Kabiri, S; Hughes, W P and Schweber, L (2012) Role conflict and role ambiguity in construction projects. In: Smith, S D (ed.) Proceedings of 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2012, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
Role conflict happens when a person faces different and incompatible expectations regarding a particular social status which they occupy. The literature on role conflict is reviewed for a better understanding of project dynamics in construction teams. The discussion focuses on issues surrounding the miscommunication of role expectations and tensions owing to differences in expectations of the same role. This ongoing doctoral study involves a qualitative research design, based on interviews with practising professionals. Analysis will focus on the relation between formal expectations, as evidenced in contracts and other types of written communication, and informal expectations as observed from the interviews. Insights from the literature review suggest: 1. that the differences between formal and informal expectations is a major sources of role conflict in construction teams and 2. that this effect is exacerbated by the failure of team members to recognize it and take it into account.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contract; organizational behaviour; project dynamics; role conflict |
| Index terms: | construction team, face, literature review, organizational behaviour, interview, role conflict, construction project, dynamics, qualitative research |
| Subjects: | business, research design and methodology, data collection methods, project delivery, data analysis and analytics, psychology, production management, systems engineering, sociology |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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