Poon, J (2004) An investigation of the differences in ethical perceptions among construction managers and their peers. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 20th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2004, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
Previous research on ethical perceptions of managers and their peers show a consistent result, managers think they have higher ethical standards than their peers. The aim of this paper is to study the ethical perceptions of construction managers and their peers. The method for conducting the study is through a questionnaire survey among UK construction managers. Three hundred and seven questionnaires were distributed; ninety-three completed questionnaires were completed and returned. The overall results show that the construction mangers believe they have higher ethical standards than their peers. The ethical perceptions which are exceptions to this are co-operation between firms to establish common prices is an unfair act and whistleblowing, the respondents think their peers have higher ethical standards on these two issues. The managers in the current and previous studies think they are more ethical than their peers on dealing with the issue such as having low level of personal honesty. The difference between the current and previous studies is that the construction mangers think they have much higher ethical standards than their peers on the issue providing trade secrets in order to exchange for personal benefits.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction managers; ethical perceptions; peers |
| Index terms: | construction manager, questionnaire, investigation, low level, manager, survey |
| Subjects: | measurement and scaling, data collection methods, profession, practitioner |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PEA |
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