What motivates and demotivates construction company employees in Christchurch’s post- earthquake residential sector- a case study.

Extreme Construction.Session5.Stream B.Paper64.

Bartt Holmes and Linda KestleAUBEA Conference 2013

>>FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

A large NZ construction company was engaged to effect repairs on 100,000 homes in Christchurch from 2011 till 2015, following the 2010 and 2011 major earthquakes.

Three years on, thousands of homeowners are still waiting for remedial work to be approved and implemented, and work opportunities in Christchurch have escalated.

Large numbers of staff from the north island based company relocated to continue to work for them in purpose-created hubs in Christchurch. This research sought to establish whether motivational factors differed across differing occupational groups in these hubs.

Context of the Research

>>FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Example(s) of residential damage after Feb 22 2011 earthquakephotosource Harry Roedel

>>DEPARTMENT TITLE EDIT IN HEADER & FOOTER

>>FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Motivating Factors – Most frequently noted were:

• Monetary rewards significant for all construction workers no matter whether in large/small companies

• Job security

• Co-worker relationships

• Completion of challenging tasks

• Safety on the job

Demotivating Factors Most frequently noted were:

• Lack of recognition for work done

• Poor planning and resource allocations

• Aggressive and often hostile management styles

• Unsafe working conditions

• Overcrowded work areas

Key Points from the Selected International Literature on job motivation factors in the construction sector

>>FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

• Participant sample comprised all 39 employees working in the construction company’s 3 work hubs in Christchurch.

• Four categories of employees- Project Managers, Construction Supervisors and Contract Administrators.

• 33 responses collected for a set of 3 open questions and a structured questionnaire drawn from the literature findings, and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

• Plus a question on whether specific motivating factors influenced staff to relocate to ChCh.

Methodology in brief

>>FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Motivating Factors

• Completing challenging tasks

• Having good co-worker relationships

• Producing good results for the clients and community

• Flexible working hours and good worklife balance

• Monetary rewards

• Acknowledgment for work achieved

Demotivating Factors

• Repetitive non-stimulating tasks

• Difficult clients/conflict with clients

• Lack of clear leadership and management indecision

• Poor company policies and procedures

• Lack of sleep (earthquake tremors)

Research Question “Do the motivating and demotivating factors differ between occupational groups in a large NZ Construction Company ?”

Key Points from the Collected Data

>>FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Were there specific motivating factors that influenced staff to relocate to ChCh?

• Wanted to specifically help those affected in the community, (many New Zealanders had/have friends and family affected by the major and earthquakes and ongoing tremors).

• The extrinsic rewards

• Keen to be involved on challenging and frequently unique reparatory tasks

>>FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

• Good co-worker relationships

• Acknowledgement of work achievements

• Challenging tasks

• Flexible work hours and good work/life balance

• Opportunity to increase skills

What were the most significant motivating factors for the group of 33 respondents as a whole?

>>FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Motivators

• Project Managers – intrinsic rewards the most significant motivator.

• Contract Administrators- extrinsic rewards eg monetary and job security the key motivators.

• QS’ and Construction Supervisors – mixed responses but most significant motivators were intrinsic.

Demotivators

• Project Managers - increased/ing hours worked, poor company policies and management changes.

• Construction Supervisors & QS’ – poor planning, overcrowded workspaces, lack of clear leadership.

• Contract Admin- disorganisation around policies and procedures.

Were there differing motivating and demotivating factors across the differing occupational groups?