Phua, F T T (2017) Does the built-environment industry attract risk-taking individuals? Construction Management and Economics, 35(4), pp. 207-217. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This exploratory research examines whether or not those attracted to professional-level occupations in the built-environment industry are innately physical risk-takers and hence potentially, thereby, more likely to countenance or contribute to physically risky workplace climates. Using individual-level data, the occupational attractiveness of the built-environment industry subsectors of construction management and architecture are each found positively and significantly to be predicted by physical risk-taking propensity, but not by a comparator risk-taking propensity, gambling. Conversely, the occupational attractiveness of a comparator profession in financial services is found to be significantly predicted by gambling risk-taking propensity, but not by physical risk-taking propensity. Although exploratory, our finding that two key professions in the built-environment industry are each discretely found to be attractive to physical risk-takers suggests not only that constituent occupations within the industry, but that the industry as a whole might perhaps engender a self-reinforcing suboptimal workplace safety climate. Accordingly, constituent subsectors of the industry may need both separately and collectively to consider the phenomenon of physical risk-taking propensity amongst the professionals it attracts in order effectively to set and manage the site work-place safety climate that such professionals are ultimately responsible for creating and delivering in a sector fraught with physical risks for site workers.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architecture; gambling risk propensity; occupational attraction; physical risk propensity |
| Index terms: | profession, occupational attraction, exploratory research, site work, gambling, workplace safety, risk taking, safety climate, physical risk propensity, risk propensity, occupation |
| Subjects: | decision-making and reasoning, research methods, health safety and environment, financial risk, sociology, occupational health, health behaviours and lifestyles, institututions, site logistics |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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