Chaos/ad hocracy
Unfair resource distribution might also be related to the presence of other catalogue items such as ‘the work itself, e.g. hassles’ or ‘chaos/ad hocracy’. The presence of ‘the work itself, e.g. hassles’ was ranked second by all respondents when grouped according to time spent on site, although this result was not significant. However, the presence of ‘chaos/ad hocracy’ was ranked sixth by respondents on site full time, and fourteenth by respondents on site part time. The difference of eight was found to be significant (p = 0.011). This indicates that ‘chaos/ad hocracy’ is perceived to be more present by site based respondents than by office based respondents, but it does not attempt to quantify the actual presence of chaos on site or in the office.
Chaos implies forced diversion from the plan, or utter confusion. This is reflected in common adjectives of the industry being ‘dynamic’ and ‘flexible’. However, these adjectives apply to the industry, not just to construction sites. A possible development of reasoning for this difference lines in the nature of the construction site as a focal point for a temporary organization, which involves the co-ordination of multiple parties to construct a unique product; inherently chaotic perhaps. Office based work, conversely, may be regarded as being a permanent collection of more defined tasks, is less proximate to the production center, and is heavily involved with pre-production and the peripheral activities of production. This explanation is supported by beardsworth et al. (1988) and antonym (1988) who agree that the uncertainly of project organization is greater than that found in permanent organization (from loose more, 1994).
Previous motivation research has largely ignored investigation of the presence of chaos, although some items have come close to assessing the role of ‘ad hocracy’ in motivating or demotivating the individual. However, chaos plays substantial role in culture; Maloney and Federle (1991) developed a model of organization culture, and explain that too much ‘ad hocracy’ may result in dysfunctional behaviour and squandering of resource.
The perceived presents of chaos is explained by the temporary organization theory, in which temporary organization experience greater levels of uncertainly than permanent organization. Site based respondents are clearly part of such temporary organization and thus indicate the greater perception of the presence of chaos, heightened by their proximity to the uncertainly. It is also suggested that it is possible for individuals to have preferences for logic or for chaos, and that those with a preference for logic with have a keener awareness of the presence of chaos; however, this conjecture falls into the realm of personality theory and should be the subject of further research.
Colleagues’ aggressive management style
The presence of ‘colleague’ aggressive management style’ was perceived to be greater by those on site 5 or 6 days per week who ranked if 12th. The rank difference of nine places was found to be significant (p = 0.002). The variable is not significant in any other analysis category. It is important to recognize that the value in this variable comes from the significant difference between the presence of this variable between the two groups; the difference is both strong and significant.
This result can be interpreted in different ways. Site employees may be actually more aggressive than office employees. Increased personal aggression may be a result of the nature of construction project, involving economic responsibility, decision making at shore notice with minimum information but far reaching consequences, and a number of individuals who work in close proximity to each other, and when a team member becomes aggressive it is inevitable that others in the team become aware of this and may respond in similar behaviour. However, both of these possible explanations assume that:
1. colleagues’ aggression is less common in construction organization offices, and
2. office based respondents have the opportunity to avoid aggression through their increased status, responsibility and hence mobility.
Although the latter is possible, there is no measurement that indicates the first is true. Alternatively, a more studied argument for the significant difference between site and office based personnel, focuses on the prevalent culture of construction sites. Although sites have not been specifically referred to, much has been written on the culture surrounding male dominated work places. Sinclair (1998) discusses how organizations favour masculinity and how leadership and masculinity have become interwoven. Collinson and Hearn (1994, from Sinclair, 1998) note one variety of masculine advanced through bullying and fear. Research into managerial or organization subcultures in the construction industry has not yet identified masculine culture as present more on site than in office. Indeed they have commonly ignored the gender of a culture, preferring to focus on the market orientation of an organizational culture. However, the male dominated nature of the industry means the presence of a masculine subculture is a distinct possibility, and thus a possible explanation for the perceived increase in the presence of a colleagues’ aggressive management style on site. It can be concluded that the significant difference in the perceived presence of colleagues’ aggressive management style is attributable to the traditional culture of the construction site, described by Sinclair as masculine and encouraging aggressive behaviour as a show of strength.
Hostile organization management style
The respondents significantly agreed upon the perceived presence of ‘hostile organization management style’. Those on site part time ranked the variable 15th, and those on site ranked it 13th (p = 0.017). The rank difference of two indicates agreement between the groups that hostile organization management style is perceived to be not commonly present.
Feeling isolated by the opposite gender
The presence of ‘feeling isolated by the opposite gender’ rated significant agreement (p = 0.017) of one place between 17th (by the full time group) and 18th (by the part time group). It is possible to conclude that the perceived presence of ‘feeling isolated by the opposite gender’ does not vary between site and office based respondents. This result support the statement that isolation by the opposite gender as a demotivating factor is not highly present in the construction industry. This would be argued against by some international researchers (Minkarah and Dorsey, 1993; perrault, 1995) but agreed to by others ( Gale, 1991; Moralee and court, 1995).
All variable found to be significantly related to site time have also been examined for significance in relation to other categories. As may be expected, this variable was also found to be significant in relation to the gender of the respondent, although both male and female respondent significantly agreed that feeling isolated by the opposite gender is not present. The male respondents rank it 18th , the female respondents rank it 16th (p = 0.046).
Feeling isolated due to social interests
The presence of ‘feeling isolated due to social interests’ was found to be ranked significantly in 19th by those on the site part time, and 17th by those on site full time (p = 0.022). This is indicative of the perceived presence of this variable not varying according to the work environment, and is uniformly low.
Conclusions and suggestions for improving the attractiveness of the construction site workplace.
The research was unable to conclude that there is a relationship between motivation levels and the amount of time a professional spends on the construction site. No significant differences in levels of motivation were found between those workers on site 5-6 days per week and on site 1-4 days per week. This suggests that site management efforts to improve those factors that motivate white collar employees would be misplaced.
By contrast, employees on site 5-6 days per week significantly higher levels of demotivation than employees on site 1-4 days per week. The data therefore support the hypothesis that the workplace environment affects demotivation levels. Many of the factors identified and discussed in this paper relate to the way the construction site work place is managed from a human relations point of view and the picture that emerges from this research is not flattering. Long work hours mean employees are not able to spend as much time on family and a fulfilling life outside work. This is a pertinent point to be considered where child rearing or caring for sick relatives may be an issue.
The pressures withstood (to bear, to stand) by those on site for very long periods appear to be exacerbated (to get furious/to grow angry) and characterized by a propensity for poor planning, resource deprivation, chaos and/ or ad hocracy, aggressive management style and psychological isolate. This is hardly conductive to charming the necessary able and highly talented recruits (new member) to the industry or toretaining those already working under these conditions.
The challenge facing the industry is on of improving the management style experienced on construction sites through increasing recognition, increasing planning effectiveness and decreasing the chaotic nature of a project. This should be supplemented (complement, add) by increasing awareness (conscious/aware of some thing) and reduction of the stress inducing (to bring about) factors highlightes above. This may be a function of the industry being highly cost competitive, with low profit margins (gains/profits) leading to extensive cutting of corners. Demanding that the industry cleans up its image, positions itself into a more profitable prospect and reduces stress factors for employees is not particularly helpful. The solution may be for construction companies to more strategically target (aim, goal, object) their work-load towards more profitable work while improving the construction site management style
Unfair resource distribution might also be related to the presence of other catalogue items such as ‘the work itself, e.g. hassles’ or ‘chaos/ad hocracy’. The presence of ‘the work itself, e.g. hassles’ was ranked second by all respondents when grouped according to time spent on site, although this result was not significant. However, the presence of ‘chaos/ad hocracy’ was ranked sixth by respondents on site full time, and fourteenth by respondents on site part time. The difference of eight was found to be significant (p = 0.011). This indicates that ‘chaos/ad hocracy’ is perceived to be more present by site based respondents than by office based respondents, but it does not attempt to quantify the actual presence of chaos on site or in the office.
Chaos implies forced diversion from the plan, or utter confusion. This is reflected in common adjectives of the industry being ‘dynamic’ and ‘flexible’. However, these adjectives apply to the industry, not just to construction sites. A possible development of reasoning for this difference lines in the nature of the construction site as a focal point for a temporary organization, which involves the co-ordination of multiple parties to construct a unique product; inherently chaotic perhaps. Office based work, conversely, may be regarded as being a permanent collection of more defined tasks, is less proximate to the production center, and is heavily involved with pre-production and the peripheral activities of production. This explanation is supported by beardsworth et al. (1988) and antonym (1988) who agree that the uncertainly of project organization is greater than that found in permanent organization (from loose more, 1994).
Previous motivation research has largely ignored investigation of the presence of chaos, although some items have come close to assessing the role of ‘ad hocracy’ in motivating or demotivating the individual. However, chaos plays substantial role in culture; Maloney and Federle (1991) developed a model of organization culture, and explain that too much ‘ad hocracy’ may result in dysfunctional behaviour and squandering of resource.
The perceived presents of chaos is explained by the temporary organization theory, in which temporary organization experience greater levels of uncertainly than permanent organization. Site based respondents are clearly part of such temporary organization and thus indicate the greater perception of the presence of chaos, heightened by their proximity to the uncertainly. It is also suggested that it is possible for individuals to have preferences for logic or for chaos, and that those with a preference for logic with have a keener awareness of the presence of chaos; however, this conjecture falls into the realm of personality theory and should be the subject of further research.
Colleagues’ aggressive management style
The presence of ‘colleague’ aggressive management style’ was perceived to be greater by those on site 5 or 6 days per week who ranked if 12th. The rank difference of nine places was found to be significant (p = 0.002). The variable is not significant in any other analysis category. It is important to recognize that the value in this variable comes from the significant difference between the presence of this variable between the two groups; the difference is both strong and significant.
This result can be interpreted in different ways. Site employees may be actually more aggressive than office employees. Increased personal aggression may be a result of the nature of construction project, involving economic responsibility, decision making at shore notice with minimum information but far reaching consequences, and a number of individuals who work in close proximity to each other, and when a team member becomes aggressive it is inevitable that others in the team become aware of this and may respond in similar behaviour. However, both of these possible explanations assume that:
1. colleagues’ aggression is less common in construction organization offices, and
2. office based respondents have the opportunity to avoid aggression through their increased status, responsibility and hence mobility.
Although the latter is possible, there is no measurement that indicates the first is true. Alternatively, a more studied argument for the significant difference between site and office based personnel, focuses on the prevalent culture of construction sites. Although sites have not been specifically referred to, much has been written on the culture surrounding male dominated work places. Sinclair (1998) discusses how organizations favour masculinity and how leadership and masculinity have become interwoven. Collinson and Hearn (1994, from Sinclair, 1998) note one variety of masculine advanced through bullying and fear. Research into managerial or organization subcultures in the construction industry has not yet identified masculine culture as present more on site than in office. Indeed they have commonly ignored the gender of a culture, preferring to focus on the market orientation of an organizational culture. However, the male dominated nature of the industry means the presence of a masculine subculture is a distinct possibility, and thus a possible explanation for the perceived increase in the presence of a colleagues’ aggressive management style on site. It can be concluded that the significant difference in the perceived presence of colleagues’ aggressive management style is attributable to the traditional culture of the construction site, described by Sinclair as masculine and encouraging aggressive behaviour as a show of strength.
Hostile organization management style
The respondents significantly agreed upon the perceived presence of ‘hostile organization management style’. Those on site part time ranked the variable 15th, and those on site ranked it 13th (p = 0.017). The rank difference of two indicates agreement between the groups that hostile organization management style is perceived to be not commonly present.
Feeling isolated by the opposite gender
The presence of ‘feeling isolated by the opposite gender’ rated significant agreement (p = 0.017) of one place between 17th (by the full time group) and 18th (by the part time group). It is possible to conclude that the perceived presence of ‘feeling isolated by the opposite gender’ does not vary between site and office based respondents. This result support the statement that isolation by the opposite gender as a demotivating factor is not highly present in the construction industry. This would be argued against by some international researchers (Minkarah and Dorsey, 1993; perrault, 1995) but agreed to by others ( Gale, 1991; Moralee and court, 1995).
All variable found to be significantly related to site time have also been examined for significance in relation to other categories. As may be expected, this variable was also found to be significant in relation to the gender of the respondent, although both male and female respondent significantly agreed that feeling isolated by the opposite gender is not present. The male respondents rank it 18th , the female respondents rank it 16th (p = 0.046).
Feeling isolated due to social interests
The presence of ‘feeling isolated due to social interests’ was found to be ranked significantly in 19th by those on the site part time, and 17th by those on site full time (p = 0.022). This is indicative of the perceived presence of this variable not varying according to the work environment, and is uniformly low.
Conclusions and suggestions for improving the attractiveness of the construction site workplace.
The research was unable to conclude that there is a relationship between motivation levels and the amount of time a professional spends on the construction site. No significant differences in levels of motivation were found between those workers on site 5-6 days per week and on site 1-4 days per week. This suggests that site management efforts to improve those factors that motivate white collar employees would be misplaced.
By contrast, employees on site 5-6 days per week significantly higher levels of demotivation than employees on site 1-4 days per week. The data therefore support the hypothesis that the workplace environment affects demotivation levels. Many of the factors identified and discussed in this paper relate to the way the construction site work place is managed from a human relations point of view and the picture that emerges from this research is not flattering. Long work hours mean employees are not able to spend as much time on family and a fulfilling life outside work. This is a pertinent point to be considered where child rearing or caring for sick relatives may be an issue.
The pressures withstood (to bear, to stand) by those on site for very long periods appear to be exacerbated (to get furious/to grow angry) and characterized by a propensity for poor planning, resource deprivation, chaos and/ or ad hocracy, aggressive management style and psychological isolate. This is hardly conductive to charming the necessary able and highly talented recruits (new member) to the industry or toretaining those already working under these conditions.
The challenge facing the industry is on of improving the management style experienced on construction sites through increasing recognition, increasing planning effectiveness and decreasing the chaotic nature of a project. This should be supplemented (complement, add) by increasing awareness (conscious/aware of some thing) and reduction of the stress inducing (to bring about) factors highlightes above. This may be a function of the industry being highly cost competitive, with low profit margins (gains/profits) leading to extensive cutting of corners. Demanding that the industry cleans up its image, positions itself into a more profitable prospect and reduces stress factors for employees is not particularly helpful. The solution may be for construction companies to more strategically target (aim, goal, object) their work-load towards more profitable work while improving the construction site management style
Last edited by a moderator:
