Hinton, M A and Hamilton, R T (2015) Competitive tendering and individual behaviour in the construction industry: Convenient immorality at work. Construction Management and Economics, 33(11-12), pp. 880-889. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
How and why does the construction industry persist with competitive tendering as the dominant procurement model? This is a constructivist grounded theory view of construction industry procurement in New Zealand, explaining how industry actors have to behave. convenient immorality is a shared and accepted response by individuals intended to facilitate business outcomes within an environment of intense competition, driven by opportunism and asymmetric power relationships. Low trust due to convenient immorality behaviours will continue to frustrate attempts to replace competitive tendering as the dominant model for construction industry procurement.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | business ethics; grounded theory; New Zealand; procurement; tendering strategies |
| Index terms: | business ethics, competitive tendering, opportunism, competition, grounded theory, New Zealand, construction industry, tendering strategy |
| Subjects: | professional practice, business, industry analysis, market analysis, Geography, theoretical framing, tendering |
| Topics: | Ethics, Organizational Design, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Procurement |
| 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