Investigating the relationship between organizational mindset orientation and project performance of large organizations in the Ghanaian construction industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the linkage between organizational mind-set and its effect on construction project performance by examining the underlying attributes that define organizational mind-set, predominant indicators for measuring project performance and the relationship between organizational mind-set and project performance. A quantitative research strategy embedded within a positivist paradigm and deductive reasoning was adopted. An online survey was used to collect data from 128 construction organizations in Ghana, with a total of 107 retrieved. Data was analyzed using mean score ranking, one sample t-test and correlation analysis. Findings revealed that, of the 20 assessed organizational growth mind-set attributes, only 10 were implemented within organizations. Conversely, of the 20 assessed fixed mind-set attributes, none were deemed significant. The findings also revealed significant positive relationships between: project performance and seven of the 20 growth attributes; and project performance and five of the 20 fixed attributes. These findings shed light on the significance of often overlooked factors like organizational mind-set that can propel positive project outcomes. The study recommends construction firms prioritize both growth and fixed organizational mind-set perspectives to ensure positive project outcomes. Training of employees to tune their minds toward a growth organizational mind-set is critical to ensure projects are executed seamlessly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".