Kabiri, S; Hughes, W P and Schweber, L (2014) Role conflict in project team dynamics. In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 30th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2014, Portsmouth, UK.
Abstract
Project team dynamics may be affected by mismatches between formal and informal sources of expectations. Conflicting or unclear expectations have not yet been studied closely in construction projects. Using role theory, the effect of such phenomena on project team dynamics was studied in construction projects. Most research into role theory relies on survey data; however, this study takes a qualitative approach. For a public project, contracts were studied, project meetings were observed, and semi-structured interviews with the major members of the design team were carried out to identify formal and informal sources of role expectations. Analysis focused on the misalignment of these sources. A model was developed to help explain project team dynamics and the interaction of formal and informal sources of role expectations. Findings reveal that underspecified roles and responsibilities within contracts and plans of works effected role interactions and ultimately team dynamics.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts; informal sources of expectations; role expectations; team dynamics |
| Index terms: | survey, qualitative approach, design team, role theory, interview, role conflict, project team, misalignment, interaction, mismatch, team dynamics, public project, construction project, dynamics |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, behavioral psychology, sociology, infrastructure engineering, production management, research methods, management, project delivery, professional practice, engineering problems, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Organizational Design, Design Practice |
| 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