Harrison, B W (1982) Socially responsive professional behavior of architectural firms: A social psychological perspective. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, USA.
Abstract
The decade beginning with the mid 1960's strongly demanded professional business organizations to be more socially responsible. Particularly singled out were organizations and professionals that provide critical services such as medical, legal, and architectural. This study examines architectural firms' owners/principals as key authority figures and their internal motivation in determining the organizations' behavior that is socially responsive. From a social psychological and open systems perspective, attention is first given to moral/ethical and pragmatic role related values of owners/principals of 23 reputable Chicago area firms to identify what "socially responsive professional behavior" (SRPB) means to them; and second, to identifying forces that facilitate and inhibit it. Conceptually, these forces and role related values act as internal motivation through self expressions, determination and affiliation. For the most part the findings are based on analysis of quantitative and qualitative descriptive data gathered from a mail questionnaire followed by face-to-face interviews. Respondents identified SRPB with expressions of moral/ethical and pragmatic values as shown by these key findings: (1) Standards are higher than 10 years ago but are held back due to excessive competition, profit motive, and lower morals in society. (2) Priority ranking of socially responsive practices (mostly by largest size and minority owned firms) includes employee satisfaction and affirmative action. (3) Priority ranking of focal groups for the firm are clients, owners/principals, and employees. (4) Beliefs that business does not have the role of instilling moral/ethical standards and that it need not live up to absolute standards. Key factors perceived by architectural firms that limit and facilitate SRPB: (1) rhetoric and vague understanding. (2) Uncertainty about SRPB role in oppressed communities and countries. (3) Public and political participation as alternative roles for revitalizing downtown. (4) Fee-cutting occurring due to the competition and project undercapitalization limiting response that only meets the client's basic needs. (5) Impact of urban/suburban location of firm and respondents' residence on SRPB. Groundwork has been provided for further investigations which may isolate narrower issues around SRPB of architectural firms. This could involve the firms' owners/principals or other actors in the total building process (such as developers and lending institutions) as well as other types of business and professional groups (such as legal/attorneys and medical/physicians).
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building process; client; competition; employee; motivation; participation; professional; standards; uncertainty |
| Index terms: | minority, interview, competition, motivation, architectural firm, owner, face, satisfaction, society, motive, investigation, building process, questionnaire, profit |
| Subjects: | market analysis, sociology, economic analysis, building construction, communities and social development, business, project delivery, psychology, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Stakeholder Management, Site Management, Ethics, Research Practice, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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