Yu, R K T and Leung, M Y (2001) Investigation of construction conflict resolution in Hong Kong. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 17th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2001, Salford, UK.
Abstract
Conflict cannot be avoided, but must be managed. An optimum level of conflict enhances productivity and, subsequently, improves the participant's satisfaction. Based on the conflict management knowledge and two-factor satisfaction theory, a cyclical conflict management model is developed in the paper. A questionnaire survey has been conducted to investigate the relationship between the conflict resolution behaviour and the satisfaction levels of client representatives and contractor representatives. The results indicate that both compromise and collaboration conflict resolution styles significantly correlate to the satisfaction level of client and contractor representatives (refer hypothesis 1), while client is dissatisfied with the avoidance resolution style in the management process (refer hypothesis 2). Besides, satisfaction levels of contractor representatives towards their own accommodation resolution style differ from the satisfaction levels of client representatives towards the contractor representative's accommodation resolution styles and vice versa (refer hypothesis 3).
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | conflict management; behavioural conflict resolution; satisfaction; client; correlation coefficient; model |
| Index terms: | survey, conflict resolution, productivity, satisfaction, conflict management, Hong Kong, resolution, investigation, questionnaire, collaboration |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, project delivery, management, Geography, conflict resolution |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here