Effects of inter-organizational conflicts on construction

International Journal of Conflict Management Effects of inter-organizational conflicts on construction project added value in China Guangdong Wu, Xianbo Zhao, Jian Zuo,

Downloaded by Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics At 06:46 23 October 2017 (PT)

Article information: To cite this document: Guangdong Wu, Xianbo Zhao, Jian Zuo, (2017) "Effects of inter-organizational conflicts on construction project added value in China", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 28 Issue: 5, pp.695-723, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-03-2017-0025 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-03-2017-0025 Downloaded on: 23 October 2017, At: 06:46 (PT) References: this document contains references to 126 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 33 times since 2017*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2017),"On the dimensionality of intragroup conflict: An exploratory study of conflict and its relationship with group innovation performance", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 28 Iss 5 pp. 538-562 https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJCMA-07-2016-0061 (2017),"An asymmetric cross-cultural perspective on the mediating role of conflict management styles in expatriation", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 28 Iss 5 pp. 592-616 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-06-2016-0052 Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1044-4068.htm

Effects of inter-organizational conflicts on construction project added value in China Guangdong Wu

Project added value in China

695


Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang, China

Xianbo Zhao Central Queensland University, Sydney, Australia, and

Received 21 March 2017 Revised 27 April 2017 13 May 2017 Accepted 28 June 2017

Jian Zuo School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this research is to investigate the effects of inter-organizational conflicts on the project added value in the Chinese construction industry, and also to examine the mediating effect of conflicts on project added value and the moderating effect of conflict management strategies. Design/methodology/approach – A conceptual model was developed, and a structured questionnaire survey was conducted with 667 professionals. The structural equation modeling technique was used to analyze the data. Findings – The results showed that task conflict, relationship conflict and process conflict were influenced by subject characteristics of project participants, bilateral relationship characteristics and project characteristics. Similarly, these three types of conflicts interact with each other. Meanwhile, these three types of conflicts influence the added value in construction projects, which are moderated by conflict management strategies. Under a collaborating strategy, task conflict and process conflict were positively associated with project added value, and relationship conflict was negatively associated with project added value. Under a competing strategy, task conflict, process conflict and relationship conflict were negatively associated with added value in construction projects. Therefore, the constructive and destructive effects of conflicts on project added value under different conflict management strategies are verified in Chinese construction projects. Research limitations/implications – The variables may not be exhaustive for construction projects and most of them were applied in construction projects for the first time. As a result, their rationality and effectiveness could be further improved. The results implied that inter-organizational conflicts had a constructive effect on project added value and should attract broad attention for future research. Additionally, different driving factors had different influences on these conflicts, and even the driving factors can be divided into different dimensions. Practical implications – This study provides a better understanding of the relationship between interorganizational conflicts and added value in construction projects, and a reliable reference for the project manager to effectively deal with these conflicts. In addition, this research reveals the effects of conflicts on project added value and the path of conflicts transformation. This provides a useful reference for project managers to take advantage of the positive effect of task conflict and process conflict, and to avoid the negative effect of relationship conflict.

This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71561009 and 71301065), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2016M590605 and 2017T100477), Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province (2016KY27), Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province (S2017QNJJB0493), and Social Science Planning Foundation of Jiangxi Province (16GL32).

International Journal of Conflict Management Vol. 28 No. 5, 2017 pp. 695-723 © Emerald Publishing Limited 1044-4068 DOI 10.1108/IJCMA-03-2017-0025

IJCMA 28,5

696

Originality/value – Very few studies attempted to examine the effects of inter-organizational conflicts on project added value in construction projects. Therefore, this research makes significant theoretical and practical contributions to the existing body of knowledge on the conflict management and project added value. This research provides an empirical evidence to support the viewpoint that different types of conflicts can be mutually transformed. Similarly, this study explains how conflicts present functional and dysfunctional effects in construction projects. Both of them are potential theoretical contributions to the existing body of knowledge.

Keywords Construction projects, Structural equation modelling, Inter-organizational conflicts, Project added value


Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction A typical construction project involves various project participants, such as the owner, the contractor, the sub-contractor, the designer, the consultant and the supervisor. These project participants form a complex system with a set of interrelated relationships which requires efforts to coordinate schedule, resources and information (Harmon, 2003). During the project implementation, project participants are involved in resource exchange, knowledge interaction and information communication. The common goal of project participants is to deliver a successful project in accordance with the plans and specifications, within the time and cost originally anticipated. However, the characteristic diversities of these organizations inevitably lead to various conflicts (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003). If left unresolved, conflicts could have detrimental effects on the project progress, as well as the relationship between project participants. Because of these conflicts, the construction projects are plagued by an increasingly adversarial relationship between the participants, particularly between the owner and the contractor (Chen et al., 2014). Such confrontational relationship makes it difficult to achieve project objectives, resulting in time and cost overruns (Hwang et al., 2013; Jelodar et al., 2015). Therefore, more attention needs to be paid to uncover the critical factors of project conflicts and related mechanism. Construction contracts are usually inherently incomplete (Meyer et al., 2002; Demirel et al., 2016). This is attributed to the nature of construction projects, such as complexity and uncertainty throughout the project life cycle, the unique characteristics of construction products, the possible human errors and the difficulty in predicting the project implementation. With increasingly complex construction techniques and remarkable industry fragmentation, efforts have been made to achieve project added value. Project added value, which originates from value chain, has both hard and soft measurements, including project value, customer value and participant value (Cheng and Huang, 2008; Robbins, 1996). Meanwhile, inconsistency in objectives and benefits has resulted in frequent conflicts among project participants (Mele, 2011). In recent years, inter-organizational conflicts have become increasingly complicated and diversified in construction projects due to the growing project scale and complexity. The impacts of inter-organizational conflicts on added value in construction projects could be destructive or constructive, depending on a number of factors such as conflict management strategies, the attitudes of project participants and the nature of project conflicts (Wu, 2013). Therefore, it is imperative to investigate the effects of inter-organizational conflicts on added value in construction projects. This helps to reduce extensive losses of value and to avoid conflicts. The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of inter-organizational conflicts on added value in construction projects. Some studies have been undertaken to investigate the conflict among project participants and its impacts on added value (Wu et al., 2017). However, very few of these studies adopted a multi-dimensional approach to analyze the


effects of the inter-organizational conflicts on the project added value, nor the transformation mechanism among different types of conflicts. Therefore, this study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by proposing a conceptual model and consequently validating the model with empirical evidence. In addition, this study attempts to reveal how conflicts present functional and dysfunctional effects in construction projects, which is another theoretical contribution to the existing body of knowledge. 2. Literature review 2.1 Concept of conflict Conflict is a complicated social and psychological phenomenon. Different perceptions exist on the sources, processes and results of conflict. As a result, various disciplines such as sociology, economics, philosophy and management have explained conflict in different ways. Thomas (1974) defined conflict as a process that began when one party perceived that the other had frustrated, or was about to frustrate, some concerns of his/her benefit. Rahim (1992) pointed out that when there was a conflict, self-awareness and behavior consciousness would emerge and the rational behavior came in to being. Wall and Callister (1995) defined conflict as a process during which one party perceived his concerns were opposed or frustrated by the other. This definition was also shared by Robbins (1996). Wang et al. (2012) proposed that conflict was a state, such as inharmonious phenomena of hostile action, or a state of confrontation in cognition or emotion. The traditional view of conflict emphasizes objective opposition in competitive situations and assumes that conflict originates from opposite benefit relationship including resources allocation and objectives inconsistency, and the perception that achievement of someone’s objective may be at the expense of the other (Jehn, 1995). In cooperative groups with common goals, however, conflict may still arise even though there was no actual objective contradiction (De Dreu, 2007). Therefore, according to the consistency in objectives and goals, conflicts can be classified as two groups, i.e. collaborative conflict with common goals and competitive conflict with objective contradiction (Hemple et al., 2009; Wong et al., 1999). Most conflicts in construction projects are collaborative conflicts, similar to substantive conflict that poses actual influence on the project added value. The internal conflict is usually related to participants’ behavior and is closely associated with the project added value. With common goals, project participants tend to be interdependent with each other, which may lead to conflicts. 2.2 Types of conflict and its effects Conflict can be categorized into different types. It can be grouped as task-oriented conflict, stressing disputes of material benefits and relationship-oriented conflict, and underlining interpersonal relationship (Pinkley and Northcraft, 1994). It can be classified into competitive conflict and cooperative conflict according to the conflict-handling approach (Wong et al., 1999; Hemple et al., 2009). Amason (1996; Amason and Sapienza, 1997) further divided it into cognitive conflict and emotional/affective conflict. Jehn et al. (1999), further classified conflicts into three types, i.e. task conflict, relationship conflict and process conflict. Despite both task-oriented, the task conflict focuses on different views on project content and goals, whereas the process conflict highlights process differences throughout the task fulfillment. The comparison of different types of conflict shown in the literature is summarized in Table I. Remarkably, all grouping methods can be universally aligned with the classification developed by Jehn et al. (1999), which is increasingly used by researchers in the conflict management field. In construction projects, conflict can be defined as mutual interactions among project participants due to different perspectives on project objectives (e.g. quality, time, cost,


697

IJCMA 28,5

Literature references

Types and definition of conflicts

Pelled and Adler, 1994; Amason, 1996, 1997 He et al. (2014); Prasad and Junni (2017)

Affective confict, also called emotional conflict, is individual-oriented disagreements arising from personal disaffection, dislike or misunderstanding, and as relating to interpersonal incompatibilities, which can involve annoyance, tension, and even hostility between team members Cognitive confict is task-oriented disagreements arising from differences in perspective, and as differences among team members concerning task related issues, without necessarily involving personally antagonistic attitudes or conduct Collaborative conflict, also called cooperative conflict, is characterized by friendliness and trusting attitudes toward the other within the conflict, and defined the conflict as mutual problem that needs common consideration and solution Competitive conflict is characterized by suspicious and hostile attitudes toward the other and a willingness to exploit the other’s needs if possible, and people tend to view the conflict as a win–lose struggle Relationship conflict is a disagreements among team members emanating from interpersonal incompatibilities and typically includes tension and animosity Task conflict describes disagreements among team members related to the content of their decisions and differences in viewpoints, ideas, and opinions about the task Process conflict defined as an awareness of controversies about aspects of how task accomplishment will proceed


698 Wong et al. (1999); Rudawsky et al. (1999); Hemple et al. (2009)

Jehn et al. (1999); Jehn and Mannix 2001) Martínez-Moreno et al., 2009; Parayitam et al. (2010); Puck et al. (2010) Senaratne and Udawatta (2013) Table I. Chen et al., 2014; Definition of different Lee et al., 2015 types of conflict Hu et al., 2017

safety) (Wu, 2013), which is a form of inter-organizational conflict. Inter-organizational conflict, in which the independent interests and goals generate the interactions among project participants, usually occurs among project participants and presents different characteristics at different stages of the project life cycle (Yiu and Cheung, 2006). The dominating conflict explodes in the construction stage, and the main participants involved are the owner and contractor, accounting for 74.82 per cent of total conflicts (Ding, 2012). Specifically, inter-organizational conflict in construction projects is an interactive process due to opposition or interest divergence in project objectives among the owner, contractor and other project participants. Therefore, inter-organizational conflicts in construction projects are classified into task conflict, relationship conflict and process conflict in this study. According to the previous studies (Jehn et al., 1999; Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Jehn and Bendersky, 2003; Chen et al., 2014; Wu, 2013), relationship conflict reflects an awareness of interpersonal incompatibility that includes affective components such as feelings of tension and friction; task conflict represents an awareness of differences in viewpoints and opinions pertaining to a team assignment; process conflict reflects an awareness of controversy about how different aspects of a task will be accomplished such as delegation of duties and resources. Despite both taskoriented, the task conflict focuses on different views on project content and goals, whereas the process conflict highlights process differences throughout the task fulfillment. Different levels and types of conflicts possess interactional and intertwined relationships and can carry out the conversion under certain conditions (Jeanette, 2004). Huang (2010) investigated the relationship between task conflict, relationship conflict and team goals by surveying 529 staffs from 120 R&D teams. His study concluded that team goal orientation and a conflict management approach moderated the relationship between task conflict and


relationship conflict. Mele (2011) proposed that different types of conflicts can be transformed and diversely affect the project network value. Pazos (2012) argued that the conflicts mediated the relationships between goal commitment and team outcomes. Chen et al. (2014) divided conflict into relationship conflict, process conflict and task conflict to test their effects on project performance and revealed that the three types of conflicts are all positively correlated. Al-Sibaie et al. (2014) suggested that conflict was a major cause of inefficiency and limited performance of construction projects. Hu et al. (2017) examined the effects of task and relationship conficts on team creativity and found that relationship confict has a negative relationship with team creativity, whereas task confict has an inverted U-shaped relationship with team creativity. According to Wu et al. (2017), different types of conflicts played a constructive or destructive role on added value. Their study found that process and relationship conflict was negatively related to added value, whereas task conflict positively contributed to added value. 2.3 Critical factors of conflicts Conflicts may occur at every life cycle stage of a construction project. The occurrence of conflicts is due to a number of factors such as the finiteness of public resources in projects, different understandings of the project plan and the priorities of each organization (Blokhuis et al., 2012; Liu and Low, 2011). Wei et al. (2016) suggested that conflicts inevitably occur in major projects as various stakeholders express diversity, often conflicting needs and concerns, while failing to address and manage these conflicts often leads to project failures. Xue et al. (2007) argued that construction project conflict is related to the characteristics of the construction industry such as the decentralization of each production department, low production efficiency and the time and cost overruns. Martínez-Moreno et al. (2009) suggested that communication played a moderating role between conflict and team performance. Adnan et al. (2012) argued that relationship, trust, risk sharing, culture barriers, commitment and communication problems are the main driving forces for conflicts in construction projects. AlSibaie et al. (2014) revealed six sets of key factors for conflicts, i.e. external, internal, controlrelated, knowledge-related, mismanagement and social conflicts. Camelo-Ordaz et al. (2014) pointed out that the intragroup trust and value consensus affected the team conflict. Suprapto et al. (2016) suggested that project size and contract are critical factors to the project conflict. Driving forces of project conflicts include the size and duration of the project, the completeness of the contractual documents, changed project environment, poor communication, distrust, resources limitation, financial issues, inadequate design, labor issues and force majeure events (Harmon, 2003). As a result, project conflicts contain three elements, i.e. the behavioral subjects, the behavioral contents and the behavioral carrier. These reflect the characteristics of project participants, the bilateral relationship between project participants and the inherent characteristics of the project. Based on the previous studies (Wu, 2013; Wu et al., 2017), eight critical factors of conflict in construction projects were identified (Table II) and further categorized into three groups: (1) the factors related to subject characteristics of project participants; (2) the factors related to relationship characteristics of project participants; and (3) the factors related to project characteristics. 2.4 Project added value The concept of project added value derives from Michael Porter’s value chain theory (Porter, 1995), and has been widely used in different areas, such as marketing (Gilmore et al., 1999),


699

IJCMA 28,5

Types

Factors of conflict

Literature references

Subject characteristics

Competence

Parayitam et al. (2010); Senaratne and Udawatta (2013) Porter and Lilly (1996); Acharya et al. (2006); Adnan et al. (2012); Pazos (2012); Wu (2013) Wong et al. (1999); Somech et al. (2009); Jehn et al. (2013); Wu (2013); Stark et al. (2014) Semple et al. (1994); Jan (2008); MartínezMoreno et al. (2009); Wu (2013); Conrads and Lotz (2015); Lu et al. (2015) Semple et al. (1994); Harmon (2003); Consoli (2006); Ng et al. (2007); Kwon et al. (2010); Chen et al. (2014) Porter and Lilly (1996); Wong et al. (1999); Hemple et al. (2009); Han and Harms (2010); Adnan et al. (2012); Wu (2013); Camelo-Ordaz et al. (2014); Wu et al. (2017) Awakul and Ogunlana (2002); Harmon (2003); Phua and Rowlinson (2004); Wei et al. (2016); Suprapto et al. (2016) Xue et al. (2007); Senaratne and Udawatta (2013); Chen et al. (2014)

Interest demand

700

Relationship characteristics

Dependence


Communication Contract Trust

Table II. Factors of interorganizational conflicts

Project characteristics

Project scale Technological complexity

supply chain management (Clift and Wright, 2000), mass media communication (Bednarek and Caple, 2012), education (Sass et al., 2014), etc. Ding (2003) put forward the concept of “added value” for construction project management and classified it into added value from construction process and added value from the operation process. Jiang et al. (2008) argued that added value is achieved by eliminating non-value-added activities. Such process can reduce both the construction project investment and life cycle cost, increase project net present value and reduce project investment expenses. Other ways to achieve project added value include improving the process (East and Love, 2011), proper project management mode based on the value added routine (Shi, 2011) and highlighting the strategic importance of added value in the project management process (William and Presutti, 2003). Liu et al. (2011) argued that decision-making of the project delivery system is one of the critical factors contributing to project added value. Giezen et al. (2015) suggested that reducing complexity by simplification added value to construction projects. Rivera et al. (2016) confirmed that larger firms show higher levels of collaboration and value added ability. Project added value explicitly views value from the perspective of all project participants (e.g. owner, contractor, customer, designer, etc.) rather than just the owner or the contractor (De Chernatony et al., 2004). Previous studies mainly apply the value chain theory derived from the manufacturing industry to the construction industry without consideration of specific characteristics of construction projects. With the development of the Chinese construction industry, many enterprises have applied value-added strategies to achieve project added value. There are mainly three approaches to implement value-added programs. The first approach is to add value to construction projects, which contains the achievement of control objectives. The second approach is to add value to the people who directly participated in a construction project, to enhance their ability, reputation and cooperative relationship and the possible cooperation in the future. The third is to add value to the customers who make use of the construction


project. Based on the previous studies and considering inherent characteristics of construction projects, this paper defines project added value from two dimensions: the temporal dimension and project participant dimension. From the temporal perspective, project added value includes the whole project life cycle from project decision-making and implementation to project operation and disposal. As this paper focus on the effects of the inter-organizational conflicts on project added value, focus is placed on the value added during the project implementation and operation stage. From stakeholders’ points of view, although different project participants have varied perceptions of project added value, they usually agree on its definition at the implementation stage (Chan et al., 2003; Chan and Chan, 2004). As for hard indicators, project added value includes “quality-time-cost” analysis in project management. Similarly, soft indicators include satisfaction of stakeholders, pleasant cooperation, reputation of both parties, capability enhancement, etc.


701

3. Conceptual model and research hypotheses 3.1 Development of conceptual model Some studies have attempted to investigate the relationship between conflicts and added value in construction projects (Wu, 2013; Wu et al., 2017). Soft factors for project added value, such as communication and trust, have already featured in the project added value assessment system. However, the effects of soft factors (e.g. the influence of project conflicts and dependency on the project added value) have not been investigated. In this study, project conflict is specified as process conflict, relationship conflict and task conflict in the model. The IPO (input, process, output) framework, which has been widely used in team performance studies (Mathieu et al., 2008), is adopted to develop the conceptual model of this study (Figure 1). The interdependent variables are subject characteristics of project Inputs

Processes

Outputs

Factors of conflicts

Conflict behavior

Conflict results

Subject

Conflict management strategies

Characteristics Competence

Collaborating strategy Competing strategy

Interest demand Relationship

Task Conflict

Characteristics Dependence Communication

Relationship Conflict

Project Added Value

Contract Trust Process Conflict Project Characteristics Project scale Technological Complexity

Figure 1. The conceptual model

IJCMA 28,5


702

participants, relationship characteristics between project participants and project characteristics, while the dependent variable is project added value. According to Jehn and Mannix (2001); Jehn and Bendersky, (2003) and Chen et al. (2014), process conflict, relationship conflict and task conflict are intermediate variables. The moderating variables are conflict management strategies adopted by project participants. The effect of intraorganizational conflict is not considered in this model. 3.2 Factors of conflict 3.2.1 Subject characteristics 3.2.1.1 Competence. In the context of management, competence indicates individual’s possibility of completing some tasks, which can be explained as the skills or influence of project participants in certain fields, manifested by their core knowledge (Awakul and Ogunlana, 2002). Here, competence of a project participant is defined as its comprehensive abilities in resource allocation, risk control and organization and coordination throughout the project implementation. This definition, regarding project participants’ core competence, makes comparison among companies with similar profession in some industries. In most cases, the greater competence of a project participant, the higher possibility that it can complete tasks as planned. Wood et al. (2002) suggested that in construction projects, competence meant one party gained satisfaction from exchange relationship or produce value for the other one. Parayitam et al. (2010) revealed that it is more likely that participants with a higher competence reach consensus and consequently weaken the conflict. Senaratne and Udawatta (2013) suggested that a qualified contractor can reduce conflicts during the project implementation. Accordingly, the relationship between the competence of project participants and project conflict is hypothesized as follows: H1a. The greater the competence of project participants, the lower task conflict. H1b. The greater the competence of project participants, the lower relationship conflict. H1c. The greater the competence of project participants, the lower process conflict. 3.2.1.2 Interest demand. Interest demand reflects project participants’ need throughout the project implementation which changes along with internal or external environment of projects, construction duration, and output (Wu, 2013). These project participants work by their own interest to fulfill the overall project objectives, and seek better opportunities by changing interest demand (Acharya et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2011). Constantly changing someone’s interest demand leads to uncertain needs that may further result in project conflict such as dissatisfaction with project objectives or impediments to project opportunities. Throughout the project implementation, project participants’ interest demand varies with project proceeding and risk emerging such as the change of project complexity and uncertainty of environment. When project participants have different goals and objectives through collaborative work, the change of interest demand may emerge (Porter and Lilly, 1996). Varying interest demands further result in project risks or task ambiguity, which thus lead to projects conflict and make it difficult to assess the project performance (Adnan et al., 2012). Therefore, project participants should devote to maintain a stable interest demand. Accordingly, hypotheses are developed as follows: H2a. The more stable the interest demand of project participants, the lower task conflict.

H2b. The more stable the interest demand of project participants, the lower relationship conflict.



H2c. The more stable the interest demand of project participants, the lower process conflict. 3.2.2 Relationship characteristics 3.2.2.1 Dependence. Dependence, referred as the extent to which a participant needs support from other participants, is a need that project participants keep cooperation and consequently achieve their own goals and project objectives (Somech et al., 2009). It is an interaction among project participants who accomplish tasks depending on fulfillment of other’s tasks. Jehn et al. (1999) argued that conflict, no matter at micro-level or macro-level, occurs at the prerequisite of mutual dependence. Project participants’ mutual dependence increases the possibility of control on each other, thus boosting chances for conflicts or a conflict contagion process (Jehn et al., 2013). Considering the uncertainty of construction projects, it is imperative for project participants to interdepend with each other. Project participants, who feel interdependent and rely upon cooperative approach to complete their task, are less likely to evoke conflict (Wong et al., 1999). With a high level of interdependence, project participants are more likely to cooperate with each other, whereas the possibility and intensity of potential conflicts will decrease (Stark et al., 2014). Therefore, hypotheses are developed as follows: H3a. The greater the dependence between project participants, the lower task conflict. H3b. The greater the dependence between project participants, the lower relationship conflict. H3c. The greater the dependence between project participants, the lower process conflict. 3.2.2.2 Communication. Communication refers to the frequency, effect and scope of information exchange conducted by project participants to realize project objectives (Conrads and Lotz, 2015). It serves as a way to reduce information asymmetry, enhance mutual understanding and decrease misapprehension and conflict. Jan (2008) revealed that project member’s communication skill is of great importance to obtain stakeholders’ trust that helps to reduce conflicts. Malik et al. (2007) found that situation out of control, understanding of mistakes, problems expression and solving may lead to project conflicts. Communication among project participants is thus an important way of exchanging information and enabling collaboration to achieve project goals (Lu et al., 2015). MartínezMoreno et al. (2009) suggested that effective communication can reduce conflict. When project participants have different views about the specific methods and measures to complete project tasks, effective communication can gather more information and develop a better understanding of the task. The occurrence of conflicts depends on handling of these situations. Effective communication facilitates the understanding of each other’s opinions and intent, which helps to prevent the project conflict. Thus, the following hypotheses are developed: H4a. The more effective the communication between project participants, the lower task conflict. H4b. The more effective the communication between project participants, the lower relationship conflict.

703

IJCMA 28,5


704

H4c. The more effective the communication between project participants, the lower process conflict. 3.2.2.3 Contracts. A contract is a legal agreement signed by participants that describes both parties’ roles and responsibilities throughout the project implementation. Contracts for construction projects are inevitably incomplete because arrangements are complex within dynamic project environments and high level of uncertainty (Meyer et al., 2002; Demirel et al., 2016). A complete and rigorous contract provides a reference for process and measurements of managing conflicts, thus reducing to some extent the possibility of escalation and extension of conflicts. According to Consoli (2006), an incomplete contract is a crucial factor that leads to conflicts. However, a complete contract indicates a lack of trust between participants (Herold, 2010) and also causes conflicts. Contract terms are of the ability for project participants to make adjustments that achieve expected outcomes when uncertainties are presented. When the contract is signed fairly, appropriately contractual terms may motivate the project participants to adopt collaborative behavior, reducing task and process conflict (Ng et al., 2007). When managing a project with uncertainty, explicit contractual terms can create a harmonious atmosphere between project participants, thus reducing relationship conflict (Kwon et al., 2010). Therefore, the following hypotheses are formed: H5a. The more complete the contracts between project participants, the lower task conflict. H5b. The more complete the contracts between project participants, the lower relationship conflict. H5c. The more complete the contracts between project participants, the lower process conflict. 3.2.2.4 Trust. According to Mohr and Spekman (1994) and Ellen and Steve (2009), trust is defined as an open psychological state based on positive assessment of each other, in which one project participant holds the belief that the other is honest and takes no moral risk behavior. Trust has been recognized as a significant independent variable to improve cooperative performance because it can foster cooperative relationship and increase cooperative capability and elasticity (Handifield and Bechtel, 2002). As an important indicator for inter-organizational interaction, it influences many other factors during the interaction process as well as project performance (Porter and Lilly, 1996). For interorganizational trade, trust reduces the opportunism behavior, thus reducing the cost of contract signing and execution, i.e. transaction cost. Simons and Peterson (2000) revealed that trust can moderate the mutual transformation of intra-group task conflict and relationship conflict. In fact, trust is able to weaken the connection between task conflict and relationship conflict, strengthen the positive effect of task conflict and reduce the negative effect of relationship conflict (Parayitam and Dooley, 2007). In construction projects, trust creates harmonious project culture and effective working environment and promotes project participants to actively take over responsibility, thus reducing unnecessary time and cost and improving the project quality (Jeffrey et al., 2009; Jiang et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2017). Therefore, hypotheses are developed as follows: H6a. The higher trust level between project participants, the lower task conflict. H6b. The higher trust level between project participants, the lower relationship conflict. H6c. The higher trust level between project participants, the lower process conflict.


3.2.3 Project characteristics 3.2.3.1 Project scale. Project scale mainly refers to the project area, amount of investment, number of participants and construction period (Hu et al., 2016). As construction projects allocate resources according to project scale and make schedules based on the work breakdown structure, large-scale projects usually suffer from the conflicts related to intervention and coordination, which are attributed to responsibility allocation among project participants, task decomposition and complex working processes (Awakul and Ogunlana, 2002; Phua and Rowlinson, 2004). With the rapid development of social economics, an increasing number of large-scale projects are currently undertaken in China. These large-scale projects are presented significant challenges such as an extremely large scale of construction, a compressed schedule, numerous stakeholders (e.g. owners, designers, contractors, consultants and suppliers) and significant coordination requirements due to a dispensed construction mode. As project scale and complexity increase, the trust and communication between project participants decrease accordingly, thus resulting in project conflicts (Vodosek, 2007). Furthermore, large-scale projects usually have a large number of stakeholders, heavy load of organization and coordination and long construction period, all of which contribute to the occurrence of conflicts. Therefore, hypotheses are developed as follows: H7a. The larger the project scale, the higher task conflict between two parties. H7b. The larger the project scale, the higher relationship conflict between two parties. H7c. The larger the project scale, the higher process conflict between two parties. 3.2.3.2 Technological complexity. Technological complexity of projects increases the difficulty in managing projects and incurs mutual influence among project participants. In this study, technological complexity refers to the difficulty of systematic knowledge on various aspects of technological issues in construction projects such as diversity of technology, dependence of technological processes, knowledge of new technology and risk of using highly difficult technology (Luo et al., 2016). Technology complexity grows due to a number of factors such as new materials, new construction methods, super high-rise construction and deep foundation pit. These characteristics require a higher level of engagement and collaboration among project participants, which may lead to more intensive conflicts compared to less complex projects. Relationship conflicts derived from interpersonal problems, friction and personality clashes which may reduce the work efficiency and consequently influence project added value negatively (Wu et al., 2017). Therefore, technological complexity may require systematic and continuous process improvement, as too many process and task conflict may result in inefficiencies (Chen et al., 2014; Hu et al., 2017). However, very few studies have recognized the technological complexity as a source of inter-organizational conflicts in construction projects. Technological complexity has significant effects on project performance, and it has been recognized that a high level of technological complexity can result in conflicts within projects (Wu, 2013; Chen et al., 2014). Therefore, hypotheses are developed as follows: H8a. The higher level of technological complexity of projects, the higher task conflict. H8b. The higher level of technological complexity of projects, the higher relationship conflict. H8c. The higher level of technological complexity of projects, the higher process conflict. 3.2.4 Relationship between different types of conflicts. Task conflict, relationship conflict and process conflict are interdependent (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995, Jehn et al., 1999).


705

IJCMA 28,5


706

During the project decision-making process, too much fierce debate is likely to make project participants agitated or even out of control, which consequently make task conflict become the blasting fuse for relationship conflict (Frank and Jehn, 2013). Compared with task conflict, process conflict is more likely to trigger relationship conflict because it generally involves the execution of detailed work (Huang, 2010). However, very few studies attempted to examine the transformation mechanism of different types of conflicts (Jehn et al., 2013). It is indeed difficult to measure how different types of conflicts transform to each other and explain why three types of conflicts occur in the same actual conflict. Taking task conflict and relationship conflict as an example, they are usually closely correlated, as supported by empirical data (Brockman, 2014). Despite disagreements on project tasks or processes, participants’ emotional reaction is inevitably involved into task conflict or process conflict (Anderson and Polkinghorn, 2008). Indeed, task conflict focusing on “matter” may transform into relationship conflict focusing on “people”. According to Mooney et al. (2007), task conflict can initiate relationship conflict because personal judgment influences the decision-making. Similarly, misunderstanding of other members’ motivation will convert debate over cognitive problems into interpersonal incompatibility. Therefore, the following hypotheses are formed: H9a. Task conflict and relationship conflict affect each other. H9b. Process conflict and relationship conflict affect each other. H9c. Task conflict and process conflict affect each other. 3.2.5 Relationship between conflicts and project added value. Conflict management strategies are the behavioral strategies adopted by project participants once conflicts occur. The selection of conflict management strategies is crucial for the effective conflict management (Tekleab et al., 2009). Panteli and Sockalingam (2005) initially identified five styles of conflict management strategies: competing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising and collaborating. In the Chinese construction industry, conflict management strategies can be classified into two categories, i.e. competing strategy and collaborating strategy (Dietrich et al., 2010). Under a competing strategy, project participants seek to satisfy their own benefits and ignore the benefits of others. Thus, no party compromises, and both of them insist their benefit to be fulfilled. On the other hand, a collaborating strategy is a constructive way to solve conflicts that aims at satisfying both parties’ expected benefits based on the overall project success. Under this strategy, both parties show assertiveness and cooperativeness, use a wide range of information and determine an appropriate problem-solving mechanism. The effect of conflict on project added value can be constructive or destructive. In project implementation, conflict is usually seen as destructive. Xue et al. (2010) suggested that project added value should be a result of collaborative effort of all participants, whereas conflict is detrimental to collaboration and further impedes the achievement of project added value. Specifically, conflict is detrimental to the ownercontractor relationship and contributes to unfavorable project outcomes such as time and cost overruns, quality deterioration and lower level of satisfaction (Yiu and Cheung, 2006; Halac, 2014; Hwang et al., 2015). However, in a project, conflict is unconventional and out of scheme, thus providing different perspective and offering functional effect to improve the decision-making quality (Cheung et al., 2003). The influence of conflicts on project added value depends on conflict management approaches. For long-term cooperation, coordinating processes are more important. Different types and different types of conflict have various influences on the project


added value (Puck and Pregernig, 2014). Chen (2006) examined the degree of conflict that project teams experienced and the impacts of conflict on the team creativity process. They concluded that the project life cycle is a significant moderator of the conflict–creativity relationship. Anderson and Polkinghorn (2008) investigated the role of conflict resolution skills and techniques and found that process conflict had the greatest influence on project added value. Chen et al. (2014) revealed that the relationship-related conflict had a negative impact on the project cost performance, and the task-related conflict influenced the project cost performance in an inverse-U shaped manner. Brockman (2014) found that relationship conflict weakened project added value, and that educational opportunities and innovative changes to the construction process could reduce conflict. Zhang and Huo (2015) found interpersonal confict and negative emotions have inverse relationships with the project performance. Wu et al. (2017) found that relationship conflict and process conflict were negatively, but task conflict was positively associated with project added value. Therefore, the following hypotheses are developed: H10a. When a collaborating strategy is selected, task conflict is positively related to project added value; when a competing strategy is selected, task conflict is negatively related to project added value. H10b. Relationship conflict is negatively related to project added value and the conflict management strategy can moderate the extent of influence of relationship conflict on project added value. H10c. When a collaborating strategy is selected, process conflict is positively related to project added value; when a competing strategy is selected, process conflict is negatively related to project added value. 4. Method and data presentation To achieve the research objectives, a questionnaire survey was conducted. The questionnaire was designed according to the results of the systematic literature review (Section 3). In the pilot study, ten project managers from owners and contractors were interviewed and invited to comment on the preliminary questionnaire. Based on their comments, the questions were modified and the ambiguity was eliminated (Table III). The first section of the final questionnaire serves to collect demographic information of the respondents and their firms and projects. In the second section, the respondents were asked to rate the variables using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = medium; and 5 = strongly agree). The questionnaire was distributed to 840 construction project participants, by either personally mail or via electronic email. To increase the response rate, follow-up calls were used. Finally, 667 complete responses were received, yielding a response rate of 79 per cent. This was high compared with the norm of 20-30 per cent with most questionnaire surveys in the construction industry (Akintoye, 2000; Zhao et al., 2015a). The profile of the respondents and their projects is shown in Table IV. Around 73 per cent of the respondents had more than 5 years’ working experience and the majority of them held positions as managers. This suggests that these respondents have adequate knowledge and experience on conflict management in construction projects. As for the data distribution, the maximum absolute value of sample skewness is 2.157, less than the threshold of 3. The maximum absolute value of sample kurtosis is 4.597, less than 10, presenting, the data can be seen as normally distributed. The chi-square method was used to check nonresponse biases. All the expected frequencies of measures are


707

IJCMA 28,5

Variables

Measurements

Competence

The participant has similar project experience The participant has its core ability to undertake its work The participant’s financial status is stable The participant’s resource is abundant The participant’s management/technology ability is good The participant has strong coordination ability The participant can fulfill its promise under normal conditions The participant acts in accordance with the contract and the standards of morality The participant can keep the promise even without supervision The participant behaves unpredictably and inconsistently with the words The participant can inform the other participants when an accident occurs The participant can inform the other participants when its demand changes When dealing with uncertainty, one party will consider other party’s interest One party would provide help when the other party faces problem One party would return the interest to the other party who provide the help When one party sacrifices for the project, the other party will also make similar sacrifices The participants should be cooperative with each other to deliver the project The communication among participants is frequent and effective The communication among participants is open and frank The participant is willing to share the information The communication among participants is in a timely manner The communication among participants is accurate The participant will hide information for their own interest Communication strategies will consider applicability, flexibility and continuous improvement The contract is determined before the beginning of the project The contract brings confidence of both participants All contractual item are fair There still exist inexplicit items in the contract All contractual item are fair are reasonable The contract is complete We assure that the other party has the ability to effectively perform the work We believe that the project engineers and technical professionals are competent We believe that the other party will abide by the contract We believe the other party will keep the promise during the project execution We believe the other party is trustful We believe that the other party’s cost for breaching contract is high The project needs many participants’ collaboration The project needs many participants’ resource input The project needs many participants’ capital input The project needs strong management methodology The project needs complex design concept The project needs new design technology The project needs new construction technology The project needs special equipment The other party often creates problems for your party There are many personality clashes between your party and the other party There are many disputes between your party and the other party The other party often withhold information necessary for the attainment of your party tasks There is significant personal friction between your party and the other party (continued)

708 Downloaded by Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics At 06:46 23 October 2017 (PT)

Interest demand

Dependence

Communication

Contract

Trust

Project scale

Technological complexity Relationship conflict

Table III. Measurement for the factors of conflict, types of conflict, and project added value

Variables


Task conflict

Process conflict

Project added value

Measurements There is significant tension between your party and the other party There is much emotional conflict between your party and the other party There is much conflict about ideas for the project design and construction scheme There are always significant conflicts about ideas for the project goal setting There are significant conflicts about the task between your party and the other party There are a lot of different opinions between your party and the other party The other party often disagrees about opinions regarding the work being undertaken The other party often has disagreements about the task of the project you are working on The other party often has conflicting opinions about the task of the project you are working on The other party always assists your party to accomplish your tasks Your party often assist the other party to accomplish their tasks There is much cooperation between your party and the other party There are many disagreements about who should do what during the project execution There is much conflict between your party and the other party about task responsibilities Your party often disagrees on the resource allocation during the project execution This project progress follows schedule This project is within budget The project deliverable meets client’s objectives This project has qualified acceptance and successful delivery The project can solve most problems encountered during the project execution The project process is satisfactory This project creates positive impacts on end users The owner is satisfied with the project results We are optimistic about the success of this project We are likely to cooperate with the other party again in the future The project satisfied the client’s special requirements

below 5, which showed the result was reliable. All the P-values of measures were below 0.05, showing the significant heterogeneity between variables. The Harman one-factor test was applied to check the common method bias, and there were 11 factors extract. The maximum value of sample variance is 28.66 per cent, less than 40 per cent, presenting the data can be seen as low common bias. Thus, the sample was appropriate for structural equation modeling (SEM). The SEM method is well-recognized as one of the most suitable techniques for analyzing the possible relationships among variables. It combines both econometric and psychometric perspectives in the statistical modeling and enables a maximally efficient fit between data and a structural model (Lim et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2015b). 5. Data analysis 5.1 Validity and reliability AMOS 18.0 was used to carry out confirmatory factor analysis on the subject characteristics of project participants, relationship characteristics, conflict dimensions and project added value to obtain the reliability of measuring clauses and factor construct reliability. Variable


709

Table III.

IJCMA 28,5


710

measuring clauses with standardized coefficients below 0.5 were deleted. Construct reliability (CR) was used to reflect the consistency among measurable variables. CR value greater than 0.7 indicates good construct reliability (Hair et al., 1998). In addition, average variance extracted (AVE) was used to examine convergence validity, and average AVE greater than 0.5 means good convergence validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). To assess the goodness-of-fit (GOF) of a model, indicators like x 2, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), incremental fit index (IFI) and normed fit index (NFI) were used. The results showed that all indicators of each category of variables met the requirements and standardized coefficients were all over 0.5. The CR of each potential variable is greater than 0.7, suggesting that the overall reliability of measuring items and the internal consistency were high. The AVE of each potential variable was greater than 0.5, indicating good convergence validity. Consequently, the Cronbach’s a of each potential variable was tested, and results were all greater than the threshold of 0.7 (Cronbach, 1951). The measurement of all potential variables exhibits good reliability, consistency of measurement and stability. Hence, the reliability of each variable and factor construct reliability met the requirements. As a result, SEM can be used to analyze the relationship between construction project interorganizational conflict and project added value. 5.2 Model test and result analysis The SEM test results of the model are showed in Table V and Figure 2. As shown in Table III, most of GOF indicators of the model fulfill requirements. Specifically, x 2/df is 2.18, less than 3. RMSEA is 0.065, greater than 0.05 but still below the upper bound of 0.10. NIF, IFI and CFI are all greater than 0.9. In fact, the criteria values in Table V are optimal values. In some cases, a GFI higher than 0.85 is also acceptable. Overall,

Characteristics

Category

Work experience

20 years Project manager Department manager Professional manager Project engineer Others Residential project Public project Industrial project Others

Designation

Table IV. The profile of respondents and projects

Table V. Indicators of GOF of the model

Project type

N

(%)

178 169 216 104 178 109 167 124 89 387 135 121 24

27 25 32 16 27 16 25 19 13 58 20 18 4

Model

x 2/df

GFI

AGFI

RMSEA

NFI

IFI

CFI

Evaluation criterion Indicators of GOF

0.9 0.87

>0.8 0.88

0.9 0.93

>0.9 0.96

>0.9 0.96


Competence –0.452* –0.412* –0.451

Interest demand

*

–0.412*

–0.407*

Dependence

-0.409

– 0.238*

TC

– 0.323* * * – 0.435 0.315*

–0.225*


Communication

– 0.307 –0.314

Contract – 0.314

*

* – 0.328

– 0.353

-0.301

*

– 0.427*

RC

711

0.575* 0.478

–0.311* *

Project added value

*

0.499*

0.643*

–0.503*

*

Trust 0.295* 0.217

Project scale

0.415*

0.410*

– 0.372*

PC

0.264

* 0.369* 0.324 0.303*

Technological Complexity

Notes: TC = Task conflict; RC = Relationship conflict; PC = Process conflict

the indicators of GOF of the model satisfy requirements but can be further improved. Indicators of GOF are not the only criterion to assess the rationality of the model. Further discussion should be carried out to consider the actual background of the studied problem. A model without optimal values of GOF indicators may be explained by relevant theories. As the modification suggestion offered by AMOS does not conform to actual situations, further modification and improvement were not performed and the existing model was used for further analysis. 5.3 Mediating effect of inter-organizational conflicts It is imperative to verify the mediating effect of inter-organizational conflicts on the relationship between independent variables (subject characteristics, relationship characteristics and project characteristics) and project added value. Therefore, we verified the model in which independent variables influences project added value directly (Model 1) and the model with intermediate variables (Model 2). Comparison of standardized path coefficients of these two models is shown in Table VI. According to the results of Model 1, variables related to project participants’ subject characteristics, relationship characteristics and project characteristics were significantly correlated with project added value. The results of Model 2 showed that: variables related to subject characteristics, relationship characteristics and project characteristics were significantly correlated with each dimension of project conflict; each dimension of project conflict is significantly correlated with project added value; and the introduction of conflict considerably weakens the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.

Figure 2. Effects of construction project inter-organizational conflicts on the project added value

IJCMA 28,5


712

Influence category

Path

Influence of independents on the dependent variables

Competence ! Project added value Interest demand ! Project added value Dependence ! Project added value Communication ! Project added value Contracts ! Project added value Trust ! Project added value Project scale ! Project added value Technological complexity ! Project added value Competence !Task conflict Competence !Relationship conflict Competence !Process conflict Interest demand !Task conflict Interest demand !Relationship conflict Interest demand !Process conflict Dependence ! Task conflict Dependence ! Relationship conflict Dependence ! Process conflict Communication !Task conflict Communication ! Relationship conflict Communication !Process conflict Contracts !Task conflict Contracts !Relationship conflict Contracts !Process conflict Trust ! Task conflict Trust ! Relationship conflict Trust ! Process conflict Project scale ! Task conflict Project scale ! Relationship conflict Project scale ! Process conflict Technological complexity ! Task conflict Technological complexity ! Relationship conflict Technological complexity ! Process conflict Task conflict ! Project added value Relationship conflict ! Project added value Process conflict ! Project added value

Influence of independents on intermediate variables

Table VI. Verification of the mediation effect of conflict on project added value

Influence of intermediate variables on the dependent variables

Standardized path coefficients Model 1 Model 2 0.430* 0.506* 0.392* 0.474* 0.501* 0.491* 0.307* 0.299*

0.104* 0.200 0.092* 0.187* 0.106 0.096* 0.092 0.084 0.600* 0.509* 0.579* 0.557* 0.583* 0.601* 0.344* 0.415* 0.344* 0.475* 0.454* 0.478* 0.356* 0.425* 0.402* 0.400* 0.432* 0.411* 0.310* 0.259* 0.305* 0.427* 0.451* 0.421* 0.616* 0.604* 0.514*

Note: * p < 0.05

Hence, the mediation effect of conflict, described by Baron and Kenny (1986), was verified in this study.

5.4 Moderating effect of conflict management strategies In this study, the moderating variables are the conflict management strategies adopted by project participants, including competing and collaborating strategies. SEM was used to verify the effects of conflict management strategies on the relationship between different types of conflict on project added value, as shown in Figure 3. When project participants selected a collaborating strategy, task conflict and process conflict had positive effects on project added value; however; relationship conflict had negative effects. When project


participants selected a competing strategy, all three types of conflicts (i.e. task conflict, process conflict and relationship conflict) posed negative effects on the project added value. 6. Discussions 6.1 Relationship between subject characteristics and conflicts The competence of project participants was negatively correlated with task conflict, process conflict and relationship conflict, supporting H1a, H1b and H1c. Hence, in project practice, project participants should consider competence as a critical factor in selecting partners. Particularly, owners should take prequalification (e.g. competence rather than lowest price) into consideration during the tendering process. This is because a qualified and competent bidder is more helpful to reduce project conflicts. Similarly, contractors should pay attention to the operating and financing capability of the owner. The interest demand of project participants was negatively correlated with task conflict, process conflict and relationship conflict, supporting H2a, H2b and H2c. Thus, the stable interest demand of project participants is a key factor for reducing project conflicts. When selecting contractors, owners should offer reasonable profit for contractors to avoid conflicts. Meanwhile, contractors should keep their commitment and maintain a stable interest demand during the project implementation process.


713

6.2 Relationship between relationship characteristics and conflicts The dependence between project participants is negatively associated with task conflict, process conflict and relationship conflict, supporting H3a, H3b and H3c. In recent years, the projects in China, typically characterized by huge investment, numerous stakeholders and complex design planning, required a higher level of collaboration. Dependence has received a growing level of emphasis from owners and contractors, and an increasing number of owners and contractors have built strategic cooperative relationship. For instance, Dalian Wanda Group and China State Construction Co. Ltd. have reached roundabout cooperation partnership. Such partnership and interdependence between project participants help to reduce conflicts. The communication between project participants was negatively correlated with task conflict, process conflict and relationship conflict, supporting H4a, H4b and H4c. Improving communication throughout project implementation significantly impacts on reducing conflicts. During the project implementation, owners and contractors should establish a communication TC

TC

0.399*

–0.299* 0.376*

0.254*

–0.189*

RC 0.401* 0.421*

0.428*

0.207*

0.396*

Project added

Project added

RC

value

0.456*

0.470* 0.230

0.304*

0.454*

*

*

–0.317

value

0.470* –0.198*

PC

PC

(a)

(b)

Notes: (a) Using a collaborating strategy; (b) Using a competing strategy; TC = Task conflict; RC = Relationship conflict; PC = Process conflict

Figure 3. Moderating effects of inter-organizational conflict management strategies

IJCMA 28,5


714

mechanism. This includes regular meeting, periodic reporting, senior-level meeting and information sharing platform based on network. This helps to achieve the efficient and effective mutual information transmission. The completeness of contracts had significant negative association with task conflict and process conflict, supporting H5a and H5c. Practically, complete contracts that set detailed terms on each party’s responsibilities and duties provide reliable behavior standard for participants and thus reduce the possibility of conflicts related to task content and implementation process. That reminds owners and contractors of adopting standardized contracts as much as possible to clearly define critical matter, assure the completeness of contracts and reduce conflict. Herold (2010) argued that complete contracts indicated low mutual trust and usually led to conflicts. However, this is not supported by our analysis. The need to strictly execute contracts is deeply rooted in the Chinese culture. Despite a negative relationship between the completeness of contracts and relationship conflict, there was lack of statistical significance. Trust between project participants is negatively associated with task conflict, process conflict and relationship conflict, supporting H6a, H6b and H6c. Mutual trust grows as the project proceeds. The trust between project participants may not exist at the early project stage. As the project proceeds, the level of trust grows as a result of mutual understanding between project participants. Therefore, it is crucial to create a harmonious project culture and working environment featured with mutual trust. During the construction project implementation, more emphasis should be placed on nurturing trust among project participants, particularly developing a mutual trust mechanism. Trust mechanism should be established among project participants based on equal cooperation so as to take advantage of the positive effects of task conflict and process conflict, and to avoid the negative effect of relationship conflict. 6.3 Relationship between project characteristics and conflict dimensions Project scale was positively associated with task conflict, supporting H7a. However, H7b and H7c were not supported. Large-scale projects are often featured with massive investments, with complex construction, and various types of stakeholders (He et al., 2015; Jia et al., 2011; Kardes et al., 2013). According to the tasks of defining project scope, the traditional approach in China is to break down the megaproject into several manageable packages and outsource these work packages to contractors, transferring risks and reducing uncertainty (Hu et al., 2013; Toor and Ogunlana, 2009). After signing contracts, project participants usually have disagreements on what to do and how to do due to information asymmetry, knowledge diversity and different understanding of design. That is particularly the case in large-scale projects because there are independent subcontractor as well as subcontractors nominated by owners. This may contribute to more project conflicts. Largescale projects require heavy load of cooperation and coordination. Consequently, task conflict is more likely to occur. However, if both the owner and the contractor have capability of project planning and controlling, process conflict and relationship conflict can be minimized with the assistance of suitable communication mechanism, appropriate contract clauses and trust-based project environment. This can explain the insignificant effect of project scale on process conflict and relationship conflict. The technological complexity of construction projects was positively correlated with task conflict, process conflict and relationship conflict, supporting H8a, H8b and H8c. Technological complexity is a common source of project conflicts. At the early stage of the project implementation, disagreements on what to do lead to task conflict. During the project implementation, technological complexity exacerbates disagreements on how to do and


results in process conflict. Excessive disagreements and disputes on project tasks and processes may lead to a tension among project participants, resulting in relationship conflict. Hence, in project practices, conventional design scheme should be adopted during the project design stage to reduce the technological complexity and facilitate the project implementation. In addition, for the projects using complex design or construction techniques, effective conflict management should be used to control possible conflict to a reasonable range. Consequently, the positive effect can be enhanced and the negative effect of conflict can be mitigated. In this study, the inherent characteristics of projects, project scale and technological complexity, demonstrated positive effects on different types of conflicts, thus indirectly affecting project added value. As this study applied empirical data to support the indirect path on project added value, it is a potential theoretical contribution to the existing body of knowledge. 6.4 Relationship among types of conflicts The results supported research hypotheses that different types of conflicts can transform to each other, while the process and result of that kind of transformation will directly or indirectly influence the realization of project added value. In practice, the three types of conflicts are not independent. Rather, they interact with each other. When making task schemes, project participants may consider their own knowledge and interest, and thus task conflict may occur. If task conflict diffuses to other related tasks, process conflict may emerge. As for process scheme, project participants’ disagreement on how to carry out specific work may cause process conflict. If unsolved, the process conflict may trigger a task conflict. If task conflict or process conflict were not solved properly, it may deteriorate and lead to relationship conflict. Otherwise, relationship conflict will result in the intense interpersonal relationship between project participants and provoke task conflict and process conflict. Therefore, throughout the project implementation, various types of conflicts are intertwined closely, which poses collective impacts on the project added value. Some researchers suggested that different types of conflicts can mutually transform (Jehn et al., 2001, 2013; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; Harmon, 2003), while there lacked empirical data to support the viewpoint. This research provides empirical evidence to fill the knowledge gap, which is another potential theoretical contribution to the existing body of knowledge. 6.5 Relationship between conflict and project added value The H10a, H10b and H10c were supported by empirical test. Under a collaborating strategy, task conflict and process conflict were positively correlated, while relationship conflict was negatively correlated with the project added value. Under a competing strategy, task conflict, process conflict and relationship conflict were all negatively correlated with project added value, also supporting the research hypotheses. Conflict management strategies have crucial moderating effects on conflicts and added value within construction projects. Under a competing strategy, project participants pay more attention to their maximum interest and neglect the overall project benefits if disagreements occur. The conflict would be aggravated and escalated, making project conflicts detrimental to the project added value. On the contrary, under a collaborating strategy, both parties seek for the maximizing project benefits. Thus, the task conflict and process conflict are constructive or functional, beneficial to the project added value. However, relationship conflict is negatively associated with project added value. It is worth noting that such effect is comparatively weaker compared with that under a competing strategy.


715

IJCMA 28,5


716

Many researchers pointed out that conflicts can play a constructive or destructive role on the performance (Jehn and Bendersky, 2003; Martínez-Moreno et al., 2009; Parayitam et al., 2010). However, it remains unclear why conflicts present functional and dysfunctional effects. This study validated both the constructive and destructive aspects of conflicts in the Chinese construction projects. It also provided a useful reference to explain how conflicts presenting functional and dysfunctional effects. Under different conflict management strategies, the impact of conflicts on project added value varies according the types of conflicts. Even the same type of conflict may present different effects. 7. Conclusions and recommendations This study investigated the effects of inter-organizational conflicts on project added value in construction projects. Main sources of conflicts are the subject characteristics of project participants, bilateral relationship characteristics, and project characteristics, including competence, interest demand, dependence, communication, trust, contracts, project scale and technological complexity. Conflict was classified into task conflict, relationship conflict and process conflict. Based on a questionnaire survey with 667 practitioners in the Chinese construction industry, a conceptual model was developed and tested by means of the empirical data. Project participants’ subject characteristics and relationship characteristics were found to be critical factors influencing project added value. Under a collaborating strategy, task conflict and process conflict were positively associated with project added value. By contrast, under a competing strategy, these three types of conflicts were negatively associated with project added value. Hence, this study verified the functional effect of task conflict and process conflict under a collaborating strategy. Task conflict and process conflict help to stabilize the interest demand of project participants, improve the communication efficiency and promote the establishment of trust mechanism, all of which have significant influence on project added value. Relationship conflict had significant negative relationship with project added value. Therefore, to improve the management of project soft factors, project participants should develop communication and trust mechanisms to take advantage of positive effect of task conflict and process conflict and reduce the negative effect of relationship conflict. The aims of inter-organizational conflict management are to fundamentally solve either obvious or hidden conflicts and to prevent the occurrence, diffusion and transformation of conflicts. This is achieved by means of adopting different strategies, coordinating all participants in project implementation, detecting project problems timely and collecting adequate information to make high-quality decisions. In addition, another goal is to find and solve the existing but hidden conflict timely and effectively, thus eliminating possible conflict triggers and assuring the achievement of project added value. Therefore, in specific construction project management, project participants should make more efforts in dealing with task conflict and process conflict so as to prevent their transformation into relationship conflict. In China, inequality is not unusual within project participants. Owners play leading roles, while contractors play subordinate roles. It is a similar story for the relationship between contractors and subcontractors. In addition, it is necessary for project participants to enhance communication and foster mutual trust. When project participants build up trust-based relationship, their core competence is likely improved. Despite the achievement of objectives, there were some limitations associated with this research. First, as the independent variables were selected from the literature review and interviews, the variables may not be exhaustive for construction projects. Second, most of the variables were applied in construction projects for the first time. Therefore, their rationality and effectiveness can be further improved. Nonetheless, this study contributes to


the existing body of knowledge because it proposes and validates a conceptual model that describes the relationships between project inter-organizational conflicts and project added value. Based on this model, practical implications were drawn, providing a clear understanding of the effects of project inter-organizational conflicts. As project intraorganizational conflict was not considered in the proposed model, future research could be conducted to investigate the effects of intra-organizational conflict on project added value. In addition, future research opportunities exist to examine the effects of intra-organizational conflict on inter-organizational conflict. References Acharya, N.K., Lee, Y.D. and Man Im, H. (2006), “Conflicting factors in construction projects: Korean perspective”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 543-566. Adnan, H., Shamsuddin, S.M., Supardi, A. and Ahmad, N. (2012), “Conflict prevention in partnering projects”, Procedia - Social and Science, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 772-781. Akintoye, A. (2000), “Analysis of factors influencing project cost estimating practice”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 77-89. Al-Sibaie, E.Z., Alashwal, A.M., Abdul-Rahman, H. and Zolkafli, U.K. (2014), “Determining the relationship between conflict factors and performance of international construction projects”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 369-382. Amason, A.C. (1996), “Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 123-148. Amason, A.C. and Sapienza, H.J. (1997), “The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 495-516. Anderson, L. and Polkinghorn, B. (2008), “Managing conflict in construction megaprojects: leadership and third-party principles”, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 167-198. Awakul, P. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2002), “The effect of attitudinal differences on interface conflicts in large scale construction projects: a case study”, Construction Management & Economics, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 365-377. Baron, R. and Kenny, D. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182. Bednarek, M. and Caple, H. (2012), “Value added: language, image and news values”, Discourse, Context & Media, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 103-113. Blokhuis, E.G.J., Snijders, C.C.P., Han, Q. and Schaefer, W.F. (2012), “Conflicts and cooperation in brownfield redevelopment projects: application of conjoint analysis and game theory to model strategic decision making”, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 138 No. 3, pp. 195-205. Brockman, J. (2014), “Interpersonal conflict in construction: cost, cause, and consequence”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 140 No. 2, p. 04013050. Camelo-Ordaz, C., Garcia-Cruz, J. and Sousa-Ginel, E. (2014), “Antecedents of relationship conflict in top management teams”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 124-147. Chan, A.P. and Chan, A.P. (2004), “Key performance indicators for measuring construction success”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 203-221. Chan, A.P., Chan, D.W. and Ho, K.S. (2003), “Partnering in construction: critical study of problems for implementation”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 126-135. Chen, M.H. (2006), “Understanding the benefits and detriments of conflict on team creativity process”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 105-117.


717

IJCMA 28,5


718

Chen, Y.Q., Zhang, Y.B. and Zhang, S.J. (2014), “Impacts of different types of owner-contractor conflict on cost performance in construction projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 140 No. 6, p. 04014017. Cheng, M.Y. and Huang, C.J. (2008), “Value-added treatment inference model for rule-based certainty knowledge”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 1250-1265. Cheung, S.O., Ng, T.S., Wong, S.P. and Suen, H.C. (2003), “Behavioral aspects in construction partnering”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 333-343. Clift, R. and Wright, L. (2000), “Relationships between environmental impacts and added value along the supply chain”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 281-295. Conrads, J. and Lotz, S. (2015), “The effect of communication channels on dishonest behavior”, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 88-93. Consoli, G. (2006), “Conflict and managing consortia in private prison projects in Australia – private prison operator responses”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 75-82. Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 297-334. De Chernatony, L., Harris, F. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (2004), “Added value: its nature, roles and sustainability”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 1/2, pp. 39-56. De Dreu, C.K. (2007), “Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: a motivated information processing perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 628-638. De Dreu, C.K. and Weingart, L.R. (2003), “Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 741-749. Demirel, H.C., Leendertse, W., Volker, L. and Hertogh, M. (2016), “Flexibility in PPP contracts–dealing with potential change in the pre-contract phase of a construction project”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 196-206. Dietrich, P., Eskerod, P., Dalcher, D. and Sandhawalia, B. (2010), “The dynamics of collaboration in multipartner projects”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 59-78. Ding, J. (2012), “Investigation and analysis of inter-organizational conflict for construction projects in China”, Construction Economy, No. 2, pp. 16-19, (in Chinese). Ding, S.Z. (2003), “How to increase the value of construction of exhibition venues?”, China Conference & Exhibition, No. 2, pp. 20-21, (in Chinese). East, E.W. and Love, D.R. (2011), “Value-added analysis of the construction submittal process”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 1070-1078. Ellen, L. and Steve, R. (2009), “Interpersonal trust and inter-firm trust in construction projects”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 539-554. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50. Frank, R.C. and Jehn, K.A. (2013), “Task conflict, information processing, and decision-making: the damaging effect of relationship conflict”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 122 No. 8, pp. 177-189. Giezen, M., Salet, W. and Bertolini, L. (2015), “Adding value to the decision-making process of mega projects: fostering strategic ambiguity, redundancy, and resilience”, Transport Policy, Vol. 44 No. 11, pp. 169-178. Gilmore, A., Carson, D., O’Donnell, A. and Cummins, D. (1999), “Added value: a qualitative assessment of SME marketing”, Irish Marketing Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 27-35. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice Hall International, New York, NY.


Halac, M. (2014), “Relationship building: conflict and project choice over time”, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 683-708. Han, G. and Harms, P. (2010), “Team identification, trust and conflict: a mediation model”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 20-43. Handifield, R.B. and Bechtel, C. (2002), “The role of trust and relationship structure in improving supply chain responsiveness”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 367-382. Harmon, K.M.J. (2003), “Conflicts between owner and contractors: proposed intervention process”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 121-125. He, Y., Ding, X. and Yang, K. (2014), “Unpacking the relationships between conflicts and team innovation: empirical evidence from China”, Management Decision, Vol. 52 No. 8, pp. 1533-1548. He, Q., Luo, L., Hu, Y. and Chan, A.P.C. (2015), “Measuring the complexity of mega construction projects in China: a fuzzy analytic network process analysis”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 549-563. Hemple, P.S., Zhang, Z. and Tjosvold, D. (2009), “Conflict management between and within teams for trusting relationships and performance in China”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 41-65. Herold, F. (2010), “Contractual incompleteness as a signal of trust”, Games and Economic Behavior, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 180-191. Hu, N., Chen, Z., Gu, J. and Huang, S. (2017), “Conflict and creativity in inter-organizational teams: the moderating role of shared leadership”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 74-102. Hu, Y., Chan, A.P.C., Le, Y. and Jin, R. (2013), “From construction megaproject management to complex project management: bibliographic analysis”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 4, p. 04014052. Hu, Y., Chan, A.P.C., Le, Y., Xu, Y. and Shan, M. (2016), “Developing a program organization performance index for delivering construction megaprojects in China: fuzzy synthetic evaluation analysis”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 4, p. 05016007. Huang, J.C. (2010), “Unbundling task conflict and relationship conflict: the moderating role of team goal orientation and conflict management”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 334-355. Hwang, B.G., Zhao, X. and Ng, S.Y. (2013), “Identifying the critical factors affecting schedule performance of public housing projects”, Habitat International, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 214-221. Hwang, B.G., Zhao, X. and Tan, L.L.G. (2015), “Green building projects: schedule performance, influential factors and solutions”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 327-346. Jan, T. (2008), “Forming relationships with stakeholders in engineering projects”, European J. Of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 35-49. Jeanette, B. (2004), “Learn how to use persuasion and influence: a win-win way”, in Nap Globe Congress, Project Management Institute, Philadelphia. Jeffrey, K.P., Dennis, P.S. and Brent, E. (2009), “Trust in projects: an empirical assessment of owner/ contractor relationships”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 638-648. Jehn, K.A. (1995), “A multimethod examination of the benefits and determinants of intragroup conflict”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 256-282. Jehn, K.A. and Bendersky, C. (2003), “Intragroup conflict in organizations: a contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 187-242. Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001), “The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 238-251.


719

IJCMA 28,5


720

Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1999), “Why differences make a difference: a field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 741-763. Jehn, K.A., Rispens, S., Jonsen, K. and Greer, L. (2013), “Conflict contagion: a temporal perspective on the development of conflict within teams”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 352-373. Jelodar, M.B., Yiu, T.W. and Wilkinson, S. (2015), “Systematic representation of relationship quality in conflict and dispute : for construction projects”, Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 89-103. Jia, G., Yang, F., Wang, G., Hong, B. and You, R. (2011), “A study of mega project from a perspective of social conflict theory”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 817-827. Jiang, L., Wang, Z.H. and Wang, X.F. (2008), “Application of value-added engineering in PMC project”, Journal of International Economic Cooperation, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 57-60, (in Chinese) Jiang, W.P., Lu, Y.J. and Le, Y. (2016), “Trust and project success: a twofold perspective between owners and contractors”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 6, p. 04016022. Kardes, I., Ozturk, A., Cavusgil, S.T. and Cavusgil, E. (2013), “Managing global megaprojects: complexity and risk management”, International Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 905-917. Kwon, H.D., Lippman, S.A. and Tang, C.S. (2010), “Optimal time-based and cost-based coordinated project contracts with unobservable work rates”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 126 No. 2, pp. 247-254. Lee, D., Huh, Y. and Reigeluth, C.M. (2015), “Collaboration, intragroup conflict, and social skills in project-based learning”, Instructional Science, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 561-590. Lim, B.T.H., Ling, F.Y.Y., Ibbs, C.W., Raphael, B. and Ofori, G. (2011), “Empirical analysis of the determinants of organizational flexibility in the construction business”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 137 No. 3, pp. 225-237. Liu, J., Zhao, X. and Yan, P. (2016), “Risk paths in international construction projects: case study from Chinese contractors”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 142 No. 2, p. 05016002. Liu, J.Y. and Low, S.P. (2011), “Work-family conflicts experienced by project managers in the Chinese construction industry”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 117-128. Liu, J.Y.C., Chen, H.G., Chen, C.C. and Sheu, T.S. (2011), “Relationships among interpersonal conflict, requirements uncertainty, and software project performance”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 547-556. Lu, P., Qian, L., Chu, Z. and Xu, X. (2015), “Role of opportunism and trust in construction projects: empirical evidence from China”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 2, p. 05015007. Luo, L., He, Q., Xie, J., Yang, D. and Wu, G. (2016), “Investigating the relationship between project complexity and success in complex construction projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 33 No. 2, p. 04016036. Malik, M.A, Peter, M. and Will, S. (2007), “Building trust in construction projects”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 385-391. Martínez-Moreno, E., González-Navarro, P., Zornoza, A. and Ripoll, P. (2009), “Relationship, task and process conflicts on team performance: the moderating role of communication media”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 251-268. Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T. and Gilson, L. (2008), “Team effectiveness 1997-2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 410-476. Mele, C. (2011), “Conflict and value co-creation in project networks”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 1377-1385.


Meyer, A.D., Loch, C.H. and Pich, M.T. (2002), “Managing project uncertainty: from cariation to chaos”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 12, pp. 60-67. Mohr, J. and Spekman, R. (1994), “Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 135-152. Mooney, A.C., Holahan, P.J. and Amason, A.C. (2007), “Don’t take it personally: exploring cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 733-758. Ng, H.S., Peña-Mora, F. and Tamaki, T. (2007), “Dynamic conflict management in large-scale design and construction projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 52-66. Panteli, N. and Sockalingam, S. (2005), “Trust and conflict within virtual inter-organizational alliances: a framework for facilitating knowledge sharing”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 599-617. Parayitam, S. and Dooley, R. (2007), “The relationship between conflict and decision outcomes: moderating effects of cognitive and affect-based trust in strategic decision-making teams”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 42-73. Parayitam, S., Olson, B.J. and Bao, Y. (2010), “Task conflict, relationship conflict and agreement-seeking behavior in Chinese top management teams”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 94-116. Pazos, P. (2012), “Conflict management and effectiveness in virtual teams”, Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 Nos 7/8, pp. 401-417. Pelled, L.H. and Adler, P.S. (1994), “Antecedents of intergroup conflict in multifunctional product development teams: a conceptual model”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 21-28. Phua, F.T. and Rowlinson, S. (2004), “How important is cooperation to construction project success? A grounded empirical quantification”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 45-54. Pinkley, R.L. and Northcraft, G.B. (1994), “Conflict frames of reference: implications for dispute processes and outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 193-205. Porter, M.E. (1995), Competitive Advantage, Ch. 1, The Free Press, New York, NY, pp. 11-15. Porter, T.W. and Lilly, B.S. (1996), “The effects of conflict, trust, and task commitment on project team performance”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 361-376. Prasad, B. and Junni, P. (2017), “Understanding top management team conflict, environmental uncertainty and firm innovativeness: empirical evidence from India”, Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 122-143. Puck, J. and Pregernig, U. (2014), “The effect of task conflict and cooperation on performance of teams: are the results similar for different task types”, European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 870-878. Puck, J.F., Neyer, A.K. and Dennerlein, T. (2010), “Diversity and conflict in teams: a contingency perspective”, European Journal of International Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, p. 417. Rahim, M.A. (1992), “Empirical studies on managing conflict”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 5-8. Rivera, L., Sheffi, Y. and Knoppen, D. (2016), “Logistics clusters: the impact of further agglomeration, training and firm size on collaboration and value added services”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 179 No. 3, pp. 285-294. Robbins, S.P. (1996), Organizational Behavior, 7th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Rudawsky, D.J., Lundgren, D.C. and Grasha, A.F. (1999), “Competitive and collaborative responses to negative feedback”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 172-190. Sass, T.R., Semykina, A. and Harris, D.N. (2014), “Value-added models and the measurement of teacher productivity”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 9-23.


721

IJCMA 28,5


722

Semple, C., Hartman, F.T. and Jergeas, G. (1994), “Construction claims and disputes: causes and cost/time overruns”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 120 No. 4, pp. 785-795. Senaratne, S. and Udawatta, N. (2013), “Managing intragroup conflicts in construction project teams: case studies in Sri Lanka”, Architectural Engineering and Design Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 158-175. Shi, Q. (2011), “Rethinking the implementation of project management: a value adding path map approach”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 295-302. Simons, T.L. and Peterson, R.S. (2000), “Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 102-111. Somech, A., Desivilya, H.S. and Lidogoster, H. (2009), “Team conflict management and team effectiveness: the effects of task interdependence and team identification”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 359-378. Stark, E., Bierly, P. and Harper, S.R. (2014), “The interactive influences of conflict, task interdependence and cooperation on perceptions of virtualness in co-located teams”, Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 Nos 5/6, pp. 221-241. Suprapto, M., Bakker, H.L.M., Mooi, H.G. and Hertogh, M.J.C.M. (2016), “How do contract types and incentives matter to project performance?”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 1071-1087. Tekleab, A.G., Qqigley, N.R. and Tesluk, P.E. (2009), “A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 170-205. Thomas, K.W. (1974), Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, Xicom, Tuxedo, NY. Toor, S.R. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2009), “Construction professionals’ perception of critical success factors for large-scale construction projects”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 149-167. Vodosek, M. (2007), “Intragroup conflict as a mediator between cultural diversity and work group outcomes”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 345-375. Wall, J.A.J. and Callister, R.R. (1995), “Conflict and its management”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 515-558. Wang, Q., Fink, E.L. and Cai, D.A. (2012), “The effect of conflict goals on avoidance strategies: what does not communicating communicate?”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 222-252. Wei, H.H., Liu, M., Skibniewski, M.J. and Balali, V. (2016), “Conflict and consensus in stakeholder attitudes toward sustainable transport projects in China: an empirical investigation”, Habitat International, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 473-484. William, D. and Presutti, J. (2003), “Supply management and e-procurement: creating value added in the supply chain”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 219-226. Wong, A., Tjosvold, D., Wong, W.Y.L. and Liu, C.K. (1999), “Cooperative and competitive conflict for quality supply partnerships between China and Hong Kong”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 7-21. Wood, G., McDermott, P. and Swan, W. (2002), “The ethical benefits of trust-based partnering: the example of the construction industry”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 4-13. Wu, G. (2013), “The relationship between project team dynamic feature, conflict dimension and project success: an empirical research from Shanghai, China”, Pakistan Journal of Statistics, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 935-952. Wu, G., Zhao, X. and Zuo, J. (2017), “Relationship between project’s added value and the trust-conflict interaction among project teams”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 33 No. 4, p. 04017011. Xue, X., Shen, Q. and Ren, Z. (2010), “Critical review of collaborative working in construction projects: business environment and human behaviors”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 196-208.


Xue, X., Wang, Y., Shen, Q. and Yu, X. (2007), “Coordination mechanisms for construction supply chain management in the internet environment”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 150-157. Yiu, K.T. and Cheung, S.O. (2006), “A catastrophe model of construction conflict behavior”, Building and Environment, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 438-447. Zhang, L. and Huo, X. (2015), “The impact of interpersonal conflict on construction project performance: a moderated mediation study from China”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 479-498. Zhao, X., Hwang, B.G. and Low, S.P. (2015a), “Enterprise risk management in international construction firms: drivers and hindrances”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 347-366. Zhao, X., Hwang, B.G., Low, S.P. and Wu, P. (2015b), “Reducing hindrances to enterprise risk management implementation in construction firms”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 141 No. 3, p. 04014083. Further reading Barki, H. and Hartwick, J. (2004), “Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 216-244. Hjerto, K. and Kuvaas, B. (2017), “Burning hearts in conflict: new perspectives on the intragroup conflict and team effectiveness relationship”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 50-73. Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001), “The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 238-251. Khalfan, M.M., McDermott, P. and Swan, W. (2007), “Building trust in construction projects”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 385-391. Corresponding author Xianbo Zhao can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]


723