Woolcott, G; Loosemore, M; Keast, R; Meltzer, A and Alkilani, S (2025) Transitioning young people into employment in the Australian construction industry: The trust-building role of project-based intermediaries. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 32(4), pp. 2571-2589. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: Construction is one of Australia's largest employers of young people and the industry is facing a major labor shortage, with young people expected to account for much of the shortfall. Surprisingly however, there been little research into the pathways for young people into construction employment. The aim of this paper is to address this gap in research by exploring whether project-based intermediaries can support the development of disadvantaged young people's trust in the often-problematic systems which are meant to help transition them into employment in construction. Design/methodology/approach: Employing an in-depth case study approach, this research mobilizes theories of personalized and generalized trust to report the results of interviews with 15 sectoral leaders; focus groups with 12 young people working in construction; and interviews with 11 young people being transitioned into construction employment through a unique project-based intermediary developed by a major Australian construction company as part of its social procurement requirements. Findings: Findings show that project-based intermediaries can play an important trust-building role in transitioning disadvantaged young people into work in construction. They do this by bridging a young person's strong social ties (family and friendship) and weak social ties (with government and construction industry organizations), both of which can be problematic when used in isolation to seek employment in construction. By performing a crucial bridging role between a young person's individual self-interest in acting alone to find work and their collective interest in being part of a collaborative group, the project-based intermediary creates a new form of linking social capital, enabling social procurement policies which target young people to work while also addressing wider systemic problems in Australia's employment systems. Originality/value: This research addresses the lack of employment research into young people in construction and the paucity of theory in social procurement research more broadly. It takes an original approach in aligning theories related to a duality of personalized trust and generalized trust seen against the duality of individual intentionality and agency (self-focused) and shared intentionality and agency (group-focused). By doing so it provides new conceptual and practical insights into the important role that construction project-based intermediaries like the one studied here can play in providing innovative cross-sector and collaborative solutions to the world's growing youth unemployment crisis.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction industry; employment; shared agency; shared intentionality; social procurement; trust |
| Index terms: | case study, Australia, employment, labour shortage, intermediary, construction industry, focus group, interview, procurement policy, social capital, construction company, construction project, methodology, social ties, trust-building, agency, unemployment |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, business, management, economics, sociology, industry analysis, organization, psychology, public policy, economic analysis, research methods, Geography, production management |
| Topics: | Project Management, Geographical Context, Supply Chain Management, Governance, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Human Resources |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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