Jackson, B J (2000) The perceptions of experienced construction practitioners regarding ethical transgressions in the construction industry. PhD thesis, Colorado State University, USA.
Abstract
This study discusses the results of a national survey, conducted in 1999, designed to assess the perceptions of experienced construction practitioners regarding the “frequency” and “seriousness” of ethical transgressions within the construction industry. A questionnaire was sent to 1,450 systematically selected members of the Associated General Contractors. A total of 321 useable questionnaires were returned, or 22 percent. These construction practitioners were asked to consider 15 issues that may typically arise for those working in the construction industry in the normal course of operations. Examples of the issues include improper or questionable bidding practices; poor quality of work; misrepresentation of completed work; abuse of client resources; discrimination, harassment, or favoritism; misrepresentation of completed work; and others. Contractors were asked how often they thought each of the issues occurred and, when they did occur, how serious did they consider them to be. In addition, the relationship between construction practitioners' perceptions of ethical behavior and several demographic variables were analyzed. The variables included contractor classification (general contractor or subcontractor), primary market focus (commercial or residential), region of country, gender, age, education, position in company, years of experience, and whether the company had a written ethics policy or not. The results indicate that the four most frequently occurring ethical transgressions, according to those construction practitioners participating in the study, were Improper or Questionable Bidding Practices, Misrepresentation of Completed Work or Value of Work, Poor Quality Control or Quality of Work, and Technical Incompetence or Misrepresentation of Competence. The four most serious ethical transgressions, according to those construction practitioners participating in the study, were Alcohol or Drug Abuse; Improper or Questionable Bidding Practices; Failure to Protect Public Health, Safety, or Welfare; and Poor Quality Control or Quality of Work. Although several of the demographic variables analyzed were related to several of the individual ethical issues, only three—gender, region of country, and experience—were found to be significant when it came to the summated scores for perceived frequency and/or seriousness of ethical transgressions.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Gloeckner, G |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | competence; discrimination; education; ethics; failure; gender; market; residential; bidding; policy; public health; quality control; safety; client; subcontractor |
| Index terms: | bidding, subcontractor, alcohol, discrimination, ethical behaviour, questionnaire, competence, construction practitioner, demographic variable, general contractor, construction industry, quality control, public health, ethics, national survey |
| Subjects: | psychology, ethical issues, research products and data, bidding, ethical practice, project delivery, data collection methods, practitioner, demography, professional ethics, industry analysis, environmental health, professional development, personnel development |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Information Management, Roles and Professions, Urban Studies, Human Resources, Health and Safety, Procurement, Sustainability, Legal Issues, Quality Management |
| 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