• Home
• Order now
• Prices
• How we help
• Press
• Law marking
• Contact us
• Resources
• Log in

Conflict in the Construction Industry

Introduction

Pascale advocates the need for conflict in organisations as it is a healthy process in the development and progression of a firm and highlights the positives that are borne from its affective use. This essay will attempt to review the management theory that focuses on conflict and evaluate its applicability to the Construction industry and critique its use as a management tool. I will attempt to evaluate the nature of any assumptions from my own experiences from within the industry and then determine the practical consequences of the Construction industry in adopting an approach to conflict management tools in line with other industries.

In order to discuss the above I feel that it is critical to determine what conflict is defined as. The Collins English Dictionary conflict as a, ‘1. struggle, trial of strength 2. disagreement 3. be at odds (with), be inconsistent (with) 4. clash'. What is of considerable interest is the nature of the words listed in the Thesaurus, to name but a few; ‘battle, clash, bad blood, and disagreement'. This portrays conflict in a particularly negative light. In the following section the author will look at a variety of views on conflict, challenges to this negative notion and its use as a management tool.

 

Views on Conflict (PASCALE AND SUPPORTIN ACADEMICS

Pascale (1990) through his research of major organisations recognised the need for conflict as a way of creating innovative solutions and generating ideas that ensure the company is constantly evolving and adapting to the market place. He argued that previously the dominant notion within organisations was that in order to improve they had to remain good at what they do and move towards more automated and productive processes. Pascale (1990) through his research came to the conclusion that a change in managerial mindsets was needed in order for companies to be shaken from this complacency. Through contention varying views and ideas can be brought to the table and directly question the complacent views and practices that have prevailed previously and avoid stagnation as “for any system to adapt to its external environment, its internal controls must incorporate variety”. He goes on further by suggesting that mechanisms should be built into organisations in order for individuals to question mindsets as Pascal (1990) states “inquiry is the engine of vitality and self renewal” (Pascale, 1990, p14). This inquiry should go somewhat to ensuring that firms do not feel they have reached their level of operational excellence as this often mistaken as an end in itself. (maybe talk about Honda, fit & split theory).

Pascale is not the sole promoter of conflict resulting in positive outcomes. Whitfield (1994; cited in Awakul 2002) indicates that in the management literature it is generally accepted that a certain level of conflict is needed to sustain high performance in organisations. This is further reinforced by Hughes (1994) in his belief that “conflict it is a positive agent for creative change” (Hughes, 1994, p1). I think it is essential here to distinguish out conflict from disputes. Often people may be under the impression that they are one and the same thing. However as Lulofs and Cahn (2000) demonstrate, disputes are defined as “a conflict that has reached a point where the parties are unable to resolve the issue by themselves due to a breakdown in communication and normal relations are unlikely until the dispute is resolved” (Lulofs and Cahn, 2000, p341). Authors that advocate the benefits of conflict don't believe that disputes produce positive outcomes but are as Hughes (1994) points out; wasteful and destructive. We must move away from the mindset that disputes are always the consequence of conflict. These academics believe that conflict should be encouraged and managed to fully benefit from the influences it can have on organisations. This notion will be discussed in further detail with relation to construction projects at a later point.

Inevitable – bring different people together, different agendas, natural consequences or speculation

 

Diverse views

“The diversity of views can be the source of creative insights”.

 

Conflict in Construction

In order to fully evaluate the merits of the argument of those who are in favour of conflict and how it can be applied to the Construction industry, we must first try and fully appreciate the nature of the industry. The construction industry is notorious for its adversarial attitudes and Fenn et al (1997) believe that this due to the uniqueness of the industry. Unlike other industries construction suffers from fragmentation, divergence of objectives and goals and a temporary project nature. Each project is unique and the participants often come together only for the purpose of that particular project. In doing so it brings together a group of specialists with differing views, backgrounds, cultures and experiences. Hughes (1994) suggests in such a situation where you are bringing together such an assortment of individuals that conflict will be inevitable. The main point here being then is how we perceive this and how, if at all, it is managed.

 

OWN EXPERIENCES

In construction, conflict has often been seen as something that should be reduced and eliminated if possible. This has been the main topic of many Government based papers on how to improve the productivity of the Construction industry. Industry leaders such as Latham (1994) and Egan (1998) particularly focus on conflict as a phenomenon in the Construction industry that should be eliminated as it is to blame for project and budget overspends. He chooses to focus on the high levels of litigation that are present. He advocates a move away from the standard forms of contract and new procurement methods due to the obsolete nature of existing ones. Hughes (1994) believes that to eradicate conflict would be to destroy the benefits of why the team of different specialists was brought together. Loosemore et al (2000) believe that the directing of resources at and attempting to reduce conflicts “is a response to the construction industry's inability to manage conflict constructively” (Loosemore et al, 2000, p447). Therefore the management of conflict is the topic that many academics have chosen to focus on rather than eliminating it.

 

Conflict as a Positive Tool in Project Management

“Conflict Management is not about eliminating conflict; it is about harnessing it to the good of the project” (Hughes W, 1994, p4). The view is a realisation that if conflict is managed more effectively then benefits will come of it. It is about trying to gain an advantage from it by understanding how to harness it. This school of thought is supported by a number of authors such as De Bono (cited in Hughes, 1994). His radical view was that it should be deliberately encouraged, coining a new term confliction. As Gardiner & Simmons (1995) showed there is a peak time for when conflict should be encouraged. It is more beneficial if it occurs at the design stage when any changes are less costly, than during construction. Therefore it needs someone to recognise the most appropriate time for encouraging conflict.

The nature of organisations today requires “greater specialisation (differentiation) and for tighter co-ordination (integration)” (Lawrence & Lorsch, 2000, p142). Integration and differentiation are two forces which ultimately act against one another and often there is the trading of one for the other. They believe that an effective manager can act as this ‘integrator' to ensure a reasonable balance. Although their work is based on R&D intensive organisations, it can be applied to the construction industry due to its similar specialisation characteristics. The more complex the problem and the greater the gap in specialisation the more need for an integrator. Instead of being an integrator between multiple departments the integrator in a construction project can bring together the views and experiences of the multi-disciplinary team in order to mesh together the range of expertise within the project team. They indicate that this individual must be able to handle conflict and identify three potential methods for dealing with conflict, confrontation, smoothing and forcing. They found that confrontation was the most successful form of conflict management and produced the best results in terms of integration. This role could be arguably be undertaken by the Project Manager as I feel that it wouldn't be greatly accepted to create a new role within teams to solely deal with these issues. The client would undoubtedly not want the extra expense and other members of the project team would perhaps not be too accommodating towards them. Rouhana and Kelman (1994) also recognise the need for a third party to ensure the project moves in the right direction and advocates the need for someone to undertake the role of a ‘facilitator'. It would be natural then for the Project Manager to assume this responsibility seeing that he has good knowledge of the clients brief and somewhat sits between the respective team members and makes every effort to bring together the specialist nature of each of the project team members.

From the above we can see that the Project Manager has a significant role in promoting conflict within the construction process. They are now involved in a complex situation which requires them to control more than the traditional time, cost and quality. Hughes (1992) identifies five control systems; time, budget, function, quality and conflict. Hughes argues that there are tools to control them all except conflict. He is very critical in his view of the standard forms of contracts that are currently used and this is something I will evaluate below.

From personal experience one would conclude that there are often no strategies in place for effectively managing conflict on a project.

 

The Nature of Construction Contracts

The relationship between parties on construction projects are ultimately determined by the contracts that are in place for each individual. It could be argued that if these contracts were drafted accurately and specifically then they would be an ideal way to manage conflict and generate beneficial outcomes. Hughes (1994) identifies how construction contracts differ from conventional commercial ones in that they “govern a continuing relationship rather than as instantaneous transaction” (Hughes W, 1994, p1). The result of this being that as the project progresses the contract isn't a true reflection of the actual situation. The contract doesn't support the dynamics of conflict in that as people's views, perceptions and objectives change the contract isn't updated to reflect these. There are constant renegotiations and changes in design which call for a more flexible and less rigid contract to adequately deal with these factors.

Hughes (1992) states that construction contracts contradict and confuse. The contract serves two purposes in that it forms an agenda for litigation and regulating disputes and yet at the same time forms a management manual concerned with regulating conflict. He argues that they don't sit well together and one frustrates the other. The needs and requirements of the two needs to be better distinguished. Therefore it is argued that better drafting of contracts is needed. Often not much thought is given to the actual process rather that they are drawn out of norms. Hibberd (1990; cited in Hughes 1994) promotes the use of creating a database of clauses and then for each project parties will choose those relevant to their circumstance. This ensures that the clauses are then each thought about and only relevant ones will be included. One can not think though that even this approach would become outdated relatively quickly and many parties would employ a default set which would render the whole process redundant.

The industry has tried to improve the contractual relationships between the parties by developing new forms of contract and attempting to resolve the dual purpose problem of standard contracts. The NEC which was so heavily advocated by Latham (1999999) tries to move away from litigation and focuses on the improvement of managing projects.

The Latham report (199?) NEC.

Different types of conflict – internal & external.

Why conflict hard to manage???

“During the procurement process, each party in the project… is primarily concerned not with the effectiveness of the procurement process per se, but with ensuring the effectiveness of its own organisation. Ward and Curtis (

Education – peoples view on Conflict (change this mindset).

Loosemore – socio

Attitudes

Preconceptions

The way contracts are set up

The multidisciplinary, inter-organisational team is made up of specialists with

Gray and Hughes (2001) and Loosemore (1999) agree that conflict is inevitable and that it exists in situations where there are divergence of interests, beliefs and values.

Tweet

Do you need to translate this page?

To translate this page into another language, please select the correct language from the box below.

LOOKING FOR SPECIFIC HELP? We can help you in many law areas!

Did you know that we also provide a service that can help you in other law areas such as:

• GCSE Law Coursework
• A Level Law Coursework
• Law Essay Writing
• BVC/BPTC Writing
• LLM Writing
• LPC letter drafting
• Opinion Writing
• English Legal System
• And much more!

Want to see what our customers say about us? Click here to watch our video.

Want to become a writer for Law Teacher and earn up to £4,000 per month? Click here now!

Secure your law degree, order your commercial law essay today!

Order Now. It takes less than 2 minutes.

1. * Name   
2. * Email   
3. * Phone   

1. * Your essay question 
   (please give as much detail as possible)  

Copyright © 2012 All Answers Ltd. All Answers Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with Company Registration No: 4964706 VAT Registration No: 842417633 - Law Teacher - The law essay professionals