WorkStyle Profile for Construction Students:  A Time to Stretch

Introduction

In "The Educators Role, Aligning The Peg And The Hole," Badger and Wanner (1991) identified the primary role of the construction educator was to "meet the needs of the construction industry by providing quality graduates (who) bring technical knowledge to improve industry performance." They went on to identify a significant lack of alignment between PREFERRED WorkStyles and construction industry requirements as a key issue requiring the attention of both the educator and the construction industry. Badger and Wanner recommended the following three-pronged approach for improving the misalignment identified in the study:

1. Attract potential constructors with appropriate WorkStyle preferences for the Construction Profession (educator).

2. Integrate managerial and interactive skills in construction schools' curriculum to influence student preferences (more "management" in Construction Management, educator).

3. Be sensitive to workforce professional development

and career pathing (industry).

Badger and Warmer's (1991) recommendations regarding educational approaches focused on the work preferences of students attracted to the program and the methods for educating these students. In an attempt to implement these recommendations, the Del E. Webb School of Construction (DEWSC) at Arizona State University modified their recruiting and educational approaches. A follow-up study to the Badger and Wander (1991) study was conducted in October, 1994, to assess the impact of implemented educator recommendations and to identify additional insights to provide direction for the future. This paper compares the results of the follow-up investigation with Badger and Warmer's (1991) initial work and provides further recommendations for improvement. Comparisons will be based upon the undergraduate student responses of both studies who respectively represent 38 (1991) and 49 (1994) students.

Alignment Instrument

The concept of alignment addressed by Badger and Wanner originated from The McFletcher Corporation's WorkStyle Patterns (WSP) Inventory. The WSP alignment assessment process is based on a comparison between actual work requirements and the way people prefer to approach work activities. This assessment determines WorkStyles; how an individual prefers to work (the want) and how an individual views his or her current position's ACTUAL work (the is).

This assessment also reveals the discrepancy between the individual's preferred approach to work and the position's required approach to work. Descriptive WorkStyle Profiles provide comparative data about the workforce and their work activities. This knowledge enables employees and employers to work together for closer alignment which creates greater organizational productivity and enhanced individual satisfaction.

The premise of the WSP°" Alignment process is that each person prefers and each position requires different degrees of TASK, PROJECT, and ORGANIZATION Orientation activities. The degree to which a person prefers to exercise each Orientation determines his or her PREFERRED WorkStyle. The degree to which a position requires that each Orientation be carried out determines its ACTUAL WorkStyle.

There are four WSP Orientations which represent how an individual prefers to think about work or how the work requires whoever is in the position to think about the work. These Orientations are:

TASK

Identification with the Product or Service, through performing specific work activities.

PROJECT

Identification with Projects and their People through coordinating and linking activities.

ORGANIZATION

Identification with Goals and Results through initiat­ing organizational activities.

ADAPTING

Identification with all three types of activities through a combined Orientation that balances all three Orien­tations in a responsive and supportive manner.

The inventory consists of 18 statements (9 PREFERENCE, 9 ACTUAL) with 4 responses per statement. Individuals rank the four responses per statement from 4 (meaning most) to 1 (meaning least). Completion of the WSP"" Inventory generates numeric scores for each of the Orienta­tions. These scores are used to determine a WorkStyle Profile. WorkStyle Profiles reflect the combination of Orientation scores, a "pattern" of the work approach. The WorkStyle Orientation represents the thinking mode to work, whereas the WorkStyle Profile represents the way to carry out that thinking. The degree of misalignment between the PREFERRED and ACTUAL Orientations and Profiles indicates potential individual and organizational stress, or productivity and individual satisfaction.

Changes in Educational Approach

Badger and Wanner (1991) identified significant misalign­ment in their study group as preferences to work indepen­dently conflicted with position requirements to work inter­dependently with improved coordination. In response to these findings and in an effort to improve the identified misalignment, DEWSC modified its educational approach in two main areas: recruitment and group learning. While the changes to be discussed below are occurring in many educational arenas, the Badger and Wanner (1991) results provided an impetus to accelerate adoption of the following modifications at DEWSC.

Recruitment

The Del E. Webb School of Construction, in partnership with local industry, has developed the Construction Recog­nition Banquet as an annual recruitment event. The focus of the event is to expose high school students and education professionals to the exciting opportunities in construction. This banquet showcases construction and construction pro­fessionals to outstanding high school students, educators, and guidance counselors. Interaction and informal discus­sions between students, educators and professionals are key to the success of this event. This is accomplished by seating at least one representative of the local industry and one DEWSC faculty member or student at each table. The Outstanding Woman Contractor and Outstanding Minority Contractor awards are given at the event, and a keynote lecture is presented pertinent to the construction industry.

Following the observation of significant misalignment in the 1991 study, the emphasis of the presentations at the Construction Recognition Banquet have changed. The requirements that constructors be "team players," and be able to coordinate and manage complex projects with complicated staff requirements have been stressed in recent years. This theme is also reflected in revised recruiting videos and brochures in the hope of attracting more students with preferences in these critical areas.

Group Learning

In addition to recruiting students with preferences to work interdependently, the faculty at the School created increased opportunities for group learning, team experience, and coordination in the curriculum. Group projects have be­come a part of most courses within DEWSC. The objective of each project is to provide educational contact with a particular subject area. However, taken institutionally, the objective is to provide opportunities for students to develop skills for working in teams and understanding group dy­namics throughout the educational process. Some faculty members argue that this goal is as important as the contact with the individual subject areas.

The operation of team assignments is different in each course. In some courses students are allowed to choose their own groups, while in other courses instructors determine group membership. Sometimes a group leader or spokes­person must be selected. Usually the group product consists of a written document and an oral presentation of results, though at times only a written report is required. By providing a variety of group experiences in different courses, each student experiences a number of group roles, a variety of group compositions, and a multiplicity of "ground rules." Team assignments are intended to serve as an experiential model for the operation of actual projects or project manage­ment after graduation, albeit on a smaller scale. In this way, the students should have an increased understanding for the character of the construction industry, and be better pre­pared to join its ranks as more productive members.

Evaluation/Discovery

In order to evaluate the impact of the change; in educational approach, a comparison between the student groups of the 1991 and 1994 studies is presented in this section. The 1994 data consists primarily of students it their last year of the program. Because moss students who were seniors in 1994 were re­cruited prior to the change in recruiting approach, the data does not necessarily reflect the impact of the change. However, it doe: provide insight into the effect that more group learning opportunities had on individual preferences.

WorkStyle PREFERENCE Results

Figure 1 presents the WorkStyle Patterns' Orientation comparison between the 1991 and 1994 study groups.

The WorkStyle PREFERENCE results (solid bars) in Figure 1 substantiate WorkStylc Patterns" historical trends that skill development and training do not change individual preferences; but rather provide opportunities for individuals to effectively manage WorkStyle differences. A comparison o: Figures IA and 1B reveals similar percent ages for the TASK and ADAPTING approaches from the 1991 and 1994 study groups. The two figures also reveal an increase in the ORGANIZA TION approach and a reduction in the PROJEC7 approach. The initial objective for instituting the educational changes described above was to reduce TASK Orientation and increase the PROJECT and ORGANIZATION Orientations of the gradu­ates. However, based on these results, the increase in group learning activities appears to have had a negligible influ­ence on student preferences away from the TASK Orienta­tion. In other words, it is very difficult to change the way people like to do their work.

As stated before, the WorkStyle Patterns" Inventory re­quires respondents to rank four responses to each of the nine statements dealing with preference (from "4" meaning "most" to "1" meaning "least"). A review of response rankings of the 1994 study group for the WSP"" Inventory PREFERENCE statements provides insight that supports the group's higher ORGANIZATION to influence goals and results and lower PROJECT PREFERENCES to coor­dinate projects and people.

Most Preferred Student Responses

The following responses are the study group's highest ranking responses for each of the nine statements dealing with preference:

The majority of these responses reflect a WorkStyle PREF­ERENCE to understand the whole and to be involved in a broader context.

Least Preferred Student Responses

The following responses are the study group's lowest rank­ing responses for each of the nine statements dealing with preference:

For the most part, these responses depict a low PREFER­ENCE for a work activities that includes group involvement and coordination.

Based on the trend from the comparison of Badger and Wanner (1991) with the 1994 data (Figure 1), the impact of modification in the DEWSC educational process has been negligible. However, there are certain benefits to the increased use of group learning outside of the hoped-for modification of PREFERENCES. The use of these tools introduces students to an interactive environment they will encounter upon entering the workforce. Additionally, there is evidence that student retention rates may be significantly increased over traditional approaches (National Training Laboratories).

Position ACTUAL Results

Similar to PREFERENCES, the ACTUAL Orientations are the nine statements (from "4" meaning "most" to "1" meaning "least") dealing with how individuals actually work. From an ACTUAL WorkStyle perspective, it is important to look at the subgroup (Construction Employed Students) of students who have or had employment in the construction industry and were able to use their constriction industry position as their frame of reference in responding to the WSPO Inventory statements about how they perceived their ACTUAL work requirements. This subgroup comprised 55%of the original study group and 57% of the current study group participants-a majority in both .

While students' PREFERRED activities increased in OR­GANIZATION Orientation to influence goals and results from 1991 to 1994, a comparison of the WorkStyle AC­TUAL requirements depicted with striped bars in Figure 2 reflects reductions in both the ORGANIZATION and PROJECT requirements. The TASK requirements re­flected a minimal increase (52%to 54%) while the ADAPT­ING approach posted the largest increase, from 24%to 39%. The TASK and ADAPTING Orientations comprised 93%, or 26 out of 28 of the total 1994 respondents of the Construction Employed Students Sub-Group. This is a little surprising when nine students held positions such as Owner, President, Construction Manager, Project Manager, Assis­tant Project Manager, Superintendent, and Foreman-posi­tions which would be expected to reflect PROJECT and ORGANIZATION Orientations.

As was presented earlier in the discussion of PREFERENCE data from Figure 1, are view of ACTUAL Response Rankings supporting the 1994 Construction Employed Student Sub Group results presented in Figure 2 provides insight that supports the groups higher TASK and lower PROJECT and ORGANIZATION ACTUALS.

Most Required Work Activities for Construction Employed Students ACTUAL

The following responses are the study group's highest ranking response for each of the nine statements dealing with the positions' ACTUAL requirements:

These activity responses largely reflect a WorkStyle ACTUAL that focuses on individual skills, responsibilities, and contributions.

Least Required Work Activities for Construction Employed Students ACTUAL:

The following responses are the study group's lowest rank­ing response for each of the nine statements dealing with the positions' ACTUAL requirements:

These activity responses reinforce the WorkStyle ACTUAL focus on individual contribution presented above and not on the group or organization as a whole.

Though this study does not evaluate the impact of the construction industry on the WorkStyle ACTUAL responses, it does reveal the following potential con­cerns when compared with the PREF­ERENCE data:

The trend seen in the decrease in PROJECT PREFERENCE of the Total Study Groups (5% to 0%) and the de­crease in perceived PROJECT ACTUAL (14% to 4%) of the Construction Em­ployed Student subgroup is headed in a precarious direction. Due to modern day re-engineering efforts, organizations of­ten need more coordination and commu­nication and more people who prefer such activities to compensate for Middle Management and Supervisory positions that, no longer exist. Re-engineering efforts have been observed to have these effects in all industries, which are not specific to the construction industry alone. It is McFletcher's observation that when perceived PROJECT activities decrease, there is an unwelcome increase in ADAPTING activities as employees re­spond to surprises, lack of coordination and other unplanned events. In fact, according to McFletcher's research, if the ADAPTING ACTUAL reaches and exceeds 40%, the entire organization or industry enters a state of crisis management which is difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.

Looking at the Construction Employed Student Sub­Group in Figure 2 the increase in ORGANIZATION PREFERENCE (33% to 54%) combined with the re­duction in perceived ORGANIZATION work require­ments (ACTUAL) (10% to 4%) further increases discrepancy between student preferences and opportunities for influencing goals andresultsfrom24%to50%. This growing misalignment will contribute to both Personal and Organizational Stress.

Alignment and WorkStyle Stress

Alignment simultaneously embraces the concepts of productivity and stress. A discrepancy between one's PRE FERRED WorkStyle and one's ACTUAL WorkStyle car produce various degrees of stress, which may be manifested in a variety of ways (Table 1). Typical personal response: to discrepancies include apathy and/or low productivity, irritability and fre­quent complaints, and health disor­ders or illness. A person with a significant WorkStyle discrepancy may even make changes in the position in order to meet his or her own personal needs. This can cause both Personal and Or­ganizational Stress. Organizational Stress can be observed through misun­derstandings of work expectations, product quality and customer service problems, missed deadlines, and higher turnover.

In addition to differentiating between Personal and Organizational Stress, it is important to determine the level of stress from the degree of misalign­ment. That is to say, the greater the discrepancy between the PREFERRED and ACTUAL Profile scores in each Orientation, the more stress is manifested. The McFletcher Corporation identifies three Levels of Stress based upon the degree of misalign­ment between the PREFERRED and ACTUAL Orienta­tions. The most significant condition is referred to as Level III Stress, and indicates a conflicting difference likely to impact both the individual and the organization. Figure 3

represents Level III Stress percentages for the McFletcher General Study Group, the current ASU Construction Stu­dent Group, and the current Construction Employed Stu­dent Sub-Group. The General Study Group represents respondents from a variety of industries and professions in the McFletcher Corporation's Data Base. A comparison of the student groups with the General Study Group indicates that:

As indicated from this study's sampling, the construc­tion industry might be experiencing much higher Orga­nizational Stress (Level III) in the TASK Orientation than the General Study Group. The discrepancy is even worse for the Construction Employed Students Subgroup (students prefer much less task).

Employees in the construction industry might be experiencing a much higher level of Personal Stress in the ORGANIZA­TION Orientation than the General Study Group. This picture worsens when you identify that 82% of this group are between the ages of 23 and 32-meaning they could experience this level of stress for many years to come.

Partnership with Industry

Even though Badger and Wanner (1991) identified the need for educators to partner with the construction industry to address the misalignment challenge, efforts fo­cused on educators adjusting the education process-recruitment and curriculum content/processes. From the study results presented earlier, misalignment actually increased. The recruiting process may eventually influence the increased enrollment of stu­dents with preferences for working interdependently in teams; however, given the nature of entry to the department, dramatic changes in the type of student attracted to construc­tion are unlikely. And even though the curriculum adjust­ments provided increased opportunities for teaming and coordination (skills development), preference results pre­sented earlier showed negative alignment results-attempt­ing to change individual preference is not a successful strategy.

If changing preference is not a successful strategy, maybe influencing the design of the positions graduates win occupy has merit (position actuals). What will motivate industry to make such changes? It is natural to think that while industry will not ignore the personal misalignment stress among employees, it might be more motivated to deal with organi­zational (misalignment) stress-the idea that required activi­ties are not being performed. Also, from Table 2B, the Adapting Actual (39%) is approaching 40%, a potentially dangerous level according to McFletcher research-an indi­cation of crisis management.

The need for industry action on position design can be further demonstrated by evaluating the WorkStyle PREF­ERENCE Profiles as correlated with construction positions by Badger and Wanner(1991). Using these correlations and the PREFERRED Profiles developed by each student who completed the instrument, the breakdown shown in Table 2 was developed.

The position designations mown are not to imply that a particular group of students will end up in these roles. They represent the percentage of students who have preferences for work which, were they in the indicated position, would align closely to create a more productive match. Each student would end up in a position which closely matches their preference in a perfect world. However, more than likely many will end up in other kinds of positions. In any event, if these percentages do not match up well with the percentages required in each position, then misalignment and WorkStyle stress among the work force would be expected.

From Table 2, these scenarios can be projected as this group enters into the construction world:

A large number find their first jobs as estimators and schedulers. Because these positions are TASK oriented, a large percentage of the group will experience Level III ORGANIZATIONAL Stress as they learn some of the basics of the industry. They will welcome any kind of participative effort their companies sponsor such as team training, group planning sessions, project reviews with customers, etc. Those who move into superintendent positions will be able to utilize the associated skills acquired during their educational years, but will require close coaching/mentoring to experience success in the position and to minimize Level III ORGANIZATIONAL Stress in the PROJECT Orientation.

As members of the group move on to project manager positions, a large percentage will be more closely aligned to their PREFERRED ways of working and should dem­onstrate a higher level of productivity.

Because a high percentage prefer an ADAPTING ap­proach, those fortunate enough to move into the limited number of vice presi­dential positions will be re­sponsive and flexible, but also vulnerable to burnout as they try to accomplish multiple goals with short deadlines.

Those who prefer the INDE­PENDENT WORKER ap­proach will appreciate TASK Oriented work but not find the degree of autonomy they seek. Some of these may leave their employer once they believe they have enough experience, capital and con­tacts to operate independently as a company president.

Summary and Recommendations

Following the work of Badger and Wanner (1991), a 1994 study was performed with anew group of students to identify their WorkStyle PREFERENCES and ACTUALS to deter­mine the impact of the original study's implemented recom­mendations on the WorkStyle Alignment of DEWSC's Construction Students. Despite exposure to change in the educational approach, WorkStyle Preferences of the 1994 group show little change from the Badger and Wanner (1991) group and the perception of ACTUAL work require­ments in the construction industry has changed in such a way that misalignment increased-not decreased. According to McFletcher Data Base research, this misalignment trans­lates into Level III Personal and Organization Stress at higher levels than the General Study Group (See Figure 3).

Based upon the results of the 1994 Study and the research/ experience of the McFletcher Corporation, educators, in­dustry, and students have multiple options to reduce and/or constructively manage the misalignment and associated stress. In order to better serve the Construction Industry and their students, educators should:

Continue the interactive group learning approach to develop skills, create awareness, and enhance the learn­ing process-no preference with skills is better than no preference without skills.

Continue current efforts in the recruitment process, but consider administration of the alignment instrument earlier in the educational process to provide a more timely assessment of recruiting efforts and early of the alignment concept to students. Early student aware­ness of this concept is critical in the planning/prepara­tion process.

Provide opportunities for successful graduates to return as guest lecturers in appropriate classes and student organizations to share experiences related to growth opportunities (ORGANIZATION activities) beyond TASK oriented positions.

Consider expanding the current alignment research in this area to include additional universities and small and large construction firms to validate and enhance current findings.

Initiate partnership activities with industry and students through such avenues as the Construction Indus­try Institute and the Alliance for Construction Excel­lence.

Through the initiation of partnerships with industry, educat­ors position themselves to share research activities and request the participation of industry through:

Adjusting the work content of positions that new gradu­ates will enter to include ORGANIZATION activity opportunities. Include such projects as evaluating TQM process improvements and developing safety programs into entry level positions to prepare employ­ees for future responsibilities and reduce Personal Stress in the ORGANIZATION Orientation.

Active participation in the educational and recruitment process to obtain high quality graduates. This would include attending banquets, being (providing) a guest lecturer, and participating in partnership organiza­tions.

Participation in future alignment research activities by providing time, access to personnel, and funding to ensure a competitive edge.

A consistent commitment to professional development and career pathing for all employees to reduce turnover and retain high quality professionals.

A commitment to understanding the alignment concept and working with employees in the formulation of plans (individual and company) to constructively deal with misalignment to enhance profitability.

would be easy to stop here and place the total burden of misalignment and its resulting stress on educators and industry. However, it is important to identify that students ire an important component in the alignment equation and seed to:

Be realistic and patient about the amount of time required to work through TASK Oriented positions to get to the ORGANIZATION Oriented positions.

Understand the alignment concept and deal with mis­alignment constructively. Work with employers in the creation of plans to reduce both Personal and Organi­zational Stress.

Validate/clarify individual perceptions of ACTUAL work requirements with Employer ACTUAL require­ments-IS versus SHOULD BE. Commit to and be accountable carrying out those requirements.

Be prepared to stretch between a PREFERRED ap­proach to work and the required ACTUAL while developing a skill base to support preferences.

McFletcher research indicates that as alignment improves and/or misalignment is constructively managed, satisfac­tion and efficiency increase while turnover decreases. All should realize that individual preferences are strengths that individuals bring to organizations and will help maintain the vitality of the industry. Industry should work jointly with employees to utilize these strengths appropriately. The current misalignment gap will never disappear completely, but it will narrow as educators, industry, and students commit to working individually and collectively on the recommendations outlined above. All need to stretch.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the excellent staff of the McFletcher Corporation for their assistance in the preparation and editing of this document and for use of the data referenced herein. We also wish to thank Bill Badger and Chip Wanner for their input and counsel in the preparation of this study.

References

Badger, W. W., and Wanner, C., "WorkStyle Profile for the Constructors-The Educators Role; Aligning the Peg and the Hole," Annual Conference Proceedings, ASC, 1991, pp. 121-134.

The McFletcher Corporation, WorkStyle Patterns""(WSPI) Inventory (Copyright 1979, 1982, revised 1984, 1988, and 1993), 10617 N. Hayden Road, Suite 103, Scottsdale, AZ 85260, (602) 991-9497.

The McFletcher Corporation, WorkStyle Normative Data (Copyright 1984,1986, 1994), 10617 N. Hayden Rd., Suite 103, Scottsdale, AZ 85260, (602) 991-9497.

National Training Laboratories, Workshop Materials, Bethel, Maine.

Go to the  Home page for:

Associated Schools of Construction Proceedings of the Annual Conference.  Copyright 2003
For problems or questions regarding this web contact Tulio Sulbaran, Proceedings Editor/Publisher.
Last updated: September 09, 2004.