CONFLICT MANAGEMENT: CRITICAL INGREDIENT FOR SUCCESSFUL PARTNERING

Jeanne D. Maes, Ph.D.

University of South Alabama

Mobile, Alabama U.S.A.

 

ABSTRACT

In the Winter, 1992, issue of the Organization Development Journal, Jeffrey Zak discussed several points from Richard Mayer’s book, Conflict Management: The Courage to Confront. First, he highlights that most conflicts become harmful because individuals as well as organizations prefer to avoid confrontation. He further describes certain elements that consistently tend to be present in conflict situations: “avoidance, the need to be right, miscommunication, the ego-mind and not knowing the genuine cause of conflict” (Zak, 1992, p.65). Perhaps the knowledge of these elements constitutes one reason that Mosley, Moore, Slagle, and Burns (1990) recommend that potential problems be addressed prior to the development of a mission statement and superordinate goals in the partnering process.

The following article discusses the volatile nature of conflict which is especially inherent in construction project management and how the partnering process offers a viable way to deal with it.

 

WHAT IS PARTNERING?

The concept of partnering has been discussed in numerous articles in the OD Journal and has been defined as a new paradigm that cultivates team-building and cooperation, and that removes adversarial positioning. Since partnering is based on relationships (and, hence, is not legally binding contractually) the key to its success lies in communication of goals and objectives and then allowing an organization to determine the best way to achieve those goals and objectives (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1989).

 

VOLATILITY OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

For years the construction industry has been paramount to this nation’s economic health. In addition to providing jobs, it also supports other industries such as manufacturing, real estate, and finance/mortgage (Kavanagh, Muller, & O’Brien, 1978). In the early 1970s the construction business environment changed abruptly due to increased inflation, oil embargoes and other economic factors (Hancher, 1990). The changes continued and the late 1.970s and early 1980s met with other pressures on the industry. High risks became associated with large capital investments. Increasing foreign competition, regulatory changes, advanced technologies, hostile takeovers, mergers, and greater emphasis on the bottom line are now forcing the construction industry to consider alternative contracting approaches. (See also Hancher, 1990.). Old paradigms or ways of doing business are being broken and new ones developed out of necessity (Pascale, 1990).

 

CONFLICT INHERENT IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT

While the construction industry is quite multipartite, yet it depends on many different professions to produce a completed product. Eric Jennet, former chairman of the Project Management Institute, defines construction management (or project management) as conflict management to a large extent since it must “almost continually curb, direct, counter or if necessary override almost everyone’s self interest. Information, response times, structural relationships, communication channels, techniques and tools are either themselves very temporal in nature or keyed to the temporary nature of the project” (Kavanagh et al, p. 223). Any of these individual elements present conflict potential but when combined with the increasing pressure for profit maximization, a potentially volatile situation is created.

Since project management is based on a matrix organizational design, formal relationships and communication channels combine vertical and horizontal authority (Kreitner and Kinicki, 1989). This arrangement violates the unity of command principle whereby each employee reports to only one boss, thus making conflict inherent. This problem is compounded when considered in the public arena. By legal mandate, government agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, must hire the contractor whose bid is the lowest. As a result, over lengthy construction periods many things can happen. For example, prices of materials tend to fluctuate (usually upward) and under these circumstances, contractors are likely to find that their original bids will not allow them to make a profit. As a result, some contractors may shave corners (thus compromising the quality and perhaps the safety of a structure) and/or resort to litigation. This happens especially when the contractors believe that they have not been treated fairly (Mosley, Moore, Slagle, & Burns, 1990). [ is interesting to note the staggering costs associated with litigation in the United States. Barbara Gray’s 1989 study pegged these costs as equal to two percent of the gross national product (Woodcock, 1982). And this figure does not even begin to account for the amount of time it takes for a case to actually go to trial. Galen, Cuneo, and Greising (1992) report that Americans spend more than $80 billion yearly on direct litigation costs and higher insurance premiums while $300 billion

- or 1.8% of the gross domestic product - is spent annually on costs to avoid liability and as indirect costs to litigation (p. 61).1

In its shift from traditional contracting methods to a more efficient way of doing business, the construction industry has taken a hard look at project management. In order to achieve greater cooperation, a new set of values must be emphasized. A new organizational culture must be developed for the matrix organization since there are multiple players (organizations) involved, and each organization transfers to the project management team its own culture including organizational paradigms and behaviors centered around information and shared meanings, a distinct set of values, rewards, objectives, messages to top management, communication channels, etc. (Pfeffer, 1981; see also Moore, Mosley, & Slagle, 1992.)

 

THE USE OF PARTERNING

THe concept of ‘partnering” has been introduced to accomplish such a cultural change with a single set of goals, called superordinate goals, and objectives for the project (Waterman, Peters, & Phillips, 1980, p. 24). The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) (1991) hold that partnering is not a new concept. Some individuals have always conducted themselves in such a manner that their word was binding and a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ was all that was necessary. The AGC furthermore state that

.while the contract establishes the legal relationships, the Partnering process attempts to establish working relationships among the parties (stakeholders) through a mutually-developed, formal strategy of commitment and communication. It attempts to create an environment where trust and teamwork prevent disputes, foster a cooperative bond to everyone’s benefit, and facilitate the completion of a successful project (1991, p. 2).

Consequently, the partnering process involves a modification of team building and strategic planning. This combination improves the aggregate effectiveness of the multiple parties which work together over the life of a contract in large scale projects (Thakur, Bristow, & Carby, 1978).

As part of the cultural change process, one of the objectives of partnering is to design a project management team composed of personnel from each party represented which can anticipate and solve problems. The partnering process also tries to push as much as possible of the decision-making to the lowest level of the organization.

The creation of this project management team is crucial to the success of the project itself. Yet its formation faces many obstacles. Conflict appears to be a major factor in the success or failure of the team’s formation and ultimately, the success or failure of the project.

Kanter (1983), in her discussion of the internal politics ui teams in The Change Masters, states that a philosophy of teamwork or participation does not eliminate internal competition if people bring to the group their own self-serving interests, have a differential interest in the outcome, or come from organizations which encourage divisiveness and noncooperation (p. 260L She furthermore emphasizes that the extent to which these elements impact a team is largely a function of how the team was originally assembled (p. 260). Conflict exists when these issues have not been resolved before the team is formed (Deutsch, 1973). Moreover, these unresolved tensions can escalate when hostile parties are thrown together and forced to interact (Kanter, p. 261).

Since Jandt (1973) identifies communication as the vehicle through which individuals both engage in and resolve their conflicts, communication becomes a central tenet in developing a strategy to manage conflict for the partnering team. Interestingly, in spite of this fact, Mills, Robey, and Smith (1985) in their study of conflict-handling and personality dimensions of project management personnel, concluded that project management personnel are more concerned with task accomplishment than with human relations. Since partnering emphasizes the working relationships, the very difference in perceptions must be managed. Therefore, it is imperative during the team’s formation to establish a procedure for handling conflict effectively.

 

A CONFLICT MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR PARTNERING

Achieving a new organizational culture is no easy task. Therefore, the relationship-building which is crucial to successful partnering, is commonly initiated by means of a “structured, facilitated process, normally consisting of organized workshops to bring the participants together” (Moore, Mosley, & Slagle, 1992, P. 18). In this environment, the participants are led to recognize and develop common goals and establish problem solving strategies or conflict management methods. These methods, in turn, are then built into the communication procedure for the project management team. One particularly useful model has been proposed by Mosley, Moore, Slagle, & Burns (1990) to facilitate this conflict management process (illustrated in figure 1).

The Mosley et al model expands upon previous conflict models, especially the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model, to demonstrate the advantages of adapting the partnering strategy for managing conflict (substituted in the grid for ‘collaborating’). The usefulness of the various strategies may be observed in the following example. While there are a number of tools which can remove a screw from a wooden door frame, the screwdriver will do the job quickly, and with the least chance of causing damage to both the screw and the door.

 

CONCLUSION

Because each project is different, the partnering process itself must be very flexible. Conflict resolution processes must be developed during the initial team building phase and their selection will vary depending on the needs of the project management team. Additionally, these conflict management processes must be periodically evaluated to assess their effectiveness. (These evaluation methods should be determined at the initial partnering workshop.)

Partnering has provided Project managers in the construction industry an alternative method to handling conflict. The success of managing conflict in the partnering arena should provide an interesting topic for further research.

 

REFERENCES

 

Associated General Contractors of America. (1991). Partnering: A concept for success. Washington, D.C.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The results of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

 

Galen, M., Cuneo, A., & Greising, D. (1992, April 13). Guilty! Too many lawyers and too much litigation. Here’s a better way. BusinessWeek, pp. 61-66.

 

Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.

 

Hancher, D. E. (1990). Partnering: Meeting challenges of the future. Interim Report of the Task Force on Partnering, Construction Industry Institute, University of Texas, Austin, TX.

 

Jandt, F. E. (1973). Conflict resolution through communication. New York: Harper & Row.

 

Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.

 

Kavanagh, T. C., Muller, F., & O’Brien, J. J. (1978). Construction management: A professional approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

 

Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (1989). Organizational behavior. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

 

Mills, J., Robey, D., & Smith, L. (1985). Conflict-handling and personality dimensions of project management personnel. Psychological Reports, 57, 1135-1 143.

 

Moore, C., Mosley, D., & Slagle, M. (1992). Partnering: Guidelines for win-win project management. Project Management Journal, 23 (1), 18-2 1.

 

Mosley, D., Moore, C., Slagle, M., & Burns, D. (1990). The role of the OD consultant in partnering. Organization Development Journal, 8, 43-49.

 

Pascale, R. T. (1990). Managing on the edge: How the smartest companies use conflict to stay ahead. New York: Simon and Schuster.

 

Peters, T. J., Phillips, J. R., & Waterman, R. H., Jr. (1980). Structure is not organization. Business Horizons, 23, 14-26.

 

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 1-52.

 

Thakur, M., Bristow, J., & Carby, K. (Eds.). (1978). Personnel in change: Organization development through the personnel function. London, England: Institute of Personnel Management.

 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. (1989, August). Partnering: the joint pursuit of common goals to enhance engineering productivity. Mobile, AL.

 

Woodcock, L. (1982). A negotiator’s advice to lawyers. University of Michigan Law School, Quadrangle Notes, 27, 28-30.

 

High