The construction industry is stressful and concerns for workers’ psychological well-being (PWB) are on the rise with the high prevalence of mental health problems. However, there is currently no clear framework or system in the mainstream construction literature to guide management practices such as allocating resources, optimizing work systems, and supporting worker well-being. In this study, a state-of-the-art review was conducted on PWB constructs and the associated theoretical perspectives. This review of theories and dimensions aims to provide a more complete account of the factors associated with PWB and provide more systemic guidance for organizations. Drawing on a three-dimensional taxonomy of PWB in social science literature, this study identified five themes of PWB antecedents in the construction community: motivational, relational, working environment, personal attributes, and social cognitive. Findings in this study could contribute to both PWB theory development and management practices. Theoretically, this review introduced more clarity to PWB theories in the construction literature, linking different dimensions of PWB constructs with their antecedents. This also allows for identifying future research avenues to expand the boundaries of the existing body of knowledge. Practically, management practices are offered to support management, policy makers, and decision makers to optimize and improve health and well-being strategies in the construction industry.

Purpose: The global pandemic has required organisational leaders to respond rapidly in a time of uncertainty. A specific challenge for leaders during the global pandemic is the salient and immediate threat to worker health and well-being. Unfortunately, the consequences of different leadership actions in this context are not well understood. By exploring the path from leader behaviour to employee well-being via experienced work characteristics, this study aims to provide a framework for better understanding pandemic threat and corresponding leadership impact.Design/methodology/approach: Two prevention-focused leadership strategies were explored: defend and adapt strategy. Two important work characteristics role clarity and workload were used to help explain the links between leadership strategies and well-being. Potential mediating pathways were tested in path analysis with Mplus (v7.4) based on 515 online survey responses.Findings: Different mediating pathways demonstrated complex associations between the constructs. Increases in the both prevention-focused leadership strategies were found associated with positive well-being by increasing employees' perceptions of leadership and by improving role clarity in the workplace. Notably, evidence also supported that increase in defend strategy was linked to reduced worker well-being through intensified workload.Originality/value: In times of uncertainty amidst the global COVID-19 pandemic, prevention-focused leadership is vital to engage the workforce and ensure compliance with safety procedures to avoid associated risks to worker health and organisational performance. This research focused on the rarely studied topic of prevention-focused leadership, and how prevention strategies were related to employee well-being. Based on the findings for prevention-focused defend and adapt strategies, this study suggested leadership practices that might shape employee well-being in a time of turbulence.

Cognitive biases would jeopardize the quality of decisions, yet people are reluctant to admit to being affected. This study explores the types of cognitive bias that may have influences on construction project dispute resolution (CPDR) decisions. Effects of cognitive biases are first operationalized as biased behaviors. Third-party neutrals, including arbitrators, adjudicators, and mediators, were asked to report their observations of disputing parties’ biased practices. The use of third-party neutrals aims to improve the objectivity of the data on disputing parties’ biased behaviors. Principal component factor analysis (PCFA) on the collected responses suggested four types of cognitive bias: preconception, self-affirmation, optimism, and interest-oriented biases. Among these, interest-oriented bias was found to be the most prominent. This study contributes to CPDR management by proposing bias-minimizing measures. Fuzzy-set linguistic evaluations were employed to assess the usefulness of the measures in view of the nondiscrete nature of the assessments. The findings were further validated through semistructured interviews with experienced dispute management experts. The contributions of the study include: (1) raising the awareness of the potential types of cognitive bias that would affect decisions in CPDR, (2) enhancing the role of third-party neutrals in directing disputing parties away from influences of biases, (3) reminding disputing parties not to undervalue the proposals of the counterparts, and (4) improving dispute management by suggesting a review of all options available at each round of dispute negotiation. Having experienced third-party neutrals as respondents is also a major breakthrough in the study of behaviors of disputing parties. The findings are invaluable to construction professional communities in general and to disputing parties and third-party neutrals in particular.

Purpose: This study aims to propose a framework of bias in construction project dispute resolution (CPDR hereafter).Design/methodology/approach: With reference to the literatures on effects of bias, manifestations of bias in CPDR were developed. Based on data obtained from construction professionals about their frequency of having these bias manifestations, the underlying constructs of biased behaviors were explored by a principal component factor analysis. A confirmatory factor analysis was further conducted to validate the framework of bias in CPDR.Findings: Four types of bias were identified as the constructs that underlie biased behaviors in CPDR. These four biases were included in the bias framework proposed: preconception, self-affirmation, optimism and interest-oriented. The potency of these types of bias was also evaluated.Practical implications: First, the findings inform that the existence of bias in CPDR is real. Early detection allows management to intervene and steer CPDR team back to rational courses. Second, this study suggests optimizing CPDR procedures to diminish the chance of bias occurring.Originality/value: Bias is almost an uncharted area in CPDR. The study fills this research gap by conceptualizing the underlying constructs of biased behaviors. The findings inform construction professionals of the likelihood of practicing biased behaviors in CPDR. Repeated dispute decisions in the commonly used multi-tiered dispute resolution process would enable the creeping in of biases.