Dainty, A R J; Raidén, A B and Neale, R H (2004) Psychological contract expectations of construction project managers. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11(1), pp. 33-44. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The past 20 years have seen a period of fundamental change for many construction businesses as they have restructured, downsized, de-layered, merged and de-merged to survive turbulent markets and rapidly changing demand cycles. Such change places significant new pressures, challenges and constraints on the employer/employee relationship. This paper argues that these changes are likely to have reconstituted employee expectations of the less formal aspects of the employment relationship, known collectively as the psychological contract. Explores this inductive research which examines the psychological contract of 30 construction project managers.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | employees; human resource management; project management; psychological contracts; retention |
| Index terms: | manager, employment, construction project, project management, psychological contract, retention, markets, human resource management |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, management, production management, psychology, project management theory and practice, practitioner |
| Topics: | Project Management, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Human Resources, Organizational Design |
| 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