Smithers, G L (2000) The effect of the site environment on motivation and demotivation of construction professionals. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 16th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2000, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
Research was undertaken to investigate motivation of white-collar construction employees, with particular regard to the effect of gender of the employee and of the site environment. Data was collected by a survey adapted from the Michigan Organisational Assessment Rating Technique. The survey was distributed amongst professionals with some site presence in Melbourne, Australia. Results indicate that professionals who are on site for five or more days per week have significantly higher levels of demotivation than professionals who are on site "part time"(ie. one to four days per week) and this result was linked to several identified factors, such as the presence "poor planning as a result of unfair resource distribution", "non recognition for work done", "colleagues' aggressive management style", "chaos/ad hocracy", and the importance of "long hours". It was also found that those people on site "full time" also have higher levels of motivation than those on site part time, although this result was not significant. The paper suggests a possible avenue for further research.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | demotivation; gender; motivation; satisfaction; workplace; site environment |
| Index terms: | construction employee, part time, survey, Australia, motivation, management style, satisfaction, construction professional, presence |
| Subjects: | Geography, professional development, management, practitioner, data collection methods, environmental science, project delivery, psychology |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here