Time pressure is a key psychosocial risk factor in the construction industry, potentially impairing workers’ safety behavior. However, the mechanisms linking different types of time pressure to safety outcomes remain underexplored.
Objective
This study examines how challenge and hindrance time pressures influence safety behavior among construction workers, focusing on the mediating roles of promotive and prohibitive voice behavior.
Methods
Data were collected through a two-wave survey from 275 construction workers in ChangSha, China. Structural equation modeling (SEM) using AMOS was applied to test the hypothesized relationships among time pressures, voice behaviors (promotive and prohibitive), and safety behavior.
Results
Challenge time pressure positively affects safety behavior via promotive voice, while hindrance time pressure negatively influences safety behavior through prohibitive voice. Promotive voice partially mediates the effect of challenge time pressure, and prohibitive voice fully mediates the effect of hindrance time pressure.
Conclusions
This study advances the understanding of time pressures’ dual effects on safety behavior by integrating Conservation of Resources theory and voice behavior mechanisms within a construction context, offering new insights for improving safety management practices.
SongHGaoRZhangQ, et al.The nonlinear effect of time pressure on innovation performance: New insights from a meta-analysis and an empirical study. Front Psychol2023; 13. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1049174
2.
GriffinMANealA. Perceptions of safety at work: a framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. J Occup Health Psychol2000; 5: 347–358.
3.
CavanaughMABoswellWRRoehlingMV, et al.An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. Managers. J Appl Psychol2000; 85: 65–74.
4.
KernMHeisslerCZapfD. Social job stressors can foster employee well-being: introducing the concept of social challenge stressors. J Bus Psychol2021; 36: 771–792.
5.
YokouchiNHashimotoH. Evolving self-concept in the workplace and associated experience of stress: a case of a large Japanese company. J Workplace Behav Health2020; 35: 175–192.
6.
KorbanZTaraszkiewicz-ŁydaM. The impact of time pressure on the results of psychotechnical tests based on the findings of pilot studies conducted on a group of students of the Silesian University of Technology: a case study. Int J Environ Res Public Health2022; 19: 14724.
7.
HobfollSE. Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am Psychol1989; 44: 513–524.
8.
NgTWHFeldmanDC. Employee voice behavior: a meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. J Organ Behav2012; 33: 216–234.
9.
LiangJFarhCICFarhJ. Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: a two-wave examination. Acad Manage J2012; 55: 71–92.
10.
HammerLBJohnsonRCCrainTL, et al.Intervention effects on safety compliance and citizenship behaviors: evidence from the work, family, and health study. J Appl Psychol2016; 101: 190–208.
11.
BickertonGRMinerM. Conservation of resources theory and spirituality at work: when a resource is not always a resource. Psychol Relig Spirit2023; 15: 241–250.
12.
HalbeslebenJRBNeveuJPaustian-UnderdahlSC, et al.Getting to the “COR”. J Manage2014; 40: 1334–1364.
13.
OmidiLKarimiHPilbeamC, et al.Exploring the relationships among safety leadership, safety climate, psychological contract of safety, risk perception, safety compliance, and safety outcomes. Front Public Health2023; 11: 1235214.
14.
SchilbachMHaunVCBaethgeA, et al.The challenging and hindering potential of time pressure: qualitative job demands as suppressor variables. J Bus Psychol2022; 38: 1061–1075.
15.
LepineJAPodsakoffNPLepineMA. A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: an explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Acad Manage J2005; 48: 764–775.
16.
Makowiec-DąbrowskaTGadzickaESiedleckaJ, et al.Aggravating factors in teachers’ work and fatigue. Med Pract2021; 72: 283–303.
17.
LePineMA. The challenge-hindrance stressor framework: an integrative conceptual review and path forward. Group Organ Manage2022; 47: 223–254.
18.
ZhouLYangKWangZ, et al.When do employees speak up under job stressors? Exploring the potential U-shaped relationship between hindrance stressors and voice behavior. Front Psychol2019; 10: 2336.
19.
LiANLiaoHTangiralaS, et al.The content of the message matters: the differential effects of promotive and prohibitive team voice on team productivity and safety performance gains. J Appl Psychol2017; 102: 1259–1270.
20.
ZhaoXYanD. Incorporating technological acceptance model into safety compliance of construction workers in Australia. Safety Sci2023; 163: 106127.
21.
KeeKvan WieringenMBeersmaB. The relational road to voice: how members of a low-status occupational group can develop voice behavior that transcends hierarchical levels. J Prof Organ2021; 8: 253–272.
22.
KakkarHTangiralaSSrivastavaNK, et al.The dispositional antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice. J Appl Psychol2016; 101: 1342–1351.
23.
ChamberlinMNewtonDWLepineJA. A meta-analysis of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms: identification of key associations, distinctions, and future research directions. Pers Psychol2017; 70: 11–71.
24.
BazzoliACurcurutoM. Safety leadership and safety voices: exploring the mediation role of proactive motivations. J Risk Res2021; 24: 1368–1387.
25.
CurcurutoMGriffinMA. Upward safety communication in the workplace: how team leaders stimulate employees’ voice through empowering and monitoring supervision. Safety Sci2023; 157: 105947.
26.
LiXXueYLiangH, et al.The impact of paradoxical leadership on employee voice behavior: a moderated mediation model. Front Psychol2020; 11: 537756.
27.
HuXJimmiesonNLWhiteKM. Understanding compliance with safe work practices: the role of ‘can-do’ and ‘reason-to’ factors. J. Occup. Organ Psychol2022; 95: 405–430.
28.
HuangHLiFHuangfuY. How time pressure affects the promotive and prohibitive voice of emergency nurses: a cross-sectional study. Work2025; 80: 247–255.
29.
ZhangGChenSFanY, et al.Influence of Leaders’ loneliness on voice-taking: the role of social self-efficacy and performance pressure. Int J Mental Health Pract2019; 21: 13–29.
30.
LinSJJohnsonRE. A suggestion to improve a day keeps your depletion away: examining promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors within a regulatory focus and ego depletion framework. J Appl Psychol2015; 100: 1381–1397.
31.
ChongDSFEerdeWVChaiKH, et al.A double-edged sword: the effects of challenge and hindrance time pressure on new product development teams. IEEE Trans Eng Manage2011; 58: 71–86.
32.
JanssenOVan YperenNW. Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Acad Manage J2004; 47: 368–384.
33.
PodsakoffPMMackenzieSBLeeJY, et al.Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol2003; 88: 879–903.
34.
Ul HassanFSKarimWShahHA, et al.Role stress and organizational commitment in the service industry: a moderated mediation model of job burnout and transformational leadership. J Manag Dev2023; 42: 165–182.
