Cultural differences in motivation factors influencing the management of foreign laborers in the Korean construction industry

JPMA-01771; No of Pages 14

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx – xxx www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Cultural differences in motivation factors influencing the management of foreign laborers in the Korean construction industry Sangyong Kim a,1 , Jin-Dong Kim b,2 , Yoonseok Shin c , Gwang-Hee Kim c,⁎ a

School of Architecture, Yeungnam University, 280 Daehak-ro, Gyeongsan-si, Gyeongbuk-do 712-749, Republic of Korea Department of Architecture, Yeonsung University, 34 Yanghwa-ro, Manan-gu, Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do 430-749, Republic of Korea Department of Plant/Architectural Engineering, Kyonggi University, 152-42 Gwanggyosan-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do 443-760, Republic of Korea b

c

Received 19 December 2013; received in revised form 4 May 2015; accepted 18 May 2015

Abstract This study was motivated by the view that cultural differences should be taken into account in the management of Korean and foreign workers on construction sites. We identify motivation factors that are influenced by the cultural differences of the laborers, and their effects on productivity. Based on the results of a preliminary survey of field technicians with at least 15 years of work experience, a final set of 27 factors was included in a questionnaire: 5 economic factors, 11 social factors, and 11 psychological factors. Taking cultural differences into account, motivation factors that can have an impact on productivity were determined and broken down by nationality, based on the analysis results. The findings of this research can be used to stimulate social awareness and build an appropriate systemic police. The results can also be used to help develop a management plan based on cultural differences between foreign workers in the construction industry. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. Keywords: Construction industry; Cross-cultural studies; Cross-cultural management; Korea

1. Introduction Among industry groups, construction remains one of the most labor intensive activities, and is more highly dependent on labor than other industrial sectors. However, younger workers tend to avoid the construction sector, as it is considered one of the 3D (difficult, dirty, and dangerous) industries, and as a result, skilled labor is currently provided mostly by older workers. The 3D term has subsequently gained widespread use, particularly regarding labor done by migrant workers (Haque

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 82 31 249 9843. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Kim), [email protected] (J.-D. Kim), [email protected] (G.-H. Kim). 1 Tel.: + 82 53 810 2425. 2 Tel.: + 82 31 41 1419.

and Ismail, 2002). For this reason, the construction industry is struggling to satisfy demands for both unskilled and skilled labor. In particular, according to the 2001–2011 Economically Active Population Survey conducted by the Bureau of Statistics in Korea, the average age of construction laborers in Korea was 41.22 years in 2000, and by 2011 it had risen to 48.48 years. Thus, the average age of construction laborers increased by 7.26 years over this eleven year period. The phenomenon is attributed to a decrease in the inflow of young laborers to the construction sector. Against this background, the shortfall in the workforce has led to an increase in the employment of foreign laborers. The expansion and acceleration of the inflow of foreign workers to the construction field were facilitated by the introduction of the “Industrial and Technical Training Program for Foreigners” in 1991 and the “Employment Permit System” in 2004, which legalized the status of foreign workers in the construction sector (Kim and Ha, 2011).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.002 0263-7863/00/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. Please cite this article as: S. Kim, et al., 2015. Cultural differences in motivation factors influencing the management of foreign laborers in the Korean construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.002

2

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

However, the rapid increase in the number of foreign construction workers has led to problems such as decreased labor productivity, more accidents, and inferior quality or faulty construction due to language barriers and cultural differences between field managers and foreign workers (Go et al., 2009). In addition, beyond the economic realm, there are issues related to the settlement and adjustment of foreign workers, which must be dealt with from either a social or a diplomatic perspective (Kim, 2009; Seymen, 2006). Failure to address these problems may lead to social issues in the future including crime, human rights violations, health problems, disease, immigration issues, and education problems. Specifically, foreign construction workers are often exposed to different cultural settings, and suffer hardships in their new country such as lack of communication with their colleagues and failure to adjust to the work environment (Ascalon et al., 2008; Dong and Liu, 2010; Fontaine, 2007). With this in mind, we reviewed previous studies on foreign laborers and found that most studies focused on productivity and safety management, with little research on cultural differences (Kim, 2009; Song et al., 2011). Thus, there is an urgent need for research to improve the construction productivity of foreign laborers by developing a multidimensional labor management plan that takes into account the laborers' country of origin, based on an understanding of the cultural differences of laborers from different countries. The scope of this study involves a comparative analysis of the impact of cultural differences and the relative importance of certain factors for productivity. To undertake the study, we identified motivation factors that are influenced by the cultural differences of the laborers, and their effect on productivity. Humans instinctively try to satisfy their needs, and behaviors that satisfy needs are accompanied by a stimulus and an objective. Behaviors are originally goal-oriented; in other words, the behavior is motivated by the aspiration to attain a goal. Participants were recruited from construction sites in Seoul and Gyeonggi-do, and restricted to nationalities that constitute a large proportion of immigrants to Korea, based on Korea Immigration Service records. Either face-to-face or mail interviews were conducted with the selected foreign laborers. To derive productivity factors that could be influenced by cultural diversity, we reviewed previous studies related to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Alderfer's existence relatedness growth (ERG) needs theory, Herzberg's two-factor theory (motivation–hygiene theory), Murray's needs, and pressure theory. After excluding redundant productivity factors mentioned in related theories and previous studies, 34 productivity factors were derived. Based on the results of a preliminary survey of field technicians with at least 15 years of work experience, a final set of 27 factors was included in our questionnaire: 5 economic factors, 11 social factors, and 11 psychological factors. Items were scored on a five-point Likert scale, and the answers were analyzed to establish the relative importance of each factor. To determine whether the importance of the factors differed by nationality, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was conducted to understand the relationships between the various factors. These statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Win Ver.19.0 software.

2. Review of previous studies We reviewed previous studies by first focusing on studies of foreign workers, and then on studies of the cultural differences between foreign workers. Concerning foreign laborers, Jin et al. (2005) suggested that policy changes should focus on expanding the existing limit on employment permits, extending the permissible employment period, and developing a management plan for foreign workers in terms of documentation of management details based on nationality. Park et al. (2011) sought to establish a management plan after analyzing the workability of domestic construction workers and foreign workers using the available rate (e.g., production work/ancillary production work), obtained by classifying foreign workers as able to work or not able to work. Based on his analysis of the actual state of foreign construction workers working at construction sites, Son (2005) suggested a plan to establish an employment system and political measures, and an efficient employment plan for foreign workers that emphasizes respectful treatment to achieve an attitude change. Lee (1997) provided a plan to improve working conditions through a case analysis based on an understanding of the actual state of foreign workers and working conditions. Sim (2002) proposed that improvement could be achieved by focusing on political and human rights issues through a utilization assessment of industrial trainees and illegal immigrants, and the actual employment conditions of foreign workers. Pyeon (2003) provided a management plan based on an understanding of the current situation and problems in employing foreign workers on construction sites. Most of these studies considered the construction industry as a whole, and focused on solving problems related to the introduction of foreign workers through systematic changes based on an analysis of the current situation regarding foreign workers from an economic, sociocultural, or legal perspective. In other words, most studies in the existing literature have addressed the overall problems arising from the employment of foreign workers. However, research on productivity assessments and the management of foreign workers has been scant. Studies that consider cultural differences mostly focus on the essential differences and similarities between cultures. Shin et al. (2013) and Kim and Shin (2013) focused on identifying factors that influence improvements in construction productivity, taking into account the characteristics of Chinese and Korean workers. Lee (1997) revealed similarities and differences between these two countries through an analysis of the values of Chinese and Korean workers, and analyzed how differences in values affected job attitudes. He concluded that an effective method of increasing job satisfaction is to maintain welfare, or pay, at a certain level and to raise the importance of labor value through job ethics education. The aforementioned studies are mainly limited to comparisons of Chinese and Korean workers. Further studies of cultural differences have been conducted. Jung and Kim (2012) attempted to understand the multicultural sensitivity of Korean workers who had experienced working with foreign workers, and presented an educational approach to cultivating multicultural sensitivity. Pheng and Leong (2000) examined key concepts in cross-cultural management as well as key functions in construction project management, with a specific reference to China. However,

Please cite this article as: S. Kim, et al., 2015. Cultural differences in motivation factors influencing the management of foreign laborers in the Korean construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.002

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

Need

Action

Goal

Motivation Fig. 1. Need–motivation–behavior relationship (Park, 1994).

3

relating to the construction industry. In particular, few studies have been conducted on cultural differences and cross-cultural work in the construction industry in Korea. There is a need for comparative studies on the cultural differences between Korean and foreign construction workers, and on the characteristics of construction sites in Korea and other countries. 3. Motivation theory

although researchers have improved their understanding of how various factors affect the success of projects, project success is difficult to measure, and the measurement method requires continuous improvement. Toor and Ogunlana (2008) conducted face-to-face and mail interviews of project managers from ten different countries working on large-scale construction projects in Thailand to understand the importance of leadership competence and the skills required to successfully lead a construction project in a multicultural environment. He found that leadership competence was perceived as important, and that flexibility in decision making, continuous performance, and listening skills were emphasized as the most important skills of multicultural leaders. Ofori and Toor (2009) maintained that future research should consider the impact of different factors on the behavior of individuals in an organization, rather than investigating simple cultural characteristics through a review of previous studies, the literature, and methods related to cultural differences. Xiao and Boyd (2010) sought a more effective working method based on an understanding of possible problems that could arise among workers on a multicultural construction site such as interpretation, communication, emotion, and trust. They ultimately derived an efficient working method by utilizing conversation analysis and reflections of researchers with different cultural backgrounds, as well as participatory action research and experiential research based on cases of Chinese construction sites. Previous studies mostly focus on the general social science problems associated with foreign workers, rather than on problems

3.1. Human needs and behavior Human beings have numerous needs, which continue to be stimulated by intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Needs provoked by a stimulus are directly related to human behaviors, but the behaviors cannot be explained purely as a process of satisfying human needs, as behavioral options are often in conflict with, or compromise, environmental factors in the course of the needs-satisfying process. The interaction of a human's internal needs with factors in the external environment is a complex process that not only affects the environment that the person is in, and has an impact on his/her needs, but also has a simultaneous influence on several other factors, including attitudes and values, as shown in Fig. 1. A person's participation in an organization has two important aspects: one is the satisfaction of personal needs, and the other is the attainment of something that is only possible in cooperation with others. To achieve optimal organizational performance, it is important to understand the individual behavioral motivation of each member of the organization, and then use this motivation to stimulate the collaborative efforts of the members (Park and Yoon, 1998). 3.2. Motivation level and motivation Motivation is an explanatory concept for a behavior. If a person shows a strong behavior repeatedly, and makes selective attempts at this behavior, then we can consider the effectance motivation of

Organization factors Job refer

Leadership

Motivation Deficiency need Experience Expectation

Group

Inducement

Action Goal-oriented Endeavor Ability

Outcome

Reward Commendation Penalty

Satisfaction

Organization factors Character

Perception

Attitude

Study

Fig. 2. Motivation process in organization (Park, 1994). Please cite this article as: S. Kim, et al., 2015. Cultural differences in motivation factors influencing the management of foreign laborers in the Korean construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.002

4

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

High- level deficiency Self-actualization needs Esteem needs

Belongingness and love needs

Safety and security needs

Physiological needs

Low- level deficiency

conditions that trigger behaviors related to the job in the working environment, and which make the individual orient toward the goal and maintain this stance. When there are unmet needs, the individual responds to inducement or goal motivation that can satisfy his/her needs. Motivation triggers human behavior, maintains the triggered behavior, and leads the behavior further in a goal-oriented direction (McCormick and Ilgen, 1980). In addition, motivation can include an intentional attempt by management, executed in the appropriate direction and at the appropriate level, to influence individual and organizational behavior in order to achieve the organizational goal (Duncan, 1981). In other words, as illustrated in Fig. 2, motivation is triggered by personal needs, and its strength is determined by the level of these needs. 4. Deduction of motivation factors related to construction productivity

Fig. 3. Hierarchy of Maslow theory.

4.1. Motivation factors based on motivation theory Table 1 Comparison of Alderfer and Maslow theory (Herzberg, 1996). Maslow's five-level hierarchy of needs

Alderfer's three-category model of needs

Self-actualization needs Esteem needs Belongingness and love needs Safety and security needs Physiological needs

Growth needs Relatedness needs Existence needs

the behavior as high. The motivation level is determined by the interaction between a person and the environment or, more specifically, the interaction of personal factors with various environmental factors. Needs theories that describe how a person's motivation level is determined by personal factors include Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Alderfer's ERG theory. The theories that emphasize environmental factors include Herzberg's job enrichment theory and Skinner's organizational behavior modification theory. Theories that stress the interaction between the individual and the environment include Atkinson's achievement motivation theory. In terms of work, the higher the motivation, the more positively job performance is affected. However, the job performance level is generally affected by various factors beyond the motivation level, including personal and organizational capability or competence, personality traits, and role perception (McCormick and Ilgen, 1980). Work motivation to perform one's job refers to the

As shown in Fig. 3, Maslow divided human needs into five levels. When a need at a lower level is met, the need immediately above is activated. Needs are satisfied one level at a time. Once a need is met, it cannot trigger further motivation in the person. Only unmet needs serve as a trigger for behavioral motivation. In addition, when a need at a lower level is met, a new need arises at a higher level, and the person tries to fulfill the new unmet need. Alderfer accepted Maslow's hierarchy of needs and provided an explanation by reducing it to three essential categories: existence, relatedness, and growth. There are three clear differences between Alderfer's theory and Maslow's theory. First, Maslow only considered advancement from a lower to a higher need, while Alderfer also considered retreat to a lower need from a higher one. Second, Maslow argued that the ascendant need of the five needs dominates the other needs, but Alderfer considered needs in a more flexible fashion, stipulating that various needs, although different in strength, are activated or work simultaneously. Third, unlike Maslow's contention that human needs are dealt with at an unconscious level, Alderfer observed that needs can be perceived at a conscious level. Table 1 indicates differences in the hierarchies of needs of Maslow and Alderfer. Herzberg claimed that there are only two human needs that are independent and have different impacts on human behavior: these are hygiene and motivation. In this view, motivation factors provide satisfaction with one's job, while hygiene factors bring about dissatisfaction with work (Park and Yoon, 1998).

Table 2 Motivation factors related to productivity. • • • • • • • • •

Timely payment for work Welfare Company policy Self-development opportunity Working rules Sense of belonging Sense of responsibility Relationship with colleagues Affiliation to a union

• • • • • • • • •

Amount of pay Social status Social security insurance Participation in decision making Management policy Satisfaction Equal promotion opportunity Relationship with managers Working conditions

• • • • • • • •

Incentive Social recognition Job autonomy Job discretion Social life opportunity High-quality meal Challenge Competition with colleagues

• • • • • • • •

Employment guarantee Distance from one's house to the site Sharing of results Cultural differences Working conditions Achievement Possibility of growth Distance from the site

Please cite this article as: S. Kim, et al., 2015. Cultural differences in motivation factors influencing the management of foreign laborers in the Korean construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.002

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx Table 3 Selected motivation factors related to productivity. Economical factors Social factors

Psychological factors

Amount of pay, incentives, timing of pay, welfare, employment guarantee Social security insurance, participation in decision making, company policy, management policy, social recognition, social life opportunity, job autonomy, self-development opportunity, social status, cultural differences, job discretion Working conditions, sense of belonging, achievement, relationship with colleagues, satisfaction, relationship with managers, possibility of growth, sense of responsibility, equal promotion opportunity, challenge

Table 4 Conducted questionnaire respondents. Questionnaire respondents

Number of respondents

Rate of respondents

Korean worker Philippine worker Vietnamese worker Chinese worker Mongolian worker Korean Chinese worker Thai worker Total

504 30 165 75 56 157 68 1055

47.77 2.84 15.64 7.11 5.31 14.88 6.45 100

5

questionnaire survey of construction workers in Turkey to identify factors influencing their productivity. They divided potential factors that might have an impact on productivity into economic factors and physiological factors. According to needs theory, once basic needs such as physiological needs and safety are met, humans want to realize higher needs, such as self-esteem and self-actualization. Nussel et al. (1988) investigated whether a model of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction dichotomy can be applied to professors teaching in universities, and measured job satisfaction, including the perception of university teaching as a job. In terms of job satisfaction, the importance factors were measured as high, while in terms of job environmental conditions, including annual salary and administration, the factors were measured as low, indicating that Herzberg's motivation–hygiene theory could be applied to the professors. Kim (2006) investigated job satisfaction and how it is influenced by seven hygiene factors (working conditions, leadership, self-development, pay, welfare, stability, and colleague relations) and seven motivation factors (achievement, potential exertion, competence-based rewards, empowerment, responsibility, development, and job appropriateness). His findings revealed that both the hygiene and motivation factors are closely related to job satisfaction. 4.2. Deduction of motivation factors related to productivity

From a managerial perspective, Lam and Tang (2003) presented a method aimed at improving the productivity of construction workers, and proposed a motivation model related to the motivation theories of Maslow and Herzberg. In needs theory, the needs at a higher level, such as esteem and self-actualization, can be pursued once the short-term needs at lower levels are met. To be more specific, if the needs of a construction worker at a lower level are satisfied, appropriate and persistent management is required to meet long-term needs. Through this effective management, the productivity of the construction worker can be steadily improved by satisfying higher-level needs, including self-esteem and self-actualization. Kazaz and Uluberyli (2007) conducted a

To identify motivation factors related to productivity, we summarized the motivation factors found in Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory, Alderfer's ERG theory, Herzberg's motivation– hygiene theory, Murray's needs, and pressure theory (see Appendix 1). Furthermore, the factors influencing productivity found in previous studies from both Korea and the rest of the world are summarized (see Appendix 2). After the exclusion of repeated items, the list of productivity factors identified by previous research comprises 34 factors, which are listed in Table 2. To construct items based on the factors shown in Table 2, a questionnaire survey of construction experts was conducted. Before the survey, a preliminary interview was carried out to

Table 5 The importance of economic factors by nationality. Nationality

–

Payment date

Payment

Incentive

Employment guarantee

Welfare

Entirety

Philippine (N = 30)

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

3.90 1.06 3.45 1.13 3.53 1.33 4.09 1.23 3.75 1.12 3.31 1.31 3.75 1.14

4.23 0.86 3.75 1.04 3.91 1.15 4.04 1.16 3.94 1.05 3.84 1.10 3.88 1.00

3.97 0.72 3.33 1.01 3.71 1.24 3.64 1.02 3.53 1.12 3.62 1.16 3.60 1.19

4.00 0.87 3.41 1.07 3.37 1.30 3.80 1.18 3.69 1.16 3.38 1.33 3.66 1.13

3.70 0.99 3.54 1.06 3.39 1.31 3.71 1.06 3.46 1.33 3.41 1.26 3.60 1.18

3.96 0.59 3.50 0.83 3.58 1.01 3.86 0.98 3.68 0.87 3.51 0.90 3.70 0.92

Vietnamese (N = 165) Chinese (N = 75) Mongolian (N = 56) Korean Chinese (N = 157) Thai (N = 68) Korean (N = 504)

N: Number of cases, M: mean, SD: Standard deviation. Please cite this article as: S. Kim, et al., 2015. Cultural differences in motivation factors influencing the management of foreign laborers in the Korean construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.002

6

Nationality

–

Social status

Social recognition

Company policy

Social security insurance

Job autonomy

Self-development opportunity

Participation in decision making

Job discretion

Cultural differences

Management policy

Equal opportunity

Entirety

Philippine (N = 30)

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

3.10 1.18 3.11 1.04 2.99 1.44 3.34 1.07 3.34 1.24 3.04 1.32 3.23 1.09

3.03 1.16 3.16 1.00 3.04 1.36 3.20 1.10 3.30 1.16 3.35 1.09 3.29 1.06

2.97 1.03 3.52 0.99 3.43 1.34 3.75 1.24 3.44 1.21 3.32 1.32 3.34 1.07

3.60 0.97 3.52 1.03 3.37 1.36 3.96 1.14 3.68 1.18 3.41 1.19 3.43 1.05

3.37 1.10 3.19 0.97 3.00 1.40 3.64 0.88 3.07 1.17 3.38 1.18 3.29 1.02

3.50 1.31 3.30 1.07 2.91 1.26 3.61 0.91 3.07 1.19 3.06 1.10 3.19 1.06

3.47 1.14 2.93 1.10 2.88 1.28 3.39 0.95 3.03 1.24 3.21 1.31 3.23 1.06

3.10 1.30 3.15 1.16 3.39 1.28 3.46 1.06 3.01 1.28 3.94 6.39 3.21 1.00

3.50 1.04 3.67 1.01 2.96 1.36 2.68 1.22 3.22 1.37 3.63 1.13 3.13 0.95

3.03 1.22 3.11 1.07 3.59 1.28 3.52 1.03 3.28 1.21 2.90 1.17 3.21 1.05

4.40 1.01 3.16 0.97 2.93 1.27 3.32 0.92 2.83 1.12 3.16 1.25 3.21 1.06

3.37 0.96 3.25 0.67 3.13 1.04 3.44 0.76 3.21 0.83 3.31 1.04 3.25 0.81

Vietnamese (N = 165) Chinese (N = 75) Mongolian (N = 56) Korean Chinese (N = 157) Thai (N = 68) Korean (N = 504)

N: Number of cases, M: mean, SD: Standard deviation.

Table 7 The importance of psychological factors. Nationality

–

Working condition

Sense of belonging

Satisfaction

Achievement

Sense of responsibility

Equal promotion opportunity

Challenge

Possibility of growth

Relationship with colleagues

Relationship with managers

Working condition

Entirety

Philippine (N = 30)

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

3.60 1.07 3.75 1.00 3.49 1.23 4.14 1.05 3.73 1.10 3.51 1.28 3.67 1.09

3.67 1.03 3.61 0.87 3.16 1.34 3.75 0.88 3.15 1.19 3.28 1.31 3.44 1.04

3.53 0.94 3.44 1.00 3.08 1.36 3.71 0.80 3.27 1.28 3.15 1.34 3.40 0.91

3.60 1.10 3.45 0.98 3.27 1.24 3.71 0.80 3.18 1.20 3.22 1.29 3.40 0.92

3.73 0.87 3.51 1.12 3.19 1.42 3.80 0.98 3.18 1.23 3.04 1.37 3.52 0.95

3.10 1.21 3.26 1.16 2.99 1.31 3.43 0.93 2.97 1.31 2.90 1.36 3.00 1.18

3.07 1.05 3.18 1.06 3.32 1.26 3.54 0.83 2.90 1.29 2.85 1.35 3.14 1.12

3.83 0.99 3.23 1.05 3.07 1.24 3.68 0.90 2.89 1.24 2.94 1.38 3.28 1.10

3.80 1.00 3.64 0.97 2.97 1.45 3.77 1.13 3.29 1.30 3.44 1.23 3.56 0.97

3.73 0.94 3.61 1.00 3.33 1.39 3.79 1.00 3.38 1.26 3.44 1.20 3.52 0.95

3.70 1.06 3.62 1.06 3.16 1.39 3.82 0.81 3.39 1.16 3.72 1.02 3.62 1.00

3.58 0.72 3.48 0.70 3.18 1.05 3.74 0.66 3.21 0.88 3.23 0.86 3.41 0.76

Vietnamese (N = 165) Chinese (N = 75) Mongolian (N = 56) Korean Chinese (N = 157) Thai (N = 68) Korean (N = 504)

N: Number of cases, M: mean, SD: Standard deviation.

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: S. Kim, et al., 2015. Cultural differences in motivation factors influencing the management of foreign laborers in the Korean construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.002

Table 6 The importance of social factors.

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

7

Table 8 Nationalities in the importance of economic factors.

Payment date

Amount of pay

Incentive

Employment guarantee

Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total

N

M

SD

F

p

Scheffé

30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055

3.90 3.45 3.53 4.09 3.75 3.31 3.75 3.68 4.23 3.75 3.91 4.04 3.94 3.84 3.88 3.89 3.97 3.33 3.71 3.64 3.53 3.62 3.60 3.57 4.00 3.41 3.37 3.80 3.69 3.38 3.66 3.61

1.06 1.13 1.33 1.23 1.12 1.31 1.14 1.17 0.86 1.04 1.15 1.16 1.05 1.10 1.00 1.04 0.72 1.01 1.24 1.02 1.12 1.16 1.19 1.14 0.87 1.07 1.30 1.18 1.16 1.33 1.13 1.15

4.101

0.000 ⁎⁎⁎

dNf

1.371

0.223

–

2.146

0.046 ⁎

No difference

3.016

0.006 ⁎⁎

No difference

⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

determine the criteria for the years of work experience of the experts and the number of items to be selected, which hinged entirely on the opinions of the experts interviewed. This was necessary because no objective criteria could be found in the literature, and the setting of objective criteria was beyond the scope of this study. Based on the results of the face-to-face interviews, 30 experts with at least 10 years of field experience were selected for the preliminary study. Participants were asked to identify the five motivation factors that were the most important, in their view, for productivity. Kazaz and Uluberyli (2007) grouped factors into two categories: economic and psychosocial. However, for this study, we divided the productivity-related factors derived from the preliminary study into economic, social, and psychological factors because the meaning of many factors is closer to the social aspect than the two categories of Kazaz and Uluberyli (2007) when we consider the opinion of the respondents. A factor was selected if at least eight participants (about one-quarter of the respondents) listed it among the five most important items. As a result, 27 productivity-related factors were selected through the preliminary study. These are composed of 5 economic factors, 11 social factors, and 11 psychological factors. Table 3 shows the factors selected.

5. Cultural differences in motivation factors among construction workers 5.1. Outline of the questionnaire survey To analyze productivity-related factors among construction workers, we conducted a questionnaire survey among Korean and foreign construction workers focusing on cultural differences and motivation factors. The survey was conducted at 14 construction sites over a period of about 10 months, starting on January 10, 2012. The survey subjects were 1168 construction workers including 548 Korean workers and 620 foreign workers, the largest group of whom (165) were Vietnamese (see Table 4). After the exclusion of questionnaires with inconsistent responses, 1055 questionnaires were analyzed. 5.2. Factor importance by nationality A statistical analysis was performed to determine the order of importance of the productivity-related factors for workers of different nationalities after dividing them into economic, social, and psychological factors. The results of the analysis of the importance of economic factors by nationality are shown in

Please cite this article as: S. Kim, et al., 2015. Cultural differences in motivation factors influencing the management of foreign laborers in the Korean construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.002

8

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 9 Nationalities in the importance of social factors.

Welfare

Social status

Social recognition

Company policy

Social security insurance

Job autonomy

Self-development opportunity

Participation in decision making

Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total

N

M

SD

30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055

3.70 3.54 3.39 3.71 3.46 3.41 3.60 3.55 3.10 3.11 2.99 3.34 3.34 3.04 3.23 3.20 3.03 3.16 3.04 3.20 3.30 3.35 3.29 3.25 2.97 3.52 3.43 3.75 3.44 3.32 3.34 3.40 3.60 3.52 3.37 3.96 3.68 3.41 3.43 3.51 3.37 3.19 3.00 3.64 3.07 3.38 3.29 3.25 3.50 3.30 2.91 3.61 3.07 3.06 3.19 3.19 3.47 2.93 2.88 3.39 3.03 3.21 3.23 3.14

0.99 1.06 1.31 1.06 1.33 1.26 1.18 1.19 1.18 1.04 1.44 1.07 1.24 1.32 1.09 1.15 1.16 1.00 1.36 1.10 1.16 1.09 1.06 1.10 1.03 0.99 1.34 1.24 1.21 1.32 1.07 1.13 0.97 1.03 1.36 1.14 1.18 1.19 1.05 1.11 1.10 0.97 1.40 0.88 1.17 1.18 1.02 1.08 1.31 1.07 1.26 0.91 1.19 1.10 1.06 1.11 1.14 1.10 1.28 0.95 1.24 1.31 1.06 1.13

F

p

Scheffé

0.971

0.443

–

1.432

0.199

–

1.156

0.328

–

2.290

0.033 ⁎

No difference

2.904

0.008 ⁎⁎

No difference

3.092

0.005 ⁎⁎

No difference

3.331

0.003 ⁎⁎

No difference

3.265

0.003 ⁎⁎

No difference

Please cite this article as: S. Kim, et al., 2015. Cultural differences in motivation factors influencing the management of foreign laborers in the Korean construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.002

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

9

Table 9 (continued) N Job discretion

Cultural differences

Management policy

Equal opportunity

Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total

30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055

M 3.10 3.15 3.39 3.46 3.01 3.94 3.21 3.24 3.50 3.67 2.96 2.68 3.22 3.63 3.13 3.24 3.03 3.11 3.59 3.52 3.28 2.90 3.21 3.22 4.40 3.16 2.93 3.32 2.83 3.16 3.21 3.16

SD 1.30 1.16 1.28 1.06 1.28 6.39 1.00 1.95 1.04 1.01 1.36 1.22 1.37 1.13 0.95 1.12 1.22 1.07 1.28 1.03 1.21 1.17 1.05 1.12 1.01 0.97 1.27 0.92 1.12 1.25 1.06 1.46

F

p

Scheffé

2.143

0.046 ⁎

No difference

10.017

0.000 ⁎⁎

b N c,d,e,g f N c,d

3.501

0.002 ⁎⁎

cNf

5.581

0.000 ⁎⁎⁎

a N b,c,e,f,g

⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

Table 5. With the exception of Mongolian workers, all workers identified “amount of pay” as the most important factor. Mongolian workers considered “timely payment” more important than “amount of pay.” On the other hand, as the least important factor, “welfare” was identified by Philippine and Korean– Chinese workers, “payment of incentive” by Vietnamese and Mongolian workers, “employment guarantee” by Korean– Chinese workers, “timely payment date” by Thai workers, and “payment of incentive” and “welfare” by Korean workers. The results of the analysis of the importance of social factors are shown in Table 6. “Social security insurance” was evaluated as the most important factor by Mongolian and Korean– Chinese workers, as well as by Korean workers. Philippine workers identified “equal opportunity of social life,” Vietnamese workers identified “cultural differences,” Chinese workers identified “company policy,” and Thai workers identified “work discretion” as the most important social factor. On the other hand, as the least important social factor, Philippine workers identified “company policy,” Vietnamese and Chinese workers identified “participation in decisionmaking,” Korean and Mongolian workers identified “cultural differences,” Korean–Chinese workers identified “equal opportunity of social life,” and Thai workers identified “company policy.”

The results of the analysis of the importance of psychological factors are shown in Table 7. “Safe working conditions” was assessed as the most important psychological factor by Vietnamese, Chinese, Mongolian, and Korean–Chinese workers, as well as by Korean workers. On the other hand, Philippine workers identified “possibility of growth” and Thai workers identified “working conditions” as the most important psychological factor. Concerning the least important psychological factor, Korean, Mongolian, and Thai workers identified “equal promotion opportunity,” Philippine and Vietnamese workers identified “challenges on the job,” Chinese workers identified “relationship with colleagues,” and Korean–Chinese workers identified “possibility of growth.” For the workers who identified “amount of pay” as the most important of the economic factors, it is necessary to control the amount of pay and date of payment from the subcontractor as part of a management plan. If this is impossible, it should be included as a clause in the contract that the subcontractor shall submit the payment account book and the note of transfer confirmation to the company within seven days after the company pays the completed amount. In this way, management plans can be prepared for each of the most important factors identified.

Please cite this article as: S. Kim, et al., 2015. Cultural differences in motivation factors influencing the management of foreign laborers in the Korean construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.002

10

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 10 Nationalities in the importance of psychological factors.

Working condition

Sense of belonging

Satisfaction

Achievement

Sense of responsibility

Equal promotion opportunity

Challenge

Possibility of growth

Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total

N

M

SD

F

p

Scheffé

30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055

3.60 3.75 3.49 4.14 3.73 3.51 3.67 3.69 3.67 3.61 3.16 3.75 3.15 3.28 3.44 3.41 3.53 3.44 3.08 3.71 3.27 3.15 3.40 3.37 3.60 3.45 3.27 3.71 3.18 3.22 3.40 3.38 3.73 3.51 3.19 3.80 3.18 3.04 3.52 3.43 3.10 3.26 2.99 3.43 2.97 2.90 3.00 3.06 3.07 3.18 3.32 3.54 2.90 2.85 3.14 3.12 3.83 3.23 3.07 3.68 2.89 2.94 3.28 3.22

1.07 1.00 1.23 1.05 1.10 1.28 1.09 1.10 1.03 0.87 1.34 0.88 1.19 1.31 1.04 1.08 0.94 1.00 1.36 0.80 1.28 1.34 0.91 1.06 1.10 0.98 1.24 0.80 1.20 1.29 0.92 1.03 0.87 1.12 1.42 0.98 1.23 1.37 0.95 1.10 1.21 1.16 1.31 0.93 1.31 1.36 1.18 1.21 1.05 1.06 1.26 0.83 1.29 1.35 1.12 1.15 0.99 1.05 1.24 0.90 1.24 1.38 1.10 1.15

2.457

0.023 ⁎

No difference

4.610

0.000 ⁎⁎⁎

b, d N e

3.037

0.006 ⁎⁎

No difference

2.846

0.009 ⁎⁎

No difference

5.620

0.000 ⁎⁎⁎

d N e, f

2.206

0.040 ⁎

No difference

3.299

0.003 ⁎⁎

dNe

6.374

0.000 ⁎⁎⁎

a N e, f

Please cite this article as: S. Kim, et al., 2015. Cultural differences in motivation factors influencing the management of foreign laborers in the Korean construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.002

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

11

Table 10 (continued) N Relationship with colleagues

Relationship with managers

Working conditions

Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total Philippine (a) Vietnamese (b) Chinese (c) Mongolian (d) Korean Chinese (e) Thai (f) Korean (g) Total

30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055 30 165 75 56 157 68 504 1055

M 3.80 3.64 2.97 3.77 3.29 3.44 3.56 3.50 3.73 3.61 3.33 3.79 3.38 3.44 3.52 3.52 3.70 3.62 3.16 3.82 3.39 3.72 3.62 3.57

SD 1.00 0.97 1.45 1.13 1.30 1.23 0.97 1.10 0.94 1.00 1.39 1.00 1.26 1.20 0.95 1.07 1.06 1.06 1.39 0.81 1.16 1.02 1.00 1.07

F

p

Scheffé

5.530

0.000 ⁎⁎⁎

b, d, g N c

1.913

0.076

–

3.685

0.001 ⁎

No difference

⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

5.3. Analysis of differences in important factors by nationality To identify differences in the importance of the various economic, social, and psychological factors by nationality, ANOVA and Scheffé tests were performed. As shown in Table 8, the ANOVA test revealed statistically significant differences between nationalities in the importance of economic factors. Philippine workers (3.96) and Mongolian workers (3.86) were shown to give relatively high importance to these factors in the ANOVA results, whereas there were no significant differences in the Scheffé test results by nationality. In terms of social factors, there were no significant differences in ANOVA results, but significant differences were found in terms of psychological factors. Specifically, Mongolian workers assigned higher importance to these factors than Chinese, Korean–Chinese, and Thai workers. In terms of timely payment dates, Mongolian workers were found to regard this factor as more important than Thai workers, and this difference was statistically significant. In terms of the amount of pay, there were no statistically significant differences, whereas there were statistically significant differences in terms of payment of incentive, with Philippine workers (3.96) giving this factor a relatively higher importance than workers from other countries. However, there were no statistically significant differences in the Scheffé test results. In terms of employment guarantee, there were no significant differences in the ANOVA results, although results for Philippine workers (4.00) were comparatively higher, and there were no statistically significant differences in the Scheffé test results. In terms of welfare, social status, and social stability, there were statistically significant differences. In terms of “company policy,” “social security

insurance,” and “job autonomy,” there were statistically significant differences for the ANOVA results, indicating that Mongolian workers found these factors to be more important overall, but no statistically significant differences were shown in the Scheffé test results. To identify the differences in social factors across nationality, ANOVA and Scheffé tests were performed (see Table 9). In terms of “company policy,” there were statistically significant differences in the ANOVA results, showing that Mongolian workers (3.75) assigned the highest importance to this factor, but there were no significant differences in Scheffé test results. In terms of “social security insurance,” Mongolian workers showed the highest mean (3.64); however, no significant differences were shown in the Scheffé test results. In terms of “opportunity for self-development,” “participation in decision making,” and “job discretion,” there are statistically significant differences based on the ANOVA test, but there were no such differences in the Scheffé test results for pair-wise comparisons. In terms of “cultural differences,” there were statistically significant differences in both the ANOVA and Scheffé test results. Specifically, Vietnamese workers attributed higher importance to these factors than Chinese, Mongolian, Korean–Chinese, and Korean workers, and Thai workers scored higher than Chinese and Mongolian workers. In terms of “company policy,” statistically significant differences were found in both the ANOVA and Scheffé test results, indicating a higher mean score for Chinese than for Thai workers. In terms of “equal opportunity for social life,” statistically significant differences were shown in both the ANOVA and Scheffé tests, with Philippine workers attaching higher importance to this factor than Vietnamese, Korean–Chinese, Thai, and Korean

Please cite this article as: S. Kim, et al., 2015. Cultural differences in motivation factors influencing the management of foreign laborers in the Korean construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.002

12

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

workers. On the other hand, in terms of “welfare,” “social status,” and “social stability,” there were no statistically significant differences by nationality. To understand the differences in psychological factors by nationality, ANOVA and Scheffé tests were conducted (see Table 10). With the exception of “interpersonal relationship with managers,” there were statistically significant differences for all items in the ANOVA results. However, there were no significant differences found for several items in the Scheffé test, which was conducted for post hoc comparisons. While ANOVA results are statistically reliable in general, the reliability increases when the differences are also statistically significant in the Scheffé test. In addition, when seven groups are compared, as was done in this study, the reliability of ANOVA can be lower. Therefore, the analytical results for which both ANOVA and the Scheffé test were found to have statistical significance were listed first in this study. Scheffé test results with statistical significance were found for “challenges in the job,” which Mongolian workers rated as more important than Korean–Chinese workers, and with regard to “relationship with colleagues,” for which Vietnamese, Mongolian, and Korean workers scored higher than Chinese workers. In terms of “sense of belonging to the company,” Vietnamese and Mongolian workers rated this higher than Korean–Chinese workers. In terms of “sense of responsibility for the job,” Mongolian workers rated this higher than did Korean– Chinese and Thai workers. 5.4. Survey analysis results There were no statistically significant differences between Korean workers and foreign workers in economic, psychological, and social factors overall. However, when sub-items were analyzed, differences between Korean and foreign workers were revealed. In particular, in terms of social factors, there were no significant differences found in the higher-level category, but there were significant differences in sub-items such as “social security insurance,” “participation in decision making,” and “cultural differences.” Foreign workers considered “social security insurance” and “cultural differences” more important than did Korean workers, whereas Korean workers assessed “participation in decision making” as more important than did foreign workers. In addition, significant differences were found in terms of “sense of responsibility for the job” among the psychological factors, indicating that foreign workers did not consider “sense of responsibility for the job” to be as important as Korean workers did. By nationality, there were differences between Korean–Chinese and Korean workers in the domain of psychological factors. More specifically, Korean–Chinese workers evaluated psychological factors as being more important than did Korean workers. In economic factors, there were significant differences in Vietnamese and Philippine workers compared with Korean workers, with Vietnamese workers attaching a relatively lower importance to these factors, whereas Philippine workers considered them as more important compared with Korean workers. Finally, in the regional analysis between the workers from Southeast Asia (Vietnamese, Philippine, and Thai workers) and workers from East Asia (Korean, Korean–Chinese, Chinese,

and Mongolian workers), statistically significant differences were found in economic factors, showing that workers from East Asia considered economic factors to be more important than did workers from Southeast Asia. Through the survey analysis, we found that a more detailed management plan for foreign workers should be developed, taking the country of origin into account. In addition, a management plan should be prepared for each factor. Motivation factors that can improve productivity should be intensively managed, taking into consideration the cultural differences between Korea and the home countries of the foreign workers. 6. Conclusion This study was motivated by the view that cultural differences should be taken into account in the management of Korean and foreign workers on construction sites. After reviewing previous studies to derive factors that affect productivity, a pilot study was conducted in order to develop a questionnaire survey. The survey was then used to collect data from construction workers. Taking cultural differences into account, motivation factors that can affect productivity were determined and broken down by nationality, based on the analysis results. The results can be utilized as follows. First, as a response to the trend whereby an increasing number of both skilled and unskilled foreign workers are entering the construction sector, our results provide a basis for developing more efficient management plans for the foreign workers. Second, the findings of this research can be utilized as fundamental data to stimulate social awareness and build an appropriate systemic policy. Third, the results can also be utilized as specifications and operational data for a management plan based on cultural differences between foreign workers in the construction industry. Building on the findings of this research, future studies should develop a more generalized management plan to improve productivity. There are limitations to the present study. First, factors that are more diverse should be analyzed in addition to the motivation factors. Second, this study focused only on the current situation, since it was intended as a fundamental study of the analysis of productivity factors according to the cultural differences between foreign workers. Third, due to the language barrier, some foreign workers had difficulties understanding and answering some of the questions. Therefore, based on the limitations of this study, the following aspects should be investigated further in the future. First, a more objective and concrete systemic and social management system should be studied to establish the management of foreign workers. Second, a study through direct interviews with foreign workers is needed to help construction companies that hire foreign workers to acquire and cultivate multicultural sensitivity in order to cope with cultural differences. Finally, a more concrete and systemic utilization plan for more efficient workforce management, and a plan to optimize working conditions, should be developed. Conflict of interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests in this paper.

Please cite this article as: S. Kim, et al., 2015. Cultural differences in motivation factors influencing the management of foreign laborers in the Korean construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.002

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx (continued) 2 (continued) Appendix

Acknowledgements This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (2012R1A1A1042693).

Researcher (year)

Affecting productivity factors

Parkin et al. (2009)

Motivation factors

Decline in enthusiasm factors

Appendix 1. Productivity factors through needs and motivation theory Theory

Productivity factors

Maslow

Physiological needs Safety needs

Social needs Self-worth needs Self-actualisation Alderfer ERG

Survival needs Relationship needs

Growth needs

Herzberg

Motivation factors

Hygiene factors

Payment, welfare Working conditions, social security insurance, employment guarantee, affiliation to a union Sense of belonging, self-development opportunity, relationship with colleagues Social recognition, participation in decision making, job discretion, social status Achievement, possibility of growth, self-development opportunity Payment, welfare, working conditions, employment guarantee Relationship with colleagues, sense of belonging, self-development opportunity, sharing of results Social recognition, job discretion, participation in decision making, social status, achievement, possibility of growth Challenge, job autonomy, job discretion, equal promotion opportunity, achievement, Social recognition,possibility of growth, job discretion, participation in decision making Company policy, management policy, supervision, relationship with colleagues, working conditions, payment, social status, employment guarantee, working environment, working conditions

Appendix 2. Productivity factors through previous studies

Researcher (year)

Affecting productivity factors

Lam and Tang (2003) Management methodology

Kazaz and Uluberyli (2007)

13

Proper resource management and job design, lifelong study program, open communication, effective reward system, leadership by a manager, recognize value of an employer, continuous evaluation for developing motivation program Economic Amount of pay, employment factors guarantee, affiliation to a union, incentive, timely payment for work Work rules, safety environment, job Social psychological satisfaction, social life opportunity, factors competition with colleagues, cultural differences, relationships with colleagues, participation in decision making, job discretion, distance from one's house to the site, sharing of results, distance from the site

Chileshe and Haupt (2010)

Job satisfaction factors Job satisfaction effect

Payment, job discretion, job satisfaction, achievement, high-quality meals, social recognition, relationship with colleagues, equal promotion opportunity, life quality, Achievement Insufficient salary, unsatisfactory life quality, job dissatisfaction, job discretion, low-quality meals, poor work environment, relationship with colleagues, a lack of safety Relationship with colleagues, private healthcare, relationship with managers, job satisfaction, self-development opportunity Undervalued working ability, a lack of motivation, job dissatisfaction, lack of enthusiasm, indifference, a lack of confidence, a lack of carefulness, self-development opportunity

References Ascalon, M.E., Schleicher, D.J., Born, M.P., 2008. Cross-cultural social intelligence: an assessment for employees working in cross-national contexts. Cross Cult. Manage. Int. J. 15 (2), 109–130. Chileshe, N., Haupt, T., 2010. The effects of age on the job satisfaction of construction workers. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 8 (1), 107–118. Dong, K., Liu, Y., 2010. Cross-cultural management in China. Cross Cult. Manage. Int. J. 17 (3), 223–243. Duncan, W.J., 1981. Organizational Behavior. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. Fontaine, R., 2007. Cross-cultural management: six perspectives. Cross Cult. Manage. Int. J. 14 (2), 125–135. Go, S.G., Park, M.K., Kim, Y.S., Lim, C.W., Kim, C.D., 2009. A study about the plan of foreign construction worker's safety management. Proceedings of Korea Institute of Construction Engineering and Management, pp. 36–39 (November). Haque, M.M., Ismail, A.F., 2002. Automation in foundry casting industry. IEEE ICIT'02, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 815–820. Herzberg, F., 1996. One more time: how do you motivate employees. Harv. Bus. Rev. (January–February), Reprint 87507. Jin, E.J., Park, S.H., Han, S.H., 2005. A practical human resource management plan for foreign construction workers. Proceedings of Korean Society of, Civil Engineering, pp. 4863–4868 October. Jung, J.H., Kim, Y.S., 2012. A study on multicultural sensitivity of Korean workers in Korean companies hiring migrant workers. Inha Univ. Educ. Cent. 18 (4), 139–162. Kazaz, A., Uluberyli, S., 2007. Drivers of productivity among construction workers: a study in a developing country. Build. Environ. 42 (1), 2132–2140. Kim, B.K., 2006. On the tourist hotel employee's job satisfaction. Tour. Sci. Soc. Korea 30 (2), 217–236. Kim, W.H., 2009. The Understanding of Organizational Psychology and Action. Sigma Press, pp. 34–81. Kim, D.H., Ha, G.S., 2011. A Study on the Influence of Acculturation and Organizational Fairness on the Organizational Commitment of Foreign Labor. 11 (9). The Korea Contents Association, pp. 187–201. Kim, G.H., Shin, Y., 2013. Comparison of the factors improving construction productivity between Korean and Chinese laborers in Korea. Appl. Mech. Mater. 256–259, 3016–3019. Lam, S.Y.W., Tang, C.H.W., 2003. Motivation of survey employees in construction projects. J. Geospat. Eng. 5 (1), 61–66. Lee, J.M., 1997. A Study on The Determinants of Job Satisfaction for Foreign Workers MSc Dissertation. Kwangwoon University. McCormick, E.J., Ilgen, D.R., 1980. Industrial Psychology. 7th edition. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Please cite this article as: S. Kim, et al., 2015. Cultural differences in motivation factors influencing the management of foreign laborers in the Korean construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.002

14

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

Nussel, E.J., Wiersma, W., Rusche, P., 1988. Work satisfaction of education professors. J. Teach. Educ. 39 (3), 45–50. Ofori, G., Toor, S.R., 2009. Research on cross-cultural leadership and management in construction: a review and directions for future research. Constr. Manag. Econ. 27, 119–133. Park, Y.H., 1994. Modern human relationship. Park-Young-Sa. Park, J.L., Yoon, D.H., 1998. Understanding of human relationship. Muyokpub copyrightpp. 179–209. Park, B.J., Ryu, S.K., Kim, J.H., Kim, J.J., 2011. A study on the employment condition and the change of the work ability for the foreign labors in construction field. Proceedings of the Korea Institute of Building Construction. 11 (2), pp. 7–8. Parkin, A.B., Tutesigensi, A., Buyukalp, A.I., 2009. Motvation among construction worker in Turey. In: Dainty, A.R.J. (Ed.), Proceedings 25th Annual ARCO Conference., 7–9 Setember. UK ARCOM, Reading, Nottingham. Pheng, L.S., Leong, C.H.Y., 2000. Cross-cultural project management for international construction in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 18, 307–316. Pyeon, H.J., 2003. Analyzing the Usage of Foreign Labor in Domestic Apartment Construction Sites MSc dissertation. Hanyang University.

Seymen, O.A., 2006. The cultural diversity phenomenon in organisations and different approaches for effective cultural diversity management: a literary review. Cross Cult. Manag. Int. J. 13 (4), 296–315. Shin, Y., Kim, J.D., Kim, T.H., Kim, G.H., 2013. Construction productivity factors affected by the motivation of foreign laborers in construction fields. Appl. Mech. Mater. 357–360, 2599–2602. Sim, G.B., 2002. Actual state of foreign labor and improvement direction of construction sites. J. Constr. Econ. Res. Inst. Korea 19 (3), 32–39. Son, C.B., 2005. An analysis on the employment of foreign laborer in domestic construction fields. Archit. Inst. Korea 21 (6), 105–112. Song, S.W., Lee, S.Y., Kim, N.K., 2011. A study on the current status of the migrant workers' support and problems at the level of a local government: a case of Ansan city. Diaspora Res. 5 (2), 29–62. Toor, S.R., Ogunlana, S.O., 2008. Leadership skills and competencies for cross-cultural construction projects. Hum. Res. Dev. Manag. 8 (3), 192–215. Xiao, H., Boyd, D., 2010. Learning from cross-cultural problems in international projects: a Chinese case. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 17 (6), 549–562.

Please cite this article as: S. Kim, et al., 2015. Cultural differences in motivation factors influencing the management of foreign laborers in the Korean construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.002