A Conceptual Model for Conflict Management in Construction Firms Ellis, F. Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology, Kumasi, Ghana florencellis@yahoo.com Baiden, B.K. Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology, Kumasi, Ghana bkb.knust@gmail.com Abstract Conflict is intrinsic to individuals, teams, contractual relationships and organizations. It is

inevitable in most construction projects given their unique and complex nature and the presence

of various parties and multi-functional teams. The construction project environment is, therefore,

an appropriate environment to explore conflicts and its management. The differences between

conflicts and dispute are highlighted within the paper. Theoretical approaches of conflict and

management are discussed to reflect their dynamics in organizations. Conflict and its

management within the construction project environment are reviewed. The review leads to

formulation of key research questions. A model on conflict processes, causes and management is

identified and proposed for further research. The paper concludes by highlighting the direction of

future research.

Key words: conflict, construction, management, organization, project, team 1. Introduction Construction activities are multi-party operations that often generate a complex web of contracts.

The principal parties include the host government, clients, contractors, consultants and employees

(Perez, 2002). Each party contributes something different, but towards a common goal. Their

efforts must therefore, pull in the same direction, and their contribution must fit together to

produce a whole – without gaps, friction, and unnecessary duplication. Failure to meet these

requirements often results in friction, frustration and conflict within the team (Drucker, 1989).

Construction activities are performed by people with different skills within and across

organisations who must share knowledge for optimum decisions. The activities of these

organisations, individuals, and groups of individuals are also coordinated to ensure an orderly

flow of work schedules. Teamwork is a prerequisite for organizations within any construction

project environment for the successful delivery of a project (Steward and Barrick, 2000; Baker

and Salas, 1997; Guzzo and Dickson, 1996; Samuel, 1996). Conflict between project participants

has been identified in various construction industries as being the principal causes of poor

performance in construction projects. These conflicts occur at the organizational interface level

where project participants with different organizational cultures which define their approach to

work and relationships come into contact with other project participants (Ankrah and Langford,

2005). The conflict problem encountered in construction projects lead to prolonged delays in

implementation, interruptions and sometimes time suspension. Awakul and Ogunlana (2002)

further argued that conflict continues to maintain its highly explosive character due to factors

such as presence of different groups, large investments and low profits which characterise

construction activities.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the theoretical dimensions to the understanding of conflict

and its management within organizations such as the construction environment. Key concepts and

definitions required for the research are clarified. Basic concepts of the functional and

dysfunctional aspects of conflicts and conflict management strategies have also been presented.

Key research questions and a conceptual model based on conflict management theories have also

been proposed.

2. Conflict and Disputes

The difference between conflict and dispute is often unclear, although the terms “conflict” and

“dispute” have been used to describe similar situations especially in the construction industry

(Acharya et al., 2006). Conflict and dispute share same sources, such as information, resources,

individual behaviour/ personality clashes and inter/intra organisational issues. However,

according to Fenn et al., (1997) the terms “conflict” and “dispute” are two distinct notations. The

term “conflict” is known but it is often used interchangeably with disputes. This often generates

confusion, which gets in the way of learning. To enhance the management of conflict, it is

appropriate that the term conflict is distinguished from dispute.

Conflict is defined by a variety of factors, such as individual differences in goals, expectations,

and values. Pondy (1967) asserted that conflict could be as a result of an affective/ subjective

state (for example, stress, tension, hostility or anxiety) or a cognitive/ objective state (that is,

perception, or awareness of a conflicting situation). Other researchers suggested that conflict

could be related to behaviours such as struggles, battles or clashes, goals, values or any entities

(Liu, 1995; Kerzner, 1989; Reichers, 1986; Robbins, 1978; Litterer, 1966). An outstanding aspect

of conflict is that it is practically intrinsic to individual life, groups and teams.

A dispute is associated with distinct justifiable issues (Barrie and Paulson, 1992). It is a product

of conflict. A dispute looks backwards, concerns a specific issue, and involves the taking of

positions and blaming and expectations for results that satisfy the survive-and-prosper impulse.

Conflict that is neglected or mismanaged almost always leads to disputes, which cost a lot to

resolve, in terms of business relations, time, money and job progress. The resolution process may

lend itself to third-party intervention such as mediation, arbitration and court (Acharya et al,

2006).

In summary, conflict is a word that includes disputes, but on has a broader connotation, including

such things as relationship, strain, workplace stress that have not yet surfaced as a dispute.

Likewise, management of conflict includes resolution plus other initiatives such as prevention

and containment (Ury, 1999).

2.1 Towards a definition of conflict

As an inter and multidisciplinary field, conflict and its resolution draws from the theory and

search of the more traditional disciplines of sociology, psychology, social psychology, political

science and anthropology. This list is neither exhaustive nor ordered according to relative

importance, but it demonstrates the diversity within the field. According to some perspectives,

this diversity shows the inherent strength of conflict and its management, as it enables an

integration of concepts, theories and lessons in conflict analysis and management techniques. For

others, its diversity only contributes to the terminological chaos in the field (Fast, 2002; Conner,

1994).

The concept of conflict is bound in complexity. No single general theory exists that is acceptable

to social scientists in their respective discipline (Dougherty and Pfaltzgraf, 1990). Pondy (1967)

for example focused on the individual’s affective/ subjective state (for example, stress, tension,

hostility or anxiety) or a cognitive/ objective state (that is, perception, or awareness of a

conflicting situation). Other researchers also suggested that conflict could be defined in relation to

behaviours such as struggles, battles or clashes (Litterer, 1966), goals (Liu, 1995; Kerzner, 1989),

values (Reichers, 1986), interpersonal dynamic shaped by internal/external environments

(Appelbaum and Shapiro, 1998) or any entities (Robbins, 1978). No matter how it is defined, an

outstanding aspect of conflict is that it is practically intrinsic to the life, groups and teams.

Conflict is present in interpersonal relations (Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993), in intra-group and

inter-group relations (Jehn, 1995), in strategic decision-making (Amazon, 1996) and other

organisational episodes (De Dreu and Van de Vliert, 1997; Pondy, 1976).

3. Conflict: Traditional and Contemporary Concepts

In sociological perspectives, theoretical research on conflict is based implicitly or explicitly on

two approaches, the “functionalist perspective” and the “conflict theory”. The functionalist school

traced to Auguste Comte, Hubert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Malinowski, Bronis Law, Radcliffe

Brown, Robert Merton and Talcott Parsons, likened society to an organism with inter-related

parts, kept together by consensus and cooperation. Harmony and cooperation are seen as the

natural state of human affairs and so conflict, which destroys consensus, is negative and

destructive and thus, must be avoided (Rollinson & Broadfield, 2002; Farley, 2000).

On the other hand, conflict theory which arose primarily from the work of Marx and continued by

Wright Mills and Dahrendorf have the underlying assumption that conflict reflects conflict in

society as a whole, as society is made up of groups with competing interests. This occurs because

wealth and power are distributed unequally, so different social groups have different and

conflicting interests, that is, between the interest of those who own an enterprise and those who

simply work in it. One major historical form of organizational control structure is lodged in

occupational status group, with two sub-types; the crafts guild and the professional group. The

power of the craft guild is based on the monopoly over practical expertise and has control over a

still largely secret knowledge based. The autonomous professionals of collegially and peer-

controlled status group provide services to clients based on control over theoretically and

scientifically increasingly rationalized knowledge based (Heydebrand, 1977). Both groups gain

additional power from the use and sale of services produced under conditions of task variability

and complexity which may lead to conflicts as witnessed in the construction industry.

Current views on conflict correspond to what McKenna (1994) calls the interactionist

perspective. Conflict is seen as neither good nor bad, just inevitable. It recognizes that too much

conflict will hamper an organisation’s welfare and absorb a great deal of energy that could be

devoted to doing other things. However, it also accepts that where no conflict exists, ideas are

never challenged, and these stall any impetus to change things for the better. All the concepts on

conflict give confirmation that conflict is inevitable in all social structures, including

organizations. Therefore conflicts in an organization can be better examined taking into

consideration the historical processes that gave rise to them.

3.1 Conflict in Organisations

Early studies on conflict in organizations were made by American and British scholars.

Organisational conflict has often been defined as an overt struggle or interference between two or

more groups in an organization, between two or more organizations (Katz and Kahn, 1978).

Responses to conflict, such as avoidance behaviour, the development of cultural norms, and

emotional behaviour represent much of the reality of conflict in everyday organizational life

(Kolb and Putnam, 1992).

Among the earlier theories on organizational conflict, one finds the work of Marx, who looked at

organizational conflict based on social contradiction, class struggles, and control (Marx and

Engels, 1996). Other classical and foundational views on conflict as an organizational

phenomenon (Thomas, 1976) suggest that conflict falls into two models, the Process Model and

the Structural Model. The Process model views conflict in terms of internal dynamics such as

frustration, communication, personal variables, interaction and outcomes and the Structural

model identifies the parameters that shape conflict episodes such as behavioural disposition,

social pressure, incentive structure and rules and procedures (Robbins, 1989; Schweiger et al.,

1986). Pondy (1967) also developed a model to analysis conflict processes and conflict outcomes

by treating them as elements of “conflict episodes”.

Conflict episode was theorized as having five distinct stages (1) antecedent conditions; (2) latent

conflicts; (3) perceived conflicts; (4) manifest conflicts; and (5) conflict aftermath. The primary

antecedent conditions in organizations according to Pondy, involved competition over scarce

resources, individual or subunit effort to achieve independent, and differences among goals held

by different individuals and/ or different subunits. From these theories and models, one realizes

that there is no single model or mechanism that well explains conflict in organizations. In view of

this, there is thus the need to understand the dynamics of conflicts in organizations considering

the complexities of each defined organization such as the construction industry.

3.2 Dynamics of conflict in organizations

In the early days of days of management research and theorizing, conflict was viewed as a

negative and undesirable aspect of organizational life (Robbins, 1978). Conflict meant there were

differences of opinions, alternatives views which needed to be considered, and opposing points of

views to be studied (Hellriegel et al., 1995). Conflict creates difficulties, such as communication

between individuals, it breaks personal and professional relationships, and reduces effectiveness

in output because it produced tension which distracts team members from the set goals in the

organization (Medina et al., 2005). However, there are times when conflict must be addressed

regardless of the apprehension they create as there may be positive outcomes in conflict situations

for the parties involved. Even though some researchers depict conflict primarily as disruptive and

dysfunctional rather than contributing to social order, others state that conflicts irrespective of

their negativities have positive outcomes such as yielding a clearer definition of different options

and positions; an avoidance of one part dominating the agenda; facilitating an identification and

resolution of key interest; providing a more active engagement in negotiations; and the use of

trade-off and concessions that allow both sides to secure their highest priorities. Kreisbery (1998)

similarly identified greater equity and stability that arise from what he terms “constructive

conflict”, while Putnam (1997) concluded that conflict often increases communication among

parties.

Coser (1956) distinguished as being either realistic or nonrealistic. Realistic conflicts are conflicts

based in disagreements over the means to an end or over the ends themselves. In realistic

conflicts, the interaction focuses on the substantive issues the participants must address to resolve

their underlying incompatibilities, such as not agreeing on terms of settlement. Non realistic

conflicts are expressions of aggression in which the sole end is to defeat or hurt the other.

Participants in nonrealistic conflicts serve their own interest by undercutting those of the other

party. He argued that because nonrealistic conflicts are oriented toward the expression of

aggression, force and coercion are the means of resolving these conflicts. Realistic conflicts, on

the other hand, foster a wide range of resolution techniques – force, negotiation and persuasion.

Although this analysis is somewhat of an oversimplification, it gives an insight and suggests

essential contrast between productive and destructive conflict interaction (Deutsch, 1973).

Conflict has been said to be “inevitable” in human relationships with its constructive component

contributing to synergy (Hughes, 1994; Rhys Jones, 1994). In this context Gardiner and Simmons

(1995) not only saw conflict as “a major component in project management strategy in

construction industry”, but also demonstrate the need to “shift the distribution of conflicts

occurrences from one that peaks during construction, to one that peaks in the earlier formative

stages of design when the output of conflict is more likely to be more creative and

complementary to the overall project.

3.3 Conflict management approaches

The debate over whether conflicts should be settled, resolved, transformed or managed has the

primary goal of reaching an agreement, restoring harmony to an organization or relationship and

improving the parties’ ability to face challenges together in the future. “Management” of conflict

includes resolution plus such initiatives as prevention and containment. Thus, the term “conflict

management” includes dispute resolution and goes beyond it (d’Estree et al., 2001; Lynch, 2001;

Ury, 1999; Bush and Folger, 1997).

The main alternatives conflict management approaches are two-dimensional in nature (Rahim,

2002; Thomas and Kilmann, 1974; Blake and Mouton, 1964). In each of these approaches, either

four or five conflict-handling strategies or styles are plotted within a two- dimensional space. For

example, the Thomas and Kilmann (1974) model cenceptualises five conflict – handling styles

(competition, compromise, accommodation and avoidance) based on two basic concerns:

“concern for self” and/or “concern for others”. competition (high concern for self and others),

compromise (moderate concern for self and others), accommodation (low concern for self and

high concern for others), and avoidance (low concern for self and others). Research provides

strong support for the dual-concern model. Studies have shown that multidimensional plots of

interrelationships indicate that the five conflict style fit in two-dimensional space, supporting the

dual-concern approach. The motivating concerns depicted in this approach shows that “Concern

for self” is strongly associated with a competitive strategy, “concern for others” is highly related

to an accommodative strategy. Both “Concern for self” and “concern for others” contributes a

small amount of variance to the choice to either collaborate or compromise (Van de Vliert and

Euwema, 1994). Apart from the Thomas and Kilman model, Sorenson et al (1998) also proposed

the “concern for relationship” dimension. This explains the variance for those who make the

choice to compromise and collaborate. Thus, we see competition is motivated by “concern for

self”, accommodation is motivated by “concern for others” and both collaboration and

compromise are motivated by “concern for self”, “concern for others” and “concern for

relationships”.

Another view of the dimensions underlying the dual- concern model looks at distributive or

integrative intent (Lewick and Litterer, 1985). The distributive dimension (competition-

accommodation) represents either extreme taking from others when competing, or extreme giving

to others when accommodating. It represents a “fixed-pie” mentality, the assumption being that if

one party wins, the other loses. Competition is concerned with position and winning. It focuses on

strategically withholding information and using tactics to manipulate others to capitulate resulting

in resistance, defensiveness, resentment, tension, and anger. Accommodation focuses on

understanding the concerns or desires of others and accepting them (Jehn, 1997). The integrative

dimension (collaboration-avoidance) addresses the extent to which all individuals concerns are

incorporated into solutions. The collaborative end of the integrative dimension represents a

cooperative attempt to “expand the pie” or to generate solutions satisfactory to all. Collaboration

involves open discussions of ideas and attempts to understand others and thus, the cooperative

endeavour that promotes positive relationships. The avoidance end of the integrative dimension is

a withdrawal from cooperation since it ignores the concerns of involved individuals and leaves

conflict unresolved, as such associated with weak relationships. Compromise fits well in the

distributive dimension because it fits the fixed-pie rationale, and also can also be viewed as the

midpoint on the integrative dimension (Sorenson et al, 1998).

The current view of conflict management is the use of conflict stimulation, which has the view

that there can be benefits in stimulating a degree of conflict within an organization (Jehn, 1995;

Amason and Schweiger, 1994). In situations such as this, the matter needs to be handled in a very

careful and controlled way so that matters do not go too far and result in something that is highly

dysfunctional. A great deal seems to depend on the type of conflict existing in the organisation.

This conflict can either be Relational conflict (conflict in interpersonal relations) or task-focused

conflict (conflict within groups about how it should complete its task). Studies suggest that

people find relational conflict highly stressful, and so it often evokes strong emotional responses

that lower productive efforts. Conversely, mild task-focused conflicts tend to result in a more

rigorous examination of things dome, which can lead to innovation, productivity and satisfaction

(Jehn, 1997; Amason, 1996)

The considerable disillusionment with traditional dispute resolution approaches, such as

negotiation, arbitration and litigation has led to experimentation with, and the development of

various forms of alternative resolution techniques such as mediation, conciliation, adjudication,

mini-trials, “rent-a-judge” and expert determination. Some forms of dispute avoidance have also

been introduced in the construction sector, such as “partnering” (Quick, 1994). Since forms of

dispute avoidance are preventative to the approach of conflicts, it is useful to explore the origins

of conflict, to trace their causative patterns that will point to the critical areas to be addressed.

More effective management strategies can be developed on this basis. For instance, Colin et al

(1996) studied 483 conflict events from 21 recently completed projects covering five main project

procurement options for private, public and local authority clients. The study revealed a

correlation between the type of procurement method used and types of conflicts. It also exposed

the gaps in the available knowledge of sources, causes and effects of conflicts in construction. It

consequently established the need for effective conflict management strategies within the

construction project environment.

4. Key research questions

In the light of the above, it brings to bear the following key questions:

1. “does conflict affect project performance”

2. “how can construction firms select and use conflict management approaches to

effectively manage conflicts in construction projects”

This raises the need for research to explore how construction firms:

• can strategically identify the causes of conflicts

• establish the type and level of conflicts within construction projects

• explore the approaches to conflict management within the team environment

• develop effective mechanism/model to manage conflicts in the organisation

Within the organizational research, researchers have drawn extensive about conflicts and its

management. Conflict management models have retained a more traditional view of “two-

dimensional models”. For one, the notion of four and five conflict handling styles or strategies

have dominated. For others, apart from the few works studying the intergrative and distributive

intent in conflict management, the focus has been on the “dual-concern” strategies (Rahim, 2002;

Sorenson et al, 1998; Jehn, 1997; Lewick and Litterer, 1985; Thomas and Kilmann, 1974; Blake

and Mouton, 1964). These however, are unitary conflict management approaches and the focus

has been on one level analysis only.

Another challenge related to the study of conflict management models concerns the

interconnections of conflict factors and dispute resolution models, which though view conflict

management in a broader dimensions has limited options and processes (Jehn, 1995; Amason and

Schweiger, 1994; Quick, 1994). Lynch in 2006 argued that conflict management has gone beyond

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and moved into the using of preventive management and

resolution approach of conflict.

These research findings have led to the argument that a comprehensive analysis of the interplay

of “conflicting” factors (disputes, relationship strain, workplace stress) and its effective

“management” (resolution, containment, prevention, management) cannot be isolated from

organizational research.

Kelly and Nicholson (1980) developed a conflict process and causation model and Lynch (2001)

also developed a conflict management approach to address the issue of conflicts within

organisations. The Kelly and Nicholson’s model even though designed for industrial

organizations, focused more on the pre-conflict issues with a stress on power and politics. It did

not address the issue of conflict and conflict management processes. The Lynch model designed

for all organizations focused on conflict management without looking at the causal factors. There

is therefore no integrated model that looks at conflicts within the construction industry linking

pre-conflict/causal factors actual conflict and management of these conflicts. From the conflict

and conflict management theories, a new conceptual model, the Construction Conflict

Management Model (CCM Model) shown in Figure 1, is thus being proposed that would link the

pre-conflict/causal factors through to its comprehensive management within the construction

environment.

Figure 1. The “CCM” Model (Adapted from Kelly and Nicholson (1980) and Lynch (2001)).

This is intended to explore the causal factors taking into consideration the internal and external

factors and level and type of these factors, the conflict process and the outcomes with a view to

effectively assess and manage conflicts in construction firms.

This integrative model looks at the causal factors (pre-conflict) underlying conflict situations,

taking into consideration the Push and Pull factors which causes it to come into being, how the

conflict situation changes with time and the mechanisms for the multi –level management of

conflict.

5. Conclusions and further research

Conflict has been said to be inevitable in human relations, teams and organizations. The

construction industry is perceived to be adversarial in attitude due to the coordinated effort of

temporarily assembled project team, and therefore appropriate to explore conflict. Conflicts must

be beneficial to individuals, teams and organizations. To apply the right conflict and its

management concept, the terminologies “conflict” and “dispute” which are used interchangeably

but are fundamentally different, must be clearly distinguished. A clear understanding of conflicts

will enhance its management.

The identification of theoretical approaches to conflict, conflict in organizations, the dynamics of

conflict and a conceptual model based on conflict and its conflict management theories will lead

to efficiency in delivery and taking proactive measures in reducing and resolving conflicts. There

is also the need to go further to investigate the causal factors of conflict and explore its

management approaches within in construction projects settings. The next stage of this research

will be to conduct in-depth interviews with construction consultants, clients and contracting

organizations who have been involved in the management of conflict. The interviews will explore

conflict types, causes and management approaches. The data would be used to further identify

issues that need to be addressed for more effective project team performance.

6. References

Acharya, N. K., Lee, Y. D. and Im, H. M. (2006) Conflicting factors in construction projects:

Korean perspective. Journal of Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol.

13 (6), 543-566.

Amason A. C. (1996) Distinguishing the effect of functional and dysfunctional conflict on

strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management terms. Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 39, 123-48.

Amason, A. C. and Schweiger, D. M. (1994) Resolving the Paradox of Conflict, Strategic

Decision Making and Organizational Performance. International Journal of Conflict Management

5 (2), 239-253.

Ankrah, N. and Langford, D. (2005) Architects and Contractors: A comparative study of

organisational cultures. Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23 (6), London, UK, E.

& F. N. 595

Appelbaum, S. H. and Shapiro, B (1998) The management of multicultural group conflict. Team

Performance Management, Vol. 4 (5), 211-234.

Awakul, P. and Ogunlana, S. O. (2002) The effects of attitudinal differences on interface conflict

in large scale construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 20 (4), 365-

377.

Baker, D. P. and Salas, E. (1997) Principles for measuring teamwork: A summary and look

toward the future. Cited in: M. T. Brannick, E, Salas, and C. Prince, eds, Team performance

assessment and measurement: theory, methods and applications. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates Inc.

Barrie, D. S. and Paulson, B. C. Jr. (1992) Professional construction management. 3rd Edition.

New York, NY, McGraw-Hill.

Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S. (1964) Managerial grid. Houston, TX, Gulf. Bush, R. A. B. and Folger, J. P. (1994) The promise of mediation: responding to conflict through empowerment and recognition. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Conlin, J. T., Langford, D. A. and Kennedy, P. (1996) The relationship between construction

procurement strategies and construction contract disputes, “north meets south” CIBW92,

Procurement Systems Symp., Department of Property Development and Construction Economics,

Durban, South Africa, Unversity of Natal. p. 66-82.

Conner, W. (1994) Ethnonationalism: the quest for understanding. Princeton, Princeton

University Press. p. 89.

Coser, L. (1956) The foundations of social conflict. New York, Free Press. De Dreu, C. K. W. and Van de Vliert, E. (eds) (1997) Using conflict in organisations. London, Sage. D’Estree, T. P., Fast, L. A., Weiss, J. N., and Jakobsen, M. S. (2001) Changing the debate about “success” in conflict resolution efforts. Negotiation Journal, 1, 101.

Deutsch, M. (1973) The resolution of conflict: constructive and destructive processes. New

Haven, Yale University.

Dougherty, J. E. and Pfaltzgraf, R. L. (1990) Contending theories of international relations. New

York, HarperCollins.

Drucker, P. F. (1989) The practise of management. Heinemann Professional.

Farley, J. E. (2000) Majority – Minority relations. 4th Edition. Englewood Cliff, NJ, Prentice Hall.

Fast, L., A. (2001) Frayed Edges: exploring the boundaries of conflict resolution. Peace and

Change, Vol. 27 (4), 528-545.

Fenn, P., Lowe, D. and Speck, C. (1997) Conflict and dispute in construction. Construction

Management Economics, 15 (6), 513-518.

Gardiner, P. L. and Simmons, J. E. L. (1995) Case Explorations in construction conflict

management. Construction Management and Economics, 13, 219-223.

Guzzo, R. A. and Dickson, M. W. (1996) Teams in organisation: recent research on performance

and effectiveness. Annual Review Psychology, Vol. 47, 307-338.

Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J. W. Jr. and Woodman, R.W. (1995) Organisational behaviour. 7th

Edition. New York, NY, West Publishing.

Heydebrand, W. (1977) Organisational contradictions in public bureaucracies: towards a Marxian

theory of organisations, The Sociological Quarterly, 18, 83-107.

Hughes, W. P. (1994). “Improving the relationship between construction law and construction management”, Paper presented at an International Conference: Charting the course of Year 2000 – Together: The Multidisciplinary Conference on Cooperative Creative Problem Solving in the Construction Industry, Lexington, University of Kentucky.

Jehn, K. A. (1995) A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments on Intragroup

conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, 256-82.

Jehn, K. A. (1997) A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimension in organisational

groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (3), 530-557.

Katz, D. and Kahn, R. (1978) The social psychology of organisations. 2nd Edition. New York,

John Wiley & Sons.

Kelly, J. and Nicholson, N. (1980) The causation of strikes: a review of theoretical approaches

and the potential contribution of social psychology. Human Relations 33 (12), 853-883.

Kerzner, H. (1989) Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling and

controlling. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Kolb, D. and Putnam, L. L. (1992) The Dialectics of Disputing. Cited in: D. M. Kolb and J. M.

Bartunel (eds), Hidden conflict in organisations: uncovering behind-the-scenes disputes.

Newbury Park, Califonia, Sage.

Kriesberg, L. (1998) Constructive conflicts: from escalation to resolution. Lanham, Maryland,

Rowman and Littlefield.

Lewicki, R. J. and Litterer, J. A. (1985) Negotiation. Homewood, IL, Irwin.

Litterer, J. A. (1966) Conflict in organisation: a re-examination. Academy Management Journal,

9, 178-186.

Liu, A. M., M. (1995) Evaluation of Outcome of Construction Projects. PhD Thesis, Hong Kong,

University of Hong Kong.

Lynch, J. (2001) Beyond ADR: A systems approach to conflict management. Negotiation

Journal, July, 207-216.

Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1996) The Communist Manifesto (trans. Samuel Moore in 1888).

London, Orion.

McKenna, E. (1994) Business psychology and organisational behaviour. Hove, UK, Erlbaum.

Medina, F. J., Munduate, L., Dorado, M. A., Martinez, I. and Guerra, J. M. (2005) Types of

Intragroup conflict and affective reactions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 (¾), 219-

230.

Perez, O. (2002) Using Private-Public linkages to regulate environmental conflicts: the case of

International construction contracts. Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 29, 77-110.

Pondy, L. (1967) Organisational conflict: concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly,

Vol. 17, 296-320.

Pruitt, D. G. and Carnevale, P. J. (1993) Negotiation in Social Conflict. Milton Keynes, Open University Press.

Putnam, L. (1997) Productive conflict: negotiation as implicit coordination. Cited in: C. De Dreu

and E. Van De Vliert, eds, Using conflicts in organisations. London, Sage.

Quick, R. (1994) Partnering: The Australian Experience. Cited P. Fenn, ed., TG15 Conf. on

Construction Conflict: Management and Resolution. CIB Proc, Publ. !71, Conseil Internationale

du Batiment, Rotterdam, Netherlands. p. 279-305.

Rahim, M. A. (2002) Toward a theory of managing organisational conflict, The International

Journal of Conflict Management, 13 (3), 206-235.

Reichers, A. E. (1986) Conflict management and organisational commitment. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 71 (3), 508-514.

Rhys Jones, S. (1994) How Constructive is Construction Law? Construction Law Journal, 10 (1),

28-38.

Robbins, S. P. (1978) Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution are not Synonymous Terms.

California Management Review, 21 (2), 67-75.

Robbins, S. P. (1989) Organisational behaviour: concepts, controversies, and application. Englewood Cliff, NJ, Prentice Hall. p. 371-380.

Rollinson, D. and Broadfield, A. (2002) Organisational behaviour and analysis: an integrative

approach. New York, Prentice Hall Inc.

Samuel, M. (1996) High performance teams: separating truths and myths. Los Angeles, MPAQ

Corporation.

Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., and Regan, J. W. (1986). Group approaches for improving

strategic decision making, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 (1), March, 51-71.

Steward, G. L. and Barrick, M., R. (2000) Team structure and performance: assessing the

mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 43 (2), 135-148.

Sorenson, R. L., Morse, E. A. and Savage, G. T. (1998) What motivates choice of conflict

management strategies? Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International

Association of Conflict Management.

Thomas, K.W. (1976) Conflict and conflict management. Cited in: M. Dumette, ed, Handbook of industrial and organisational psychology, Chicago, Rand McNally College Publishing Company. p. 889-935.

Thomas, K. W. and Kilmann, R., H. (1974) Thomas-Kilmann conflict MODE instrument.

Tuxedo, NY, Xicom.

Ury, W. (1999) Getting to peace: transforming conflict at home, at work and in the world. New

York, Viking.

Van de Vliert, E. and Euwema, M. C. (1994) Agreeableness and activeness as components of

conflict behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (4), 674-687.