studies correlate different study settings (natural, artificial). Study setting is categories
into two types (contrived and non-contrived) (Sekaran et al., 2013). This study was performed in
performed in non-contrived setting because it is related to questionnaire regarding background of
variable and this study is correlational study which is natural in nature. This study is a field study
because participants i.e., construction industry subordinates will be contacted to fill the
questionnaires.

4.7 Time Horizon

It is categories into two categories i.e., cross sectional and longitudinal. In cross sectional study,
only one time data is collected and researchers collect data on particular time. In longitudinal
study, scholars collect data over long period of time (Saunders et al., 2007). For this research, the
nature of data will be cross-sectional to find out relationships within variables. The data will be
collected once in many days or months but it will be collected again in the future.

4.8 Survey Instrument Development

Questionnaire is designed for this study which is collected from different resources. It is
designed on the basis of 5-point likert scale (i.e., 1 to 5). These five-point scales explain the level
of acceptance. 1 stands for strongly disagree and 5 stands for strongly agree.
4.8.1 Demographics
In this study, demographic is adopted on the basis of past studies. Where nominal scale
comprises individuals age and job experience etc. Demographic is included at the start of the
questionnaire.

4.8.2 Measures of variables

Measures are adopted according to understanding of respondents and questionnaire is adopted
from past studies. Questionnaire used 5-point Likert scale as defined before, which is used in
interval scale and are defined as 1=strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Natural, 4=Agree and
5=strongly agree

4.9 Sample Selection

Sampling plays important role in research and it determines the accuracy of results. Study results
will be affected if there is any issue in selection of sample. As discuss before, it is not convenient
to gather the whole data of population. Therefore, non-probability sampling is used. Due to
limited time, the study is based on convenient sampling. Targeted populations are those
individuals who are in same group and from which researcher draws a sample. This type of
sampling is used when availability of sample is occasional. The data will collect from the
construction industry.

4.10 Reliability and Validity

Instrument that is included in data collection must be reliable and valid. Reliability is defined as
to get same results again and again while validity is defined as instruments must be addressed
properly (Newman et al., 2013). To test the reliability and validity, pilot study is used. Unit of
analysis is used to make questionnaire understandable for end users. The reliability and validity
of the scales will be ensured at the measurement-model stage while using Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling.
4.11 Ethical Consideration
The researcher took a number of steps to ensure that the study adhered to scientific standards and
values. After seeking approval from the construction industry organization, this research was
carried out.

4.11.1 Informed Consent

To participate in the study, participants were required to sign consent forms. The theory of
informed consent was used by the researcher to ensure this. Until distributing the questionnaires,
the researcher obtained permission from the construction organization.

4.11.2 Voluntary Participation

Participants were required to agree to participate in the study, and they had the option to do so or
not. The researcher informed the respondents that the information they provided would be used
solely for the purpose of the analysis. The researcher also clarified that they could contribute
useful data for this study if they shared their opinions on the research subject.

4.11.3 Confidentiality
The researcher assured the respondents that the information collected in this study would be kept
private and that the results would be used for the project only. The researcher informed the
respondents that the data would be coded and that no one would link the data to the respondents
for the project's external and internal audiences.

4.11.4 Privacy
The names of the possible respondents were not revealed. Respondent confidentiality was
regarded as a top priority. Furthermore, the respondents were engaged by the researcher before
agreeing to answer the study's questions.

4.11.5 Anonymity
The researcher dealt with the respondents with admire while ensuring that they answered the
questions according to the look at requirements, interjecting questions in a clear and
understandable manner. The respondents were selected without prejudice via the researcher.
Even the researcher becomes capable of gather absolutely anonymous responses due to this. This
was done by self-administered questionnaires that had been returned anonymously.
4.12 Trustworthiness
Credibility, dependability, conform potential, and transfer capability were used to assess the
date's trustworthiness, all through and after the questionnaire, individuals were checked for
credibility. This became accomplished with the aid of summarizing the responses to the
questions and searching for affirmation from the individuals to ensure that the responses and
facts given have been clear. Moreover, the individuals had been selected from unique units for
the sake of legitimacy. Reviewers as compared the topics and sub subject matters on a normal
foundation, with a third character validating the findings. Transparency of the technique and
facts series system become used to ensure conform capacity. The transfer ability of the effects
became ensured through gathering specified facts from individuals and inclusive of an in-depth
summary of them.
 Chapter 5
Analysis & Discussion
PLS-SEM offers solution with small sample sizes rather than large number of items by help of
calculating measurement and structural model relationship separately (Fornell et al., 1982;
Willaby et al., 2015; Hair et al., 2017). The algorithm calculates partial regression relationships
in measurement and structural model by separate ordinary least square regression. Only
population’s nature determines the nature of the sample size (Rigdon, 2016).

This chapter comprises hypothesis and their results after analysis and collection of data. Due to
existence of COVID-19 pandemic, it was still not possible to collect data by visiting their site.
Hence, data were collected through online questionnaire from 150 construction workers and
employees. The workers and employees include safety engineers, site engineers, site workers,
project managers, site supervisors, construction managers and planning engineers. Hypothesis
are not tested through SPSS because only SMART PLS help to analyze small sample, secondary
data, complex models and enable analysis using multiple mediators.

Table 1: Frequencies and Percentages of Demographic Variables

The respondent details to the research survey are as below:

Particulars F %
Gender
Male 150 100
Female 0 0
Age
 20-25 50 33.33
26-30 60 40
31-35 15 10
36-40 20 13.33
Above 40 5 3.3
Education
Matric 03 2
Intermediate 17 11.33
Bachelor 90 60
MS/M.Phil 40 26.66
Ph.D. 3 2
Total Job Experience
Less than 5 years 83 55.33
5-10 years 52 34.66
11-15 years 11 7.33
More than 15 years 4 2.6
Employment Status
Permanent 66 44
Contractual 42 28
Daily Wages 22 14.66
Internee 20 13.33
Designation
Site Supervisor 23 15.33
Site Worker 41 27.33
Site Engineer 29 19.33
Planning Engineer 11 7.33
Safety Engineer 7 4.66
Project Manager 9 6
Construction Manager 20 13.33

This table shows the demographic variables of the study. In this, the first variable is Gender in
which 100% (150 out of 150) respondents were males and 0% (0 out of 150) were females. After
this, age is second variable in which 33.33% (50 out of 150) were the respondents whose age lies
20-25, 40% (60) respondents were of age 26-30, 10% (15) were the respondents of age 31-35,
13.33% (20) respondents were of age 36-40 and 3.3% (5) respondents whose age were more than
40. Then, third variable of this table is education. In this, the minimum respondents were of
matric 2% (03) and Ph.D. 2% (3 out of 150). While the maximum respondents were of bachelor
education 60% (90). Rest of the respondents was of intermediate 11.33% (17) and master
26.66% (40). This shows that most of the respondents have done sixteen years of education.
Fourth variable of this table is job experience which shows most of the respondent’s job’s
experience was less than 5years 55.33% (83 out 150), 34.66% (52) respondents having job
experience lie between 5-10years, 7.33% (11) respondents having job experience lie between 11-
15years and very few respondents having job experience was more than 15 years 2.6% (4 out of
150). Fifth variable of this table is employment status. This table shows that most of the
employees were permanent, 44% (66 out of 150) employees were permanent, 28% (42)
employees were on contractual basis, 14.66% (30) employees work as internee and 13.33% (20)
employee works on daily wages. The last variable of this table was designation, 15.33% (23 out
of 150) respondents were site supervisor, 27.33% (41) respondents were site workers,19.33%
(29) respondents were site engineers, 7.33% (11) respondents were planning engineers, 13.33%
(20) respondents were construction manager, 6% (9) respondents were project manager and 6%
(7) respondents were safety engineers. This data shows that very less respondents were safety
engineers. Above data shows employee response against survey form. This survey concludes that
most of the respondent were male, having experience less than 5, age group lie between 20-25
and are permanent employees.

5.1 Measurement Model

As discuss above, PLS-SEM technique use to analyze hypothesis. To fill our objective SMART
PLS3 is used. To test theoretical model, first step is assessment of measurement model which is
also called as outer model. The measurement model is defined as it enables assessment of
construct validity and specifies the indicators for each construct (Hair et al., 2010).

All the variables in this study i.e., task conflict, relationship conflict; conflict climate
management, unsafe behavior, and meaningfulness at work have reflective measurement models.
To evaluate reflective model, the criteria is non-identical with formative ones. When the model is
reflective, outer loadings are examined otherwise outer weights are examined (Hair et al., 2014).
The evaluation of reflective model includes internal consistency, indicator’s reliability,
convergent validity and discriminate validity (Hair et al., 2014). Composite reliability is
examined to analyze the internal consistency of constructs and to access the convergent validity,
average variance extracted (AVE) is examined. Forner-Lacker criterion (F-L criterion), cross
loadings and Hetro-Trait-Mono-trait ratio (HTMT) are examined for discriminate validity
assessment.

5.2 Internal consistency reliability

The first step is internal consistency reliability of evaluating the reflective model (Hair etal.,
2014). Cronbach’s alpha is a traditional approach for assessing internal consistency. It considers
the reliability of all indicators. Due to individual reliability, PLS-SEM gives priority to the
indicators. Cronbach’s alpha misjudges the consistency reliability and it also takes consideration
the number of indicators. Therefore, Hair et al., (2014) proposed that to measure the internal
consistency, cronbach’s alpha used as conventional approach. Because of cronbach’s limitation,
composite reliability is used. Outer loading of all the indicators are taken in consideration in
composite reliability. Both have same method of assessing internal consistency and lies between
0 and 1. In composite reliability, the benchmark between 0.6 and 0.7 are significant and
acceptable. Value lies between 0.7 and 0.9 are satisfactory (Nunally & Bernstein, 1994). Value
that are above0.95 are considered as not acceptable because value at this range shows that all
items of variable measuring same thing. Value that are less than 0.6 indicate absence of internal
consistency. In order to assess internal consistency, this study used both.

Table 2:Alpha Cronbach’s reliability of task conflict, relationship conflict,

conflict climate management, unsafe behavior, and meaningfulness at work
Variables Cronbach's Alpha Composite Reliability
CMC 0.756 0.835
MFW 0.871 0.911
RC 0.726 0.828
TC 0.786 0.861
USB 0.862 0.892
From the results, it shows that all the values are above the critical level in Cronbach’s alpha and
composite reliability. The highest value of cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability both refers
to MFW (0.871 & 0.911) and lowest value of Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability belongs
to RC (0.726 & 0.828).These values show strong internal consistency reliability.

5.3 Indicator reliability

5.3.1 Outer loading
The high values of outer loadings symbolize a high level of association between indicators of a
construct. This phenomenon is known as indicator reliability (Hair et al., 2014). Sometimes,
significant outer loadings can be weak but all the outer loadings of the measurement model must
be significant. Therefore, Hair et al. (2014) suggested that outer loading of variables must be
equal to 0.708 or above. This can be understood from the concept of communality. Communality
of an indicator is stated as the square of an indicator’s outer loading. Now taken a square of
0.708 (communality), the result is 0.50(50%). Therefore, 0.708 is suggested as a rule of thumb as
it shows an explained variance of 50%. In the field of social science, researchers sometimes have
the problem of weak outer loadings (Hulland, 1999). Instead of eradicating the indicators in case
of low levels of outer loadings, researchers should access on the basis of composite reliability
and construct’s content validity whether the indicator should be erased or retained (Hair et
al.,2014).

Table 3: Outer loading

Particulars CMC MFW RC TC USB
CMC1 0.828
CMC2 0.733
CMC3 0.697
CMC4 0.73
MW1 0.908
MW2 0.822
MW3 0.905
MW4 0.751
RC1 0.793
RC2 0.731
RC3 0.64
RC4 0.787
TC1 0.743
TC2 0.797
 TC3 0.768
TC4 0.808
UB1 0.661
UB10 0.668
UB2 0.723
UB4 0.777
UB5 0.784
UB6 0.715
UB8 0.702
UB9 0.666

A general rule of thumb states that if the values of outer loadings lie between 0.40and 0.70, then
those indicators should be removed only if their deletion results in an increase in composite
reliability and average variance extracted (AVE). However, the outer loadings having values
below 0.40 should always be eradicated (Hair et al., 2011). Above table shows that all outer
loading are above than 0.611 and it is acceptable.

5.4 Convergent Validity

According to Hair et al. (2014), convergent validity is defined as items correlates positively with
alternative items of same construct. To establish the convergent validity, average variance
extracted is used. It is defined as “constructs associated with the mean value of square loadings”.
Values that is greater than 0.5 shows 50% of indicator variance while values that are less than
0.5 shows more errors in the indicators.

Table 4: Average Variance Extracted

Variables rho_A Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
CMC 0.787 0.56
MFW 0.926 0.721
RC 0.744 0.548
TC 0.797 0.607
USB 0.867 0.509

From the above table, it is evident that MFW has higher AVE value (0.721) while USB has
lower AVE value (0.509). TC, CMC and RC AVE values are 0.607, 0.56 and 0.548.
5.5 Discriminant Validity
It is defined as ‘constructs is different from other constructs by empirical standards’ (Hairet al.,
2014). Henseler et al. (2015) use three items to measure discriminant validity i.e., cross loadings,
Fornell Larcker and heterotrait-monotrait ratio. These items will discuss below:

5.5.1 Cross Loadings

Cross loading is the first step to examine the discriminant validity. In this, outer loading must be
greater than other loadings. When outer loading is less than cross loading, then problem will
arise in discriminant validity.

Table 5: Cross Loading of Indicators

CMC CMCxR CMCxT MFW RC TC USB
C C
CMC1 0.829 -0.115 -0.201 0.356 0.139 0.167 0.107
CMC1 * RC1 -0.256 0.639 0.574 -0.221 0.075 0.228 0.156
CMC1 * RC2 -0.171 0.62 0.571 -0.194 -0.001 0.147 0.092
CMC1 * RC3 -0.028 0.46 0.395 -0.021 0.047 0.18 0.094
CMC1 * RC4 -0.004 0.701 0.532 -0.157 0.205 0.263 0.317
CMC1 * TC1 -0.232 0.511 0.606 -0.183 0.249 0.118 0.143
CMC1 * TC2 -0.137 0.491 0.53 -0.118 0.206 0.152 0.152
CMC1 * TC3 -0.143 0.499 0.659 -0.065 0.151 0.101 0.263
CMC1 * TC4 -0.222 0.592 0.598 -0.213 0.265 0.188 0.215
CMC2 0.734 -0.101 -0.198 0.517 0.188 0.183 0.063
CMC2 * RC1 -0.211 0.643 0.56 -0.199 0.181 0.181 0.086
CMC2 * RC2 -0.132 0.705 0.604 -0.202 0.226 0.173 0.21
CMC2 * RC3 -0.066 0.496 0.437 -0.131 0.132 0.084 0.169
CMC2 * RC4 0.049 0.71 0.561 -0.131 0.253 0.26 0.281
CMC2 * TC1 -0.186 0.482 0.665 -0.116 0.122 0.182 0.103
CMC2 * TC2 -0.087 0.461 0.613 -0.158 0.1 0.203 0.168
CMC2 * TC3 -0.178 0.565 0.785 -0.178 0.268 0.248 0.282
CMC2 * TC4 -0.13 0.581 0.7 -0.243 0.246 0.288 0.234
CMC3 0.698 -0.184 -0.212 0.492 0.075 0.059 0.037
CMC3 * RC1 -0.28 0.662 0.488 -0.265 0.162 0.113 0.218
CMC3 * RC2 -0.15 0.71 0.525 -0.204 0.117 0.043 0.309
CMC3 * RC3 -0.012 0.477 0.375 -0.035 0.129 0.13 0.161
CMC3 * RC4 -0.103 0.742 0.494 -0.258 0.189 0.209 0.329
CMC3 * TC1 -0.191 0.443 0.617 -0.157 0.055 0.063 0.113
CMC3 * TC2 -0.124 0.485 0.576 -0.12 0.068 0.179 0.105
CMC3 * TC3 -0.162 0.484 0.707 -0.152 0.193 0.148 0.214
CMC3 * TC4 -0.249 0.583 0.692 -0.235 0.225 0.238 0.305
 CMC4 0.727 -0.061 -0.086 0.405 0.039 0.124 0.087
CMC4 * RC1 -0.125 0.59 0.519 -0.301 -0.029 0.117 0.153
CMC4 * RC2 -0.113 0.641 0.582 -0.285 -0.02 0.147 0.177
CMC4 * RC3 0.099 0.431 0.413 -0.082 -0.058 0.135 0.069
CMC4 * RC4 0.03 0.645 0.608 -0.116 -0.002 0.185 0.238
CMC4 * TC1 -0.106 0.55 0.671 -0.139 0.238 0.342 0.264
CMC4 * TC2 -0.031 0.524 0.6 -0.087 0.159 0.256 0.182
CMC4 * TC3 -0.098 0.633 0.741 -0.115 0.2 0.253 0.331
CMC4 * TC4 -0.088 0.569 0.67 -0.113 0.101 0.232 0.189
MW1 0.483 -0.258 -0.2 0.908 0.074 0.213 -0.104
MW2 0.557 -0.222 -0.255 0.823 0.17 0.202 0.06
MW3 0.493 -0.275 -0.226 0.905 0.139 0.155 -0.053
MW4 0.346 -0.21 -0.088 0.751 0.027 0.097 -0.148
RC1 0.184 0.145 0.212 0.115 0.794 0.517 0.436
RC2 0.151 0.111 0.167 0.093 0.732 0.488 0.377
RC3 0.065 0.108 0.179 0.112 0.641 0.451 0.267
RC4 0.021 0.2 0.285 0.036 0.786 0.536 0.411
TC1 0.142 0.179 0.215 0.158 0.425 0.743 0.296
TC2 0.161 0.143 0.242 0.15 0.498 0.796 0.359
TC3 0.112 0.24 0.234 0.094 0.497 0.767 0.341
TC4 0.168 0.238 0.278 0.217 0.644 0.809 0.408
UB1 -0.027 0.245 0.275 -0.21 0.306 0.24 0.657
UB10 -0.005 0.088 0.108 0.034 0.349 0.344 0.656
UB2 0.142 0.203 0.229 -0.133 0.377 0.356 0.714
UB4 0.147 0.357 0.301 -0.054 0.379 0.369 0.785
UB5 0.123 0.235 0.234 -0.035 0.39 0.332 0.786
UB6 0.073 0.289 0.229 0.043 0.45 0.36 0.719
UB8 0.031 0.301 0.3 -0.087 0.334 0.254 0.709
UB9 0.086 0.236 0.249 0.019 0.324 0.336 0.667

In the above table, shaded area shows the indicator of outer loading. And the outer loading must
be greater than cross loadings. For example, the outer loading of MFW is 0.908, 0.823, 0.905
and 0.751. If we compare these outer loading of MFW with the cross loading of CMC, TC, RC
and USB then we can say that outer loadings are greater than cross loadings. This creates
discriminant validity through cross loadings.

5.5.2 Fornell-Larcker Criterion

The second method for assessing discriminatory validity is the Fornell-Larcker criterion, which
is considered to be more conservative. In this method, average variance square root is extracted
(AVE) and is compared with the correlation of the latent variables. More precisely, "The square
root of each variable AVE must be larger than its highest correlation with the other variable
(Hair et al., 2014)." The discussion behind this technique is that the variable should have
additional variance with its own indicators than with the other variable indicators.

Table 6: Fornell-Larcker Criterion Test Results

CMC MFW RC TC USB
CMC 0.749
MFW 0.554 0.849
RC 0.146 0.117 0.741
TC 0.189 0.203 0.672 0.779
USB 0.108 -0.076 0.512 0.456 0.713

The above shaded area shows square root values of AVE. MFW have highest square root value
of AVE (0.849). USB has lowest square root value of AVE (0.713). It is evident from the values
that square root value of AVE is greater as compare to correlation with other variables.
Therefore, this creates discriminant validity by mean of Fornell-Larcker.

5.5.3 Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio

Henseler et al. (2015) argues that cross-loading and F-L criteria of classical approaches are not
very reliable in establishing discriminative validity in modern research environments. Henseler et
al. (2015) proposed a new approach for assessing discrimination validity i.e., heterotrait-monotrit
ratio (HTMT ratio). Henseler et al. (2015) describes HTMT ratio of the correlations as “the ratio
of the heterotrait heteromethodcorrelations comparative to the average of the monotrait-hetero-
method correlations. According to Henseler et al. (2015), discriminant validity establishes where
an HTMT value is less than 0.9 is considered important between the two variables. We
calculated the HTMT value based on Henseler's et al. (2015) suggestion.

Table 7:HTMT
CMC MFW RC TC USB
CMC
MFW 0.715
RC 0.237 0.172
TC 0.223 0.24 0.876
USB 0.147 0.159 0.634 0.546
This analysis shows that the values range from 0.147 to 0.876. The USB-CMC relationship has
the lowest HTMT value (0.147) and TC-RC has highest HTMT value (0.876). The data in
HTMT analysis shows that all the values are less than 0.9. This means the discriminant validity
is established.

5.6 Structural Model Assessment

The second step after reliability and validity of the constructs is to evaluate the results of
structure model. It measures the relationship between the constructs and involves in examining
the predictive capabilities of model. Structural model assessment performs five steps. According
to Hair et al. (2014), the first step of structural model is to assess the issue of collinearity. The
second step involves assessment of R2.

5.7 Collinearity Assessment

It shows a high correlation with the variables of a model (Hair et al., 2014). It is very important
to investigate collinearity issues before moving on to assessing the model’s path coefficients and
predictive capabilities. The reason is explained by Hair et al. (2014) that “in structural model the
path coefficient approximation is based on the OLS regression of each endogenous variable. In
general, as with multiple regressions, path coefficients can be biased if the estimation includes
collinearity between the constructs”. The collinearity procedure is the same for all formation and
reflective measurement models.

VIF (Variance Inflation Factor) is a measurement used to calculate collinearity problems. VIF is
defined as “the reciprocal of the tolerance (one indicator is not explained by other in the same
line). In PLS-SEM if value of tolerance is 0.20 or less, it is indication of a potential co-linearity
problem. Since VIF is the same as the reciprocal of the tolerance, it can be inferred that a value
of tolerance of 0.20 is the same as a VIF value of 5. Therefore, a VIF value of 5 or higher
indicates a co-linearity problem. If the collinearity exceeds the acute threshold level, it is
advisable to remove the relevant indicator.

Table 8: Collinearity Results

VIF
CMC1 1.429
CMC2 1.699
CMC3 1.737
 CMC4 1.25
MW1 2.828
MW2 1.993
MW3 3.367
MW4 1.674
RC1 1.438
RC2 1.334
RC3 1.269
RC4 1.487
TC1 1.55
TC2 1.639
TC3 1.575
TC4 1.568
UB1 1.602
UB10 1.634
UB2 1.708
UB4 2.294
UB5 2.29
UB6 1.802
UB8 1.715
UB9 1.751

In this table the range of VIF value are 1.25-3.367. CMC4 has lowest VIF value while MW3has
largest VIF value. From this table we conclude that, there is no issue of collinearity in this.

5.8 Coefficient of Determination (R2 Value)

Coefficient of determinant R2 is used to measure structural model. Hair et al.(2014), defined as
model that is calculated as squared correlation between specific endogenous variable actual and
predicted value. The range to test R2 is from 0 to 1. The values close to 1shows higher magnitude
of change.

Table 9:R2 value

R Square R Square Adjusted
MFW 0.042 0.449
USB 0.297 0.326

Table shows that MFW is defined as 30.6% by endogenous variables (conflict climate
management and meaningfulness at work) and USB is defined as 69.4% by endogenous variable
(conflict climate management). Looking at the value of R square, there is not much difference.
Therefore, we can say that there is no issue of parsimony.

5.9 Mediation Analysis

Meaningfulness at work mediates the relationship between Task and relationship conflict and
unsafe behavior. Zhao et al. (2010) suggested that, indirect effect is used to determine the
mediation among constructs.

Original Sample Standard T Statistics (| P Values

Sample Mean (M) Deviation O/STDEV|)
(O) (STDEV)
-0.031 -0.033 0.022 1.436 0.151
TC -> MFW -> USB
-0.089 -0.092 0.038 2.328 0.02
CMC -> MFW -> USB
0.012 0.014 0.018 0.645 0.519
RC -> MFW -> USB
Moderating Effect 2 -> 0.043 0.041 0.026 1.635 0.102
MFW -> USB
Moderating Effect 1 -> -0.016 -0.014 0.018 0.901 0.368
MFW -> USB

Above table shows significant mediation relationship among constructs. It is concluded that
meaningfulness at work mediate the relationship between conflict management and unsafe
behavior.
5.10: Significance of Path Coefficients
Bootstrapping is a procedure in which significance of coefficient is determined by its standard
error results. T value is calculated from this standard error. According to Hair et al. (2014) the
coefficient is significant only when t value is greater than critical value. For two tail test, critical
value is 2.57 (level of significance= 1%), 1.96 (level of significance 5%). This study takes a
sample of 5000 for bootstrapping. To analyze the level of significance both t and p values are
observed.
Table 10 Path Coefficient for Structure Model Assessment
Original Sample Standard T Statistics (| P Values
Sample Mean (M) Deviation O/STDEV|)
(O) (STDEV)
CMC ->
MFW 0.548 0.562 0.069 7.883 0.000
MFW ->
USB -0.162 -0.165 0.069 2.351 0.019
RC -> MFW 0.098 0.087 0.095 1.036 0.300
RC -> USB -0.266 -0.243 0.107 2.484 0.013
TC -> MFW -0.072 -0.088 0.097 0.741 0.459
TC -> USB 0.374 0.379 0.098 3.831 0.000
CMCxRC->
USB 0.193 0.197 0.087 2.22 0.026
CMCxTC->
USB 0.217 0.228 0.101 2.138 0.033

Above table shows significant mediation relationship among constructs. It is concluded that
meaningfulness at work mediate the relationship between other variables.

5.11 Result of Hypothesis

Based on the analysis conducted, the status of the hypothesis is presented below:

Hypothesis Path Co-efficient

Hypothesis 1: There is a significant positive relationship between Accept
perceived task conflict and unsafe behaviour.
Hypothesis 2: There is a significant positive relationship between Accept
perceived relationship conflict and unsafe behaviour.
Hypothesis 3: There is a significant positive relationship between Accept
perceived task conflict and meaningfulness at work.
Hypothesis 4: There is a significant negative relationship between Reject
perceived relationship conflict and meaningfulness at work.
Hypothesis 5: There is a significant negative relationship between Accept
perceived meaningfulness at work and unsafe behaviour.
Hypothesis 6: Relationship between task conflict and unsafe Reject
behaviour is partially mediated by meaningfulness at work.
Hypothesis 7: Relationship between relationship conflict and unsafe Reject
behaviour is partially mediated by meaningfulness at work.
Hypothesis 8: The relationship between task conflict and Reject
 meaningfulness at work will be negatively moderated by the
perceived conflict management climate.
Hypothesis 9: The relationship between relationship conflict and Reject
meaningfulness at work will be negatively moderated by the
perceived conflict management climate.
Hypothesis 10: Conflict Management Climate is positively related to Accept
meaningfulness at work
Hypothesis 11: Meaningfulness at work mediates the relationship Accept
between Conflict Management Climate and Unsafe behavior

5.12 Discussion
A recent study shows that meaningfulness at work can partially mediate conflict and unsafe
behaviour. The main idea of this study was to investigate how conflicts and unsafe behaviour
links with the construction usage industries of Pakistan. We also investigate that whether
conflict/unsafe behaviour plays a positive impact on safety behavior or not. The questionnaire
was designed to find the results based on questionnaire items that were adapted from past studies
and these measures were used according to the respondent feasibility. For this purpose, 5 points
Likert scale was used i.e. (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree). As
shown in the above result, scales are reliable, quite satisfactory, and there exist suitable internal
consistency between items. Nine hypotheses develop for testing out of which five were accepted
and one was rejected.

According to past studies, the construction industry is a crucial sector of the national economy.
Construction is one of the most hazardous industries; there are frequent accidents, and unsafe
behavior is a critical factor. To explore the influence of unsafe behaviors and their impacts on
accidents, a case study in the Pakistan building construction industry was conducted. The unsafe
behaviors contributed to the occurrence and development of construction accidents to varying
degrees. Chi et al. (2013) also pointed out that workers’ unsafe behaviors had operation-specific
characteristics and thus could be closely related to accident types. However, their study focused
on the impact of different risk combinations of working conditions and workers’ behaviors while
our study explored the different impacts of specific unsafe behaviors on accident types.
According to Jehn (1995): Task conflict, or cognitive conflict, is a perception of disagreements
among group members about the content of their decisions and involves differences in
viewpoints, ideas, and opinions. Relationship conflict, or emotional conflict, is a perception of
interpersonal incompatibility and typically includes tension, annoyance, and animosity among
group member. According to Uhl-Bien et al. (2020), good managers must have the ability to
identify early, possible conflict situations and deal with them before they arise and/or escalate to
costly litigations. It is thought that conflict will influence the bond and relationship of the parties
involved. In all relationship certain levels of conflict exist.

Past studies show that people increasingly strive to experience meaningfulness at work. In fact,
research shows that people are more motivated to apply, are willing to accept lower salaries, and
are less likely to quit if jobs provide meaningful work (Achor et al., 2018; Hu &Hirsh, 2017).
However, to date, human resource (HR) leaders are still struggling to make the business case for
meaningful work (Leeet al., 2016). Part of the reason may be that we lack sufficient evidence
that employees who perceive their work as meaningful bring about higher levels of performance.

This connection provides individuals a common ground of looking after the betterment and
interest of the organization. With this common sense, individuals feel motivated towards safety
behaviour and better meaningfulness at work. This mutual regard for each other and the sense of
belongingness allow individuals to avoid conflicts, allowing them to achieve better work
environment, achieving efficiency and making it feasible to raise concerns about unsafe
behaviors of subordinates and discussing new ways to improve safety policies and practices.
From the above study, it is concluded that meaningfulness at work is significantly and positively
associated with safety behavior. By keeping all the above-mentioned studies, some hypotheses
are concluded as meaningfulness at work partially mediates the relationship of task conflict,
relationship conflict and unsafe behavior.
 Chapter 6
Conclusion & Recommendation
The purpose of this chapter is to present the conclusion that was gathered from all the study. This
chapter includes the limitation of study, future recommendation, implications and conclusion on
workers of construction industry. The first part of this chapter summarizes the conclusion of
whole study, second part includes limitations. Third section shows future research and fourth
section shows implications.

6.1 Limitations, Suggestions and Recommendation

Research was carefully done, but there are some limitations. In this part, study will provide some
limitation, guidelines and recommendations for future research.

Due to Covid-19, it’s very difficult to collect data through walk-in survey so data were collected
through questionnaires. There is very less time constraint for collection of data. The main focus
of this study was on construction industry rather than other industries. Data of this study was
collected only by construction industries employees/workers so the findings of this study will not
be used for all other industries. Future studies may consider other industries as well where safety
plays major role. This study adopted longitudinal time horizon because of less time. Future
studies may put some efforts to do longitudinal study and it will be very effective. This study
examined the mediating effect of meaningfulness at work. Future studies could examine the
effect of other variable between task and relationship conflict, along with conflict climate
management and unsafe behavior of workers. The data were collected from convenient sampling
and our sample is small and it may not show large groups. Future studies test this model by using
large sample.

6.2 Implications
The purpose of this study was to investigate those factors that trigger safety behavior among
employee of construction industry in Pakistan. This study observed that supervisor whose main
focus on mediation of conflict management climate on meaningfulness at work can enhance
employee performance. Due to this research, it is recommended that future studies should
include some other identification to find the effect of unsafe behavior. Unsafe behavior is the
main aspect that may influences the actions of employee to keep them safe and to avoid
accidents. They work in a safe environment by fulfilling some safety rules. From this study, it is
observed that there is a significant relationship of supervisor and employees and unsafe
behaviour. Safety behavior is related to conflict and unsafe behaviour having mediating effect of
meaningfulness at work. This shows that supervisor and subordinate relationship will have some
effect on safety behavior. It also shows that conflicts arise among supervisor and employee due
to unsafe behaviour. They can easily minimize those safety hazards while avoiding unsafe
behaviour after discussing it with their supervisor. Management should give importance to
conflict climate management for reducing employees’ accident onsite. Constructions projects
should promote awareness seminars among employees about unsafe behaviour. They also
conduct training programs for employees to increase their skills and management capabilities
which helps them to avoid accidents.

6.3 Conclusion
During the construction phase of the project, team members/workers are more likely to breed
unsafe behavior, which may have serious consequences. This study observed how unsafe
behaviour between employees causes conflicts and accidents. This study also examined the
mediating role of conflict management climate on meaningfulness at work between task conflict,
relationship conflict and unsafe behavior of employees. The finding of this study contributes the
literature that unsafe behaviour has an impact on construction projects and safety of workers.
The purpose of the study is to highlight the importance of how conflicts between employees and
supervisor arise due to unsafe behavior. The research was conducted on construction industry
employees.

There were 3 research objectives and to achieve these objectives data were collected from 140
employees of construction industries. Main cities were selected for conducting this study. The
first objective of this study was to examine “the relationship between conflict types and unsafe
behavior of individuals working on construction projects”. Based on the analysis, it is concluded
that conflict types and unsafe behavior of individuals working on construction projects

negatively affect each other. The second objective was to examine if “meaningfulness at work
mediates the relationship between conflicts and unsafe behavior of individuals working on
construction projects”. Based on the analysis, it is concluded that meaningfulness at work

partially mediates the relationship between conflicts and unsafe behavior . The third objective
was to examine if “conflict management climate negatively moderates the association between
conflict types with meaningfulness at work”. Based on the analysis, it is concluded that conflict
management climate does not negatively moderates the association between conflict types with

meaningfulness at work. From above analysis, it is observed that there is a mediating effect of
conflict management climate on meaningfulness at work between conflicts and unsafe behavior.
 References
Abudayyeh, O., Fredericks, T. K., Butt, S. E., & Shaar, A. (2006). An investigation of
management’s commitment to construction safety. International Journal of Project
Management, 24(2), 167-174.
Achor, S., Reece, A., Kellerman, G. R., &Robichaux, A. (9). out of 10 people are willing to earn
less money to do more-meaningful work. Harvard Business Review, 96(6), 82-89.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action control (pp.
11-39). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Aneziris, O. N., Topali, E., & Papazoglou, I. A. (2012). Occupational risk of building
construction. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 105, 36-46.

Arcury, T. A., Mills, T., Marín, A. J., Summers, P., Quandt, S. A., Rushing, J., & Grzywacz, J.
G. (2012). Work safety climate and safety practices among immigrant Latino residential
construction workers. American journal of industrial medicine, 55(8), 736-745.
Asilian-Mahabadi, H., Khosravi, Y., Hassanzadeh-Rangi, N., Hajizadeh, E., & Behzadan, A. H.
(2018). A qualitative investigation of factors influencing unsafe work behaviors on construction
projects. Work, 61(2), 281-293.

Awolusi, I. G., & Marks, E. D. (2017). Safety activity analysis framework to evaluate safety
performance in construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(3),
05016022.
Axinn, W. G., & Pearce, L. D. (2006). Mixed method data collection strategies. Cambridge
University Press.
Azhar, N., Farooqui, R. U., & Ahmed, S. M. (2008). Cost overrun factors in construction
industry of Pakistan. In First International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries
(ICCIDC–I), Advancing and Integrating Construction Education, Research & Practice (pp. 499-
508).
Babaeian Jelodar, M., Yiu, T. W., & Wilkinson, S. (2017). Assessing contractual relationship
quality: Study of judgment trends among construction industry participants. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 33(1), 04016028.
Babbie, E. (2004). Laud Humphreys and research ethics. International journal of sociology and
social policy.
Bailey, C., & Madden, A. (2017). Time reclaimed: temporality and the experience of meaningful
work. Work, employment and society, 31(1), 3-18.
Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., & Soane, E. (2017). The mismanaged soul:
Existential labor and the erosion of meaningful work. Human Resource Management Review,
27(3), 416-430.
Baron, R. A. (1988). Attributions and organizational conflict: The mediating role of apparent
sincerity. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 41(1), 111-127.
Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Cavazza, N., & Serpe, A. (2009). Effects of safety climate on safety norm violations: exploring
the mediating role of attitudinal ambivalence toward personal protective equipment. Journal of
safety research, 40(4), 277-283.
Chen, H., Luo, X., Zheng, Z., & Ke, J. (2019). A proactive workers' safety risk evaluation
framework based on position and posture data fusion. Automation in Construction, 98, 275-288.
Chen, Y. Q., Zhang, Y. B., & Zhang, S. J. (2014). Impacts of different types of owner-contractor
conflict on cost performance in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 140(6), 04014017.
Cheng, C. W., Leu, S. S., Lin, C. C., & Fan, C. (2010). Characteristic analysis of occupational
accidents at small construction enterprises. Safety Science, 48(6), 698-707.
Cheng, E. W., Ryan, N., & Kelly, S. (2012). Exploring the perceived influence of safety
management practices on project performance in the construction industry. Safety science, 50(2),
363-369.
Cheung, C. C., & Chuah, K. B. (1999). Conflict management styles in Hong Kong industries.
International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 393-399.
Chi, S., Han, S., & Kim, D. Y. (2013). Relationship between unsafe working conditions and
workers’ behavior and impact of working conditions on injury severity in US construction
industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(7), 826-838.
Chiocchio, F., Forgues, D., Paradis, D., & Iordanova, I. (2011). Teamwork in integrated design
projects: Understanding the effects of trust, conflict, and collaboration on performance. Project
Management Journal, 42(6), 78-91.
Choe, S., & Leite, F. (2017). Assessing safety risk among different construction trades:
Quantitative approach. Journal of construction engineering and management, 143(5), 04016133.

Choudhry, R. M., & Fang, D. (2008). Why operatives engage in unsafe work behavior:
Investigating factors on construction sites. Safety science, 46(4), 566-584.
Choudhry, R. M., Fang, D., & Lingard, H. (2009). Measuring safety climate of a construction
company. Journal of construction Engineering and Management, 135(9), 890-899.
Clarke, S. (2006). The relationship between safety climate and safety performance: a meta-
analytic review. Journal of occupational health psychology, 11(4), 315.
Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and
avenues for further research. Journal of applied social psychology, 28(15), 1429-1464.
Cooper, D. R., Schindler, P. S., & Sun, J. (2006). Business research methods (Vol. 9, pp. 1-744).
New York: Mcgraw-hill.
Creswell, J. W., & Garrett, A. L. (2008). The “movement” of mixed methods research and the
role of educators. South African journal of education, 28(3), 321-333.
De Dreu, C. K. (2006). Rational self-interest and other orientation in organizational behavior: a
critical appraisal and extension of Meglino and Korsgaard (2004).
De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance,
and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied Psychology, 88(4), 741.
Deutsch, M. (1990). Sixty years of conflict. International journal of conflict management.
Doherty, N., & Guyler, M. (2008). The essential guide to workplace mediation & conflict
resolution: Rebuilding working relationships. Kogan Page Publishers.
Dunn, K. I., Mohr, P., Wilson, C. J., & Wittert, G. A. (2011). Determinants of fast-food
consumption. An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite, 57(2), 349-357.
Fam, I. M., Nikoomaram, H., & Soltanian, A. (2012). Comparative analysis of creative and
classic training methods in health, safety and environment (HSE) participation improvement.
Journal of loss prevention in the process industries, 25(2), 250-253.
Fang, D., Wu, C., & Wu, H. (2015). Impact of the supervisor on worker safety behavior in
construction projects. Journal of management in engineering, 31(6), 04015001.
Fang, D., Zhao, C., & Zhang, M. (2016). A cognitive model of construction workers’ unsafe
behaviors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(9), 04016039.
Fang, D., Zhao, C., & Zhang, M. (2016). A cognitive model of construction workers’ unsafe
behaviors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(9), 04016039.
Fang, D., Zhao, C., & Zhang, M. (2016). A cognitive model of construction workers’ unsafe
behaviors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(9), 04016039.

Fang, D., Zhao, C., & Zhang, M. (2016). A cognitive model of construction workers’ unsafe
behaviors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(9), 04016039.
Fisher, R. J. (Ed.). (2005). Paving the way: Contributions of interactive conflict resolution to
peacemaking. Lexington Books.
Fisher, R. J., & Keashly, L. (1990). Third party consultation as a method of intergroup and
international conflict resolution. In The social psychology of intergroup and international
conflict resolution (pp. 211-238). Springer, New York, NY.
Fleming, M. & Lardner, R. (2002). Strategies to Promote Safe Behaviour as Part of a Health and
Safety Management System. HSE Books: London, UK.
Fogarty, G. J., & Shaw, A. (2010). Safety climate and the theory of planned behavior: Towards
the prediction of unsafe behavior. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(5), 1455-1459.
Frankl, V. E. (1985). Man's search for meaning. Simon and Schuster.
Fruhen, L. S., Griffin, M. A., & Andrei, D. M. (2019). What does safety commitment mean to
leaders? A multi-method investigation. Journal of safety research, 68, 203-214.

Fugas, C. S., Silva, S. A., & Meliá, J. L. (2012). Another look at safety climate and safety
behavior: Deepening the cognitive and social mediator mechanisms. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 45, 468-477.
Ghodrati, N., Yiu, T. W., Wilkinson, S., & Shahbazpour, M. (2018). A new approach to predict
safety outcomes in the construction industry. Safety science, 109, 86-94.
Goh, Y. M., & Binte Sa’adon, N. F. (2015). Cognitive factors influencing safety behavior at
height: a multimethod exploratory study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
141(6), 04015003.
Goh, Y. M., Ubeynarayana, C. U., Wong, K. L. X., & Guo, B. H. (2018). Factors influencing
unsafe behaviors: A supervised learning approach. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 118, 77-85.

Gunduz, M., Birgonul, M. T., & Ozdemir, M. (2018). Development of a safety performance
index assessment tool by using a fuzzy structural equation model for construction sites.
Automation in Construction, 85, 124-134.
Guo, B. H., Goh, Y. M., & Wong, K. L. X. (2018). A system dynamics view of a behavior-based
safety program in the construction industry. Safety science, 104, 202-215.
Guo, B. H., Yiu, T. W., & González, V. A. (2016). Predicting safety behavior in the construction
industry: Development and test of an integrative model. Safety science, 84, 1-11.
Guo, H., Yu, Y., & Skitmore, M. (2017). Visualization technology-based construction safety
management: A review. Automation in Construction, 73, 135-144.
Hall, R. H. (1968). Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration.
Hide, S., Atkinson, S., Pavitt, T. C., Haslam, R., Gibb, A. G., & Gyi, D. E. (2003). Causal factors
in construction accidents.
Hosseinian, S. S., & Torghabeh, Z. J. (2012). Major theories of construction accident causation
models: A literature review. International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology,
4(2), 53.
Hu, J., & Hirsh, J. B. (2017). Accepting lower salaries for meaningful work. Frontiers in
psychology, 8, 1649.
Hu, N., Chen, Z., Gu, J., Huang, S., & Liu, H. (2017). Conflict and creativity in inter-
organizational teams: The moderating role of shared leadership. International Journal of
Conflict Management.
International Labour Organization. (2006). “Promotional framework for occupational safety and
health”, Report 95 IV (2A). Available at: https://www.ilo.org.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup

conflict. Administrative science quarterly, 256-282.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict. Administrative science quarterly, 256-282.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of
intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of management journal, 44(2), 238-251.
Jelodar, M. B., Yiu, T. W., & Wilkinson, S. (2016a). A conceptualisation of relationship quality
in construction procurement. International Journal of Project Management, 34(6), 997-1011.
Jelodar, M. B., Yiu, T. W., & Wilkinson, S. (2016b). Dispute manifestation and relationship
quality in practice. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and
Construction, 8(1), C4515003.
Jia, G., Yang, F., Wang, G., Hong, B., & You, R. (2011). A study of mega project from a
perspective of social conflict theory. International Journal of project management, 29(7), 817-
827.
Jiang, Z., Fang, D., & Zhang, M. (2015). Understanding the causation of construction workers’
unsafe behaviors based on system dynamics modeling. Journal of Management in Engineering,
31(6), 04014099.
Jitwasinkul, B., Hadikusumo, B. H., & Memon, A. Q. (2016). A Bayesian Belief Network model
of organizational factors for improving safe work behaviors in Thai construction industry. Safety
science, 82, 264-273.

Khosravi, Y., Asilian-Mahabadi, H., Hajizadeh, E., Hassanzadeh-Rangi, N., Bastani, H., &
Behzadan, A. H. (2014). Factors influencing unsafe behaviors and accidents on construction
sites: a review. International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics, 20(1), 111-125.
Khosravi, Y., Asilian-Mahabadi, H., Hassanzadeh-Rangi, N., Hajizadeh, E., & Gharibi, V.
(2015). Why construction workers involve in unsafe behavior? Development and cross-
validation of a structural model. Iran Occupational Health, 12(1), 27-37.
Kleinman, G., Palmon, D., & Lee, P. (2003). The effects of personal and group level factors on
the outcomes of simulated auditor and client teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(1), 57-
84.
Kozan, M. K. (1989). Cultural influences on styles of handling interpersonal conflicts:
Comparisons among Jordanian, Turkish, and US managers. Human Relations, 42(9), 787-799.
Lee, C., Alonso, A., Esen, E., Coombs, J., Mulvey, T., Victor, J., & Ng, H. (2016). Employee job
satisfaction and engagement: Revitalizing a changing workforce. Alexandria, VA: The Society
for Human Resource Management (SHRM).
Leung, M. Y., Yu, J., & Liang, Q. (2014). Analysis of the relationships between value
management techniques, conflict management, and workshop satisfaction of construction
participants. Journal of Management in Engineering, 30(3), 04014004.
Lips-Wiersma, M., & Morris, L. (2009). Discriminating between ‘meaningful work’and the
‘management of meaning’. Journal of business ethics, 88(3), 491-511.
Loosemore, M., Dainty, A., & Lingard, H. (2003). Human resource management in construction
projects: strategic and operational approaches. Routledge.
Man, S. S., Chan, A. H., & Wong, H. M. (2017). Risk-taking behaviors of Hong Kong
construction workers–A thematic study. Safety Science, 98, 25-36.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal
of occupational and organizational psychology, 77(1), 11-37.
McDonald, M. A., Lipscomb, H. J., Bondy, J., & Glazner, J. (2009). “Safety is everyone's job:”
The key to safety on a large university construction site. Journal of Safety Research, 40(1), 53-
61.

Meng, X. (2010). Assessment framework for construction supply chain relationships:

Development and evaluation. International journal of project management, 28(7), 695-707.
Mitropoulos, P., Cupido, G., & Namboodiri, M. (2009). Cognitive approach to construction
safety: Task demand-capability model. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
135(9), 881-889.

Moan, I. S. V., & Rise, J. (2006). Predicting smoking reduction among adolescents using an
extended version of the theory of planned behaviour. Psychology and Health, 21(6), 717-738.
Mohamed, S., Ali, T. H., & Tam, W. Y. V. (2009). National culture and safe work behaviour of
construction workers in Pakistan. Safety science, 47(1), 29-35.
Müller, R., Turner, J. R., Andersen, E. S., Shao, J., & Kvalnes, Ø. (2016). Governance and ethics
in temporary organizations: The mediating role of corporate governance. Project Management
Journal, 47(6), 7-23.
Nabi, M. A., El-Adaway, I. H., & Dagli, C. (2020). A system dynamics model for construction
safety behavior. Procedia Computer Science, 168, 249-256.

Neal, A., Griffin, M. A., & Hart, P. M. (2000). The impact of organizational climate on safety
climate and individual behavior. Safety science, 34(1-3), 99-109.
Newman, I., Lim, J., & Pineda, F. (2013). Content validity using a mixed methods approach: Its
application and development through the use of a table of specifications methodology. Journal
of Mixed Methods Research, 7(3), 243-260.
Oah, S., Na, R., & Moon, K. (2018). The influence of safety climate, safety leadership,
workload, and accident experiences on risk perception: A study of Korean manufacturing
workers. Safety and health at work, 9(4), 427-433.

Petersen, D. (2000). Safety management 2000: Our strengths & weaknesses. Professional Safety,
45(1), 16.
Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work In
Cameron K., Dutton JE, & Quinn RE (Eds), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of
a new discipline (pp. 308–327).
Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity:
The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical
residents. Academy of management journal, 49(2), 235-262.
Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. S. (2019). Positive organizational scholarship and agents of
change. In Research in organizational change and development. Emerald Publishing Limited.
Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of handling
interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its invariance across groups. Journal of
applied psychology, 80(1), 122.
Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical
integration and review. Research in organizational behavior, 30, 91-127.
Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical
integration and review. Research in organizational behavior, 30, 91-127.
Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and
settlement. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 141-166.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. H. I. L. I. P., & Thornhill, A. D. R. I. A. N. (2007). Research methods.
Business Students 4th edition Pearson Education Limited, England.
Sawacha, E., Naoum, S., & Fong, D. (1999). Factors affecting safety performance on
construction sites. International journal of project management, 17(5), 309-315.
Shin, M., Lee, H. S., Park, M., Moon, M., & Han, S. (2014). A system dynamics approach for
modeling construction workers’ safety attitudes and behaviors. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
68, 95-105.
Sohu, S., Abdullah, A. H., Nagapan, S., Fattah, A., Ullah, K., & Kumar, K. (2017, October).
Contractors perspective for critical factors of cost overrun in highway projects of Sindh,
Pakistan. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1892, No. 1, p. 080002). AIP Publishing LLC.
Stryker, S. (1987). Identity theory: Developments and extensions.
Tabassi, A. A., & Bakar, A. A. (2009). Training, motivation, and performance: The case of
human resource management in construction projects in Mashhad, Iran. International journal of
project management, 27(5), 471-480.
Tabassi, A. A., Ramli, M., & Bakar, A. H. A. (2012). Effects of training and motivation practices
on teamwork improvement and task efficiency: The case of construction firms. International
journal of project management, 30(2), 213-224.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cup
Archive.
Tixier, A. J. P., Hallowell, M. R., Rajagopalan, B., & Bowman, D. (2016). Automated content
analysis for construction safety: A natural language processing system to extract precursors and
outcomes from unstructured injury reports. Automation in Construction, 62, 45-56.
Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict‐positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of
Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and
Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29(1), 19-28.
Uhl-Bien, M., Piccolo, R. F., & Schermerhorn Jr, J. R. (2020). Organizational behavior. John
Wiley & Sons.
Wall Jr, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of management,
21(3), 515-558.
Wang, J., Zou, P. X., & Li, P. P. (2016). Critical factors and paths influencing construction
workers’ safety risk tolerances. Accident analysis & prevention, 93, 267-279.
Wu, C., Li, N., & Fang, D. (2017). Leadership improvement and its impact on workplace safety
in construction projects: A conceptual model and action research. International Journal of
Project Management, 35(8), 1495-1511.
Wu, G., Zhao, X., & Zuo, J. (2017). Effects of inter-organizational conflicts on construction
project added value in China. International Journal of Conflict Management.
Wu, X., Yin, W., Wu, C., & Luo, X. (2017). The spillover effects on employees’ life of
construction enterprises’ safety climate. Sustainability, 9(11), 2060.
Yilmaz, F., & Çelebi, U. B. (2015). The importance of safety in construction sector: Costs of
occupational accidents in construction sites. Business and Economics Research Journal, 6(2), 25.

Zartman, I. W., & Touval, S. (1985). International mediation: Conflict resolution and power
politics. Journal of social issues, 41(2), 27-45.
Zhang, P. Y., Li, N., Fang, D. P., & Wu, H. J. (2017). Supervisorfocused behavior-based safety
method for the construction industry: Case study in Hong Kong. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 143(7), 05017009.

Zhou, J., Fang, J., & Hou, Y. (2014). Stakeholders' Effect on Construction Safety Management
Based on a System Dynamics Model. In ICCREM 2014: Smart Construction and Management
in the Context of New Technology (pp. 868-874).
Zhou, Z., Goh, Y. M., & Li, Q. (2015). Overview and analysis of safety management studies in
the construction industry. Safety science, 72, 337-350.

Zhou, Z., Irizarry, J., & Lu, Y. (2018). A multidimensional framework for unmanned aerial
system applications in construction project management. Journal of management in engineering,
34(3), 04018004.

Zohar, D. (2010). Thirty years of safety climate research: Reflections and future directions.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(5), 1517-1522.
Zou, P. X., & Sunindijo, R. Y. (2015). Strategic safety management in construction and
engineering. John Wiley & Sons.
Zou, W., Kumaraswamy, M., Chung, J., & Wong, J. (2014). Identifying the critical success
factors for relationship management in PPP projects. International journal of project
management, 32(2), 265-274.