Content uploaded by Aziz Yousif Shaikh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aziz Yousif Shaikh on Jul 02, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review of drivers of teamwork
for construction health and safety
Aziz Yousif Shaikh
School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment, Western Sydney University,
Penrith, Australia
Robert Osei- kyei
School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment, Western Sydney University,
Parramatta South campus, Sydney, Australia
Mary Hardie
School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment, Western Sydney University,
Penrith, Australia, and
Matt Stevens
School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment, Western Sydney University,
Parramatta South campus, Sydney, Australia
Abstract
Purpose –This paper systematically reviewed research work on drivers of teamwork, which will
reinforce construction work teams to enhance workers’safety performance. This study adds to the
existing but limited understanding of teamwork drivers on construction workers’safety performance.
This paper presents scholars and industry-based professionals with critical initiatives that have to be
implemented in organisations to get positive resultsinsafetywhileworkinginteamswithanemphasison
systems drivers of teamwork on safety performance at the organisational level, which will help in
providing information on the functioning of the teams and contribute towards improved safety
performance of team workers.
Design/methodology/approach –This study aims to systematically examine the existing body
of knowledge on drivers of teamwork by analysing 53 publications from the years 1997–2021.
The Scopus search engine was used to conduct a systematic review and germane publications were collated.
Findings –According to the findings of the review, since 1997, there has been a burgeoning concern in the
research of drivers of teamwork and its impact on workers’safety performance. After performing a
systematic review, 37 drivers of teamwork were identified. The top five drivers are effective
communications, team workers’relations, leadership, shared knowledge and information, and team
training. Moreover, it was noted that the United States and Australia have been the international regions of
focus for most of the research in the area of drivers of teamwork from the years 1997–2021. The 37 drivers of
teamwork are distributed into six major socio-technical components: people drivers; culture drivers; metrics
drivers; organisational and management practices and procedures drivers; infrastructure drivers and
technology drivers.
Practical implications –The results reported present research scholars and professional practitioners with
an overview of the drivers of teamwork that could be implemented in the construction industry to streamline
potential implementations and improve safety performance of construction workers.
Originality/value –A list of teamwork drivers has been developed to ratify potential empirical research in the
area of construction safety. The results would contribute to the existing but restricted understanding of drivers
of teamwork in the construction industry.
Keywords Teamwork, Safety performance, Construction industry, Review
Paper type Literature review
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
Funding: This review paper did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work reported in this paper.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2398-4708.htm
Received 25 August 2022
Revised 1 March 2023
4 April 2023
Accepted 11 May 2023
International Journal of Building
Pathology and Adaptation
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2398-4708
DOI 10.1108/IJBPA-08-2022-0136
1. Introduction
Health and safety on construction sites is an important topic of concern across the
construction industry worldwide (Enshassi et al.,2021;Furci and Sunindijo, 2020).
Work-related fatalities in the construction sector are a serious global issue. More than 60,
000 work-related deaths are recorded from construction sites annually (Lingard, 2013). When
compared to many other industries, construction sector has one of the highest rates of
workplace accidents, injuries and deaths (Bansal, 2011;Brunette, 2004).
The construction industry has historically had one of the poorest occupational health and
safety records. Statistics show that during the previous five years, the annual fatality toll from
the construction sector in different countries of the world has not decreased much (Fang et al.,
2020). The problem academics and industry professionals are facing in the field of construction
is creating teams and processes capable of high safety in the construction industry (Cupido,
2009). Teamwork can have a significant impact on the safety of construction workers on sites.
Effective teamwork can help manage errors that could potentially threaten the safety of the crew
members on the construction site (Mitropoulos and Memarian, 2012a).
Many studies have shown teamwork structures to significantly impact industries as diverse
as health care, aviation, oil refineries, military, nuclear power, construction sector and many other
business operations. To be successful and efficient, teams operate via mutually supportive acts of
employees working towards a common objective, defined as “Teamwork”(Marks et al., 2001).
There have been many studies on the drivers of substantial team success. Examples of
these drivers include team performance and training (Salas et al., 1992); the role of groups in
an organisation (Gist et al., 1987); teamwork and safety of construction workers (Mitropoulos
and Memarian, 2012b).
According to Dyer (1987), teams are groups of individuals who depend on collective,
collaborative work to obtain optimum success and goal fulfilment. Teamwork can positively
influence construction team members in specific ways; for instance, teamwork perspectives can
detect and handle flaws that could jeopardise the safety of the individual crew members. In
addition, team synergy can influence individual safety-related learning and interactions
(Mitropoulos and Memarian, 2012b). Hinze (1981) and Hinze and Gordon (1979) suggest that
effective working relationships with supervisors and other team members were closely
correlated with fewer injuries.
Iverson and Erwin (1997) reported that other research also suggests that social backup from
the top management and the team members minimises injuries. Construction organisations that
adhere to safety at the workplace and employ initiatives to lay out the early warning signs of
potential safety-related risks result in fewer injuries, accidents and fatalities (Shaikh et al.,2020).
There is much past review on teamwork in different industries; however, teamwork
studies are still comparatively rare in construction safety research. Several large construction
organisations have demonstrated exemplary safety performance because they have the
resources and leverage to develop and implement robust safety management systems.
However, they have largely failed to gain a fuller understanding of the role of teamwork in
safety. Mitropoulos and Memarian (2012b) see teamwork as “the mainstay”for improving
safety performance, and efficiency, integrating processes and enhancing individual learning
and safety performance on construction projects.
Nevertheless, some researchers like Mitropoulos and Memarian (2012b),Mitropoulos et al.
(2005),Mohammadi et al. (2018),Newaz et al. (2018),Chen et al. (2021) and Choudhry and Zahoor
(2016) have explored different approaches to achieve safety in the construction industry through
presenting accident causation models, safety behaviour, effective teamwork, task-related and
team-related aspects. However, no empirical research has provided solid evidence to show the
impact of drivers of teamwork on the safety performance of construction workers.
Almost all these earlier review studies fail to holistically explore the systematic drivers of
teamwork that can influence the safety performance of construction work teams. For example,
IJBPA
Franz et al. (2017) researched the role of integration in the performance of building construction
projects; Ammeter and Dukerich (2002) surveyed team member characteristics and team leader
behaviours to predict the cost of project and schedule performance; Fong and Lung (2007) carried
out multiple regression analysis to investigate the human perceptions of inter-organisational
teamwork and factors affecting team members’perception that they are working in a team, and
Cupido (2009) synthesised a new model for construction safety based on cognitive perspective.
These research studies focussed on individual aspects but did not comprehensively
discuss what drives teamwork and how these drivers of teamwork in construction
organisations can prevent and manage errors that can threaten the safety of construction
workers. Therefore, the study investigates the impact of drivers of teamwork on safety
performance of construction workers, discusses the relationship between the drivers of
teamwork and safety, and challenges in developing group dynamics. Against this
background, the following objectives were derived for this paper:
(1) To identify the drivers of teamwork for construction health and safety;
(2) To explore the annual publication trends on the drivers of teamwork from 1997 to 2021;
(3) To identify regions with more publications on the drivers of teamwork and evaluate
the impact of drivers of teamwork on those countries’construction practices;
(4) To establish a conceptual framework for the drivers of teamwork on safety performance.
2. Research methodology
The systematic review is a specific and consistent method for identifying, selecting and valuing
all literature related to a research topic that meets a predetermined quality standard. In this
regard, a similar four-stage search process adopted by Shaikh et al. (2020) was employed to
conduct a content analysis of the drivers of teamwork related to papers published from 1997 to
2021(both years inclusive). The four stages are the findings of academic journals, selection of
target articles, final output and examination, as shown in Figure 1.
2.1 Acknowledging search engine
To achieve research objectives, a series of publications was collected for extensive analysis of
the research field, that is, drivers of teamwork, using the popular search engine “Scopus”.
Phase 1
Phase2
Phase 3
Phase4
T/A/K Search
Limited to
arƟcles and
reviews
Search Engine
‘Scopus’ to
idenƟfy related
publicaƟons
Paper
idenƟficaƟon
1247 papers
were idenƟfied
in more than
100 journals
Visual examinaƟon 1
Editorials, book reviews,
conference papers, arƟcles in
press etc. were eliminated.
Papers idenƟfied
833 papers idenƟfied
Visual examinaƟon 2
Vigorous and thorough search
was carried out by reading
abstract and conclusions
publicaƟons.
Final output
53 publicaƟons from 36
journals were engaged which
were related to drivers of
teamwork
ExaminaƟon
Literature
review of the
publicaƟons
selected
Results and
discussions
DirecƟons for
future
research
C
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
Source(s): Figure 1 by Shaikh et al
Figure 1.
The research
framework for
the study
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
Scopus was selected as the search engine as it represents most related research areas, such as
engineering, management, accounting and business (Hong and Chan, 2014). Scopus is also
believed to achieve better results in consistency and content, such as Web of Science, PubMed
and Google Scholar (Falagas et al., 2008). In addition, Scopus has helped search several similar
literature review studies in construction management, for example, Hong et al. (2012),Hong
and Chan (2014),Ke et al. (2009) and Yuan and Shen (2011).
A broad analysis was conducted in the first stage under the “title/abstract/keyword”within
the Scopus database to systematically examine and facilitate a clear picture of the drivers of
teamwork research from 1997 to 2021. The search keywords were “construction teamwork”,
“teamwork drivers”,“construction crews”,“critical success factors”and “safety performance”.
Results were limited to the construction sector by using the search words “construction
industry”,“building industry”and “Construction workers”as additional criteria. Only research
papers with related terms in the title, abstract or keywords were considered to meet the review
requirements. Moreover, the search was further confined to the document type of “article
or review”, and the language is English. The complete search code is as follows:
(TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Construction Safety Teams ”OR “Safety Performance ”OR“
Construction Teamwork ”OR “Team Processes ”OR “Construction Crews ”OR“
Construction Work Teams ”OR “Workgroups”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Critical Success
Factors ”OR “Building Construction ”OR “construction workers”OR “team effectiveness”
OR “team performance ”OR “teamwork drivers ”OR “Construction Industry ”OR“
Motivational safety factors ”OR “teamwork factors”OR “teamwork practices ”OR“
construction safety practices ”OR “influencing teamwork factors ”) AND PUBYEAR >1997
AND PUBYEAR <2022 AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE,“j”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“ar”)
OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “re”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)).
2.2 Acknowledging target publications
The search revealed 1,247 papers from more than 100 journals. Therefore, a more visual and
broader search of all the publications was conducted to identify suitable papers for the review.
Research papers that belonged to the wide-ranging classifications of “editorial”,“articles in
press”,“letter to the editor”,“discussions and closures”and “briefing sheet”were excluded from
the analysis. Therefore, at stage 2, the final number of publications came down to 833.
After recognising the relevant papers, it was discovered that the field of drivers of
teamwork in the construction industry can be represented as still in its inception because not
all the publications support empirical proof. After examining the abstracts, introductions and
findings of the 833 research papers in stage 3, 53 articles were found to have exhaustively
addressed the drivers of teamwork. The final number of nominated research articles from the
target journals is presented in Table 1.
The results presented in this review paper are solely based on data obtained via the
sampling method used. Furthermore, this review does not attempt to examine all the papers
on drivers of teamwork in the construction industry; instead, it assesses their strategy and
discusses commonly reported drivers of teamwork and the benefit of implementing them
within construction teams. Examples of such review papers are Shaikh et al. (2020),Tijani
et al. (2020),Osei-Kyei (2018) and Osei-Kyei and Chan (2015).
3. Results and discussions
3.1 Analysis of publication trend of drivers of teamwork from 1997 to 2021
The trend of publication of the selected journals from 1997 to 2021 is shown in Figure 2. There
has been a development of one publication from 1999 to six leading publications each in 2012,
2015 and 2018.
IJBPA
No. Journals Papers relevant
1Journal of Construction Engineering Management 7
2Safety Science 5
3Automation in Construction 2
4Ergonomics 2
5Work and Stress 1
6Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management 1
7Human Resource Management Review 3
8Construction Management and Economics 1
9European Management Journal 1
10 The Journal of Psychology 2
11 European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology 1
12 Journal of Construction Research 1
13 European Journal of Innovation Management 1
14 Journal of Workplace Behavioural Health 1
15 Psychology of Sport and Exercise 1
16 Reliability Engineering and System Safety 1
17 Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 2
18 International Journal of Construction Education and Research 1
19 Journal of Safety Research 1
20 Social Science and Medicine 1
21 Journal of Organisational Behaviour 2
22 The Leadership Quarterly 1
23 Journal of Applied Psychology 1
24 Health Environments Research and Design Journal 1
25 International Journal of Management Reviews 1
26 Journal of Management 1
27 Human Resource Management 1
28 Engineering Management Journal 1
29 Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 1
30 Small Group Research 1
31 American Psychologist 1
32 Human Factors 1
33 Australian Health Review 1
34 Safety 1
35 Health Services Research 1
36 International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation 1
Total 53
Source(s): Table 1 by Shaikh et al
1
22
1
2
4
5
1
33
1
6
1
6
2
4
6
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1999 2000 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Nu m b er o f p u b licat i o ns
Year of publications
Source(s): Figure 2 by Shaikh et al
Table 1.
Search results of
papers on drivers of
teamwork on safety
performance in
selected journals
Figure 2.
The annual number of
publications on drivers
of teamwork from 1997
to 2021
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
The rapid increase in publications began in 2006 with four publications that steadily developed to
five publications in 2007. Still, the trend in 2008 hits the lowest ebb with just one publication, and
again it shows the progress of three publications each in the years 2009 and 2010. The results data
strengthen the contention that there has been limited systematic research on the teamwork abilities
essential for safety in construction works and practices (Mitropoulos and Memarian, 2012b).
According to the search results, the maximum number of publications on teamwork drivers
between 2012 and 2018 was 25. This reveals that teamwork became a key area of interest to
researchers and influenced different safety sectors. However, with the statistics shown in Figure 2,
it comes as a surprise that after the year 2018, the number of publications started to decrease in
2019, 2020 and 2021 to 2,1 drastically and 0 publications, respectively. This indicates that in 2019,
2020 and 2021, the importance of teamwork for accident prevention in the construction sector has
not been rated highly; instead, it shows that teamwork is still at an early stage.
Among varied causes for fewer publications on teamwork in 2020, the coronavirus could
be identified as a cross-cutting contributing factor as employment in the construction sector
declined. Most governments in the world enforced lockdown policies on construction-related
activities, which shifted the attention of researchers and scholars more towards the world
pandemic situation than promoting health and safety performance in the construction
industry. It must be clearly emphasised that the safety performance of construction workers
can make explicit the consequences that top management would pay heed to, or researchers
and scholars within the construction sector can direct the spotlight to issues that construction
organisations would not otherwise aim at.
3.2 Countries with focus on drivers of teamwork studies and the impact on construction
workers’safety performance in these countries
To determine the number of countries that actively participated in leading publications on
drivers of teamwork studies, counting of published papers with the origin of countries was
performed. Figure 3 shows countries with the most publications on drivers of teamwork.
As specified in Figure 3, the United States and Australia have the highest number of
published articles in the area of drivers of teamwork from the years 1997–2021. The United
States has 28 publications, and Australia is the second-highest country after the United States
with five publications. The highest number of publications in the United States could be
linked to research scholars’construction safety education and awareness.
Sufficient research shows that scholars in the countries like the United States, the United
Kingdom, Australia and Hong Kong study the effectiveness of collaboration to reinstate inter-
organisational teamwork in construction (Fong and Lung, 2007). Current research fails to explore
the social and psychological facets of cooperation in the construction industry (Bresnen and
Marshall, 2000). Therefore, this can be deemed a call for scholars to explore the area of teamwork
which can influence the safety performance of construction workers.
Countries mentioned in Figure 3, the United Kingdom, Canada, Taiwan, Netherlands, Germany
and Denmark, have failed to focus on drivers of teamwork. On the other hand, the United States
and Australia are the two leading countries with sufficient focus on drivers of teamwork. As a
result, it is vital to recognise drivers of teamwork that influence the safety performance of
construction workers. Since the world and organisations face complicated issues, cooperation
between individuals with shared goals is essential (Salas et al., 2015). This asserts that efficient
teamwork is associated with safety, fewer errors, novelty and saving lives (Hughes, 2016).
3.3 Exploration of findings from the research studies on drivers of teamwork on the safety
performance of construction workers
After a systematic review of 53 publications considered in this research paper, the total
number of drivers of teamwork identified is 37. As shown in Table 2, publications are
IJBPA
specified in several corresponding paper representatives presented in Table 2. Furthermore,
the last column in the table shows the number of times a driver of teamwork is found in
selected publications. However, this accretion was used to rate the drivers of teamwork
identified between 1997 and 2021.
Table 2 shows numerous drivers of teamwork account for critical new opportunities for
advancing future research and making a practical difference by introducing strategies to
mitigate risks, identifying critical dimensions in safety performance, and through the
activities that teams can detect changes during the construction undertakings such as lack of
proactive and preventive measures, lack of safety awareness, lack of risk source
identification and control and so forth.
The top five drivers of teamwork identified in this study are effective communication;
team workers’relations; leadership; shared understanding and knowledge; and team
training. Each of these drivers of teamwork was reported 47, 37, 31, 30 and 29 times,
respectively.
4. Theoretical framework of drivers of teamwork on the safety performance of
construction workers
In this segment, a theoretical framework called “systems drivers of teamwork on the safety
performance of construction workers”(SDTS) is introduced for using drivers of teamwork in
construction organisations.
SDTS framework is founded on the innovative research work of Leavitt (1965), who saw
industries incorporating four interconnecting socio-technical components: task, actors,
technology and structure. Further, Leavitt (1965) and Davis et al. (2014) proposed that these
four socio-technical components are interdependent, requiring collaboration. Baxter and
Sommerville (2011) contend that the theory of socio-technical systems assists in promoting a
more up-to-date approach to new technologies and the transition that technology will bring
into the organisation.
Systems drivers of teamwork on the safety performance of construction workers’(SDTS)
framework comprise a team of workers with skills (people drivers). This appears to indicate
the cultural environment with different attitudes and behaviours of workers in teams (culture
drivers) working in a well-designed and safe physical environment (infrastructure drivers),
28
5
2222111111111111
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Papers
Source(s): Figure 3 by Shaikh et al
Figure 3.
Publication of drivers
of teamwork by
country focus
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
No Drivers Publications Total
1 Effective communication [1][3][4][5][6][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]
[45][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]
47
2 Team workers’relations [4][5][6][10][11][12][13][14][17][18][19][21][23][25][26][27][28][29][31][32][34][35][36][37][38][40][41][42][44] [45][46][47][48][49][50][52][53] 37
3 Leadership [1][3][8][10][11][12][13][14][19][20][22][25][26][28][29][30][31][32][34][36] [37] [38] [40] [42] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [50][53] 31
4 Shared understanding and knowledge [6][8][10][11][12][13][17][18][19][21][22][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] [34] [36] [39] [41] [42] [43] [46] [48] [49] [50][53] 30
5 Team training [1][3][8][9][10][13][17][18][19][20][22][23][25][26][28][31][32][33][34][36][38][40][42][45][47][50][51][52][53] 29
6 Decision-making [1][3][6][8][11][14][17]][19][20][23][26][30][31][32][33][34][35] [39][40][41][43][44][45][46][49][50][52] 27
7 Mutual trust [4][5][12][13][14][17][18][19][21][27][29][30][32][34][36][39][40][41][42][44][45][46][47][50][51][53] 26
8 Good attitude towards team members [1][8][9][11][12][14][18][19][21][22][23][32][34][35][36][38][40][42][43][44][47][49][50][51][52] [53] 26
9 Cohesion [3][4][5][14][19][21][22][23][26][27][28][29][31][32][34][35][36][42][46][48][50][51][52] [53] 24
10 Interdependence [1][4][8][13][17][18][21]23][27] [29][31][32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [43] [44] [47] [48] 20
11 Organisational collaborative culture [1][5][6][8][10][12] [14][20][25][27][30][31][36] [37][38] [40][42][43][48][49] 20
12 Learning behaviour [1][11][12][13][14][17][21][26][28][34][37] [39] [42] [43] [45] [47] [49][50][52] [53] 20
13 Review and feedback [1][4][12][19][21][22][26][27][30][31][34] [42] [43] [44] [46] [48][50][52] 18
14 Conflict manager and problem-solving [3][4][8][13][14][18][26][27][32][34][35][36] [37] [42] [45] [47][51][53] 18
15 Supportive environment [8][9][11][12][13][17][18][19][21] [22][31][34][35] [37][41][45][47] 17
16 Meetings and consultations [1][3][8][9][10] [11][12] [25][31] [32] [41][42] [45][48] [50][52] 16
17 Diversity [1][8][12][13][14][17][18][19][27][30][31] [36][39][42][45][48] 16
18 Monitoring and evaluation [3][9][17][19] [26][29] [30][31][37] [42][43] [44][47][50] 15
19 Positive motivation [3][9][11][13][14][25][26][31][34][35] [36][37] [49][52] 14
20 Team cognition [8][11][13][14][17][20][29][30][34] [39][42] [43][46][53] 14
21 Clear objectives [8][9][31][33][34][36][40] [42][44][45][47][48][51] 13
22 Team integration [5][6][13][14][26][29][31][34] [40][42][48][49] 12
23 Incentives/rewards for teams [9][12][25][27][28][35][42][45][47][48][52][53] 12
24 Team psychological safety [10][12][13][17][18][21][26][28][38][46][50][53] 12
25 Collective efficacy [3][21][22][26][28] [29][31][34][42][50] 10
26 Continuous improvement [1][10][12][31][37] [40][50][52] 8
27 Team synergy [1][20][23] [25][29][34][35][46] 8
28 Team orientation [19][25][29][30][42][47][52][53] 8
29 Management commitment to safety [9][10][13][27][36][50][52] 7
30 Assertiveness [6][12][32][42][43][44][53] 7
31 Implicit and explicit coordination [13][17][30][34][42] 5
32 Worker empowerment [9][12][22][25][42] 5
33 Well-designed physical environment for improved
teamwork
[2][7][24] 3
34 Well-designed equipment and tools for improved
teamwork
[15][16] 2
35 Enthusiasm [9][35] 2
36 Workload management [30][49] 2
37 Group configuration [35] 1
Source(s): Table 2 by Shaikh et al
Table 2.
Findings from studies
on drivers of teamwork
on safety performance
from 1997 to 2021
IJBPA
using technologies (technology drivers) to do work through a mechanism (procedures
drivers) within an organisation to accomplish goals (metrics drivers).
Therefore, based on socio-technical systems theory, a socio-technical hexagon, shown in
Figure 4, has been developed with six interdependent drivers of teamwork on the safety
performance of construction workers, which not only assist in understanding the performance
of teamwork in any organisation’s system but also helps in improving the safety performance
of team members working on construction projects within a complex organisational system.
In the proposed SDTS framework, the technological and social aspects work
collaboratively and bilaterally within the dynamic system of organisation which reflects
team workers’teamwork in a social structure (organisation) to attain their goals through their
state-of-the-art skills, competencies, capabilities, attitudes and willingness to operate within
the organisation as a team without having any safety-related issues.
5. Classification of drivers of teamwork on safety performance
The socio-technical systems concept embraces a systems view of organisations under socio-
technical systems; organisations operate with various work systems. According to Hughes
et al. (2017), the socio-technical systems approach claims that work systems within any
organisation are comprised of a social system, i.e. people working in the organisation (people
drivers), with different behaviours and attitudes (culture drivers), goals to attain (metrics
drivers), organisational and management practices and procedures (processes drivers) to
follow and technical system, i.e. physical infrastructure and tools (infrastructure drivers) and
use of technology (technology drivers).
This research paper presents systems drivers of teamwork in the safety performance of
construction workers’(SDTS) framework. This approach can be used to monitor safety in the
organisational system by the construction professionals and the end users to restructure the
processes and embrace this novel concept of enhancing the safety performance of
construction workers.
Salas et al. (2012) postulated that teamwork skills could be systematically enhanced
through training programmes by organisations which include the implementation of a
systems approach; therefore, SDTS framework will help organisations to develop
People
Processes Infrastructure
Metrics drivers refer to the
organisational goals and strategic
objectives which will give teams a
clear sense of purpose and directions
based on safety performance and past
analysis of safety data
Processes drivers reflect the
organisational and management
working practices and procedures
within teams
Culture drivers reflect the
cultural atmosphere with
different attitudes and
behaviours of workers in teams
Technology dri vers refer t o
the tools and the e quipment
provided to team members
Infrastructure drivers
provide a safe working
physical environment to
teams
People dr ivers wil l help team s to
demonstrate their skills,
competencies and attitude
Safety
Performance
Technology
Systems Drivers of Teamwork on Safety Performance (SDTS)
Culture
Safety Driven Team
Metrics
Source(s): Figure 4 by Shaikh et al
Figure 4.
Systems drivers of
teamwork on safety
performance of
construction workers’
(SDTS) framework
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
construction work teams based on socio-technical systems, theoretical strategies, and
methods, and enhance the construction team workers’safety performance within the
organisational system through the drivers of teamwork presented in the SDTS framework.
The 37 identified systems drivers of teamwork on safety performance are categorised into
six primary forms of the SDTS framework: people; culture; metrics; organisational and
management practices and procedures; infrastructure; and construction technology. These
six categories of teamwork drivers will help identify the safety performance of team workers
in their respective domains of influence that will also enhance the performance and working
of the organisation. In addition, these drivers show the teamwork capabilities to achieve safe
performance working within the organisation; for example, worker empowerment or effective
communication between team members will have some influence, which will end up in
some results; therefore, the ramifications of the actions which will ensue from the
repercussions of worker empowerment and effective communication will determine
the strength of teamwork in achieving safety performance within an organisation.
5.1 People drivers
Most accidents associated with construction are attributed to a lack of proactive and
preventive measures such as worker training programmes, risk source identification,
and control, safe work practices awareness, education, etc. People drivers of teamwork on
safety performance refer to the construction team workers who work in the organisational
structure and show that they have technical skills, strengths, mindset, potential and the
ability to perform safely as a team unit within an organisation.
One of the people drivers of teamwork on safety performance is effective communication.
Teamwork needs collaboration, cohesion and effective communication among team workers
(Gluyas, 2015). Inadequate communication between team workers leads teams to have
varying expectations of circumstances at work with no idea what is required to manage such
situations (Brady and Goldenhar, 2014).
Another people driver is team workers’relations. Roberts and Geller (1995),Bigley and
Roberts (2001) and Geller et al. (1996) were the first to explicitly emphasise the significance of
endorsing safety through team worker relations (see Table 3).
Cohesion between team members is the extent of cooperation among team members that
can occur for various reasons (Pandit et al., 2019). More specifically, in construction
organisations, increased levels of cohesion have been associated with the safety performance
of construction work teams; for example, Raoufi and Fayek (2018) suggested that increased
levels of cohesion are linked with better team performance in terms of safety.
5.2 Culture drivers
Culture drivers embody the organisation’s cultural climate through the attitudes and
behaviours of team members. Health and safety are mental, emotional and physical
requirements of individuals working in organisations, and the construction industry is not
exempted from them. The study conducted by Zou (2011) regarded human resources as the
most valuable asset for construction companies. It explained that construction industries are
based on a large workforce; therefore, managers must increase workers’productivity without
jeopardising their safety. In addition, the workers must have the right attitudes, principles,
values and collaborative behaviours to ensure everyone is safe in workplace. Therefore,
creating such a collaborative organisational culture involves a collaborative effort from work
teams and management over the construction project’s lifespan.
Teams need to establish a shared understanding to attain organisational objectives by
executing tasks allocated to workers (Mohammed et al., 2009;Salas et al., 2013;Wildman et al.,
2012). Previous research has highlighted the importance of teamwork having shared and
IJBPA
People drivers Goal/Metrics drivers Culture drivers
Organisational and
management practices and
procedures drivers Infrastructure drivers
Construction technology
drivers
•Learning behaviour •Organisational
collaborative
culture
•Shared
understanding and
knowledge
•Worker empowerment Well-designed
physical environment
for improved
teamwork
Well-designed
technological tools and
equipment for improved
team performance•Effective
communication
•Team
psychological
safety
•Collective efficacy •Monitoring and
evaluation
•Positive motivation •Continuous
improvement
•Team integration •Transformational
leadership
•Team workers’
relations
•Clear objectives •Implicit and
explicit
coordination
•Team orientation
•Good attitude
towards team
members
•Team cognition •Supportive
environment
•Management commitment
to safety
•Conflict manager
and problem-
solving
•Diversity •Enthusiasm •Decision-making
•Interdependence •Incentives/rewards for
teams
•Cohesion •Review and feedback
•Assertiveness •Meetings and
consultations
•Group configuration
•Team synergy
•Mutual trust
•Workload management
•Team training
Source(s): Table 3 by Shaikh et al
Table 3.
Drivers of teamwork
categorised into six
categories of systems
drivers of teamwork on
safety performance of
construction
workers (SDTS)
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
authentic information and understanding different tasks among team members to function as
a team unit (Mohammed et al., 2010). Furthermore, a team can be more efficient and effective if
the members of the team know that they have a shared understanding of the tasks to be
carried out at the workplace (Hinds and Weisband, 2003;Johnson et al., 2007;Klimoski and
Mohammed, 1994). Hence, teams from construction organisations need to work together and
collaborate to take advantage of their skills and expertise to ensure shared understanding
and knowledge, which is efficiently transmitted among the team members at workplace.
Team integration is viewed as a critical approach for fostering more constructive,
competitive and collaborative teamwork (Egan, 2002a,b,c;Latham, 1994). Therefore, any
approach that delineates the notion of team integration and collaboration can improve
performance (Jørgensen and Emmitt, 2009). Furthermore, integration is viewed as a way to
improve the efficiency and collaboration of teams and the entire team’s performance (Egan,
2002a,b,c;Excellence, 2004). Therefore, organisations should improve the safety
performance of team workers, focusing on zero accidents, injuries and fatalities and
improving team integration through safety training and safety recognition programmes.
Collective efficacy has been identified in ten publications. Increasing evidence indicates
that collective efficacy refers to a team’s mutual understanding of its ability to complete its
tasks or activities (Bandura et al., 1999). To enhance the safety performance of construction
teams, organisations can introduce training programmes to fill out the gaps in crew members ’
knowledge, for example, working at the unified level rather than the individual level
(Bandura et al., 1999), building collective efficacy through an exchange of information and
observing each other’s behaviours within the team (Gibson, 1999) and performance feedback
which enhances collective efficacy in teams (Gully et al., 2002). This will enhance collective
efficacy in construction work teams and improve safety despite construction organisations’
quality and production challenges.
The influence of a supportive environment among teams in any organisation cannot be
negated. Wu et al. (2008) suggest that working in a supportive and friendly environment will
help workers reach their full potential. At the same time, their motivations can be stamped out
if they function in an unsupportive and unpleasant environment. The organisation’s
environment can affect a team member’s behaviour because of the impact of team behaviour
resulting from the interplay between the top management and teams in organisations. Díaz
and Cabrera (1997) pointed out that a combination of organisational factors and individual
factors creates an organisational environment. Therefore, a positive and supportive
environment can improve safety behaviours among team workers and reduce the risk of
accidents.
5.3 Metrics drivers
Metrics drivers refer to the organisational goals and strategic objectives, giving teams a clear
sense of purpose and directions based on safety performance. Metrics drivers reinforce
teamwork to provide a standard of performance through which the organisation’s goals can
be achieved, for example, the psychological safety level of workers in teams, diversity
between the team members and clear objectives for the task. Attributes of metrics drivers will
help identify the failings or flaws in the vital aspects of teamwork and anticipate emergent
susceptibilities, ultimately affecting the organisational functions and practices to achieve its
goal, i.e. safety performance.
5.4 Organisational and management practices and procedure drivers
These procedure drivers demonstrate the working mechanism within a system. They allow
organisations to indicate the management practices and procedures to be followed by the
work teams to acquire their objectives, i.e. safety performance of construction workers.
IJBPA
Since the construction industry suffers a paradigmatic trap in the quest for improved safety
performance, a highly organised and safety-oriented construction organisation, which is
more vigorously engaging safely across the construction works, is always striving to
improve safety performance, focusing on less accident frequency. Therefore, management
commitment towards safety is one of the drivers of teamwork. According to Michael et al.
(2005), management commitment plays a vital role in workers’safety performance and is a
keystone of safety programmes in organisations (Zohar, 1980).
Furthermore, Jannadi (1996) suggested that to minimise accidents at the construction
workplace, top management must be accountable and committed to updated safety
management plans and policies for workers. According to Yiu et al. (2019) when an
organisation’s top management is committed to safety, it shows the organisation’s attention
towards safety performance where safety is valued and incorporated into the organisation’s
policies and structure.
The work teams’safety meetings and consultations have been identified in 16
publications as essential organisational and management practices and procedure drivers.
Holt (2001) postulates that safety meetings and consultations between team members are
crucial because they develop awareness about safety-related issues while working.
According to Choudhry et al. (2008),Chen et al. (2021) and Hallowell and Gambatese (2009),
workers’involvement in safety meetings enhances their safety encouragement within them.
Another critical driver of teamwork reviewed in this paper is leadership, identified in 31
publications. Griffin and Hu (2013) explained leadership which promotes safety in the
organisation, as a unique leadership practice that encourages workers to meet safety
objectives. Leadership can improve safety performance by connecting an enticing future
vision coherently and motivating team members to participate in safety activities at the
workplace (Yang et al., 2009). Leadership can influence team workers’safety behaviour and
environment and assess the team’s safety performance (Flin and Yule, 2004).
The study conducted by Dainty et al. (2002) regarded worker empowerment as a stronger
focus on belief and responsibility. In addition, worker empowerment assists employees to
acquire the ability to be noticed and understood by the management and workers’pitch in
strategies and actions and their knowledge to enhance their efficiency for the organisation’s
success (Foy, 1994).
Team training was identified in 29 publications. Ilgen (1999) postulates that teams
entrenched in organisations endure to carry out activities and tasks. These activities or tasks
are often complicated, challenging and diverse. They necessitate the skills, knowledge and
experience of a group of people coordinating their practice to succeed as a team in the quest
for shared objectives (Mohammed and Ringseis, 2001). Team training in construction is one of
the practices which can help mollify any conflicts among construction workers due to their
different working styles and assist in the socialisation of new team members to bolster
solicitous actions (Mitropoulos and Memarian, 2012b).
5.5 Infrastructure drivers
Infrastructure drivers provide a well-designed, safe physical working environment for
improved teams. However, in terms of safety and housekeeping, the physical working
environment is usually worse than in other sectors (Fung et al., 2016). In addition, the aspects
of the physical working environment are the most likely reasons for construction-related
injuries and fatalities (Levitt and Samelson, 1993). Therefore, when it comes to enhancing
safety practices in construction workplaces, the physical environment plays a critical role.
According to Sundstrom et al. (1986), team member interaction and collaboration may rely
upon the degree to which casual, face-to-face communication is promoted by the connectivity
of workstations and meeting places. In addition, the purpose of the physical environment is to
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
enhance teamwork, which is a collective implicit objective and sometimes explicit purpose
(Moultrie et al., 2007). Therefore, according to Sundstrom and Altman (1989) the physical
working environment plays an essential role in defining team boundaries. However, the
physical working environment has a limited impact on risk-taking behaviours, yet it is an
essential factor that leads to workers’safety performance (Fung et al., 2016); therefore,
organisations need to consider it.
5.6 Technology drivers
Construction technology drivers refer to well-designed technological tools and equipment for
improved team performance. Salas et al. (2008) postulated that team training programmes
helped to improveteam performance but at the exact time,the science of teamsalso contributed
to the advancement and deployment of technology to help teams perform well. In addition, the
intricacy and ambiguity ingrained in the construction industry require organisations to adopt
innovative and advanced technologies to ensure safety within the construction work teams.
The technology drivers aim to help teams achieve their objective of safe working practices on
construction sites and attain safety performance through technology to evaluate, monitor and
improve the abilities, activities and skills of fellow team members and their functioning within the
socio-technical system of the organisation. Moreover, the underlying role of technology drivers
within teams is of such significance that Gutwin and Greenberg (2004) found that technology
development within teams supports situation awareness by providing the individuals with
knowledge of fellow team members’behaviour and intentions through managing to exhibit
complicated work performance.
6. Contribution of the paper
Systems drivers of teamwork on safety performance will create new possibilities for the potential
researchers in construction safety. SDTS framework has the leverage to develop and implement
robust safety management in organisations within the context of socio-technical systems. Teams
engaged in socio-technical thinking will extend their conceptualisations of “systems”and apply
the core ideas to new domains. For example, accident-free safety management systems in
organisations through the focus on advanced construction technologies, team workers’safety
attitude, and behaviours (culture), well-designed physical environment for improved teamwork
(infrastructure), competent and skilled team workers (people), and working through a mechanism
(procedures) to accomplish organisational goals (metrics).
It is assumed that systems drivers of teamwork on the safety performance SDTS framework
will help top management in organisations apply socio-technical thinking to a much broader
spectrum of intricate problems and global challenges of attaining zero injuries, accidents and
fatalities on construction worksites. The potential benefit of the SDTS framework is to describe the
role of teamwork in evaluating and improving the safety performance of construction workers.
It is argued that these drivers of teamwork can be used to anticipate teams’performance
based on their competencies, skills, safety behaviours, attitudes, use of technology,
and attainment of goals while following organisational and management practices and
procedures within a well-designed physical environment.
7. Practical implications
This study has provided multiple drivers of teamwork which have been categorised into six
different categories which are people drivers, goal/metrics drivers, culture drivers,
organisational and management practices and procedures drivers, infrastructure drivers and
construction technology drivers. This approach can help providea comprehensive overview of
safety performance and identify areas for improvement. Tables 4–9present a thorough
IJBPA
Socio-technical
components Teamwork drivers Description Supportive literature
People drivers Learning
behaviours
Organisational learning is considered as a method of catching mistakes and adjusting
them by team members (Argyris and Sch€
on, 1978). Collaborative learning has usually
accompanied three different research areas: enhancement of outcomes, proficiency of
tasks and team process (Edmondson et al., 2007). Team learning includes social cohesion,
influencing interpersonal efficiencies and forming mutual understanding amongst team
members (Garavan and McCarthy, 2008). Team learning is a mechanism where team
works, obtains and relies on suggestions and makes changes and improvements
(Edmondson, 1999;Edmondson et al., 2007). Team members take part in activities related
to learning behaviours so that they can collect and operate on data to bring change and
development to the organisation (Edmondson et al., 2001)
A further viewpoint of team learning is a continuous system wherein the learning process,
the circumstances supporting these processes and team behaviours modify as the team
changes (Sessa and London, 2008). Learning behaviours involve requesting and giving
advice, public discussions and disparities as a team, openly debating mistakes and
experiments (Mitropoulos and Memarian, 2012a,b). Mills (1984) defined team learning as
redesigning the purpose of a team to attain a much more complicated and ever more
extensive objective. This study postulates that learning must expand on experiences to
enable teams to increase their level of effectiveness. Hence, team learning concept is said
to depict an endless cycle of critical reflection in which teams obtain, communicate,
integrate and apply information (Edmondson, 1999;Olivera and Argote, 1999). It
illustrates a useful series of team processes and yet still team learning is often related to
bringing skills into the team (Olivera and Argote, 1999)
Edmondson et al. (2001), Edmondson and Lei
(2014), Levitt and March (1988)
(continued )
Table 4.
Examples of people
drivers based on the
systems drivers of
teamwork on safety
performance of
construction workers’
SDTS framework
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
Socio-technical
components Teamwork drivers Description Supportive literature
Effective
communication
To obtain persuasive results, teamwork entails effective communication between
members. Communication is an important driver, which according to Gluyas (2015) plays
an important role especially in regard to the skills team member should be equipped with
when it comes to viewing them as effective teams. Impacting safety performance of
construction site works is a complex and multifaceted job. This view marks
communication as a necessary driver which bridge safety communication gaps between
the construction workers and supervisors and carries the potential of being positively
effective on the safety performance of construction workers within organisation
(Hardison et al., 2014). Furthermore, Odiorne (1991) suggests that safety performance of
workers will improve when managers communicate through defining operational
procedures and effects of dangerous behaviours in an organisation where there is a
commitment by the management to support safety through improving the work
processes and reduce hazards to acceptable standards
Burke et al. (2011), Dingsdag et al. (2008), Edum-
Fotwe and McCaffer (2000), Hofmann and
Morgeson (1999), Langford et al. (2000), Leather
(1987), Odiorne (1991), T€
orner and Pousette
(2009)
Cohesiveness Team coherence represents a team’s trend to adhere collectively and stay steadfast in
pursuing its desirable outcomes (Evans and Jarvis, 1980). Cohesion impacts the
behavioural patterns of the team members and the team results (Stogdill, 1972;Wech et al.,
1998). In teams where there is cohesion between team members, they show more positive
behaviour, more likely to share knowledge on the information of situation awareness with
each other, lower absenteeism, much better skills to handle conflicts efficiently and enjoy
their team atmosphere through having more affection and respect with other team
members which leaves no space for stress in their teamwork. Cohesion amongst team
members becomes more crucial, especially when the task is more complicated and inter-
reliant (Gully et al., 1995). Cohesion characteristics that impact teams are group size,
things in common among team members, external competitive challenges and threats and
success of teams (Eisenberg, 2007). There are two elements of cohesion: task cohesion and
the other is social and personal cohesion. Task cohesion is characterised as a mutual
understanding of a team’s objectives. This motivates every team member which results in
every team member’s dedication and support (Mullen and Copper, 1994) whereas,
interpersonal cohesion focuses on the sentimental ties of friendship, affection, care and
proximity between team members (Evans and Jarvis, 1980)
Braver (1975), Dinh and Salas (2017), Evans and
Jarvis (1980), Grossman et al. (2017), Loveday
et al. (2020), Mudrack (1989), Munroe et al. (2002)
(continued )
Table 4.
IJBPA
Socio-technical
components Teamwork drivers Description Supportive literature
Team workers’
relations
Good relations with the supervisors and team members were sufficiently related to
reduced accidents (Hinze, 1981;Hinze and Gordon, 1979). Iverson and Erwin (1997)
postulate that cordial relations between the supervisor and team workers help in reducing
injuries. Since construction is a social process (Abowitz and Toole, 2010), therefore, the
interaction of workers play a vital role in all the facets of construction works including
health and safety, hence, the need for a better understanding of the effects of team
workers’relations at the workplace comes to the fore
The term “actively caring”should be introduced in construction organisations which
according to Roberts and Geller (1995), from an organisational context refers to workers’
caring enough about the health and safety of other team members, for example, unsafe
working environment and unsafe acts by team members. Actively caring also helps team
members to implement corrective actions when any unsafe working conditions or
behaviours by the crew members are observed. Therefore, actively caring assists in cross-
checking and safety monitoring amongst team members
Burt et al. (1998), Cupido (2009), Dwyer and
Raftery (1991), Edmondson (1999), Geller (2001),
Geller et al. (1996), Hinze (1981), Hinze and
Gordon (1979), Sluiter (2006)
Good attitude
towards team
members
Safety is a priority for the entire organisation. It is attained through determined and
serious effort of every team member. As for the workers, they are most probably going to
be motivated by other fellow workers (Hon et al., 2014). Hence, a good attitude towards
fellow team members connects to their safety behaviour and safety knowledge
Safety knowledge reflects professional experience on safety-related issues and skills to
grasp, learn and apply safety-related laws, abilities and skills (Jiang et al., 2015). Due to the
lack of safety knowledge, workers may not be able to identify the presence of danger,
threat or any hazard and may also not be able to eliminate it due to the lack of safety
knowledge and proper skills, therefore, it is important in the construction teams that team
members should have the skills to detect hazards and execute the correct safe response.
Safety performance can only be anticipated through the safety knowledge that
construction workers have about any risk-taking behaviours or practices so they can be
eliminated and have a safe working environment (Christian et al., 2009). Acceptance of
safety rules and regulations poses positive influence on safe working environment of any
organisation. Hon et al. (2014) posit that in the absence of adequate safety directions,
conformity by workers may become challenging
Previous research by Kaskutas et al. (2013) shows that safety communication with
foremen on-site can improve the unsafe behaviours of workers who have less experience
and lack safety knowledge. Therefore, safety communication is directly related to safety
knowledge of workers (Cigularov et al., 2010;Neal et al., 2000;Probst, 2004)
Ahmed (2019), Brace et al. (2009), Campbell et al.
(1993), Chua and Goh (2004), Neal et al. (2000),
Pousette et al. (2008), Smith-Crowe et al. (2003),
Starren et al. (2013), Vinodkumar and Bhasi
(2010), Aksorn and Hadikusumo (2008), Al
Haadir and Panuwatwanich (2011), Antonio
et al. (2013), Newaz et al. (2018)
Source(s): Table 4 by Shaikh et al
Table 4.
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
Socio-technical
components Teamwork drivers Description Supportive literature
Culture
drivers
Shared knowledge
and understanding
Given the importance of drivers of teamwork, there is a need to recognise requirements of
successful teamwork to improve safety of workers. Teams are essential to the information
development process. The consultation and sharing of information required to incorporate
body of facts for innovation primarily occur at the team level (Edmondson, 2002). Research
scholars Salas et al. (2005) and Converse et al. (1993) have explored team mental models
(TMMs) and identified them as one of the effective instruments to drive teamwork
efficiently. TMMs are defined as team members’shared, organised understanding and
mental description of knowledge about team environment and different aspects of common
work (Converse et al., 1993;Klimoski and Mohammed, 1994;Mohammed et al., 2010). Koh
and Rowlinson (2012) postulate that shared knowledge and understanding empowers
project team members to come at safety-focused objectives that are agreeable by a majority
of team members. Further, Baker et al. (2006) postulate that teams depend on each team
member’s ability to be able to anticipate the needs of each other, and respect each other’s
decisions and actions based on mutual understanding and consultations with a shared
understanding of how a process should be followed for any task or job. According to
Klimoski and Mohammed (1994),Hinds and Weisband (2003) and Johnson et al. (2007),a
team can be more efficient and effective if the members of the team know that they have a
shared understanding of the tasks to be carried out at workplace
Banks and Millward, (2007), Bonito (2004),
Converse et al. (1993), Klimoski and
Mohammed (1994), Kraiger and Wenzel
(1997), Mathieu et al. (2000), Miles et al.
(2008),Mohammed et al. (2010), Salas et al.
(2013),Wildman et al. (2012)
Collective efficacy The emphasis on the way tasks are carried out in organisations has moved progressively
from individual workers to teamwork (Devine et al., 1999;Guzzo and Shea, 1992;Sundstrom
et al., 1990;Tesluk and Mathieu, 1999). Research scholars have hypothesised team efficacy
for a specific job (Gist, 1987;Lindsley et al., 1995;Mischel and Northcraft, 1997) and made a
wide-ranging assumption that workgroup capability (Guzzo et al., 1993;Shea and Guzzo,
1987) is an essential cognitive factor for the performance of a team. Collective efficacy refers
to the confidence a team has in its ability to accomplish its objectives (Bowers et al., 2017).
Gully et al. (2002) pointed out that collective efficacy and team performance have a
relationship. Yin et al. (2019) opined that mutual support and belief among team workers are
promoted within crew members, which gives confidence to workers that their comfort at
work will never be abused by other team members, resulting in the psychological safety of
team members. Therefore, collective efficacy can be seen as a mainstay for improving
efficiency, collaboration, shared knowledge and safety of team workers through making
them psychologically safe
Bandura (1982,2013), Chen et al. (2012),
Edmondson (1999), Gibson (1995), Lindsley
et al. (1994), Lunenburg (2011), Zaccaro et al.
(1995)
(continued )
Table 5.
Examples of culture
drivers based on the
systems drivers of
teamwork on safety
performance of
construction workers’
SDTS framework
IJBPA
Socio-technical
components Teamwork drivers Description Supportive literature
Team integration Team integration is used as an effective tool in the organisation to promote more collegial,
interdependent and positive teamwork (Egan, 2002b;Latham, 1994). Furthermore, team
integration is a way of enhancing team effectiveness and team performance (Egan, 2002b;
Excellence, 2004). The process of coordination and integration requires collaboration,
effective communication, consistent shared understanding and vision and adequate
participation by team members in the organisation (Excellence, 2004). Ibrahim et al. (2013)
pointed out that team integration plays an important role in the enhancement of the safety
performance of workers through teamwork. Therefore, cohesive teams will be more
effective and developed due to their commitment to achieving their safety goals and
improvement in team integration will result in reduced recurrence of accidents at
workplace. Adequate planning, preparation and integration between team members is vital
for the safety performance of high-risk jobs in construction sector (Cupido, 2009)
Baiden and Price (2011), Baiden et al. (2006),
Bromley et al. (2003), Egan (2002a), Franz
et al. (2017), Ibrahim et al. (2013), Latham
(1994); Love et al. (1998), Moore and Dainty
(2001), Othman (2016)
Implicit and
explicit
coordination
Teams often face challenges in today’s socio-techno-based organisations where the
situations are more challenging and teams come across many unanticipated events which
confront their effectiveness. Team coordination has drawn the attention of various research
scholars in the past many years (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006). Team coordination involves
implicit and explicit teamwork processes and behaviours (Rico et al., 2008;Wittenbaum
et al., 1996). Rico et al. (2008) postulate that implicit coordination is the adaptation of actions
influenced by cognition, that is, improving the behavioural pattern of team members
towards their intended tasks and needs of their other team members. In contrast, explicit
coordination is apparent and points to external communication methods, most of which are
developed in organisations under the authority or through the involvement of the top
management (Blickensderfer et al., 2010;Fisher et al., 2012). Explicit coordination is
administered through creating objectives, relationship formation between team members
and most importantly, planning (Eccles and Tenenbaum, 2004). Explicit coordination
involves direct communication among team members to articulate their strategies,
enunciate due dates for tasks assigned and inquire information for upcoming tasks (Fisher
et al., 2012). Safety by itself is just a sociocultural occurrence and that organisational
reasonable mechanisms are indispensable limits to safety practices (Gherardi et al., 1998).
Therefore, the management should propose a safe practising culture of implicit and explicit
coordination within teams, which will form a teamwork commitment to safety
Espinosa et al. (2004),Fiore et al. (2001),
Gersick and Hackman (1990), MacMillan
et al. (2004), Wittenbaum et al. (1996)
Source(s): Table 5 by Shaikh et al
Table 5.
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
Socio-technical
components Identified drivers Description Supportive literature
Goal/Metrics Team psychological
safety
Psychological safety is the “shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking”
(Edmondson, 1999). Team psychological safety refers to an environment where people feel free
to express their thoughts and feelings (Edmondson and Roloff, 2009). The term team
psychological safety brings a sense of confidence within team members that they will not be
embarrassed or punished for sharing their views and ideas (Edmondson, 1999). Further, Bradley
et al. (2012) proposed that with such an attitude within teams, members experience a sense of
open-mindedness and accept work-related discrepancies professionally rather than personally.
Organisations need to have teams that can attain their safety-oriented goals through mutual
respect and interpersonal trust where team members are free to ask questions and contribute
towards the team’s goals without fear of any insult. Psychological safety provides a forum for
team members to collaborate freely, share knowledge and suggestions, discuss differences and
consternations and experiment with new approaches that contribute to learning and creativity.
Psychological safety is relatively a new development in the literature and research expects more
constructive progress in the area of teamwork and its functioning (O’Neill and Salas, 2018)
Edmondson, (1999), Nembhard and Edmondson
(2012), Schein and Bennis (1965)
Continuous
improvement
The construction industry is one of the most perilous industries and requires a robust approach
to consistently manage, analyse and improve safety performance (Mahmoudi et al., 2014).
Continuous improvement indicates a constant, systematic initiative to enhance capabilities and
procedures (Imai, 1986). Continuous improvement can be used as a teamwork driver, as
postulated by Kaye and Anderson (1999), it needs continual management but the top
management needs to understand the prominence of their position to endlessly keep the
continuous improvement process alive in the organisation. Knowledge and problem-solving
practices are the driving force for continuous improvement (Schroeder, 1985). Thus, it relies
upon team members how they own the issues in organisation and keep the flow of
improvements
Guo et al. (2015) postulate that experience gained from past accidents in the organisation helps
organisations to increase the efficacy of safety measures thereby enhancing the safety
performance level of the construction workers. Feng et al. (2015) argued that safety training for
the construction work teams should, therefore, put greater focus on the improvement of safety
performance and awareness. Top management and construction teams are responsible for
promoting the continuous improvement in the safety performance of the construction workers,
therefore, construction teams show a great commitment to maintaining a good level of safety
performance throughout the life cycle of a project
Anand et al. (2009), Daft and Weick (1984), Easterby-
Smith (1997), Hudson (2001), Levitt and March (1988),
Meiling et al. (2012), Nelson and Winter (1982), Rocha
(2010), Zwetsloot (2000)
(continued )
Table 6.
Examples of goal/
metrics drivers based
on systems drivers of
teamwork on safety
performance of
construction workers’
(SDTS) framework
IJBPA
Socio-technical
components Identified drivers Description Supportive literature
Organisational
collaborative
culture
Culture has a major impact on how people behave. Successful teamwork necessitates a
collaborative culture in which the teams believe their feedback is respected, they collaborate
efficiently, and they have a very optimistic, consistent view of their organisational setting
(Leonard and Frankel, 2011). Lee and Harrison (2000) posit that safety culture depicts different
beliefs, behaviours of workers and their attitudes. Safety culture helps in measuring safety at the
workplace and any issues related to cultural differences between the team members and
organisations. Choudhry et al. (2007) suggested that safety culture has become very significant
in regard to the safety of workers due to the environmental conditions of construction sites.
Johnson et al. (1998) found that risk-taking behaviour by the workers was contributing factor
towards an increased rate of accidents, while Fredericks et al. (2002) argued that workers who
did not use personal protective equipment were more likely to get injured. Lee and Halpin (2003)
contended that supervisors and work place training play an important role in the safety
performance of workers.
The research scholars have presented two notable findings in the literature in the area of
organisational collaborative culture concerning safety climate and safety performance. Safety
climate has been referred to behaviours of a group of people towards safety-related issues,
whereas, safety climate could also serve as an important and strong indicator of safety
performance. The role of safety climate in organisations refers to the management and workers’
beliefs regarding the safety performance by a workforce that is entrenched in the working
environment of the workplace (Cooper et al., 2004). According to Donald and Canter (1990), a safe
climate helps in predicting accidents which assists top management in the organisation to take
effective steps to avoid accidents. Urban et al. (1996) claimed that measuring safety climate can
help to anticipate safety performance, thus assuring safe behaviours of individuals in
construction teams, and will help to evade safety hazards on site. Liao et al. (2015) contended that
not only workers but also organisations are impacted due to the safety failures, therefore,
managing safety climate is vital for the safety performance of construction teams and reducing
the likelihood of workplace accidents. The concept of safety culture is highly valued within an
organisation, therefore, top management has to implement a good safe working environment
and safety programmes on all of its construction sites within different work teams
Abudayyeh et al. (2006), Barbaranelli et al. (2015),
Chan et al. (2005), Chen and Jin (2013), Choudhry et al.
(2009), Choudhry et al. (2007), Cooper (2002), Cooper
and Phillips (2004), Fung et al. (2005), Huang and
Hinze (2006), Mearns et al. (2003), Mohamed (2002),
Molenaar et al. (2009), Neal and Griffin (2006),
Schneider (1975), Skeepers and Mbohwa (2015); Tam
et al. (2004), Varonen and Mattila (2000), Zohar (1980),
Zohar and Luria (2005), Zou (2011)
Source(s): Table 6 by Shaikh et al
Table 6.
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
Socio-technical components Identified drivers Description Supportive literature
Organisational and
management practices and
procedures drivers
Management
commitment to safety
and self-example
The commitment exhibited by management influences the
attitudes of workers, for example, Michael et al. (2005) posit that
management commitment to safety is one of the leading factors of
workers’safety performance. Since management commitment is
an important keystone of safety programmes (Zohar, 1980), it
would seem that organisations would look up all of the
advantages to be achieved from the management commitment to
bolster the safety performance of the workers. Langford et al.
(2000) found that management’s affectionate behaviour towards
the personal safety issues of workers brings them closer to the
management and they work with a willingness to enhance their
safety performance. Sawacha et al. (1999) posit that safety
committees are vital in regard to safety performance of workers
because organisations with adequate safety committees are more
presumable to improve safety than the organisations without any
safety committees
Wentz (1998) argues that top management should strengthen and
promote safety through leading by self-example; well-organised
management of safety programmes for workers; organising and
attending safety meetings and prestart meetings; doing audits;
clear sense of purpose and directions based on safety performance
and past analysis of safety data. Hinze (1997) posits that safety
culture starts from the top management through self-example, if
management sets out an exemplary safety culture, it will also be
followed by the workers on sites. Jannadi (1996) posits that to
eliminate injuries at the construction worksites, organisation’s
management should be responsible and dedicated to
implementing safety management and policies
Bailey (1997),Cantarella (1998),Cohen et al. (2017),
Jaselskis et al. (1996),Michael et al. (2005),Shafai-
Sahrai (1972),Stewart (2001)
(continued )
Table 7.
Example of
organisational and
management practices
and procedures drivers
based on systems
drivers of teamwork on
safety performance of
construction workers’
(SDTS) framework
IJBPA
Socio-technical components Identified drivers Description Supportive literature
Safety meetings and
consultations
A safety meeting is an assembly that is held to discuss health and
safety-related issues between the construction team members. The
aim of having safety meetings and consultations is to ensure that
all the team members are mindful of safety-related issues (Holt,
2001). Masayuki (2006) suggests morning safety meetings and
consultations among all workers to anticipate any threats out of
the construction activities. Therefore, safety meetings should be
scheduled every morning before the task starts and they should
involve the discussion on a hierarchy of controls which in this case
would be to control hazards with elimination, prevention or
managing hazards with engineering controls like bringing change
in the sequence of tasks and use of personal protective equipment
Boud et al. (2009), Cupido (2009), Huang and Hinze
(2006), Manuele (2008)
Worker empowerment Management acknowledges team members in many ways, for
example, planning, execution of works, development and
implementation of safe site working procedures and monitoring
preventive and proactive measures on job sites while the
management provides encouragement and guidance to teams.
However, management also values the significance of employees’
safety and capabilities as an essential benefit for bringing in the
competitive edge to the organisation (Jitwasinkul and
Hadikusumo, 2011). On account of employee empowerment, team
members will be confident while performing their tasks more
safely and efficiently. Arocena et al. (2008) argue employee
empowerment allows workers to control their working
environment like plan, organise and design their jobs and hence
results in reducing the accident rates at workplaces. Therefore,
organisations should adopt innovative practices of preventing
occupational risks through fostering high levels of employee
empowerment which will help team members to achieve goals of
safety performance at the construction worksites
Frieling et al. (1997), Hedlund et al. (2010), Kaminski
(2001), Roy (2003), Shannon et al. (2001), T€
orner and
Pousette (2009), Zacharatos et al. (2005)
(continued )
Table 7.
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
Socio-technical components Identified drivers Description Supportive literature
Leadership Leadership can improve safety performance by connecting
coherently an enticing future vision and motivating team
members to participate in safety activities at the workplace (Yang
et al., 2009). Research has shown that transformational and active
transactional leadership is positively and closely related to safety
performance of workers in different settings (Clarke, 2013;Ilies
et al., 2011;Kelloway et al., 2006)
Research scholars have mentioned several reasons for
transformational leadership to be an effective leadership model for
improving workplace health and safety (Zacharatos et al., 2005).
Bresnen (1990) and Wild (2002) elucidate that the construction
sector is the most dynamic, aggressive and yet a very busy
business environment. These features of construction industry
pose important management problems and provide a daunting
background for leadership development (Bresnen, 1990;Fellows
et al., 2009)
Efficient construction managers are outstanding at team building,
mutual exchange of information, exhibiting confidence and
aiming attention at the outcomes (Loo, 2002;Zimmerer and Yasin,
1998). The key and fundamental skills of leaders in construction
industry are to develop and implement strong ties with the
construction work teams (Dingsdag et al., 2008)
Transformational leadership is representative of modern
leadership model which includes principles, morals, priorities and
lasting objectives (Harvey et al., 2006;Moss et al., 2009;Trope and
Liberman, 2000). Therefore, leadership should be seen as an
indispensable part of an immensely efficient working
environment of teamwork
Alliger et al. (2015), Bandura (1986), Barling et al.
(2000a,b);Barling et al. (2002), Bass (1985), Bass et al.
(2003), Bass and Riggio (2006), Bommer et al. (2004),
Bono and Judge (2004), Cacioppe (1997), Cameron
et al. (2011), Carless et al. (2000), Conchie et al. (2012,
2013), Dimas et al. (2016), Howell and Avolio (1993),
Judge and Bono (2004), Kelloway et al. (2006),L
opez
et al. (2015), Michaelis et al. (2009),Mullen and
Kelloway, (2009), M€
uller and Turner (2010),
Podsakoff et al. (1990), Salanova et al. (2011),Volmer
(2012)
(continued )
Table 7.
IJBPA
Socio-technical components Identified drivers Description Supportive literature
Safety orientation and
training
The organisation will be responsible for providing training and
orientations to the construction workers to create safety
awareness and promote safety knowledge and skills of the
workforce and management. Training and development are
understood as the method of enhancing task-related abilities and
competencies of the workers to maximise the consistency of
performance (Swanson, 1999). Effective training is one of the
elements to carry out human resource management in the
construction industry. The top management will also need to
establish methods to monitor safety performance of workers
(Tabassi and Bakar, 2009), it is further backed by Nesan and Holt
(1999) that a system of “performance measure”should be
introduced to monitor the progress or lack of development among
construction teams. The safety training and orientation
programmes will take into account different stages of hazards,
awareness, capability and responsibility
Hale (1984), Hallowell (2012), Hallowell and
Gambatese (2009), Musson and Helmreich (2004),
Rajendran et al. (2009),Sawacha et al. (1999)
Source(s): Table 7 by Shaikh et al
Table 7.
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
Socio-technical
components Identified drivers Description Supportive literature
Infrastructure
drivers
Well-designed physical environment for improved
teamwork which includes site logistics planning, site
layout planning, good wayfinding (adequate signage),
spacious infrastructure, proper lighting, workplace
management plan, housekeeping, etc.
Choudhry et al. (2008) posit that construction heal th and safety-related iss ues have
become vitally essential in the construction industry. Many construction
organisations have introduced environmental, health and safety programmes to
eliminate accidents, eradicate workplace-related disease and ensure a safe and
healthy working atmosphere at the construction work sites. Constructionsite layout
planning is a crucial task which, exquisitely, can be considered before the actual
construction works start. Several research scholars haveaddressed the importance of
safety design in construction in regard to safety and concluded that workplace-
related accidents and injuries can be averted by integrating more health and safety-
related applications into the design and planning strategies (Behm, 2005;Hinze and
Wiegand, 1992;Weinstein et al.,2005). For example, a safe construction site layout
plan will allow team members to enter, exit and work safely on the construction site
irrespective of working in normal conditions or an emergency
Proper site electrification and lighting will allow prevention of risks on site
(Sulankivi et al., 2009), and this will assist team members to carry out their work
more safely and evacuate the workplace in an emergency. Proper housekeeping
activities are important not just for efficiency and production purposes but also for
the health and safety of the team workers. Performance at workplace requires
cooperation, commitment and involvement but at the same time, good
housekeeping plays an important role in maintaining a safe and healthy workplace
for team members (resources 2020)
Infrastructural drivers support that influence of sp ace will have an impact on
different team members who will be working on construction sites, for example,
worker-to-worker communication,their effective interaction and collaboration among
supervisors and management. The arrangement of adequate space for different
activities by team members that may be relevant to layout plan is yet another
important factor for encouraging teamwork (Pati et al., 2014;Zborowskyet al.,2010).
Rashid (2009) argues that face-to-face communication isthe most influencing form of
interaction, ranging from informal and unexpectedsocial interactions in the doorway
to organised collaborative programmes. Visual communication is necessary for all
types of interactions. Becker (2007) refers to spatial considerations, layout of
workspaces and design of walkways as environmentalfactors that affect the simple
form of communication. Effective planning of site logistics andlayout plans trend to
maximise safety by providing enoughspace for safe access for materials and workers
to enter and exit the construction site (Jarrell, 2014)
Gambatese et al. (2008), Gibb et al. (2004),
Karakhan et al. (2018), Ma et al. (2005),
MacKenzie et al. (2000), Smallwood (2000),
Trethewy and Atkinson (2003), Workcover
(2001)
Source(s): Table 8 by Shaikh et al
Table 8.
Examples of
infrastructure drivers
based on systems
drivers of teamwork on
safety performance of
construction workers’
(SDTS) framework
IJBPA
Socio-technical
components Identified drivers Description Supportive literature
Technology
drivers
Well-designed technological tools and equipment for
improved team performance which includes drones
and
rovers, artificial intelligence (AI), construction
wearables, building information modelling (BIM)
technology, site sensors
Teamwork is one of the most vital facets of organisations. To be successful in the contemporary
world of working practices, teams need to be effective and quick to respond to the challenging
tasks at workplaces. The purpose of construction technology drivers is to assist team members in
the goal of making construction site works safer and looking after fellow team members through
the use of technology. Technological equipment which helps enhance the safety performance of
workers and facilitate them should be provided to eliminate the potential hazards of construction
sites (Feng, 2013). Safety performance improvements in teamwork can be achieved through the
application of systems drivers of teamwork on safety performance (SDTS) within an organisation.
One of the drivers is construction technology, it deals with well-designed construction
technological tools which help and support teams to work safely and efficiently on construction
sites
Owing to their intrinsic complications and challenges, construction projects are often constructed
in an unorganised and dynamic environment. Therefore, safety threats and risks cannot be
excepted. Construction technology drivers can be transitional solution to avoid construction
workers from injuring themselves in the dynamic atmosphere of construction works (Zhou et al.,
2015). Construction technological tools assist team members to support and share the situation
awareness of each team member, for example, it provides individuals with real-time data collection
and transmission between construction work site and construction managers and project
managers in their offices. As we look towards new emerging technologies to solve the existing
safety issues on construction sites, we come across different technological tools which have made
construction works safer, effective and efficient. Artificial intelligence can evaluate fellow team
members’movement and how they interact with different issues on-site, for example, reorganising
the placement of heavy equipment and materials to make it more reachable to workers and
improve jobsite safety. Augmented reality is another technology that assists in improving the
safety of workers (Connect, 2020)
The use of technology, for example, BIM, has been found of significant usefulness to enhance the
coordination and collaboration between teams (Alomari et al., 2017). Organisations have long
suffered due to the lack of proactive and preventive measures which led to the accidents associated
with construction undertakings, for example, safety training and awareness programmes, hazards
identification and risk assessment and so forth (Park and Kim, 2013). Therefore, to make these
measures more effective, it’s imperative to know how much construction worksite information can
be obtained and how effectively this information could be absorbed (Golparvar-Fard et al., 2011;
Sacks et al., 2013). To this end, the construction technology driver has been explored to promote the
systems drivers of teamwork on safety performance (SDTS) which will make the safety
management practices among teams as primary focus
Infrastructural drivers support that influence of space will have an impact on different team
members who will be working on construction sites, for example, worker-to-worker
communication, their effective interaction and collaboration among supervisors and management.
Arrangement of adequate space for different activities by team members that may be relevant to
layout plan is yet another important factor for encouraging teamwork (Pati et al., 2014;Zborowsky
et al., 2010). Rashid (2009) argues that face-to-face communication is the most influencing form of
interaction, ranging from informal and unexpected social interactions in the doorway to organised
collaborative programmes. Visual communication is necessary for all types of interactions. Becker
(2007) refers to spatial considerations, layout of workspaces and design of walkways as
environmental factors that affect the simple form of communication. Effective planning of site
logistics and layout plans trend to maximise safety by providing enough space for safe access for
materials and workers to enter and exit the construction site (Jarrell, 2014)
Chi et al. (2013),Gambatese and Hinze (1999),
Gambatese et al. (2005), Karakhan et al. (2018), Li et al.
(2017), Randall, (2011)
Source(s): Table 9 by Shaikh et al
Table 9.
Examples of
technology drivers
based on systems
drivers of teamwork on
safety performance of
construction workers’
(SDTS) framework
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
description of the practices for the mentioned drivers of teamwork under each category. These
descriptions can be viewed as helpful recommendations for construction organisations and all
other entities involved in construction projects. Safety managers and project managers can
monitor and recognise any weaknesses in their safety management systems by comparing
these recommendations with these ideal practices.
These drivers have been grouped under each socio-technical component. SDTS framework
will help organisations improve worker representation, capacity and capability for the
improved safety performance of team workers. SDTS framework will assist in improved
managerial attention to mechanisms aimed at motivating team workers to take responsibility
and have the leverage to improve and implement robust safety management systems.
As a result of this systematic review, critical drivers of teamwork were identified, which will
take the challenges of attaining the safety performance of construction workers. By applying
the SDTS framework, the management will monitor any critical development of organisational
functions and processes within the set of its interacting subsystems. The SDTS framework will
also provide a view of the current state of construction work teams’changing vulnerabilities
and its safety management plan of how the safety performance is created.
8. Direction for future studies
This paper argues for a swift advancement in the utilisation of drivers of teamwork, which will
impact the safety performance of workers. Future research is expectedto focus on these drivers of
teamwork. The purpose is to improve the safety performance of construction workers and reflect a
positive and safe working environment within an organisation with continuous development,
monitoring and evaluation of construction work teams through the utilisation of the SDTS
framework.
A significant concern is a socio-technical context in which the construction work team
functions when carrying out such research. Future research efforts should explore the links
between drivers of teamwork and the functioning of construction teams and how they interact
to influence workers’safety performance. It is proposed that these drivers of teamwork be put
into effectand empirically testedto establish a model for evaluating these drivers ofpartnership
on safety performance within an organisation in countries where construction accidents and
fatalities have higher rates. Theoretical and practical researchis still required to attain this aim.
A panel of experts consisting of construction safety professionals and research scholars with
years of practical experience may validate the SDTS framework.
9. Limitations
Like other review papers, this study has a few implicit limitations that restrict the
generalisability of research findings. In this paper, an overview of drivers of teamwork has
been focused exclusively on the safety performance of construction workers. There are,
however, similar notions used within various fields of study. Furthermore, the authors
focused on the quantitative characteristics of the studies by applying socio-technical theory
to different aspects, such as varying strengths of the relationship between drivers of
teamwork and the safety performance of construction workers. Nevertheless, the findings are
essential for successful future directions and analysis. The research paper aimed to highlight
and describe the main facets of teamwork on safety performance that apply to construction
works rather than cover the entire population of drivers of teamwork.
10. Conclusions
This research paper has focused on drivers of teamwork based on a socio-technical systems
approach, which is seen as team-level inputs through skilled people working in teams. These
IJBPA
factors indicate the cultural environment with different attitudes and behaviours of workers,
goals to attain, organisational and management p ractices and procedures to follow, and technical
system, i.e. working in a well-designed and safe physical environment using technology.
A total of 53 publications on drivers of teamwork were identified in 36 different journals from
the years 1997–2021. From this paper’s review, 37 drivers of teamwork were identified. The
theoretical model was developed based on the socio-systems theory and identified 37 drivers of
teamwork. The theoretical model encompasses six major socio-technical components: people;
metrics; culture; organisational and management practices and procedures; infrastructure and
technology. Every significant component of teamwork driver has several drivers grouped to
their corresponding class of teamwork drivers.
This study adds to the existing but limited understanding of teamwork drivers on
construction workers’safety performance. This paper presents scholars and industry-based
professionals with critical initiatives that must be implemented in organisations to get positive
results in safety while working in teams with an emphasis on systems drivers of teamwork on
safety performance at the organisational level, which will help in providing information on the
functioning of the teams and contribute towards improved safety performance of team workers.
Thus, construction safety necessitates a constant focus on systems drivers of teamwork on the
safety performance of construction workers that reflect an organisation’scapacitytoperform
construction-related activities safely.
A unique but relevant benefit of the SDTS framework would be that it will serve as a tool that
will allow all the stakeholders within a system to be connected and provide information about the
emerging or varying circumstances and aspects that tend to impact the safety performance of
team workers in the construction sector. Further, it also offers more in-depth perspectives by
analysing and categorising the 37 drivers identified and presented in a theoretical model of a socio-
technical hexagon with six major interacting components: people; culture; metrics; organisational
and management practices and procedures; infrastructure and technology. Finally, the findings
provide a solid basis for developing hypotheses for future empirical research.
References
Abowitz, D.A. and Toole, T.M. (2010), “Mixed method research: fundamental issues of design, validity,
and reliability in construction research”,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 136 No. 1, pp. 108-116.
Abudayyeh, O., Fredericks, T.K., Butt, S.E. and Shaar, A. (2006), “An investigation of management’s
commitment to construction safety”,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 167-174.
Ahmed, S. (2019), “Causes of accident at construction sites in Bangladesh”,Organization, Technology and
Management in Construction: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1933-1951.
Aksorn, T. and Hadikusumo, B.H. (2008), “Critical success factors influencing safety program
performance in Thai construction projects”,Safety Science, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 709-727.
Al Haadir, S. and Panuwatwanich, K. (2011), “Critical success factors for safety program
implementation among construction companies in Saudi Arabia”,Procedia Engineering,
Vol. 14, pp. 148-155.
Alliger, G.M., Cerasoli, C.P., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Vessey, W.B. (2015), “Team resilience: how teams
flourish under pressure”,Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 176-184.
Alomari, K., Gambatese, J. and Anderson, J. (2017), “Opportunities for using Building Information
Modeling to improve worker safety performance”,Safety, Vol. 3 No. 1, p. 7.
Ammeter, A.P. and Dukerich, J.M. (2002), “Leadership, team building, and team member
characteristics in high performance project teams”,Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 14
No. 4, pp. 3-10.
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
Anand, G., Ward, P.T., Tatikonda, M.V. and Schilling, D.A. (2009), “Dynamic capabilities through
continuous improvement infrastructure”,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 6,
pp. 444-461.
Antonio, R.S., Isabel, O.-M., Gabriel, P.S.J. and Angel, U.C. (2013), “A proposal for improving safety in
construction projects by strengthening coordinators’competencies in health and safety issues”,
Safety Science, Vol. 54, pp. 92-103.
Argyris, C. and Sch€
on, D. (1978), “What is an organization that it may learn”, in Argyris, C. and
Schoen, D.A. (Eds), Organizational Learning: A Theory Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA, pp. 8-29.
Arocena, P., N
u~
nez, I. and Villanueva, M. (2008), “The impact of prevention measures and
organisational factors on occupational injuries”,Safety Science, Vol. 46 No. 9,
pp. 1369-1384.
Baiden, B.K. and Price, A.D. (2011), “The effect of integration on project delivery team effectiveness”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 129-136.
Baiden, B.K., Price, A.D. and Dainty, A.R. (2006), “The extent of team integration within construction
projects”,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 13-23.
Bailey, C. (1997), “Managerial factors related to safety program effectiveness: an update on the
Minnesota Perception Survey”,Professional Safety, Vol. 42 No. 8, p. 33.
Baker, D.P., Day, R. and Salas, E. (2006), “Teamwork as an essential component of high-reliability
organizations”,Health Services Research, Vol. 41 No. 4p2, pp. 1576-1598.
Bandura, A. (1982), “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency”,American Psychologist, Vol. 37 No. 2,
p. 122.
Bandura, A. (1986), “Social foundations of thought and action”,Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Vol. 1986,
pp. 23-28.
Bandura, A (2013), “The role of self-efficacy in goal-based motivation”, in Locke, E.A. and Latham,
G.P. (Eds), New Developments in Goal Setting and Task Performance, Routledge/Taylor &
Francis Group, pp. 147-157.
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. and Lightsey, R. (1999), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Springer.
Banks, A.P. and Millward, L.J. (2007), “Differentiating knowledge in teams: the effect of shared
declarative and procedural knowledge on team performance”,Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, Vol. 11 No. 2, p. 95.
Bansal, V.K. (2011), “Application of geographic information systems in construction safety planning”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 66-77.
Barbaranelli, C., Petitta, L. and Probst, T.M. (2015), “Does safety climate predict safety performance in
Italy and the USA? Cross-cultural validation of a theoretical model of safety climate”,Accident
Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 77, pp. 35-44.
Barling, J., Loughlin, C. and Kelloway, E. (2000a), “Transformational leadership and occupational
injuries: development and test of a model linking transformational leadership and occupational
injuries”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 488-495.
Barling, J., Loughlin, C. and Kelloway, E.K. (2002), “Development and test of a model linking safety-
specific transformational leadership and occupational safety”,Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 87 No. 3, p. 488.
Barling, J., Slater, F. and Kelloway, E.K. (2000b), “Transformational leadership and emotional
intelligence: an exploratory study”,Leadership and Organization Development Journal.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Collier Macmillan.
Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006), Transformational Leadership, Psychology Press.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. and Berson, Y. (2003), “Predicting unit performance by assessing
transformational and transactional leadership”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, p. 207.
IJBPA
Baxter, G. and Sommerville, I. (2011), “Socio-technical systems: from design methods to systems
engineering”,Interacting with Computers, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 4-17.
Becker, F. (2007), “Nursing unit design and communication patterns: what is “real”work?”,HERD:
Health Environments Research and Design Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 58-62.
Behm, M. (2005), “Linking construction fatalities to the design for construction safety concept”,Safety
Science, Vol. 43 No. 8, pp. 589-611.
Bigley, G.A. and Roberts, K.H. (2001), “The incident command system: high-reliability organizing for
complex and volatile task environments”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 6,
pp. 1281-1299.
Blickensderfer, E.L., Reynolds, R., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2010), “Shared expectations and
implicit coordination in tennis doubles teams”,Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, Vol. 22
No. 4, pp. 486-499.
Bommer, W.H., Rubin, R.S. and Baldwin, T.T. (2004), “Setting the stage for effective leadership: antecedents
of transformational leadership behavior”,The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 195-210.
Bonito, J.A. (2004), “Shared cognition and participation in small groups: similarity of member
prototypes”,Communication Research, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 704-730.
Bono, J.E. and Judge, T.A. (2004), “Personality and transformational and transactional leadership:
a meta-analysis”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, p. 901.
Boud, D., Rooney, D. and Solomon, N. (2009), “Talkinguplearningatwork:cautionarytalesinco-opting
everyday learning”,International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 323-334.
Bowers, C., Kreutzer, C., Cannon-Bowers, J. and Lamb, J. (2017), “Team resilience as a second-order
emergent state: a theoretical model and research directions”,Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 8,
p. 1360.
Brace, C., Gibb, A., Pendlebury, M. and Bust, P. (2009), “Phase 2 Report: health and safety in the
construction industry: underlying causes of construction fatal accidents–External research”,
Rita Donaghy’s report to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Bradley, B.H., Postlethwaite, B.E., Klotz, A.C., Hamdani, M.R. and Brown, K.G. (2012), “Reaping the
benefits of task conflict in teams: the critical role of team psychological safety climate”,Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 1, p. 151.
Brady, P.W. and Goldenhar, L.M. (2014), “A qualitative study examining the influences on situation
awareness and the identification, mitigation and escalation of recognised patient risk”,BMJ
Quality and Safety, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 153-161.
Braver, S.L. (1975), “Reciprocity, cohesiveness and cooperation in two-person games”,Psychological
Reports, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 371-378.
Bresnen, M. (1990), Organising Construction: Project Organisation and Matrix Management,Routledge.
Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000), “Partnering in construction: a critical review of issues, problems
and dilemmas”,Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 229-237.
Bromley, S., Worthington, J. and Robinson, C. (2003), The Impact of Integrated Teams on the Design
Process, Construction Productivity Network, London.
Brunette, M.J. (2004), “Construction safety research in the United States: targeting the Hispanic
workforce”,Injury Prevention, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 244-248.
Burke, M.J., Salvador, R.O., Smith-Crowe, K., Chan-Serafin, S., Smith, A. and Sonesh, S. (2011),
“The dread factor: how hazards and safety training influence learning and performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 1, p. 46.
Burt, C.D., Gladstone, K.L. and Grieve, K.R. (1998), “Development of the considerate and responsible
employee (CARE) scale”,Work and Stress, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 362-369.
Cacioppe,R.(1997),“Leadership moment by moment!”,Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 335-345.
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
Cameron, K., Mora, C., Leutscher, T. and Calarco, M. (2011), “Effects of positive practices on
organizational effectiveness”,The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 266-308.
Campbell, J.P., McCloy, R.A., Oppler, S.H. and Sager, C.E. (1993), “A theory of performance”,Personnel
Selection in Organizations, Vol. 3570, pp. 35-70.
Cantarella, A.F. (1998), “Effectively measuring safety performance”,Professional Safety, Vol. 43 No. 1, 8.
Carless, S.A., Wearing, A.J. and Mann, L. (2000), “A short measure of transformational leadership”,
Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 389-405.
Chan, A.P., Wong, F.K., Yam, M., Chan, D., Ng, J. and Tam, C. (2005), From Attitude to Culture–Effect
of Safety Climate on Construction Safety, Construction Safety Research Group, Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
Chen, Q. and Jin, R. (2013), “Multilevel safety culture and climate survey for assessing new safety
program”,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 139 No. 7, pp. 805-817.
Chen, S.-S., Chuang, Y.-W. and Chen, P.-Y. (2012), “Behavioral intention formation in knowledge
sharing: examining the roles of KMS quality, KMS self-efficacy, and organizational climate”,
Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 31, pp. 106-118.
Chen, H., Li, H. and Goh, Y.M. (2021), “A review of construction safety climate: definitions, factors,
relationship with safety behavior and research agenda”,Safety Science, Vol. 142, 105391.
Chi, H.-L., Kang, S.-C. and Wang, X. (2013), “Research trends and opportunities of augmented reality
applications in architecture, engineering, and construction”,Automation in Construction,
Vol. 33, pp. 116-122.
Choudhry, R.M. and Zahoor, H. (2016), “Strengths and weaknesses of safety practices to improve
safety performance in construction projects in Pakistan”,Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 142 No. 4, 04016011.
Choudhry, R.M., Fang, D. and Mohamed, S. (2007), “Developing a model of construction safety
culture”,Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 207-212.
Choudhry, R.M., Fang, D. and Ahmed, S.M. (2008), “Safety management in construction: best practices in
Hong Kong”,Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 134 No. 1,
pp. 20-32.
Choudhry, R.M., Fang, D. and Lingard, H. (2009), “Measuring safety climate of a construction
company”,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 135 No. 9,
pp. 890-899.
Christian, M.S., Bradley, J.C., Wallace, J.C. and Burke, M.J. (2009), “Workplace safety: a meta-analysis
of the roles of person and situation factors”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 5, p. 1103.
Chua, D.K. and Goh, Y.M. (2004), “Incident causation model for improving feedback of safety
knowledge”,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130 No. 4, pp. 542-551.
Cigularov, K.P., Chen, P.Y. and Rosecrance, J. (2010), “The effects of error management climate and
safety communication on safety: a multi-level study”,Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 42
No. 5, pp. 1498-1506.
Clarke, S. (2013), “Safety leadership: a meta-analytic review of transformational and transactional
leadership styles as antecedents of safety behaviours”,Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 22-49.
Cohen, A. (2017), “Organizational commitment and turnover: a Met A-analysis”,Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 1140-1157.
Conchie, S.M., Taylor, P.J. and Donald, I.J. (2012), “Promoting safety voice with safety-specific
transformational leadership: the mediating role of two dimensions of trust”,Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 1, p. 105.
Conchie, S.M., Moon, S. and Duncan, M. (2013), “Supervisors’engagement in safety leadership: factors
that help and hinder”,Safety Science, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 109-117.
IJBPA
Connect, C. (2020), “Construction technology is reshaping the industry”, available at: https://www.
constructconnect.com/blog/technology-reshaping-construction-industry (accessed 8 August 2020).
Converse, S., Cannon-Bowers, J. and Salas, E. (1993), “Shared mental models in expert team decision
making”,Individual and Group Decision Making: Current Issues, Vol. 221, pp. 221-246.
Cooper, D. (2002), “Safety culture”,Professional Safety, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 30-36.
Cooper, M.D. and Phillips, R.A. (2004), “Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety behavior
relationship”,Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 497-512.
Cupido, G. (2009), “The role of production and teamwork practices in construction safety: a cognitive
model and an empirical case study”,Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 265-275.
Daft, R.L. and Weick, K.E. (1984), “Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 284-295.
Dainty, A.R., Bryman, A. and Price, A.D. (2002), “Empowerment within the UK construction sector”,
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 333-342.
Davis, M.C., Challenger, R., Jayewardene, D.N. and Clegg, C.W. (2014), “Advancing socio-technical
systems thinking: a call for bravery”,Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 171-180.
Devine, D.J., Clayton, L.D., Philips, J.L., Dunford, B.B. and Melner, S.B. (1999), “Teams in organizations:
prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness”,Small Group Research, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 678-711.
Díaz, R.I. and Cabrera, D.D. (1997), “Safety climate and attitude as evaluation measures of
organizational safety”,Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 643-650.
Dimas, I.D., Rebelo, T. and Lourenço, P.R. (2016), “Team coaching: one more clue for fostering team
effectiveness”,European Review of Applied Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 5, pp. 233-242.
Dingsdag, D.P., Biggs, H.C. and Sheahan, V.L. (2008), “Understanding and defining OH&S competency
for construction site positions: worker perceptions”,Safety Science, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 619-633.
Dinh, J.V. and Salas, E. (2017), “Factors that influence teamwork”,Handbook of the Psychology of
Team Working and Collaborative Processes, The Wiley Blackwell, pp. 13-41.
Donald, I. and Canter, D. (1990), “Temporal and trait facets of personnel assessment”,Applied
Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 413-429.
Dwyer, T. and Raftery, A. (1991), “Industrial accidents are produced by social relations of work:
a sociological theory of industrial accidents”,Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 167-178.
Dyer, W.G. (1987), Team Building: Issues and Alternatives, Addison-Wesley.
Easterby-Smith, M. (1997), “Disciplines of organizational learning: contributions and critiques”,
Human Relations, Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 1085-1113.
Eccles, D.W. and Tenenbaum, G. (2004), “Why an expert team is more than a team of experts: a social-
cognitive conceptualization of team coordination and communication in sport”,Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 542-560.
Edmondson, A. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams”,Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 350-383.
Edmondson, A.C. (2002), “The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: a group-level
perspective”,Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 128-146.
Edmondson, A.C. and Lei, Z. (2014), “Psychological safety: the history, renaissance, and future of an
interpersonal construct”,Annual Revision Organizational Psychology Organization Behaviour,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 23-43.
Edmondson, A.C. and Roloff, K.S. (2009), “Overcoming barriers to collaboration: psychological safety
and learning in diverse teams”,Team Effectiveness in Complex Organizations: Cross-
Disciplinary Perspectives and Approaches, Vol. 34, pp. 183-208.
Edmondson, A.C., Bohmer, R.M. and Pisano, G.P. (2001), “Disrupted routines: team learning and new
technology implementation in hospitals”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 4,
pp. 685-716.
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
Edmondson, A.C., Dillon, J.R. and Roloff, K.S. (2007), “6 three perspectives on team learning: outcome
improvement, task Mastery, and group process”,The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 269-314.
Edum-Fotwe, F.T. and McCaffer, R. (2000), “Developing project management competency:
perspectives from the construction industry”,International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 111-124.
Egan, J. (2002a), Accelerating Change, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions,
London, available at: www.strategicforum.org.uk/pdf/report_sept02.pdf
Egan, J. (2002b), Accelerating Change, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions,
London.
Egan, J. (2002c), Accelerating Change: A Report by the Strategic Forum for Construction,Rethinking
Construction. SF F. Construction, London.
Eisenberg, J. (2007), “Group cohesiveness”, in Baumeister, R.F. and Vohs, K.D. (Eds), Encyclopedia of
Social Psychology, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Enshassi, A., Saleh, N. and Mohamed, S. (2021), “Barriers to the application of lean construction
techniques concerning safety improvement in construction projects”,International Journal of
Construction Management, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 1044-1060.
Espinosa, J.A., Lerch, F.J. and Kraut, R.E. (2004), Explicit Versus Implicit Coordination Mechanisms and
Task Dependencies: One Size Does Not Fit All, American Psychological Association, Washington.
Evans, N.J. and Jarvis, P.A. (1980), “Group cohesion: a review and reevaluation”,Small Group
Behavior, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 359-370.
Excellence, C. (2004), Effective Teamwork: A Best Practice Guide for the Construction Industry,
Constructing Excellence, Watford.
Falagas, M.E., Pitsouni, E.I., Malietzis, G.A. and Pappas, G. (2008), “Comparison of PubMed, Scopus,
web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses”,The FASEB Journal, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 338-342.
Fang, D., Huang, Y., Guo, H. and Lim, H.W. (2020), “LCB approach for construction safety”,Safety
Science, Vol. 128, 104761.
Fellows, R.F., Langford, D., Newcombe, R. and Urry, S. (2009), Construction Management in Practice,
John Wiley & Sons.
Feng, Y. (2013), “Effect of safety investments on safety performance of building projects”,Safety
Science, Vol. 59, pp. 28-45.
Feng, Y., Zhang, S. and Wu, P. (2015), “Factors influencing workplace accident costs of building
projects”,Safety Science, Vol. 72, pp. 97-104.
Fiore, S.M., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2001), “Group dynamics and shared mental model
development”, in M. London (Ed.), How People Evaluate Others in Organizations, Lawrence,
Mahwah, NJ, Vol. 234, pp. 309-336.
Fisher, D.M., Bell, S.T., Dierdorff, E.C. and Belohlav, J.A. (2012), “Facet personality and surface-level
diversity as team mental model antecedents: implications for implicit coordination”,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 4, p. 825.
Flin, R. and Yule, S. (2004), “Leadership for safety: industrial experience”,BMJ Quality and Safety,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. ii45-ii51.
Fong, P.S. and Lung, B.W. (2007), “Interorganizational teamwork in the construction industry”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 133 No. 2, pp. 157-168.
Foy, N. (1994), “Empowering people at work”,Gower Aldershot, Vol. 6 No. 4, p. 63.
Franz, B., Leicht, R., Molenaar, K. and Messner, J. (2017), “Impact of team integration and group
cohesion on project delivery performance”,Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 143 No. 1, 04016088.
IJBPA
Fredericks, T., Abudayyeh, O., Palmquist, M. and Torres, H.N. (2002), “Mechanical contracting safety
issues”,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 128 No. 2, pp. 186-193.
Frieling, E., Freiboth, M., Henniges, D. and Saager, C. (1997), “Effects of team work on the working
conditions of short cycled track work: a case study from the European automobile industry”,
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 371-388.
Fung, I.W., Tam, C., Tung, K.C. and Man, A.S. (2005), “Safety cultural divergences among
management, supervisory and worker groups in Hong Kong construction industry”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 504-512.
Fung, I.W., Tam, V.W., Sing, C.P., Tang, K. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2016), “Psychological climate in
occupational safety and health: the safety awareness of construction workers in South China”,
International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 315-325.
Furci, J. and Sunindijo, R.Y. (2020), “Impacts of the WHS Act 2011 on safety management in small and
medium construction companies”,International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 20
No. 3, pp. 196-206.
Gambatese, J. and Hinze, J. (1999), “Addressing construction worker safety in the design phase:
designing for construction worker safety”,Automation in Construction,Vol.8No.6,pp.643-649.
Gambatese, J.A., Behm, M. and Hinze, J.W. (2005), “Viability of designing for construction worker
safety”,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131 No. 9, pp. 1029-1036.
Gambatese, J.A., Behm, M. and Rajendran, S. (2008), “Design’s role in construction accident causality
and prevention: perspectives from an expert panel”,Safety Science, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 675-691.
Garavan, T.N. and McCarthy, A. (2008), “Collective learning processes and human resource
development”,Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 451-471.
Geller, E.S. (2001), “A total safety culture: from a corporate achievement to a global vision”,Behavior
and Social Issues, Vol. 11 No. 1, p. 18.
Geller, E.S., Roberts, D.S. and Gilmore, M.R. (1996), “Predicting propensity to actively care for
occupational safety”,Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Gersick, C.J. and Hackman, J.R. (1990), “Habitual routines in task-performing groups”,Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 65-97.
Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D. and Odella, F. (1998), “What do you mean by safety? Conflicting perspectives
on accident causation and safety management in a construction firm”,Journal of Contingencies
and Crisis Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 202-213.
Gibb, A., Haslam, R., Hide, S. and Gyi, D. (2004), “The role of design in accident causality”, in Hecker,
S., Gambatese, J. and Weinstein, M. (Eds), Designing for Safety and Health in Construction:
Proceedings from a Research and Practice Symposium, September 15–16, Portland, OR,
pp. 11-21.
Gibson, C. (1995), “Determinants and consequences of group efficacy beliefs in work organizations in
the United States, Hong Kong, and Indonesia”,Dissertation Abstracts International Section A:
Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 56 Nos 6-A, p. 2318.
Gibson, C.B. (1999), “Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness
across tasks and cultures”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 138-152.
Gist, M.E. (1987), “Self-efficacy: implications for organizational behavior and human resource
management”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 472-485.
Gist, M.E., Locke, E.A. and Taylor, M.S. (1987), “Organizational behavior: group structure, process,
and effectiveness”,Journal of Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 237-257.
Gluyas, H. (2015), “Effective communication and teamwork promotes patient safety”,Nursing
Standard (2014þ), Vol. 29 No. 49, p. 50.
Golparvar-Fard, M., Pe~
na-Mora, F. and Savarese, S. (2011), “Integrated sequential as-built and as-
planned representation with D 4 AR tools in support of decision-making tasks in the AEC/FM
industry”,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 137 No. 12, pp. 1099-1116.
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
Griffin, M.A. and Hu, X. (2013), “How leaders differentially motivate safety compliance and safety
participation: the role of monitoring, inspiring, and learning”,Safety Science, Vol. 60,
pp. 196-202.
Grossman, R., Friedman, S.B. and Kalra, S. (2017), “Teamwork processes and emergent states”,
The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative Processes,
Vol. 42, pp. 243-269.
Gully, S.M., Devine, D.J. and Whitney, D.J. (1995), “A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: effects
of level of analysis and task interdependence”,Small Group Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 497-520.
Gully, S.M., Incalcaterra, K.A., Joshi, A. and Beaubien, J.M. (2002), “A meta-analysis of team-efficacy,
potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed
relationships”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 5, p. 819.
Guo, B.H., Yiu, T.W. and Gonz
alez, V.A. (2015), “Identifying behaviour patterns of construction safety
using system archetypes”,Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 80, pp. 125-141.
Gutwin, C. and Greenberg, S. (2004), “The importance of awareness for team cognition in distributed
collaboration”,Team Cognition: Understanding the Factors That Drive Processes and
Performance, pp. 177-201.
Guzzo, R.A. and Shea, G.P. (1992), “Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations”,in
Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
2nd ed., Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, Vol. 3, pp. 269-313.
Guzzo, R.A., Yost, P.R., Campbell, R.J. and Shea, G.P. (1993), “Potency in groups: articulating
a construct”,British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 87-106.
Hale, A.R. (1984), “Is safety training worthwhile?”,Journal of Occupational Accidents,Vol.6Nos1-3,
pp. 17-33.
Hallowell, M.R. (2012), “Safety-knowledge management in American construction organizations”,
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 203-211.
Hallowell, M.R. and Gambatese, J.A. (2009), “Construction safety risk mitigation”,Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 135 No. 12, pp. 1316-1323.
Hardison, D., Behm, M., Hallowell, M.R. and Fonooni, H. (2014), “Identifying construction supervisor
competencies for effective site safety”,Safety Science, Vol. 65, pp. 45-53.
Harvey, P., Martinko, M.J. and Gardner, W.L. (2006), “Promoting authentic behavior in organizations: an
attributional perspective”,Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 1-11.
Hedlund, A.,
Ateg, M., Andersson, M. and Ros
en, G. (2010), “Assessing motivation for work
environment improvements: internal consistency, reliability and factorial structure”,Journal of
Safety Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 145-151.
Hinds, P.J. and Weisband, S.P. (2003), “Knowledge sharing and shared understanding in virtual teams”,
Virtual Teams That Work: Creating Conditions for Virtual Team Effectiveness, pp. 21-36.
Hinze, J. (1981), “Human aspects of construction safety”,Journal of the Construction Division,Vol.107No.1,
pp. 61-72.
Hinze, J. (1997), Construction Safety, Prentice Hall.
Hinze, J. and Gordon, F. (1979), “Supervisor-worker relationship affects injury rate”,Journal of the
Construction Division, Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 253-262.
Hinze, J. and Wiegand, F. (1992), “Role of designers in construction worker safety”,Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 118 No. 4, pp. 677-684.
Hofmann, D.A. and Morgeson, F.P. (1999), “Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: the role of
perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange”,Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 84 No. 2, p. 286.
Holt, A.S.J. (2001), Principles of Construction Safety, Wiley Online Library, Hoboken (NJ): Wiley, 2008.
IJBPA
Hon, C.K., Hinze, J. and Chan, A.P. (2014), “Safety climate and injury occurrence of repair,
maintenance, minor alteration and addition works”,Facilities, Vol. 32 Nos 5-6, pp. 188-207.
Hong, Y. and Chan, D.W. (2014), “Research trend of joint ventures in construction: a two-decade
taxonomic review”,Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 118-141.
Hong, Y., Chan, D.W., Chan, A.P. and Yeung, J.F. (2012), “Critical analysis of partnering research trend in
construction journals”,Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 82-95.
Howell, J.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of
control, and support for innovation: key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 6, p. 891.
Huang, X. and Hinze, J. (2006), “Owner’s role in construction safety”,Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 132 No. 2, pp. 164-173.
Hudson, P. (2001), “Safety management and safety culture: the long, hard and winding road”,
Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, pp. 3-32.
Hughes, A.M. (2016), “Saving lives: a meta-analysis of team training in healthcare”,Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 101 No. 9, p. 1266.
Hughes, H.P., Clegg, C.W., Bolton, L.E. and Machon, L.C. (2017), “Systems scenarios: a tool for
facilitating the socio-technical design of work systems”,Ergonomics, Vol. 60 No. 10,
pp. 1319-1335.
Ibrahim, K.I., Costello, S.B. and Wilkinson, S. (2013), “Key practice indicators of team integration in
construction projects: a review”,Team Performance Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 19 Nos 3/4, pp. 132-152.
Ilgen, D.R. (1999), “Teams embedded in organizations: some implications”,American Psychologist,
Vol. 54 No. 2, p. 129.
Ilies, R., Johnson, M.D., Judge, T.A. and Keeney, J. (2011), “A within-individual study of interpersonal
conflict as a work stressor: dispositional and situational moderators”,Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 44-64.
Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen, Vol. 201, Random House Business Division, New York.
Iverson, R.D. and Erwin, P.J. (1997), “Predicting occupational injury: the role of affectivity”,Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 113-128.
Jannadi, M.O. (1996), “Factors affecting the safety of the construction industry: a questionnaire including
19 factors that affect construction safety was mailed to the top 200 construction contractors in the
UK. Safety officers and workers were asked to indicate how effective each factor was in
improving construction safety”,Building Research and Information, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 108-112.
Jarrell, W. (2014), “Construction site utilization planning best practices”, Master thesis, Auburn
University.
Jaselskis, E.J., Anderson, S.D. and Russell, J.S. (1996), “Strategies for achieving excellence in
construction safety performance”,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 122 No. 1, pp. 61-70.
Jiang, Z., Fang, D. and Zhang, M. (2015), “Understanding the causation of construction workers’
unsafe behaviors based on system dynamics modeling”,Journal of Management in Engineering,
Vol. 31 No. 6, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000350, available at: https://www.scopus.com/
inward/record.uri?eid52-s2.0-84944711798&doi510.1061%2f%28ASCE%29ME.1943-5479.
0000350&partnerID540&md55c23adb082ac02ecc999da5567f4882e4
Jitwasinkul, B. and Hadikusumo, B.H. (2011), “Identification of important organisational factors
influencing safety work behaviours in construction projects”,Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 520-528.
Jørgensen, B. and Emmitt, S. (2009), “Investigating the integration of design and construction from a
“lean”perspective”,Construction Innovation, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 225-240.
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
Johnson, H.M., Singh, A. and Young, R.H. (1998), “Fall protection analysis for workers on residential
roofs”,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 124 No. 5, pp. 418-428.
Johnson, T.E., Lee, Y., Lee, M., O’Connor, D.L., Khalil, M.K. and Huang, X. (2007), “Measuring
sharedness of team-related knowledge: design and validation of a shared mental model
instrument”,Human Resource Development International, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 437-454.
Judge, T. and Bono, J. (2004), “Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-
analysis”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 901-910.
Kaminski, M. (2001), “Unintended consequences: organizational practices and their impact on workplace
safety and productivity”,Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,Vol.6No.2,p.127.
Karakhan, A.A., Rajendran, S., Gambatese, J. and Nnaji, C. (2018), “Measuring and evaluating safety
maturity of construction contractors: multicriteria decision-making approach”,Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 144 No. 7, 04018054.
Kaskutas, V., Dale, A.M., Lipscomb, H. and Evanoff, B. (2013), “Fall prevention and safety
communication training for foremen: report of a pilot project designed to improve residential
construction safety”,Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 44, pp. 111-118.
Kaye, M. and Anderson, R. (1999), “Continuous improvement: the ten essential criteria”,International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 485-509.
Ke, Y., Wang, S., Chan, A.P. and Cheung, E. (2009), “Research trend of public-private partnership in
construction journals”,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,Vol.135No.10,
pp. 1076-1086.
Kelloway, E.K., Mullen, J. and Francis, L. (2006), “Divergent effects of transformational and passive
leadership on employee safety”,Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1, p. 76.
Klimoski, R. and Mohammed, S. (1994), “Team mental model: construct or metaphor?”,Journal of
Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 403-437.
Koh, T.Y. and Rowlinson, S. (2012), “Relational approach in managing construction project safety:
a social capital perspective”,Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 48, pp. 134-144.
Kozlowski, S.W. and Ilgen, D.R. (2006), “Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams”,
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 77-124.
Kraiger, K. and Wenzel, L.H. (1997), “Conceptual development and empirical evaluation of measures of
shared mental models as indicators of team effectiveness”,Team Performance Assessment and
Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Applications, Vol. 63, p. 84.
Langford, D., Rowlinson, S. and Sawacha, E. (2000), “Safety behaviour and safety management: its
influence on the attitudes of workers in the UK construction industry”,Engineering
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 133-140.
Latham, M. (1994), Constructing the Team: Final Report of the Government/industry Review of
Procurement and Contractual Arrangements in the UK Construction Industry, Hmso, London.
Leather, P.J. (1987), “Safety and accidents in the construction industry: a work design perspective”,
Work and Stress, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 167-174.
Leavitt, H.J. (1965), “Applied organizational change in industry, structural, technological and
humanistic approaches”,Handbook of Organizations, Vol. 264, pp. 1144-1170.
Lee, S. and Halpin, D.W. (2003), “Predictive tool for estimating accident risk”,Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 129 No. 4, pp. 431-436.
Lee, T. and Harrison, K. (2000), “Assessing safety culture in nuclear power stations”,Safety Science,
Vol. 34 Nos 1-3, pp. 61-97.
Leonard, M.W. and Frankel, A.S. (2011), “Role of effective teamwork and communication in delivering
safe, high-quality care”,Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and
Personalized Medicine, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 820-826.
IJBPA
Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988), “Organizational learning”,Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 319-338.
Levitt, R.E. and Samelson, N.M. (1993), Construction Safety Management, John Wiley & Sons.
Li, X., Wu, P., Shen, G.Q., Wang, X. and Teng, Y. (2017), “Mapping the knowledge domains of Building
Information Modeling (BIM): a bibliometric approach”,Automation in Construction,Vol.84,
pp. 195-206.
Liao, P.C., Lei, G., Xue, J. and Fang, D. (2015), “Influence of person-organizational fit on construction
safety climate”,Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 4, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.
1943-5479.0000257, available at: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid52-s2.0-
84931024516&doi510.1061%2f%28ASCE%29ME.1943-5479.0000257&partnerID540&md55
9eada1995f81d4b65171f044e583e24d
Lindsley, D., Mathieu, J., Heffner, T. and Brass, D. (1994), “Team efficacy, potency, and performance: a
longitudinal examination of reciprocal processes”,Paper presented at the Society of Industrial -
Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN, April.
Lindsley, D.H., Brass, D.J. and Thomas, J.B. (1995), “Efficacy-performing spirals: a multilevel
perspective”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 645-678.
Lingard, H. (2013), “Occupational health and safety in the construction industry”,Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 505-514.
Loo, R. (2002), “Working towards best practices in project management: a Canadian study”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 93-98.
L
opez, C.G.-G., Alonso, F.M., Morales, M.M. and Le
on, J.A.M. (2015), “Authentic leadership, group cohesion
and group identification in security and emergency teams”,Psicothema, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 59-64.
Love, P.E., Gunasekaran, A. and Li, H. (1998), “Concurrent engineering: a strategy for procuring
construction projects”,International Journal of Project Management,Vol.16No.6,
pp. 375-383.
Loveday, C., Lord, H., Ellwood, L., Bonnici, K., Decker, V. and Fernandez, R. (2020), “Teamwork and
social cohesion are key: nurses’perceptions and experiences of working in a new decentralised
intensive care unit”,Australian Critical Care, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 263-268.
Lunenburg, F.C. (2011), “Self-efficacy in the workplace: implications for motivation and performance”,
International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-6.
Ma, Z., Shen, Q. and Zhang, J. (2005), “Application of 4D for dynamic site layout and management of
construction projects”,Automation in Construction, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 369-381.
MacKenzie, J., Gibb, A. and Bouchlaghem, N. (2000), Communication: The Key to Designing Safely,
Publication-European Construction Institute TF, pp. 77-84.
MacMillan, J., Entin, E.E. and Serfaty, D. (2004), “Communication overhead: the hidden cost of team
cognition”, in Salas, E. and Fiore, S.M. (Eds), Team Cognition: Understanding the Factors that
Drive Process and Performance, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
pp. 61-82.
Mahmoudi, S., Ghasemi, F., Mohammadfam, I. and Soleimani, E. (2014), “Framework for continuous
assessment and improvement of occupational health and safety issues in construction
companies”,Safety and Health at Work, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 125-130.
Manuele, F.A. (2008), Advanced Safety Management Focusing on Z10 and Serious Injury Prevention,
Wiley Online Library.
Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E. and Zaccaro, S.J. (2001), “A temporally based framework and taxonomy of
team processes”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 356-376.
Masayuki, N. (2006), “Current activities for improvement of construction occupational health and
safety in Japan”,4th Quarter Master Builders Association Malaysia, pp. 88-95.
Mathieu, J.E., Heffner, T.S., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2000), “The influence of shared
mental models on team process and performance”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 2, p. 273.
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
Mearns, K., Whitaker, S.M. and Flin, R. (2003), “Safety climate, safety management practice and safety
performance in offshore environments”,Safety Science, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 641-680.
Meiling, J., Backlund, F. and Johnsson, H. (2012), “Managing for continuous improvement in off-site
construction”,Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 141-158.
Michael, J.H., Evans, D.D., Jansen, K.J. and Haight, J.M. (2005), “Management commitment to safety as
organizational support: relationships with non-safety outcomes in wood manufacturing
employees”,Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 171-179.
Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R. and Sonntag, K. (2009), “Affective commitment to change and innovation
implementation behavior: the role of charismatic leadership and employees’trust in top
management”,Journal of Change Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 399-417.
Miles, J.R. and Kivlighan, D.M. Jr. (2008), “Team cognition in group interventions: the relation between
coleaders’shared mental models and group climate”,Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, Vol. 12 No. 3, p. 191.
Mills, T.M. (1984), The Sociology of Small Groups, Prentice Hall.
Mischel, L.J. and Northcraft, G.B. (1997), “‘I think we can, I think we can...’: the role of efficacy beliefs in
group and team effectiveness”, in Markovsky B. and Lovaglia, M.J. (Eds), Advances in Group
Processes, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, Vol. 14, pp. 177-197.
Mitropoulos, P. and Memarian, B. (2012a), “A framework of teamwork attributes affecting workers’
safety”, Proceedings of Construction Research Congress 2012, ASCE, Reston, VA, pp. 1400-1409.
Mitropoulos, P. and Memarian, B. (2012b), “Team processes and safety of workers: cognitive, affective,
and behavioral processes of construction crews”,Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 138 No. 10, pp. 1181-1191.
Mitropoulos, P., Abdelhamid, T.S. and Howell, G.A. (2005), “Systems model of construction
accident causation”,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,Vol.131No.7,
pp. 816-825.
Mohamed, S. (2002), “Safety climate in construction site environments”,Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 128 No. 5, pp. 375-384.
Mohammadi, A., Tavakolan, M. and Khosravi, Y. (2018), “Factors influencing safety performance on
construction projects: a review”,Safety Science, Vol. 109, pp. 382-397.
Mohammed, S. and Ringseis, E. (2001), “Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making:
the role of inputs, processes, and outcomes”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 310-335.
Mohammed, S., Hamilton, K. and Lim, A. (2009), “The incorporation of time in team research: past,
current, and future”,Team Effectiveness in Complex Organizations: Cross-Disciplinary
Perspectives and Approaches, pp. 321-348.
Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L. and Hamilton, K. (2010), “Metaphor no more: a 15-year review of the team
mental model construct”,Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 876-910.
Molenaar, K.R., Park, J.-I. and Washington, S. (2009), “Framework for measuring corporate safety
culture and its impact on construction safety performance”,Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 135 No. 6, pp. 488-496.
Moore, D.R. and Dainty, A.R. (2001), “Intra-team boundaries as inhibitors of performance
improvement in UK design and build projects: a call for change”,Construction Management
and Economics, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 559-562.
Moss, S.A., Dowling, N. and Callanan, J. (2009), “Towards an integrated model of leadership and self
regulation”,The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 162-176.
Moultrie, J., Nilsson, M., Dissel, M., Haner, U.E., Janssen, S. and Van der Lugt, R. (2007), “Innovation
spaces: towards a framework for understanding the role of the physical environment in
innovation”,Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
IJBPA
M€
uller, R. and Turner, R. (2010), “Leadership competency profiles of successful project managers”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 437-448.
Mudrack, P.E. (1989), “Group cohesiveness and productivity: a closer look”,Human Relations, Vol. 42
No. 9, pp. 771-785.
Mullen, B. and Copper, C. (1994), “The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: an
integration”,Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 115 No. 2, p. 210.
Mullen, J.E. and Kelloway, E.K. (2009), “Safety leadership: a longitudinal study of the effects of
transformational leadership on safety outcomes”,Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 253-272.
Munroe, K., Terry, P. and Carron, A. (2002), “Cohesion and teamwork”, In Hale, B. and Collins, D.
(Eds), Human Kinetics, Rugby Tough, Champaign, IL, pp. 137-154.
Musson, D.M. and Helmreich, R.L. (2004), “Team training and resource management in health care:
current issues and future directions”,Harvard Health Policy Review,Vol.5No.1,pp.25-35.
Neal, A. and Griffin, M.A. (2006), “A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety
motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels”,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 4, p. 946.
Neal, A., Griffin, M.A. and Hart, P.M. (2000), “The impact of organizational climate on safety climate
and individual behavior”,Safety Science, Vol. 34 Nos 1-3, pp. 99-109.
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982), An Evolutionnary Theory of Economic Change, Mass, Belknap
Harvard, Cambridge, London.
Nembhard, I.M. and Edmondson, A.C. (2012), “Psychological safety”,inThe Oxford Handbook of
Positive Organizational Scholarship.
Nesan, L.J. and Holt, G.D. (1999), Empowerment in Construction: The Way Forward for Performance
Improvement, Somerset Research Series, Research Studies Press, Baldock, Herefordshire.
Newaz, M.T., Davis, P.R., Jefferies, M. and Pillay, M. (2018), “Developing a safety climate factor model
in construction research and practice”,Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 738-757.
O’Neill, T.A. and Salas, E. (2018), “Creating high performance teamwork in organizations”,Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 325-331.
Odiorne, G. (1991), “The new breed of supervisor: leaders in self-managed work teams”,Supervision,
Vol. 52 No. 8, pp. 14-17.
Olivera, F. and Argote, L. (1999), “Organizational learning and new product development: CORE
processes”,Shared Cognition in Organizations: The Management of Knowledge,
pp. 297-326.
Osei-Kyei, R. (2018), “A best practice framework for public-private partnership implementation for
infrastructure development in Ghana”,Benchmarking : An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 8,
pp. 2806-2827.
Osei-Kyei, R. and Chan, A.P. (2015), “Review of studies on the critical success factors for public–
private partnership (PPP) projects from 1990 to 2013”,International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1335-1346.
Othman, M.Z. (2016), “A strategy towards team integration practice for improving the design and
construction process in the Malaysian industrialized building system projects”,International
Review of Management and Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 8S, pp. 226-229.
Pandit, B., Albert, A., Patil, Y. and Al-Bayati, A.J. (2019), “Fostering safety communication among
construction workers: role of safety climate and crew-level cohesion”,International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 16 No. 1, 71.
Park, C.-S. and Kim, H.-J. (2013), “A framework for construction safety management and visualization
system”,Automation in Construction, Vol. 33, pp. 95-103.
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
Pati, D., Harvey, T.E. Jr. and Pati, S. (2014), “Physical design correlates of efficiency and safety in
emergency departments: a qualitative examination”,Critical Care Nursing Quarterly, Vol. 37
No. 3, pp. 299-316.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors”,The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142.
Pousette, A., Larsson, S. and T€
orner, M. (2008), “Safety climate cross-validation, strength and
prediction of safety behaviour”,Safety Science, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 398-404.
Probst, T.M. (2004), “Safety and insecurity: exploring the moderating effect of organizational safety
climate”,Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, p. 3.
Rajendran, S., Gambatese, J.A. and Behm, M.G. (2009), “Impact of green building design and
construction on worker safety and health”,Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 135 No. 10, pp. 1058-1066.
Randall, T. (2011), “Construction engineering requirements for integrating laser scanning technology
and building information modeling”,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 137 No. 10, pp. 797-805.
Raoufi, M. and Fayek, A.R. (2018), “Key moderators of the relationship between construction crew
motivation and performance”,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 144
No. 6, 04018047.
Rashid, M. (2009), “Hospital design and face to face interaction among Clinicians: a theoretical model”,
HERD: Health Environments Research and Design Journal, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 62-84.
Rico, R., S
anchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F. and Gibson, C. (2008), “Team implicit coordination processes: a
team knowledge–based approach”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 163-184.
Roberts, D.S. and Geller, E.S. (1995), “An “actively caring”model for occupational safety: a field test”,
Applied and Preventive Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 53-59.
Rocha, R.S. (2010), “Institutional effects on occupational health and safety management systems”,Human
Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries,Vol.20No.3,pp.211-225.
Roy, M. (2003), “Self-directed workteams and safety: a winning combination?”,Safety Science, Vol. 41
No. 4, pp. 359-376.
Sacks, R., Perlman, A. and Barak, R. (2013), “Construction safety training using immersive virtual
reality”,Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 31 No. 9, pp. 1005-1017.
Salanova, M., Llorens, S. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2011), “‘Yes, I can, I feel good, and I just do it!’On
gain cycles and spirals of efficacy beliefs, affect, and engagement”,Applied Psychology,
Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 255-285.
Salas, E., Dickinson, T.L., Converse, S.A. and Tannenbaum, S.I. (1992), “Toward an understanding of
team performance and training”, in Swezey, R.W. and Salas, E. (Eds), Teams: Their Training
and Performance, pp. 3-29.
Salas, S., Sims, D. and Burke, C. (2005), “Is there a “big five”in teamwork?”,Small Gr Res, Vol. 36, pp. 555-599.
Salas, E., Cooke, N.J. and Rosen, M.A. (2008), “On teams, teamwork, and team performance: discoveries
and developments”,Human Factors, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 540-547.
Salas, E., King, H.B. and Rosen, M. (2012), “Improving teamwork and safety: toward a practical
systems approach, a commentary on Deneckere et al”,Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 75
No. 6, pp. 986-989.
Salas, E., Fiore, S.M. and Letsky, M.P. (2013), Theories of Team Cognition: Cross-Disciplinary
Perspectives, Routledge.
Salas, E., Shuffler, M.L., Thayer, A.L., Bedwell, W.L. and Lazzara, E.H. (2015), “Understanding and
improving teamwork in organizations: a scientifically based practical guide”,Human Resource
Management, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 599-622.
IJBPA
Sawacha, E., Naoum, S. and Fong, D. (1999), “Factors affecting safety performance on construction
sites”,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 309-315.
Schein, E.H. and Bennis, W.G. (1965), Personal and Organizational Change through Group Methods:
the Laboratory Approach, Wiley, New York.
Schneider, B. (1975), “Organizational climates: an essay 1”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 447-479.
Schroeder, R.G. (1985), Operations Management: Decision Making in the Operations Function,
McGraw-Hill Companies.
Sessa, V.I. and London, M. (2008), Work Group Learning: Understanding, Improving and Assessing
How Groups Learn in Organizations, Psychology Press.
Shafai-Sahrai, Y. (1972), “An inquiry into factors that might explain differences in occupational
accident experience of similar size FIRMS in the same industry”, Division of Research,
Graduate School of Business Administration, Michigan State University Press, East Lansing,
Michigan, 1971.
Shaikh, A.Y., Osei-Kyei, R. and Hardie, M. (2020), “A critical analysis of safety performance indicators
in construction”,International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, Vol. 39 No. 3,
pp. 547-580.
Shannon, H.S., Robson, L.S. and Sale, J.E. (2001), “Creating safer and healthier workplaces: role of
organizational factors and job characteristics”,American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 319-334.
Shea, G.P. and Guzzo, R.A. (1987), “Groups as human resources”,Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, Vol. 5, pp. 323-356.
Skeepers, N.C. and Mbohwa, C. (2015), “A study on the leadership behaviour, safety leadership and
safety performance in the construction industry in South Africa”,Procedia Manufacturing,
Vol. 4, pp. 10-16.
Sluiter, J.K. (2006), “High-demand jobs: age-related diversity in work ability?”,Applied Ergonomics,
Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 429-440.
Smallwood, J. (2000), The Holistic Influence of Design on Construction Health and Safety: General
Contractor Perceptions, Publication-European Construction Institute TF, pp. 27-36.
Smith-Crowe, K., Burke, M.J. and Landis, R.S. (2003), “Organizational climate as a moderator of safety
knowledge–safety performance relationships”,Journal of Organizational Behavior: The
International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior,
Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 861-876.
Starren, A., Hornikx, J. and Luijters, K. (2013), “Occupational safety in multicultural teams and
organizations: a research agenda”,Safety Science, Vol. 52, pp. 43-49.
Stewart, J. (2001), “The turnaround in safety at the Kenora pulp and paper mill”,Professional Safety,
Vol. 46 No. 12, p. 34.
Stogdill, R.M. (1972), “Group productivity, drive, and cohesiveness”,Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 26-43.
Sulankivi, K., Makela, T. and Kiviniemi, M. (2009), “BIM-based site layout and safety planning”,VTT
Symposium (Valtion Teknillinen Tutkimuskeskus), pp. 125-140.
Sundstrom, E. and Altman, I. (1989), “Physical environments and work-group effectiveness”,Research
in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11, pp. 175-209.
Sundstrom, E., Sundstrom, M.G. and Eric, S. (1986), Work Places: the Psychology of the Physical
Environment in Offices and Factories, CUP Archive.
Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K.P. and Futrell, D. (1990), “Work teams: applications and effectiveness”,
American Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, p. 120.
Swanson, R.A. (1999), HRD Theory, Real or Imagined?, Taylor & Francis.
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
Tabassi, A.A. and 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, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 471-480.
Tesluk, P.E. and Mathieu, J.E. (1999), “Overcoming roadblocks to effectiveness: incorporating
management of performance barriers into models of work group effectiveness”,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 2, p. 200.
Tijani, B., Osei-Kyei, R. and Feng, Y. (2020), “A review of work-life balance in the construction
industry”,International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 22 No. 14, pp. 1-16.
T€
orner, M. and Pousette, A. (2009), “Safety in construction–a comprehensive description of the
characteristics of high safety standards in construction work, from the combined perspective
of supervisors and experienced workers”,Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 40 No. 6,
pp. 399-409.
Trethewy, R.W. and Atkinson, M. (2003), “Enhanced safety, health and environment outcomes
through improved design”,Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 187-201.
Trope, Y. and Liberman, N. (2000), “Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 6, p. 876.
Urban, J.M., Weaver, J.L., Bowers, C.A. and Rhodenizer, L. (1996), “Effects of workload and structure
on team processes and performance: implications for complex team decision making”,Human
Factors, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 300-310.
Varonen, U. and Mattila, M. (2000), “The safety climate and its relationship to safety practices, safety
of the work environment and occupational accidents in eight wood-processing companies”,
Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 761-769.
Vinodkumar, M. and Bhasi, M. (2010), “Safety management practices and safety behaviour: assessing
the mediating role of safety knowledge and motivation”,Accident Analysis and Prevention,
Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 2082-2093.
Volmer, J. (2012), “Catching leaders’mood: contagion effects in teams”,Administrative Sciences, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 203-220.
Wech, B.A., Mossholder, K.W., Steel, R.P. and Bennett, N. (1998), “Does work group cohesiveness
affect individuals’performance and organizational commitment? A cross-level examination”,
Small Group Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 472-494.
Weinstein, M., Gambatese, J. and Hecker, S. (2005), “Can design improve construction safety?:
assessing the impact of a collaborative safety-in-design process”,Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 131 No. 10, pp. 1125-1134.
Wentz, C.A. (1998), Safety, Health, and Environmental Protection, McGraw-Hill Companies.
Wild, A. (2002), “The unmanageability of construction and the theoretical psycho-social dynamics of
projects”,Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 345-351.
Wildman, J.L., Thayer, A.L., Pavlas, D., Salas, E., Stewart, J.E. and Howse, W.R. (2012), “Team knowledge
research: emerging trends and critical needs”,Human Factors, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 84-111.
Wittenbaum, G.M., Stasser, G. and Merry, C.J. (1996), “Tacit coordination in anticipation of small
grouptaskcompletion”,Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,Vol.32No.2,
pp. 129-152.
Workcover, A. (2001), “Construction hazard assessment implication review–CHAIR”, available at:
www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/Publications/OHS/SafetyGuides/chairsafetyindesigntool. htm
Wu, T.-C., Chen, C.-H. and Li, C.-C. (2008), “A correlation among safety leadership, safety climate and
safety performance”,Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 307-318.
Yang, C.-C., Wang, Y.-S., Chang, S.-T., Guo, S.-E. and Huang, M.-F. (2009), “A study on the leadership
behavior, safety culture, and safety performance of the healthcare industry”,World Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 1148-1155.
IJBPA
Yin, J., Ma, Z., Yu, H., Jia, M. and Liao, G. (2019), “Transformational leadership and employee
knowledge sharing: explore the mediating roles of psychological safety and team efficacy”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 150-171.
Yiu, N.S., Chan, D.W., Shan, M. and Sze, N. (2019), “Implementation of safety management system in
managing construction projects: benefits and obstacles”,Safety Science, Vol. 117, pp. 23-32.
Yuan, H. and Shen, L. (2011), “Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste
management”,Waste Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 670-679.
Zaccaro, S.J., Blair, V., Peterson, C. and Zazanis, M. (1995), “Collective efficacy”,inSelf-efficacy,
Adaptation, and Adjustment, Springer, pp. 305-328.
Zacharatos, A., Barling, J. and Iverson, R.D. (2005), “High-performance work systems and occupational
safety”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 1, p. 77.
Zborowsky, T., Bunker-Hellmich, L., Morelli, A. and O’Neill, M. (2010), “Centralized vs decentralized
nursing stations: effects on nurses’functional use of space and work environment”,HERD:
Health Environments Research and Design Journal, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 19-42.
Zhou, Z., Goh, Y.M. and Li, Q. (2015), “Overview and analysis of safety management studies in the
construction industry”,Safety Science, Vol. 72, pp. 337-350.
Zimmerer, T.W. and Yasin, M.M. (1998), “A leadership profile of American project managers”,Project
Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 31-38.
Zohar, D. (1980), “Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 1, p. 96.
Zohar, D. and Luria, G. (2005), “A multilevel model of safety climate: cross-level relationships between
organization and group-level climates”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4, p. 616.
Zou, P.X. (2011), “Fostering a strong construction safety culture”,Leadership and Management in
Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 11-22.
Zwetsloot, G. (2000), Developments and Debates on OHSM System Standardisation and Certification,
Pergamon, Amsterdam.
Corresponding author
Aziz Yousif Shaikh can be contacted at: 16419621@student.westernsydney.edu.au
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
Appendix 1
No. Journal names Short names
1Journal of Construction Engineering Management JCEM
2Safety Science SS
3Automation in Construction AIC
4Ergonomics E
5Work and Stress W&S
6Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management JOCHRM
7Human Resource Management Review HRMR
8Construction Management and Economics CME
9European Management Journal EMJ
10 The Journal of Psychology JOP
11 European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology EJW&OP
12 Journal of Construction Research JCR
13 European Journal of Innovation Management EJIM
14 Journal of Workplace Behavioural Health JOWBH
15 Psychology of Sport and Exercise PS&E
16 Reliability Engineering and System Safety RE&SS
17 Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice GD:TR & P
18 International Journal of Construction Education and Research IJCE&R
19 Journal of Safety Research JSR
20 Social Science and Medicine SS&M
21 Journal of Organisational Behaviour JOB
22 The Leadership Quarterly TLQ
23 Journal of Applied Psychology JOAP
24 Health Environments Research and Design Journal HERDJ
25 International Journal of Management Reviews IJMR
26 Journal of Management JOM
27 Human Resource Management HRM
28 Engineering Management Journal EMJ
29 Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research JOH&TR
30 Small Group Research SGR
31 American Psychologist AP
32 Human Factors HF
33 Australian Health Review AHR
34 Safety S
35 Health Services Research HSR
36 International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation IJBPA
Source(s): Appendix Table A1 by Shaikh et al
Table A1.
List of selected papers
on drivers of teamwork
on safety performance,
1997–2021
IJBPA
Appendix 2
No. Year Authors Journal
1 2018 Karakhan, A.A., Rajendran, S., Gambatese, J. and Nnaji, C JCEM
2 2005 Weinstain, M., Gambatese, J. and Hecker, S JCEM
3 2018 Raoufi, M. and Fayek, A.R JCEM
4 2007 Fong, P.S.W. and Lung, B.W.C JCEM
5 2016 Franz, B., Leicht, R., Molenaar, K. and Messner, J JCEM
6 2009 Mitropoulos, P., Cupido, G. and Namboodiri, M JCEM
7 2007 Gambatese, J., behm, M. and Rajendran, S SS
8 2012 Antonio, R.S., Isabel, O.M., Gabriel, P.S.J. and Angel, U.C SS
9 2007 Aksorn, T. and Hadikusumo, B.H.W SS
10 2012 Brondino, M., Silva, S.A. and Pasini, M SS
11 2012 Burtscher, M.J. and Manser, T SS
12 2017 Newman, A., Donohue, R. and Eva, N HRMR
13 2018 Neill, T.A. and Salas, E HRMR
14 2017 Driskell, T., Salas, E. and Driskell, J.E HRMR
15 2012 Park, C.S. and Kim, H.J AIC
16 2013 Chi, H.L., Kang, S.C. and Wang, X AIC
17 2001 Mohammed, S. and Dumville, B.C JOB
18 2006 Lim, B.C and Klein, K.J JOB
19 2003 Driskell, J.E., Radtke, P.H. and Salas, E GD:TR &P
20 2010 DeChurch, L.A. and Mesmer-Magnus, J.R GD:TR &P
21 2015 Guchait, P., Lei, P. and Tews, M.J JOP
22 2018 Dimas, I.D., Rebelo, T., Lourenco, P.R. and Pessoa, CI.P JOP
23 2000 Mathieu, J.E., Heffner, T.S., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, A JOAP
24 2007 Becker, F HERDJ
25 2015 Ammeter, A.P. and Dukerich, J.M EMJ
26 2018 Driskell, J.E., Salas, E. and Driskell, T AP
27 2000 Mickan, S. and Rodger, S AHR
28 2009 Antoni, C. and Hertel, G EJW&OP
29 2010 Rafferty, L.A, Stanton, N.A.and Walker, G.H E
30 2019 Ohlander, U., Alfredson, J., Riveiro, M. and Falkman, G E
31 2001 Zaccaro, S.J., Rittman, A.L. and Marks, M.A TLQ
32 2006 Baker, D.P., Day, R. and Salas, E HSR
33 2017 Vera, M., Rodriguez-Sanchez, A.M. and Salanova, M JOWBH
34 2000 Salas, E., Burke, C.S. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A IJMR
35 2015 Chow, L.J., Then, D. and Skitmore, M JCR
36 2007 Rasmussen, T.H. and Jeppesen, H.J W&S
37 2015 Beek, D.V.D. and Schraagen, J.M RE&SS
38 2017 Andersen, L.P., Nordam, L., Joensson, T., Kines, P. and Nielsen, K.J CME
39 2015 Santos, C.M., Passos, A.M. and Uitdewilligen, S EMJ
40 2010 Sumner, M. and Slattery, D IJCE&R
41 2005 Davison, G. and Blackman, D EJIM
42 2015 Salas, E., Shuffler, M.L., Thayer, A.L., Bedwell, W.L. and Lazzara, E.H HRM
43 2008 Salas, E., Cooke, N.J. and Rosen, M.A HF
44 2015 Pearsall, M.J JOM
45 2017 Alomari, K., Gambatese, J. and Anderson, J S
46 2011 Tung, H.L. and Chang, Y.S JOCHRM
47 2012 Salas, E., King, H.B. and Rosen, M.A SS &M
48 2018 Magpili, N.C. and Pazos, P SGR
49 2009 Mitropolous, M.T. and Cupido, G JSR
50 2019 Morgan, P.B.C., Fletcher, D. and Sarkar, M PS&E
51 1999 Bartlett, A.L., Probber, J. and Muhamed, S JOH&TR
52 2020 Shaikh, A.Y., Osei-Kyei, R. and Hardie, M IJBPA
53 2012 Mitropolous, P. and Memarian, B JCEM
Source(s): Appendix Table A2 by Shaikh et al
Table A2.
List of selected papers
on drivers of teamwork
on safety performance
Review of
drivers of
teamwork
