Job Performance Dimensions for Improving Final Project
Outcomes
Eddie W. L. Cheng1; Heng Li2; and Paul Fox3
Abstract: Job performance is argued to be substantially influential to project performance. However, existing construction management
literature pays less attention to job performance issues, not to mention exploring the relationship between job performance and project
performance. This study therefore aims at examining the effects of job performance on project performance. Four categories
task,
behavior, management, and self of job performance dimensions were extracted by means of an exploratory factor analysis. A hypoth-
esized model is developed, which specifies the relationships between the four job performance categories
independent variables and
overall project performance
the dependent variable. The model was tested using path analysis. Results indicate that the task category of
job performance
consisting of nine dimensions is significantly related to final project outcomes. Specifically, for the success of a project,
a construction company must consider how to ensure employees are equipped with such attributes as responsibility, quality of work,
ability, job knowledge, experience, efficiency, accuracy, judgment, and initiative.
DOI: 10.1061/
ASCE0733-9364
2007133:8
592
CE Database subject headings: Personnel management; Project management; Construction management; Organizations; Statistics.
Introduction
Project success is the ultimate goal of every construction project.
To determine whether the project is completed as expected, final
project performance must be evaluated
Barraza et al. 2004. It is
common that there are various degrees of variation between the
predicted and the actual project performance. This mismatch is
known to be associated with the fact that project performance is
influenced by such project characteristics as job performance,
project complexity, equipment and materials, techniques, and
tools, to name just a few. In order to ensure the achievement of
project success, it is crucial to understand the impacts of these
characteristics on project performance.
Among other project characteristics, job performance is argued
to be substantially influential to project performance. According
to Ireland
2004, project costs would reduce by up to 10% and
project times by up to 20% if project participants possessed the
required professional standards. He further supported the achieve-
ment of good project performance through greater commitment to
job performance. Katerberg and Blau
1983 stated that, at a more
general level, successful job performance is important to both
individuals and organizations. As compared to processes and sys-
tems, people are active players in achieving project outcomes

Cooke-Davies 2001. Due to the “fragmented” nature of con-
struction projects, job performance evaluation is more vital to
project management since employees play a crucial role in such
project activities as communication, coordination, problem solv-
ing, and project team cooperation
Cheng et al. 2000. This is
consistent with Borman and Motowidlo
1997a who envisaged
that more emphasis should be placed on understanding contextual
aspects of job performance
e.g., cooperation, interest due to the
synthesis of team-based organizational structure.
Although employee performance is expected to directly affect
organizational performance, job performance evaluation, also
known as performance appraisal
Woods et al. 1998, is surpris-
ingly not a usual practice of many construction companies. As
revealed in a study conducted by Hanna and Brusoe
1997, only
31% of the respondents in the United States admitted that their
companies had job performance evaluations and companies with
less income or smaller size are less willing to evaluate employee
performance.
Since construction projects involve many interdependent work
processes, job performance has to be measured on multiple di-
mensions, such as the quality and quantity of work
Borman
1991; Meyer et al. 1989. It is argued that different dimensions
may have different levels of impact on organizations
including
project performance
Conway 1999; Vinchor et al. 1998; Viswes-
varan et al. 1996. Revealing their individual effects helps
construction companies improve their current human resource
practices. For example, Moore et al.
2003 stressed the role
played by performance management in selection and develop-
ment, which can alleviate interest and role conflicts by selecting
newcomers with the attribute of conflict avoidance and by devel-
oping current staff with the ability to manage conflict resolution.
However, existing construction management literature pays
less attention to job performance issues, not to mention exploring
the relationship between job performance and project perfor-
mance. Moore et al.
2003 empirically identified key behavioral
competencies for superior construction managers. They focused
1Lecturer, School of Management, Queensland Univ. of Technology,
2 George Str., Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia
corresponding author.
E-mail: e.cheng@qut.edu.au
2Professor, Dept. of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong
Polytechnic Univ., Hong Kong.
3Assistant Professor, Dept. of Building and Real Estate, The Hong
Kong Polytechnic Univ., Hong Kong.
Note. Discussion open until January 1, 2008. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on October 14, 2005; approved on February 22, 2007.
This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering and Man-
agement, Vol. 133, No. 8, August 1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/
2007/8-592–599/$25.00.
592 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / AUGUST 2007

mainly on specific contextual performance attributes maintaining
work-related behavior. More recently, Parker and Skitmore
2005
found that turnover has a significant, negative relationship with
project team performance as well as project performance. In con-
sidering the findings of these studies, the present research goes a
step further to examine the effects of various aspects of job per-
formance on project performance. It attempts to understand how
performers can facilitate the success of a project. It addresses the
research problem by use of empirical research, and the objectives
are stated at the end of the literature review.
Following the review of relevant literature, the paper explains
sequentially the research methods, the measures used, the analy-
sis, and the results. Finally, there is a discussion section and
conclusion.
Literature Review of Job Performance and Project
Performance
Job Performance Measures
For the workforce to improve constantly, employee performance
must be evaluated and monitored regularly
Hanna and Brusoe
1997. Employee performance can be defined as the achieved
work outcomes for each job function during a specified period of
time
Deadrick and Gardner 2000. As noted by Shaout and Al-
Shammari
1998, p. 323, performance evaluation or appraisal is
“a formal, structured system of measuring and evaluating an em-
ployee’s job related attributes, behaviors, and outcomes to assess
an employee’s productivity and judge whether he or she will per-
form as or more effectively in the future, so that the employee, the
organization, and society all benefit.” Through the years, job per-
formance has been a primary topic of empirical inquiry in applied
psychology and management areas.
Of the different ways to measure job performance, researchers
have debated about the use of subjective
less quantifiable and
objective
easily quantified measures
Horowitz and Zappe 1995;
Vinchor et al. 1998. Proponents of objective measures have sug-
gested their advantages to reduce both intentional and uninten-
tional biases
e.g., leniency and halo errors
e.g., Siders et al.
2001. Yet, the most prevalent method is by means of perfor-
mance ratings, which are subjective evaluations obtained from
sources including supervisors, peers, subordinates, self, or even
customers, with supervisors being the most commonly used
source followed by peers
Bernardin and Beatty 1984; Cascio
1998; Cleveland et al. 1989; Viswesvaran et al. 1996. It is also
noted that when studying dimensions of performance, researchers
usually measure job performance using subjective supervisory
ratings
Meyer et al. 1989; Steers 1977.
On the other hand, job performance measures are known to be
criterion measures
Campbell et al. 1993; Cleveland et al. 1989.
Researchers of this school have investigated different clusters of
performance criteria. For example, Borman and Motowidlo

1997b classified job performance into task performance
job-
specific behaviors, such as core job responsibilities and contex-
tual performance
nonjob-specific behaviors, such as cooperation,
interest. Viswesvaran et al.
1996, in their metaanalysis study of
the reliability of job performance ratings, cited the work of
Viswesvaran
1993 who empirically identified ten popular com-
ponent dimensions of job performance and stated that they com-
prehensively represented the entire job performance domain.
They are productivity, quality, leadership, communication compe-
tence, administrative competence, effort, interpersonal compe-
tence, job knowledge, compliance with or acceptance of authority,
and overall job performance. Recently, the study of Hanna and
Brusoe
1997 identified 26 criteria for evaluating supervisors’ job
performance in electrical construction contractors, which include
leadership, personal conduct, communication skills, quality of
work, ability to deal with problems, delegation of responsibility,
work ethic, initiative, accepts responsibility, ability to work with
others, and knowledge of work. Dainty et al.
2003, based on
their logistic regression analysis, found 12 competencies helping
to distinguish between superior and average performers. These
competencies are achievement orientation, initiative, information
seeking, focus on client’s needs, impact and influence, directive-
ness, teamwork and cooperation, team leadership, analytical
thinking, conceptual thinking, self-control, and flexibility.
Empirical studies have also been carried out in extracting dif-
ferent categories of job performance dimensions
e.g., Borman
and Motowidlo 1997b. For example, Conway
1999 studied the
contextual and task performance distinction to managerial work.
Results suggested that while both the interpersonal facilitation
and job dedication facets of contextual performance and the
technical–administrative task performance would contribute
significantly to overall managerial performance, peers and super-
visors paid more attention to interpersonal facilitation and task
performance, respectively. Lee and Nagaraj
1988 used second-
ary data of a sample of assembly bench workers in an electronics
company to examine eight job performance attributes. They per-
formed factor analysis and extracted two principal components,
which are called as positive
job knowledge, speed, quality,
attitude and attendance and negative
initiative, leadership and
communication. Igbaria
1991 studied the antecedents and con-
sequences of job performance of management information system

MIS professionals. The resulting factor analysis of 17 job per-
formance qualities produced two categories of job performance
measures. Task category consists of ability, job knowledge, pro-
ductivity, creativity, quality of work, initiative, judgment, plan-
ning, accuracy, and responsibility. Relationship category consists
of cooperation, honesty, interpersonal relationship, attitude, de-
pendability, communication skills, and punctuality. Another re-
search group in the United Kingdom, when studying superior
managers’ behavioral attributes, extracted nine factors of perfor-
mance effectiveness criteria for construction, which are team
building, leadership, decision making, trust, honesty and integrity,
communication, understanding and applications, self-motivation,
and external relations
Moore et al. 2003; Dainty et al. 2003. Due
to their small sample size
n=20 and the unfavorable extraction
summary of their factor analysis, more rigorous empirical re-
search is worth undertaking.
Project Performance Measures
In the construction industry, project participants are concerned
very much about project performance. Project performance evalu-
ation is essential to determine if a project is a success or failure. It
appears that time
schedule, cost, and quality are among the most
well known measures of project performance
e.g., Brown and
Adams 2000; McKim et al. 2000. Moreover, other useful perfor-
mance measures have been explored. For example, safety mea-
sure is suggested
e.g., Oberlander 1993. Constructs of value and
effectiveness were also suggested
e.g., Alarcón and Ashley 1996,
1998. Work progress was used in the study of Barraza et al.

2000.
Different theoretical frameworks have been developed to un-
derstand the mechanisms underlying project performance issues.
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / AUGUST 2007 / 593