|
CULTURE AND CONFLICT
|
| Figure 1 - Allaire and Firsirotu (1984) |
|
In Malinowski's (Malinowski (1944)) functionalist conception, the focus is upon the needs of the individual, viewing culture as an instrument by which a person is placed in a better position to deal with specific problems in the course of satisfying their needs, manifesting itself in myths and legends.
Radcliffe-Brown (Radcliffe-Brown (1952)) and other structural-functionalists on the other hand view culture as an adaptive mechanism that enables people to live within a safe, secure and stable community within a larger environment. Accordingly, for the structural-functionalists culture is a component of the integrated social system but also contains components of social structure in order to regulate both the internal social existence and the external relationship of the system within its environment.
The diachronic (Allaire and Firsirotu (1984)) ecological-adaptionists view culture as socially transmitted patterns of behaviour designed to relate collectives to their environment, thus a change in environment impacts upon culture and the two define each other. Indeed, a culture's harnessing and development of technology impacts upon the environment in which the culture exists, which inturn impacts upon the culture, creating a cyclical causative pattern (Hammond (1978)).
Historical-diffusionists regard culture as the temporal, interactive, superorganic and autonomous product of historical circumstance and process; they focus upon how traits migrate between cultures through diffusion and changes develop from within by acculturation and assimilation.
Ideational system
Allaire and Firsirotu (1984) explain that four very different schools fall within the the ideational system, all postulated upon a "...distinct cultural realm manifested in cognitive structures, processes or products." For three of the four schools culture is contained within the minds of the culture-bearers, whereas in the cognitive school (which Allaire and Firsirotu (1984) note is sometimess called the ethnographic school) culture is "...a system of knowledge, of learned standards for perceiving, believeing, evaluating and acting."
Within the cognitive school Tyler (1969) observes that culture is not material phenomena but instead cognitive organisations of material phenomena, whilst Goodenough (1957) explains that culture consists of whatever is necessary to be known or believed so as to be able to be accepted within a collective.
Levi-Strauss' structuralist school on the other hand holds culture as a reflection of unconscious universal processes consisting of shared symbolic systems; the objective is therefore to reveal the principles that create features such as myths, art and language.
Viewed as standardised cognitive processes, the mutual equivalence school believes that culture produces a general framework for behavioural predictability within a collective, facilitating the organisation of diverse mindsets and motivators without the necessity of overlap in cognitive structure.
Whereas in the symbolic school, as Allaire and Firsirotu (1984) explain, culture should not be searched for within the minds of those within the collective, but instead the "...meanings and thinking shared by social actors". Thus, the symbolic school examines shared codes and or how those within a collective guide their lives.
The various schools offer researchers alternative ways of addressing anthropological enquiries, and although there are those who have advocated a sythesis of various theories in order to create a broader and more inclusive appreciation of culture and its impact (cf. Allaire and Firsirotu (1984)), others have preferred to maintain narrower concepts (Hall and Neitz (1993)) so that by focusing on less, more may be learnt.
Socialisation continually shapes the perception filter of both the individual and the group, constituting subjective reality. It is the product of information that has been gathered and learnt, which itself is the sum of hitherto collated experiences and knowledge; and yet from the invisible and unconscious to the blatant and physical, culture can manifest itself in any number of ways. Between them Schein (1985), Bass (1990) and Hofstede (2001) gave the following examples of visible and invisible cultural manifestations:
- Invisible - values, beliefs and underlying assumptions.
- Visible - artefacts, creations, behavioural norms, symbols, heroes and rituals
It follows the study of any culture involves an examination of the practices, values and underlying assumptions that inform the practices, although the emphasis upon each layer and questions asked will be determined by the purpose of the investigation.
Van den Berg and Wilderom (2004) however, defined organisational culture as shared perceptions of organisational work practices within organisational units, capable of being derived from the autonomy, external orientation, interdepartmental coordination, human resource orientation and improvement orientation. Smith (2000) urges a similar opinion, rather than a conventional view of culture, i.e. the idea of shared values and beliefs, an operational perspective is called for "...as embodied in the organisation's structures, mechanisms and practices", i.e. culture in action.
Examination of culture through the study of organisational practices is therefore beneficial since not only are practices easier to observe and measure, but they are also conducive to comparison and relation to others. Such an approach resonates with the objectives of this study by which the practices encouraged and prescribed by the various standard forms of contract shall be measured, compared and contrasted to the cultural traits identified through the extended literature review as being conducive to effective conflict management or otherwise.
The implications for this research therefore is that Van den Berg and Wilderom's (2004) definition can be similarly applied to define construction contractual culture as shared perceptions of project work practice within contractual limits of a construction project or otherwise. Project work practices are therefore the central part of the definition.
Van den Berg and Wilderom (2004) explain that many researchers such as Hibbard (1998) and White (1998) focused upon values to define organisational culture, but Hofstede's (2001) research demonstrated greater differences in practices than in values, although opposite results were discovered amongst national cultures. Hofstede (2001) explained that such results were by reason that values are acquired early in life and within the family, supporting the view that contractual culture can be better defined by contractual practices. Further, values are not ordinarily visible, but contractual values are expressed in contractual practices.
Van den Berg and Wilderom (2004) also observed that in their previous research they had measured practices and values but had found that organisations differed more strongly on practices than values. Accordingly, the implications for this research shall be that values will not be explicitly included within this study's working definition.
Peters and Waterman (1982) influenced the notion that that in a strong organisational culture, participants would possess the same set of values, arguing that the best companies were those in which the participants were strongly committed to the same values. The assumption grew that successful cultures possessed participants who held similar basic values and assumptions; Van den Berg and Wilderom (2004) hold Hibbard (1998) and White (1998) as examples of such.
Van den Berg and Wilderom (2004) explain however, that there is limited academic evidence of a relationship between strong culture and performance, citing Denison (1990), Calori and Sarnin (1991), Gordon and DiTomaso (1992), and, Kotter and Heskett (1992). They also note that Brown (1998), O'Reilly and Chatman (1996), and Wilderom, Glunk and Maslowski (2000) have reviewed those studies critically and found that they lacked a clear connection between conceptual and operational definitions of the strength of organisational culture. More significantly, Van den Berg and Wilderom (2004) state that culture strength generally only reflects the degree of consensus amongst paticipants, which does not demonstrate the degree of culture in several respects. Thus Van den Berg and Wilderom (2004) conclude that the culture strength variable is too limited to be of use to either measure or explain a phenomenon as complex as culture, whether organisational or, as in the context of this study, contractual.
Similar to that of Van den Berg and Wilderom (2004), the focus of this study is upon the perceptions of contractual practices as opposed to objective occurence of the same, thereby highlighting that contractual culture is essentially a perceptual yet contractual phenomenon witnessed by the participants. Accordingly, Van den Berg and Wilderom (2004) explain that the perceptions of a sample of the participants should form part of the assessment, which in this instance will be of the contractual culture.
Although this study adopts an adaptation of Van den Berg and Wilderom's (2004) definition, i.e. contractual culture as the shared perception of contractual practices, Van den Berg and Wilderom (2004) explain that the concept is similar to that of climate, the difference being that whilst both culture and climate concern the internal social psychological environment within an overall context, culture studies are normally qualitative based upon social constructionism, whereas climate studies are usualy quantitative founded in Lewinin field theory accordng to Denison (1996). Such differences now appear to be disappearing according to Van den Berg and Wilderom (2004) who cite Denison (1996) amongst others; but whilst they do not stress a distinction between the two, they nevertheless identify that climate concerns the present position whilst culture is the identification of actual behaviour, with regards to the latter of which this study is focused.
Within such a competing environment "To question the universality of your own reality or mindset or to acknowledge that the reality or mindset of others may fundamentally differ from your own is disorientating." (Kimmel (2006)). It is far easier when discusing delays and disruption within a progress meeting on a construction project for example, to believe that the other party will analyse the facts, attribute cause, ascertain effect, apportion responsibilty and liability, and value each party's entitlements and obligations in the same way as one's own approach. To anticipate otherwise demands that a daunting spectrum of alternative approaches be entertained and accounted for, which results in uncertainty and an unsound basis upon which to establish further decisions as to how to proceed. Inevitably negotiating with those from the same or a similar culture as one's own increases the likelihood that "...expectations of commonality..." will be satisfied, but conversely there is a much greater possibility of unforeseen difference when the parties possess dissimilar cultures.
Unless circumstances determine that a collective mediate regularly with other groups, it is inevitable that without being exposed to the opportunity to appreciate the uniqueness of its own culture that a collective may develop the belief that its way of thinking and going about matters is not only best, but the only way of doing so, creating furtile ground in which to sow the seed for misunderstanding, conflict and if left unmediated, dispute.
Upon reaching adulthood, an individual's subjective culture is, in the main, sufficiently established to be rationally articulated internally, and continues to crystallise with age. Consequently, individuals can find it increasingly difficult to appreciate the view of others with mindsets that are different to their own, particularly in circumstances in which an individual is exposed to dwindling intercultural experiences. Indeed, research on intercultural communications (Glenn (1962)) demonstrates that negotiators often adopt an approach that is based upon their own cultural perception on the basis that it is logical in the circumstances; however when those of the other party do not meet with their expectations such is considered objectionable and is attributed to malevolent intentions, idleness and or incompetence.
An example of this in the construction industry can arise from the necessity to issue a notice under the contract, here concerning a possible delay event. An experienced contractor may understand that a particular standard form of contractual provisions determines that in order to maintain its entitlement to an extension of time arising from a possible delay event which may occur if evasive action is not taken by the Architect, the contractor must issue a given notice under the relevant contract clause within a specific period of time. In this instance say that unless design information is received by the contractor by a specified date the Works will suffer delay. The contractor is motivated to issue the notice because failure to do so, regardless of whether the contractor will ultimately seek an extension of time on such basis, may render the contractor unentitled to an extension of time even if the delay event arises. The Architect who receives the notice however, may not perceive that provision of further information is necessary, does not appreciate why the contractor has issued such notice and therefore attributes the notice to malevolent intentions by the Contractor. Moreover the Architect may even perceive the notice to be a veiled attack upon the Architect's performance and an attempt by the contractor to seek an extension of time for delays for which the Contractor is responsible. The Architect therefore dismisses the Contractor's notice and refuses to provide further information on the basis that doing so will, in the Architect's view, amount to an admission that insufficient information had been provided in the first instance. The Architect's refusal is similarly perceived negatively by the contractor, thereafter each begins to progressively distrust the other with each attributing malevolent intention on the part of the other wherever possible and accelerating the rate of deterioration in the relationship.
Ross (1977) labelled the tendency to perceive behaviour and attribute it negatively as fundamental attribution error, and Cohen (1991) observed that many difficulties in international negotiations arose from fundamental attribution errors.
Sending messages between groups with different subjective cultures is therefore difficult and fundamental attribution errors increase the likelihood of misunderstanding, particularly during periods of intense anxiety amongst those participating in the construction contract. The objective of the participants must therefore be to limit the opportunity for fundamental attribution error to arise if conflict is to be managed effectively.
Employer's resentatives who prefer to believe that it is better not to air differences in front of the employer in order to maintain a perceived professional profile and so as to "save the face" of all in the eyes of the employer, may seek to agree an overall settlement within an amicable agreement at the end of the contract rather than to issue a direct response. But in doing so they risk being perceived by contractors as motivationally evasive and or characteristically devious.
In each case both parties may be demonstrating behavior that is perceived by their own not only to be normal but to be encouraged, but without intercultural training and experience there is a greater likelihood that stereotypes will be perpetuated.
To project one's own mindset in this manner, although naive as Fisher (1998) explains, is nevertheless normal within any society since it is the function of culture to generate homogeneous patterned human thought and behaviour by which everyone can project their perception expectations onto others without surprise or disappointment; providing the sense of security that only predictability can provide and with that mutual cooperation.
Expression of negative attribution however serves only to exasperate matters; encouraging the accused to become less receptive to perspectives and ideas different to their own that may be advanced. Unsurprisingly accusations of being inept and or malevolent generally cause offence, particularly when those being accused intend the opposite and serve only to encourage retaliatory claims. Negative attribution error therefore creates negative emotions and behaviours. In turn it generates further negative attributions and a downward degenerative cycle thereafter follows. Eventually the ultimate attribution error is achieved by which every individual involved is stereotyped as expressing personal dispositions when they do something undesirable in the eyes of the other, and as having no other choice when they do something desirable (Pettigrew (1979)).
A theory of reasoning however was developed by Glenn and Glenn (1981) which drew a spectrum of distinction between:
- intuitive reasoning, i.e. by which authority, principles and precedents hold the greatest weight, at one end of the spectrum; and
- conceptual reasoning, i.e. by which experience, observation and pragmatism hold the greatest weight, at the other end of the spectrum; and
- pragmatic reasoning, i.e. by which society has become still more diverse and specialised, the conceptual method is common, collective representations are viewed as testable hypotheses as opposed to absolutes and principles are only ideas to be dispensed with if unsuccessful.
Every day examples of the Glenn and Glenn (1981) theory in practice can be witnessed by comparison of sub-contrator and main contractor organisations within the construction industry. Although there are exceptions to the rule, generally speaking sub-contractors are normally smaller business units than the main contracting organisations with whom they contract. The larger main contracting organisation generally consist of specialist departments, such as contract management, surveying, and engineering, not to mention specialist administration departments including accounts, secretarial, purchasing and estimating. All of the functions undertaken by the specialist departments within the main contracting organisation are also undertaken within the smaller sub-contract organisations, but because of their size there does not exist the cost effective opportunity to have departments dedicated to the same specialisms to the same degree as they are within main contracting organisations. Instead a number of the specialist functions undertaken within the main contracting organisation may be undertaken by one individual within the sub-contractor so that for example, within the sub-contractor an individual may be responsible for estimating, surveying, engineering and contracts mangement with perhaps a particular emphasis upon one area depending upon the background of the individual.
Within the sub-contractor as a consequence, there may be less specialism, which by necessity increases the likelihood of greater generalisation and inevitably a greater reliance upon the intuitive reasoning of prinicples and precedents, whereas within the main contracting organisations there may be a greater emphasis upon experience and observation resulting in a dichotomy of cultural approaches between the sub-contract and main contracting organisation which can be so great so as not to be understood by the other.
Kimmel (2006) noted that Glenn and Glenn (1981) suggested that with greater specialisation "collective representations become to be seen as hypotheses to be tested rather than absolute truths." As a society progresses consensual reasoning gives way to pragmatic interpretation and what was understood to be a 'principle' matures to become an idea to be applied by derivation from, or guided by experience, observation or experiment; to be amended or dispensed with if found not to work.
Accordingly obtaining an appreciation of the basis of reasoning (mindset) of the other party is critical if both the relationship and conflict between the parties is to be managed effectively. Those who refer to specific clauses contained within a contract, books of authority and judicial precedents demonstrate a reliance upon intuitive reasoning, which Hofstede (1980) described as being high on uncertainty avoidance; whereas those who rely upon intention and conceptual beliefs reveal conceptual reasoning, described by Hofstede (1980) as ranking low upon uncertainty avoidance, exhibiting higher tolerance levels towards risk and ambiguity.
Thus, the mindset enables individuals to perceive selectively in accordance with their cognitive structure. It would be pointless, even counterproductive, to notice everything, so instead the mindset perceives selectively without conscious effort, without the necessity to consciously decide in each event. Further, to aid stability of the mindset, which is necessary to maintain efficiency, perception tends to avoid disturbing established cognitive systems as little as possible and seeks to interpret in a manner that is consistent with the existing mindset. However, mindsets can change but may create 'cognitive dissonance' as Fisher (1998) points out, by which new experiences or information cannot be reconciled within the pre-existing cognitive system so that new explanations have to be created.
Accordingly, as Fisher (1998) observes a peaceful mind is a closed mind, but perception is much more locked than may be appreciated, taking a disproportionate amount of effort to change habitual ways of perception and reasoning. Fisher (1998) explains that evidence indicates that our brains are rigidly programmed as to what data will and will not be processed; the reason being that what we perceive is much greater than that which actually meets the eye with the sequence commencing innocently enough with the stimulus meeting the eye, thereafter however the stimulus triggers connections to previous, similar or related experiences which are continuously bound together until a complete overall picture is perceived within the mindset. The result as Fisher (1998) explains is that people are very selective as to what they directly perceive through their senses; perception is capable without seeing the whole and it is possible to perceive that which was not there creating the potential for misperception.
The mindset being moulded by society and culture, by education and socialisation, social experience, information and knowledge transmitted from other people, the way a person perceives others, interprets what they are doing and why, and how they respond is dictated by sociocultural circumstance, which when extended determines how one society or one group perceives another.
The social perception process, as explained by Fisher (1998), is extensively studied by social psychologists. Their study and evidence supports the idea that just as in physical reality, in social reality people perceive, reason and respond not according to the facts but instead pursuant to the image they form of the facts. Indeed, they emphasise that the individual's mindset deliberately channels the choice of perceptions from which an individual may choose, making it difficult to either detect and or override one's mindset in the interests of objectivity.
Fisher (1998) also explains that a further complication of such 'locked-in perception phenomenon' is that the more abstract a subject is perceived to be the more an individual will draw upon their cognitive system's resources to create meaning. This has particular significance in the area of construction because the bespoke nature of the majority of that which it produces determines a wide and varied possibility of abstract issues from arising in each project, including but not limited to points of law, contract interpretation, risk allocation, measurement, valuation, and delays. Thus, as Fisher (1998) observes, an individual will draw upon a higher proportion of previous experiences and knowledge when summoning a picture of an abstract issue than an individual would otherwise if physically gazing upon the subject itself.
It therefore follows that with regard to abstract issues the potential for variation of interpretation is inevitable, unavoidable and significant, particularly when varying intellectual abilities and perspectives of differing societies and groups are accounted for.
Equally and alternatively, to perceive an intangible issue demands the existence of a supportive cognitive system for without such, it is extremely difficult to construct a picture of an entirely foreign abstract sufficiently so as to be capable of generating meaning, so that perception is "locked-out" rather than "locked-in". In the area of construction conflict management, this can be experienced in circumstances in which no matter how many times or various ways are used to explain an issue, it resists comprehension by the other party who have to acquire or be provided with a completely new complex frame of reference before they may have opportunity to attach the necessary meanings to the facts to understand.
Just as the mindset channels perception, perception may be determined by the way the subject is presented. Fisher (1998) describes how the nature of stimulus is an area of particular study by psychologists, and how it can vary in intensity, strength, duration and repetition, and specifically tuned to fit the intended recipient's needs and interests. The degree of 'spin', i.e. stimulus, within British politics became much discussed within the UK media between 1997 and 2010, particularly during the period in which Tony Blair occupied the office of British Prime Minister, and much has been subsequently written in the UK media regarding concerted efforts to change the perception of Gordon Brown by the British electorate.
Simply put, events as they arise during construction may be interpreted in different ways dependent upon the context in which they arise and conversely the meaning may be altered by broadening the context or taking the subject out of context.
Kimmel (2006) explains that it is also common to blame others for how we perceive their reasoning and communications, when greater understanding, both of them and us, is possible by looking at the differences between how we communicate. Within all communications there are significant conceptual dimensions, be they high or low context (Hall (1976)) and restricted or elaborated codes (Berstein (1975)).
|
Figure 2 - Hall (1981) The relationship between high and low context communications and meaning |
|
The difference between high and low context is that in the case of a high context communication the majority of the information necessary to appreciate the meaning of the communication is actually embedded within the context in which the communication is presented and comparatively very little information is contained in the explicitly transmitted part of the message. Unsurprisingly, low context communications are the opposite.
Bernstein (1975) observed that restricted code categories appear more often in high context communications, assuming the meanings of the recipient and thereby placing greater stress upon them. Whereas elaborated codes which commonly appear in low context communications, make the meaning explicit, placing greater stress upon the communicator to fit the message to the receiver.
Accordingly appreciating the communicator's and receiver's degree of context by listening for such codes can assist in the understanding of the situation, so that high context communications are commonly adopted in circumstances where the social relationship is important.
This contextual differentiation is characterised with the process of escalation from conflict to dispute, during which period there is a progression from the high contextual content of the written communications between the parties who are familiar with the project to the low contextual exchanges influenced by advisors who seek to establish communications capable of being relied upon by their client and understood by a potential third party decider as supportive of their client's position.
In high context systems, such as in Japan, those in positions of authority are personally and truly responsible for the actions of their subordinates, which as Hall (1981) explains includes down to the lowest man. In low context systems such as the United States of America and the UK, responsibility is diffused throughout the system so that it is difficult to identify those who are personally and truly responsible; Hall (1981) describes that in the event that a scapegoat is required, the lowest ranking scapegoat is chosen. High and low context organisations however are not the sole preserve of each respective system; high and low context organisations exist within high and low context systems. Within construction, the inability of a high context organisation to appreciate the communications of a low context organisation and vice-versa can create escalatory pressures upon conflict, i.e. an environment that is not conducive to effective conflict management.
Hall (1981) also describes that the degree to which an individual is committed to complete an action chain is one of the many ways in which cultures vary. Generally, those within high context cultures have a high degree of involvement with one another, they are higly interconnected and cohesive. This creates a strong personal and emotional bond between people which inevitably tends to develop a very high level of committment to complete action chains, which can create a reluctance to enter into anything in which the relationships are not well established.
By comparison low context individuals, such as those of north European descent and who primarily function through the use of word based communication systems do not ordinarily experience such profound sense of obligation to complete action chains. They may well therefore break a chain with very little hesitation if matters are not going as they had anticipated or their energies would be more profitably spent if directed elsewhere.
Consequently in circumstances in which it is necessary for those with different expectations and commitments to manage conflict between them, unless the different contextual approaches of the parties are recognised, respected and accommodated by all; it is unlikely that they shall be able to do so effectively.
To compound matters, Spitz (1964) theorised that if a human being is forced to cope with too many broken chains they shall have to compensate and that too many compensations will eventually prevent normal behaviour, which Spitz identifies as 'derailment of dialogue'. It is upon such derailment that Spitz attributes many of the ills of society in general.
Hill (1981) notes how high-context people also tend to be polychronic; that is they are apt to being involved in a lot of different activities with a number of people at any one time, characteristic of Mediterranean cultures. By comparison those who are monochronic tend to originate from within low-context cultures, in part by reason as to how they prefer to manage their lives, being more comfortable to take one matter at a time and finding simultaneous activities, relationships, and situations stressful. It is the high involvement factor however, that creates the higher levels of context, but to the monochronic such behaviour appears to be wildly disorganised, action chains become broken, conflict management becomes less effective and relationships tend to deteriorate.
By contrast, polychronics prioritise being nice, courteous and sociable with others below the completion of the project, but are much more prone to anger once it starts. The polychronic action chains therefore revolves around the human relationships formed; to prioritise attainment of the goal above the relationship with others is a distinctly unattractive characteristic to a polychronic.
From the perspective of effective conflict management, the monochronic and polychronic working together will view the same project from very different perspectives, with different objectives and different priorities.
The astonshing mosaic of contractual relationships common to the majority of UK construction schemes combined with the largely bespoke nature of its product bestows upon its particpants an obligation to regularly and successfully negotiate with their contractual neighbours to varying degrees and effectively manage conflict between them; create microcultures; utilise and understand both high and low context communications; and, exploit intuitive and conceptual reasoning as circumstances dictate.
Bordon (1991) explains that intuitive reasoning is the principal function used to create and express new ideas, commonly associated with the creative role of an Architect in the construction process, and which is high in contextual meaning. By comparison the conceptual approach is the primary function used to organise and elaborate such ideas, commonly associated with the contractor's role within a construction project. The capacity for differing mindsets is therefore considerable and so where the mindsets are very different, say at the beginning of the project, it is beneficial to adopt low context and conceptual communications in order to share information effectively. Whereas, as a project proceeds and relationships develop higher context communication with their restricted codes become more important to the maintenance of relationships betwen participants.
The idiom 'a problem shared is a problem halved' resonates with Saunders' (1987) observation that combining ideas and approaches through facilitated intercultural exploration can produce successful solutions that may not have been conceived in isolation, improving the relationships between participants and increasing the effectiveness of conflict management.
Greenberg & Baron (2008) note however that not all conflict is the same, observing that Dirks and McLean (2003) identify among three significant types of conflict that often occur:
- Substantive conflict - describes the conflict produced by a clash of perspectives, and if harnessed properly can be used to to produce an effective decision making process.
- Affective conflict - arises from a clash of personality or other interpersonal tension, often manifested in frustration and anger and common when individuals from different backgrounds are brought together to perform a task. It follows therefore, that those with greater similarity of background are less likely to clash.
- Process conflict - is generated by disagreements as to how resources and duties are divided within a group and with whom responsibilities will rest. Thus the greater the process conflict the more overall performance shall suffer.
Differentiating between conflict and dispute, Fenn et al (1997) identify that conflict is not only pandemic wherever interests compete but that it may also be managed so as to prevent conflict from escalating into dispute and the creative possibilities of conflict harvested. Whereas dispute on the other hand denotes a loss of creativity, the onset of destruction, the need for resolution, lending itself to third party intervention all of which has a cost, not merely measurable in terms of obvious hard currency but the less obvious and more difficult to measure destruction, opportunities lost and the personal loss to all those involved in its many guises. Thus Fenn et al (1997) establishes the existence of "escalation" from conflict to dispute, and significantly, not only that conflict can be managed effectively but as a consequence, that there is also a clear and present commercial advantage in doing so.
Indeed Cole (1995) proposed that when conflict is "...managed effectively," it "...can contribute to organisational effectiveness, but when mishandled can give rise to counter-productive behaviour, in which both sides lose."
To emphasise the point, Pruitt (2006) explained that "...in its original sense, "escalation" means movement from less extreme to more extreme contentious tactics by one or both parties to a conflict", including the "level of escalation" by which he means "...the severity of contentious tactics... used...", but the underlying causes of conflict stem from a variety of causes, including in particular grudges, distrust, malevolent attributions, destructive criticisms and competition for scarce resources identified by Greenberg & Baron (2008).
A grudge is the desire to seek revenge for a perceived wrong that is toxic to healthy relationships, can lead to the creation of alliances and drawing of informal battle lines which may all the while remain unknown both to the target of attention and others, wasting and misdirecting the energy of those drawn into the pattern of behaviour which would otherwise be more productively put to use upon the overall collective's endeavour.
Similarly the greater the perception that a party cannot be trusted, the more likely that conflict will arise and yet conversely within those projects viewed as desirable places to work, the environment is characterised by high levels of trust.
The malevolent attribution on the other hand is the perception that someone or thing has deliberately set about to hurt them, and where the perception turns to belief, conflict is rendered inevitable. Whereas in those circumstances in which a party who perceives harm suffered believes that such is not deliberate, conflict is not inevitable. It follows that false attributions of harm suffered at the hand another inevitably causes conflict as harm is then perceived to have been suffered by all parties.
Destructive rather than constructive critisism all too often results in avoidable conflict by which the opportunity to understand how a task may be performed better is otherwise lost to anger and suspicion.
Within the construction and engineering environment the scarcest, most valuable principle resource is time and money. It is therefore inevitable that conflict follows the distribution of these available resources amongst the parties to the process; the desire for self-preservation in particular serving only to fuel each party's perceived entitlement to the detriment of others, exacerbating conflict amongst the parties.
An organisation with a Unitary Perspective disregards power in favour of leadership, collaborating to pursue common goals, avoiding conflict through positive action and when conflict arises it is viewed to be caused by trouble makers. Organisations with a Pluralist Perspective are viewed differently; instead they are seen as a variety of different groups drawn together in which power is considered to be both an inherent and unavoidable positive currency by which conflict is resolved. Within those organisations possessing a Radical Perspective however, conflict is regarded as an inevitability of an opposing class structure in which power is considered to be the product of divisions between groups within the organisation.
The first two are most common within the construction industry. The paternalistic family businesses tend to be unitary whereas competitve firms tend to be pluralistic; regardless according to Morgan (1986), power "...is the medium through which conflicts of interest are ultimately resolved."
Figure 3 below illustrates the major forms of interpersonal behaviour in the workplace identified by Greenberg & Baron (2008).
- Prosocial - tendency for people to help others, even if it does not appear that they will benefit from doing so.
- Cooperate - where people help each other and receive help.
- Compete - people and companies do not always work with, but instead compete against one another; they seek to win and for the other to lose, breading resentment and escalating Conflict.
- Deviant - when conflict is permitted to escalate to the extreme, the behaviour develops into the deviant form where one party retaliates against the other for perceived wrongs commited against it.
|
Figure 3 - Greenberg & Baron (2008) The major forms of interpersonal behaviour |
|
Greenberg & Baron (2008) note however that two processes play a crucial role in all interpersonal relationships; the development of psychological contracts and the building of trust.
"Psychological contracts are defined as the beliefs individuals hold regarding the terms and conditions of exchange agreement between themselves and their organisations."Greenberg & Baron (2008) explain that whenever people enter into a relationship they have expectations as to what it should be like, including what the other should do and bring to the relationship. In construction it includes the expectation that if the job is built the contractor will be paid for it on time and can be as basic as if the employer leaves a telephone meassage with the contractor he expects it to be returned. Indeed with regard to written contracts, the psychological contract fills the gaps left by the written contract and its function is to reduce insecurity and a feeling of influence (McFarlane Shore and Tetrick (1994) as summarised by Anderson and Schalk (1998)). Shaped by each party's culture, the pyschological contract is based upon each party's perceptions and expectations, accordingly they are not normally recorded in writing and instead guided by the parties' expectations. Inevitably the potential for differences to arise between the perceptions and expectations of the parties is significant and in those circumstances in which the difference is significant, Greenberg & Baron (2008) explain that the potential for interpersonal friction is high (Dabos & Rousseau (2004)).
Citing Rousseau (1995), Greenberg & Baron (2008) explain that whilst psychological contracts can vary and are unique to each relationship, they can nevertheless be described in terms of 3 basic dimensions; transactional, relational and balanced. This is because psychological contracts vary with respect to time and performance requirements, thus the expectations are low with regard to temporary contracts. But with regard to fixed term contracts the expectation is that the contract will be seen to the end. Similarly performance expectations will vary depending upon the closeness of the relationship between their performance and the reward to be received, thus for some the employee may be paid simply on the number of units produced but for others it may be far more complex, the relationship is not merely economic. Thus the time and performance requirements suggest the presence of the 3 basic dimensions of transactional, relational and balanced (Rousseau (1995)).
Transactional contracts are those in which the expectations of the parties are simply economic and brief in duration whereas relational contracts, whilst also informal, are close and personal. For example, a contract with a joiner to hang 100 doors within a hotel refurbishment for an agreed sum per door is simple and brief in duration. Whereas an estimator who works for the same company for 25 years will have forged a relationship with his employer through shared experiences that goes beyond the economic and includes friendship and loyalty by which there is a sense commitment that can only be formed over a long period of time.
A combination of the transactional and relational is the balanced contract, by which the long term characteristics of the relational is brought together with the defined performance reward dimension of the transactional contract. An example is a trainee surveyor who accepts a position within an organisation. In exchange for the trainee's time, effort and talent, the trainee receives a modest salary but in addition, and perhaps more importantly for the trainee, the opportunity to acquire and practise new skills and knowledge within a protective environment under the supervision of an experienced practitioner.
The gravity of the three types of pyschological contracts determine the behaviour of the parties; accordingly those agreements which at not transactional are more likely to encourage parties to exceed their basic obligations, to assist others and display behaviour conducive to effective conflict management.
Greenberg & Baron (2008) point out that the nature of the pyschological contracts reflect the relationships that have been formed. Long term relational contracts demand high levels of conscientiousness and self-esteem, concern for a good job performed well with opportunities for growth beyond that simply measurable in terms of financial reward. Short-term commitments on the other hand do not make the same demands, do not require emotional stability or high levels of social skills and trust. Thus, although not reduced to paper, the degree to which the agreements entered into by the participants encourage the formation of positive pyschological contracts bears heavily upon the subsequent behaviour of the parties.
Citing Lewicki & Wiethoff (2000), Greenberg & Baron (2008) observe two distinct kinds of trust, calculus and identification based. Characteristic of many commercial relationships the calculus based agreements are those by which the parties will behave as promised from fear of punishment, whereas identification based agreements are founded upon the acceptance and understanding of the other party's requirements and often arise when the parties know and understand each other well. Thus calculus based trust is formed in the nagative and resonates with transactional contracts; by contrast identification based trust is founded in the positive resonates with relational contracts and is more conducive to effective conflict management.
Greenberg & Baron (2008) claim that parties should strive to achive 3 specific objectives in order to strengthen, at least the perception of, trustworthiness:
- always meet deadlines;
- follow through as promised; and
- spend time sharing personal values and goals.
- speaking favourably of the project participants;
- offering, participating in the development of, and being receptive to, new ideas;
- being accommodative of fellow participants and understanding their objectives;
- expressing loyalty to the project and the attainment of a common goal; and
- helping fellow participants.
Project citizenship can only occur within environments that encourage the participants to feel positive towards the project (Podsakoff et al (2000)) and hold good relationships with the other project participants (Tansky (1993)). But as Greenberg & Baron (2008) point out not all are predisposed to project citizenship; those who are conscientious and or display high levels of empathy are more inclined to engage in project citizenship (Ladd & Henry (2000)) which is unsurprising since it will be those same individuals who are more likely to seek out relational contracts and want others to feel good.
Greenberg & Baron (2008) described that such project citizenship begins within the participants, that it is they who either encourage or otherwise project citizenship, and identify 6 steps that may be adopted to increase project citizenship:
- 1. be a model of helpful behaviour - helping they say is contagious;
- 2. make voluntary functions worth attending;
- 3. demonstrate courtesy - it is difficult not to reciprocate courtesy when it is extended to you;
- 4. do not complain - again this is contagious;
- 5. demonstrate conscientiousness - demonstrations of conscientiousness are difficult to ignore and create examples that others follow; and
- 6. treat others fairly - the perception of unfairness can be singularly destructive to project citizenship and it requires considerable effort to maintain the perception of fairness, but can generate considerable increases in the levels of project citizenship.
Indeed within multiparty relationships such as those found in the construction industry noncooperative behaviour by one party can easily pass unnoticed or be concealed compared to that of a relationship between just two parties. This renders the multiparty relationship particularly vulnerable to one party ceasing to cooperate whilst simultaneously reaping large individual gains at the cost of the other participants.
The objective is therefore to create an environment that balances competition with cooperation. Greenberg & Baron (2008) note however that whilst many would readily accept that we should "do unto others as we would have them do unto us" in practice parties treat others how they have been treated previously, i.e. what they term as the 'principle of reciprocity'. It follows that once started it ought to be self-sustaining, and so the key to creating cooperation is igniting cooperation in the first instance and thereafter maintaining conditions that perpetuate and do not extinguish cooperation. It is therefore essential to create an environment that ensures that cooperation is more beneficial than defection, encourages communication between its participants, and promotes the establishment and maintenance of long term relationships rather than short term gains.
Since contractual culture is essentially a perceptual yet contractual phenomenon witnessed by the participants, in addition to a comparison and study of those contracts, to achieve comparibles it will be necessary to solicit and capture comparible perceptions from the participants too.
The comparison of the standard form construction contracts against the identified conducive features and characteristics may help to better understand and identify possible adjustments that may be made to standard form construction contracts, and the bespoke amendments that parties often introduce to the same before entering into contract, in order to achieve a contract that is more conducive to effective conflict management. Qualitative descriptions have previously been used in the study of organisations as indicators of culture according to Van den Berg and Wilderom (2004). To be able to compare the practices of the contract cultures however, Van den Berg and Wilderom (2004) stress academic research be based upon quantifiable data such as that capable of being produced by questionnaires, archived materials and observational data. But that is not to say that there is no room for qualitative data, indeed as in this study which shall combine the two, Van den Berg and Wilderom (2004) accept that before and after the use of quantitative data collection, the qualitative provides a basis upon which to formulate and afterwards interpret the questionnaire data. In particular indepth interviews and the author's own professional practice within the area of study provide and may reveal invaluable specific unique practises and interpretations.
An understanding of conflict can facilitate the constructive harnessing of the creative energies emitted by conflict through effective management, but a cultural environment conducive to conflict management is a prerequisite. Opinion within government, the judiciary and construction appears to suggest however that not all construction industry standard form contracts engender such an environment, or at least may do so with varying degrees of success. The prerequisite environment is therefore itself the product of the adoption of contractual practices that possess particular features and characteristics.
The effectiveness of conflict management rests upon human perception and behaviour, which in turn is dependent upon the subjective and common cultures of the participants. Perception, cognition, reasoning and communication style differences can cause miscommunication, misperception and an escalation of conflict. What is felt and perceived may not necessarily be what was intended. The process of effective conflict management is further exacerbated with increases in cultural variances between participants because the degree of shared meanings and understandings decrease, denying the participants the ability to rely upon understandings and meanings common to their cultural background. If the dysfunctional conflicts that arise from, or are exacerbated by, communication problems and cultural variance are to be avoided or mitigated it is necessary for the contractual practices to facilitate the appreciation, understanding, allowance and respect for cultural differences between participants.
Maintaining adversarial processes, occupying official positions and behaviour that either has or has had some merit is likely to prove counterproductive, particularly so in circumstances in which the culture of the other participants differs to that of the perceiver. The more productive solutions lie in practices that encourage participants to break free from their differences by greater participation; seek deeper understanding of the controlling issues; form psychological contracts; develop trust; adopt project citizenship, balance competition with cooperation; inspire confidence in each other; and develop relationships.
The establishment of equalitarian relationships and consensual agreements establishes good faith and trust, which is critical to maintaining the multilateral agreements that commonly exist within a project's contractual mosaic.
Anderson, N., & Schalk, R. "The psychological contract in retrospect and prospect." Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 1998: 19, 637-647.
Ankrah, N. A. An Investigation into the Impact of Culture on Construction Project Performance. A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Wolverhampton: University of Wolverhampton, 2007.
Argyris, C. Understanding organisational behaviour. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1960.
Bass, B. M. Bass & Stogdills's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Management Applications. New York: Free Press, 1990.
Berstein, B. B. Class, Codes and Control; theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975.
Bordon, G. A. Cultural Orientation: An Approach to Understanding Intercultural Communication. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1991, 1991.
Brown, A. Organisational Culture. London: Pitman Publishing Ltd, 1995.
Brown, A. D. Organisational Culture (2nd Ed). London: Financial Times, Pitman Publishing, 1998.
Bunyan, N. The Daily Telegraph. Monday, 4th July 2011. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8612145/Health-and-safety-fears-are-taking-the-joy-out-of-playtime.html (accessed July Monday 4th, 2011). Calori, R., & Sarnin, P. "Corporate culture and economic performance: A French Study." Organizational Studies, 1991: 12, 49-74.
Cohen, R. Negotiating Across Cultures: Common Obstacles in International Diplomacy. Washington, D.C.: The United States Institute of Peace, 1991.
Cole, G. A. Organisational Behaviour Theory and Practice. London: DP Publications Ltd, 1995.
Dabos, G. E., & Rousseau, D. M. "Mutuality and reciprocity in the psychological contracts of employees and employers." Journal of Applied Psychology, 2004: 89, 52-72.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. Corporate cultures: the rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1982.
Denison, D. R. Corporate culture and orgaizational effectiveness. New York: Wiley, 1990.
Denison, D. R. "What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars." Academy of Management Review, 1996: 21, 619-654.
Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. "Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness." Organization Science, 1995: 6(2), 204-223.
Dirks, K. T., & McLean Parks, J. "Conflicting stories: The state of the science of conflict." In Organizational behaviour: The state of the science, 2nd ed., by J. (Ed) Greenberg, 283-324. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003.
Erez, M., & Gati, E. "A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of the individual to the macro level of a global culture." Applied psychology: An international review, 2004: 53(4), 583-598.
Fenn, P. Lowe, D. and Speck, C. "Conflict and dispute in construction." Construction Management and Economics, 1997 : 15, 513-518.
Fisher, G. Mindsets: The Role of Culture and Perception in International Relations 2nd. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing , 1998.
Glenn, E.S. and Glenn, C.G. Man and Mankind: Conflict and Communication Between Cultures. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex, 1981.
Glenn, E.S. "Semantic Difficulties in International Communication." In The Use and Misuse of Language., by S.I. (Ed) Hayakawa, 47-48. Greenwich, Connecticut: Fawcett Publications, 1962.
Goodenough, W. H. "Cultural anthropology and linguistics." Edited by P. L. Garvin. Report of the seventh annual round table meeting on liguistics and language study, 1957: 167.
Gordon, G. G., & DiTomaso, N. "Predicting corporate performance from organizational culture." Journal of Management Studies, 1992: 29, 783-798.
Greenberg, J. and Baron, R. A. Behaviour in Organizations, 9th Ed, Pearson International Edition. London: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008.
Hall, E. T. Beyond Culture. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, 1976.
-. Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor House, 1981.
Hall, J. R. & Neitz, M. J. Culture: sociological perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1993.
Hammond, P.B. An introduction to cultural and social anthropology. New York: Macmillan, 1978.
Handy, C. B. Gods of Management: the changing work of organisations. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Hibbard, J. "Cultural breakthrough." Informationweek, 701 (21 September), 1998: 44-55.
Hofstede, G. Culture's consequences; comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organisations across nations. London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2001.
Hofstede, G. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 1980.
-. Culture's consequences: International differences in work related values. London: Sage Publications Ltd, 1984.
Hofstede, G. H. Cultures and Organizations: software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
House of Commons Public Accounts Committee Minutes of Evidence - Annex, HoC. "Parliamentary business, Publications & records." www.parliament.uk. 28 April 2009. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmpubacc/152/9011410.htm (accessed April 3, 2011).
Keesing, R. M. "Theories of culture, ." Annual Review of Anthropology, 1974: 3: 73-97.
Kimmel, P.R. "Cultre and Conflict." In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution, by M., Coleman, P.T., Marcus, E.C. (Eds) Deutsch, 625-648. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006.
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. Corporate culture and performance. New York: Free Press, 1992.
Ladd, D., & Henry, R. A. "Helping coworkers and helping the organization: The role of support perceptions, exchange ideology, and conscientiousness." Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2000: 30, 2028-2049.
Laing, R. D. The Policitics of Experience. New York: Ballantine Books, 1967.
Lewicki, R. J., & Wiethoff, C. "Trust, trust development, and trust repair." In The handbook of conflict resolution, by M. & Colema, P. T. Deutsch, 86-107. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. "Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities." Academy of Management Review, 1998: 23, 438-458.
Lewicki, R.J. "Trust, Trust Development, and Trust Repair." In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution 2nd Ed, by M., Coleman, P.T., Marcus, E.C. (Eds) Deutsch, 92-119. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006.
Malinowski, B. A scientific theory of culture and other essays. New York: Galaxy Books, 1944.
McFarlane Shore, L., & Tetrick, L. E. "The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship." In Trends in Organizational Behaviour, by C. L., Rousseau, D. M. Cooper, 91-109. London: John Wiley & Sons, 1994.
McNeely, B. I., & Meglino, B. M. "The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behaviour: An examination of the intended beneficiariesof prosocial behaviour." Journal of Applied Pyschology, 1994: 79, 836-844.
Mintzberg, H. & Quinn, J. B. The Strategy Process - Concepts, Contexts and Cases. London: Prentice Hall, 1991.
Morgan, G. Images of Organization. London: Sage Publications Ltd, 1986.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. "Culture as social control: Corporations, cults and commitment." Research in Organizational Behaviour, 1996: 18, 157-200.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. In search of excellence: lessons from America's best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row, 1982.
Pettigrew, T.F. "The Ultimate Attribution Error: Extending Allport's Cognitive Analysis of Prejudice." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1979: 5, 461-476.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. "Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research." Journal of Management, 2000: 26, 513-563.
Pruitt, D. G. "Some Research Frontiers in the Study of Conflict and Its Resolution." In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution 2nd Edition, by M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman and E. C. Marcus, 849-867. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (A Wiley Imprint), 2006.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. Structure and function in primitive planning. London: Oxford University Press, 1952.
Ramsey, The Honourable Mr Justice. "Resolving Disputes in Construction." Society of Construction Law Conference 2011. Leeds: Society of Construction Law in association woth the RICS and Leeds Metropolitan University, 2011. 1 to 5.
Riley, M. J., & Clare-Brown, D. "Comparison of cultures in construction and manufacturing industries." Journal of Management in Engineering, 2001: 17, (3), 149-158.
Ross, L. "The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process." In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, by L. Berkowitz, Vol.10, 173-220. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, 1977.
Rousseau, D. M. "New hire perspectives of their own and their employer's obligations: A study of psychological contracts." Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 1989: Vol.11, 389-400.
-. Psychological contracts in organisations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995.
Saunders, H. H. Beyond "US and THEM": Building More Mature International Relationships. Washington, C.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1987.
Schein, E. Organisational Culture and Leadership. London: Jossey-Bass, 1985.
Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. "Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person- and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior." Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002: 87, 255-267.
Shils, E.A. "Primordial, Personal, Sacred and Civil Ties." The British Journal of Sociology, 1957: 8, 130-145.
Smith, C. "Organizational culture in practice." Human Resource Development International, 2000: 3 (2), 153-158.
Spitz, R. A. "THe Derailment of Dialogue: Stimulus Overload, Action Cycles and the Completion Gradient." Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1964, Vo.12, No.4: 752-775.
Spradley, J.D., and McCurdy, D. (Eds). "Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology." In Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology, by J.D., and McCurdy, D. (Eds) Spradley, 2. New York: Brown, 1971.
Sumner, W.G. Folkways. Boston: Ginn & Co, 1906.
Tansky, J. W. "Justice and organizational citizenship behaviour: What is the relationship?" Employees' Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 1993: 6, 195-207.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. Riding the Waves of Culture - Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business, 2nd Ed. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing Ltd, 1997.
Tyler, S. A. Cognitive Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969.
Van den Berg, P. T., & Wilderom, C. P. M. "Defining, Measuring and Comparing Organisational Cultures." Applied Psychology, 2004: 53 (4) 570-582.
White, J. "Portrait of a winning corporate culture." Benefits Canada, 1998: 22(11), 13.
Wilderom, C. P. M., Glunk, U., and Maslowski, R. "Organizational culture as a predicator of organizational performance." In Handbook of organizational culture and climate, by N. M., Wilderom, C. P. M., Peterson, M. (Eds) Ashkanasy, 193-209. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000.
