Weatherford, D D (1980) Responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents in a selected construction company in Texas. EdD thesis, East Texas State University, USA.
Abstract
Purpose of the Study. The major purpose of this study was to determine whether significant differences existed in the responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents in a selected construction company. Procedure. The sample was comprised of 217 foremen and sixty-six superintendents. All participants were employed by Fish Engineering and Construction, Incorporated, Houston, Texas. A validated questionnaire was used as the method for gathering data. Chi-square was applied to test all hypotheses, and the .05 level of significance was used as the point of rejection. Findings. Eight research hypotheses were investigated in this study. For each hypothesis an analysis was made to determine whether there were significant differences in the responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents in a selected construction company in Texas. The findings were as follows: (1) There was a significant difference in the responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents of a selected construction company regarding planning and assigning work. (2) There was a significant difference in the responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents of a selected construction company regarding selecting and training employees. (3) There was no significant difference in the responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents of a selected construction company regarding job-related communications. (4) There was a significant difference in the responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents of a selected construction company regarding employee discipline. (5) There was a significant difference in the responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents of a selected construction company regarding employee productivity. (6) There was a significant difference in the responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents of a selected construction company regarding job-related costs. (7) There was no significant difference in the responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents of a selected construction company regarding quality of work. (8) There was no significant difference in the responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents of a selected construction company regarding job safety. Conclusions. Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions were drawn: (1) There is a significant difference in the responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents regarding planning and assigning work. (2) There is a significant difference in the responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents regarding selecting and training employees. (3) There is no significant difference in the responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents regarding job-related communications. (4) There is a significant difference in the responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents regarding employee discipline. (5) There is a significant difference in the responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents regarding employee productivity. (6) There is a significant difference in the responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents regarding job-related costs. (7) There is no significant difference in the responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents regarding quality of work. (8) There is no significant difference in the responsibilities of foremen as perceived by foremen and superintendents regarding job safety.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | safety; training; productivity; communication; employee |
| Index terms: | productivity, questionnaire, construction company |
| Subjects: | organization, data collection methods, management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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