Laufer, A and Moore, B E (1983) Attitudes toward productivity pay programs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 109(1), pp. 89-101. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Impressive results have been achieved by implementing financial incentive programs in construction in several foreign countries and in numerous other industries in the United States. This paper identifies the historical causes for the scarcity of such programs in the U.S. construction industry, highlights current obstacles to their introduction, and recommends steps to avoid or overcome them, so as to open the way to future introduction of incentive programs. The study employs the Delphi technique and concludes that the near absence of pay programs in the construction industry in the U.S. can be attributed to: (1) Tradition and conservatism of the industry; (2) union opposition; and (3) the nature of the work. The panel predicted significant differences between the overall attitudes of the various parties toward productivity pay programs; the contractors and the owners will be supportive, the employees somewhat supportive, the government neutral, and the union opposed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | program, Delphi technique, financial incentive, United States, construction industry, owner, productivity |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, data collection methods, industry analysis, sociology, Geography, software systems, management |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Stakeholder Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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