Project Management VI Research Paper

Article

Conflict Management, Team Coordination, and Performance Within Multicultural Temporary Projects: Evidence From the Construction Industry

Amin Akhavan Tabassi 1 , Aldrin Abdullah

1 , and David James Bryde

2

Abstract The purpose of our study is to enhance the understanding of relationships between conflict management style, team coordination, and performance in multicultural project team contexts. We investigate how conflict management can contribute to team effectiveness through the mediation of the level of team coordination by collecting data from 126 team leaders and supervisors and 378 members nested in different multicultural projects in the construction industry. Our results show that, contrary to the findings from prior research in other team contexts, an avoiding style of conflict management can have a positive impact on the performance of multicultural project teams.

Keywords conflict management style, construction projects, team coordination, Malaysia, team performance, temporary project organizations

Introduction

Conflict is a process whereby one side perceives that self-

interests are adversely influenced by another party’s actions

(Wall & Callister, 1995). This implies that conflict is a process

incorporating two or more people or groups within which one

party has to perceive the other party’s actions as in opposition to

its own. Researchers have asserted that conflict is a common trait

in every teamwork activity and inherent within daily interactions

(Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Jia, Yang, Wang, Hong, & You, 2011;

Müller, Turner, Andersen, Shao, & Kvalnes, 2016; Tjosvold,

2008). Prior works highlighted that the way a team deals with

conflict significantly impacts its performance (De Dreu & Gel-

fand, 2008; Liu & Cross, 2016; Prieto-Remón, Cobo-Benita,

Ortiz-Marcos, & Uruburu, 2015; Tjosvold, 2008; Yousefi, Hipel,

& Hegazy, 2010). However, conflict is seen not only to have

harmful consequences but also to be remarkably constructive in

some team-based work environments (De Dreu, 2007; De Dreu

& Gelfand, 2008; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Li & Li, 2009; Tjos-

vold, 2008). Team members’ perception of the way in which

their desired goals may be affected by actions significantly influ-

ences both the nature of interactions and the final results of

conflict management (Deutsch, 1990). Preceding studies also

outlined that conflict is more likely to arise and escalate when

cultural differences are present among the parties (Fisher, 1990).

Consequently, different cultures may possibly use different

methods in dealing with conflict in the course of managing

multicultural teams. It has also been noted that how a team

manages conflict greatly affects team performance (De Dreu,

2007; De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Tjos-

vold, 2008). Consequently, different approaches to managing

conflict in group environments may affect the way teams are

coordinating. Furthermore, earlier research in predominantly

Western contexts suggests that in temporary organizations, the

coordination of a team influences team efficiency along with

overall project performance (Mitropoulos & Cupido, 2009;

O’Leary-Kelly, Martocchio, & Frink, 1994; Stott & Walker,

1995). However, these relationships have not been widely tested

in other cultural contexts, such as East Asia.

In temporary organizations, coordination is a core compe-

tency of the team leader (Project Management Institute, 2017).

Coordination issues have been emphasized by researchers in a

1 School of Housing, Building & Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang,

Malaysia 2 Liverpool Business School, Liverpool Johns Moores University, Liverpool,

England

Corresponding Author:

Amin Akhavan Tabassi, School of Housing, Building & Planning, Universiti Sains

Malaysia, Penang 11800, Malaysia.

Email: [email protected]

Project Management Journal Vol. 50(1) 101–114

ª 2019 Project Management Institute, Inc. Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/8756972818818257

journals.sagepub.com/home/pmx

wide range of contexts, including organizational design, tech-

nology adoption and innovation, and group competition, to

name just a few (De Dreu, 2007; Müller et al., 2016; Yousefi

et al., 2010; Zhang, Cao, & Tjosvold, 2011). Team coordina-

tion in many temporary organizations, such as those in the

construction industry, takes place in the context of highly com-

plex and dynamic environments (Loosemore, Dainty, & Lin-

gard, 2003). Therefore, it presents a challenging context for

achieving effective teamwork (Tabassi & Bakar, 2009;

Tabassi, Ramli, & Bakar, 2012).

To contribute to our understanding of one particular chal-

lenging context, the objective of this study is to investigate the

relationships between conflict management approaches, team

coordination, and the performance of multicultural project

teams. Our understanding of the mechanisms by which team

leaders exert influence at the team level, through such actions

as conflict management and coordination, is still limited (Sun,

Xu, & Shang, 2014); hence, by investigating the practices and

performance of project teams in this context, our study has

significant theoretical contributions.

The empirical context for this study was the Malaysian con-

struction industry. This industry was chosen because the tem-

porary organizations undertaking projects in this sector are

typically multicultural, being made up of three main ethnic

groups, with each having their own cultural norms and values:

Malays, Chinese, and Indians. This reflects the composition of

the general population in the country (i.e., in 2010, Malays

made up 60.3%, Chinese 24.6%, and Indians 7.1% of the total population) (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2018). Gener-

ally, the limited prior research has investigated East Asians’

approaches to managing conflict, specifically looking at tem-

porary multicultural (TMC) teams. Furthermore, in project

management, as with other management disciplines, people-

related issues have been getting more attention in East Asian

countries, such as Malaysia, as firms are recognizing the

impact of the management of human resources on organiza-

tional performance (Chen, Uen, & Chen, 2016).

We sought to answer the following broad question: How do

Malaysians approach the management of conflict in TMC

teams, and do these approaches lead to different outcomes, in

terms of team coordination and performance? We sought to

answer this question through a hierarchical regression analysis

of data from 126 teams in TMC organizations undertaking

construction projects in Malaysia.

Conflict-Handling Styles

The rapid growth of complex projects in the construction indus-

try across the world has resulted in varied interorganizational

conflicts (Hu, Chen, Gu, Huang, & Liu, 2017; Wu, Zhao, &

Zuo, 2017). The influences of conflicts among team members

on project performance in the industry could be destructive or

constructive, relying on plenty of variables, such as conflict

management style of leaders, nature of conflict, the perceptions

of team members in working with conflict, and so on (Wu et al.,

2017). However, there are different conflict-handling styles

that individuals may employ when interacting with others in

interpersonal or business engagements (Chiocchio, Forgues,

Paradis, & Iordanova, 2011; Kleinman, Palmon, & Lee,

2003; Wu et al., 2017). Effective styles lead to conflict resolu-

tion, enhance work steadiness (Wu et al., 2017), promote feel-

ings of self-efficacy among team members, minimize the

likelihood of negative conflicts in future work, and also result

in a company’s long-term financial growth (Cheung & Chuah,

1999; Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994).

Pressure to come to an agreement (Baron, 1988), power

differences (Zartman & Touval, 1985), complexity of the orga-

nization’s task (Chiocchio et al., 2011), interdependence of the

units (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1986), and culture and leadership

styles (Chiocchio et al., 2011; Kozan, 1989) all influence the

way conflict ought to be managed. The literature indicates that

the success or otherwise of dealing with conflict has a direct

impact on the project performance of temporary organizations

(Lundin & Soderholm, 1995; Müller et al., 2016). In such

organizations, the negative consequences of a failure to deal

with conflict have two root causes: first, failure to deal with

technical conflicts that arise from different role perspectives

(Chen, Zhang, & Zhang, 2014), and second, distrust among

team members or different personal behaviors (Tjosvold,

2008). As stated above, conflict per se is not necessarily neg-

ative. Therefore, conflict should be effectively managed in

order to realize the optimum level (Leung, Yu, & Liang, 2014).

A number of theoretical styles of dealing with interpersonal

conflict have been proposed (Kleinman et al., 2003; Rahim &

Magner, 1995; Rubin et al., 1994). These theorists build on the

pioneering work of Blake and Mouton (1964), who classed con-

flict-managing strategies into five styles: forcing, withdrawing,

smoothing, compromising, and confrontation. The authors further

grouped these five strategies under two broad dimensions, which

are associated with the behavior of the team leader, namely: (1)

concern for people, and (2) concern for task. In 1976, Blake and

Mouton’s styles for handling conflicts in team environments were

reviewed and refined by Thomas (1976, cited in Rahim &

Magner, 1995). Thomas also grouped the methods of coping with

conflict into five styles, and he also identified two main dimen-

sions: (1) cooperativeness, within which individual’s concerns

are higher for peers; and (2) assertiveness, when self-concerns

are more significant. Along with these two dimensions, five dif-

ferent conflict resolution styles were presented, based on the

degree to which an individual practices cooperativeness or asser-

tiveness: cooperative, competitive, accommodating, avoiding,

and compromising (Rahim & Magner, 1995).

Cooperative Approach to Conflict Management and Team Coordination

Interdependence in conflict management, which was pro-

posed by Deutsch (1990), outlines a scenario in which indi-

viduals value peers’ abilities and options, which primarily

leads to cooperative goal achievement and open communication

102 Project Management Journal 50(1)

in dealing with conflict (Tjosvold et al., 2001). In the event

that people feel they need others’ abilities, opinions, and

resources, they are more likely to be encouraged to cope with

conflict cooperatively. Accordingly, they may also reach a

point where to have a long-term relationship and to be able

to continue to work together in an effective fashion, it would

be necessary to resolve conflict cooperatively for mutual gain.

Project managers with cooperative conflict management style

are more open in coping with conflict and even rated as more

successful leaders. Moreover, it can be concluded that mutual

dependence aids cooperative conflict management, which

could result in better project coordination. In collectivist soci-

eties, such as China, where empirical study has been under-

taken, it has also been found that managing conflict

cooperatively can lead to higher perceptions of fair treatment

among individuals, which in turn leads to better team perfor-

mance (Chen & Tjosvold, 2002).

In terms of achieving win-win situations, a cooperative style

encourages open-minded interactions, in order to realize

opposing concepts, assimilate opposing views, develop accep-

table alternatives, and strengthen individuals’ relationships.

This results in mutual solutions that are favorable to both par-

ties (Walton & McKersie, 1965). Team members can adopt a

cooperative conflict resolution strategy by concentrating on

their shared aims. They will demonstrate that they seek mutual

profit from an activity, are seeking to solicit everyone’s point

of view, and are available to integrate different suggestions in

order to set up a mutually practical solution (Deutsch, 1990;

Tjosvold, 1985). A cooperative style is characterized by open

communication, responsiveness to others, shared understand-

ing, and the development of mutually favorable alternatives

(Ayoko, 2016; Sanders & Schyns, 2006).

A cooperative conflict management style is seen to pro-

mote high team performance and desirable individual beha-

vior (Tjosvold, Poon, & Yu, 2005). In addition, teams that are

able to deal with conflict cooperatively are also able to

improve their own performance (Tjosvold, Hui, & Yu,

2003). Specifically, expressions of individual satisfaction of

being part of the team, team efficacy, boosts to innovation and

creativity, and better goal achievement are all claimed as

outcomes of cooperative approaches to the management of

conflict (Tjosvold, 2008).

It is hypothesized that there will be a positive relationship

between this style of conflict management and team coordina-

tion. Hence, the first hypothesis to test is:

H1: The cooperative conflict management approach within

the TMC organization undertaking projects is positively

related to effective team coordination.

Competitive Approach to Conflict Management and Team Coordination

Competitive conflict increases independence among team

members. A competitive style (high concern for self and low

concern for others) has been linked with a win-lose scenario.

This is a confrontational approach that leads to one side capi-

tulating to the other. Yang, Cheng, and Chuang (2013) listed

some of the commonly used tactics in this style, which include:

direct communication with regard to the issues, persistent dis-

agreement with other parties’ opinion and remaining rooted to

one’s own position, and attempts to seize control of communi-

cation channels.

Managers or team leaders who implement this strategy typi-

cally impose their thoughts or opinions onto their subordinates,

and the conflict often ends with undesirable results. Such lead-

ers emphasize their competitive pursuits, which may result in

others moving away from attainment of the project goal. They

are inclined to look at conflict as a win-lose challenge: If the

other wins, they lose. This discourages effective communica-

tion and leads to the imposition of an opinion by the most

powerful party on the conflict. Individuals with more focus

on independence and with less emphasis on interdependence

may gravitate toward the competitive style in coping with con-

flict, which increases the probability of a perceived maximum

personal gain, as opposed to the gain in win-win situations (De

Dreu & Gelfand, 2008; Prieto-Remón et al., 2015; Tjosvold,

2008). To explore the impact of the competitive style of con-

flict on the workings of the team, in the context of the effec-

tiveness of coordination activities, we hypothesized that a

negative relationship exists between this style of conflict man-

agement and team coordination:

H2: The competitive conflict management approach within

the TMC organization undertaking projects is negatively

related to effective team coordination.

Avoiding Approach to Conflict Management and Team Coordination

The avoiding approach seeks to smooth over conflicts quickly,

by minimizing dialogue on the issues. The avoiding conflict

management style typically is predicated on the fact that pit-

falls and issues should not be brought into the open and dis-

cussed between the parties. It is characterized as having low

concern for the self and for others and seeks actions that will

serve to limit dealing with the conflict clearly, either by dis-

regarding it or switching discussions to a new subject. This

style of conflict management has been compared to disengage-

ment, buck-passing, and sidestepping scenarios (Rahim, 2002).

Those who adopt this style of conflict management do not show

strong emotions of anger and irritation. They are inclined to act

as if they are indifferent both to their own personal concerns

and to the concerns of other team members.

An avoiding style of conflict management has been

observed in East Asian contexts. The East Asian collectivist

cultures tend to be thought to focus on interdependence and a

tacit acknowledgment that individuals greatly depend upon

each other (Tjosvold, 2008; Tjosvold et al., 2001). Accord-

ingly, some people may adopt this style of conflict resolution

only because they intend to maintain their relationships, which

might, however, result in dysfunctional project team operation.

Tabassi et al. 103

To explore the likelihood of such an outcome arising from

practicing the avoidance style of conflict management, we gen-

erate our third hypothesis:

H3: The avoiding conflict management approach within the

TMC organization undertaking projects is negatively related

to effective team coordination.

Accommodating Approach to Conflict Management and Team Coordination

An accommodating style (low concern for self and high con-

cern for others) is characterized by an imperfect assessment of

alternate options, as well as one-sided functions of giving in to

others, which usually results in lower quality decision making

(Kuhn & Poole, 2000). An accommodating individual disre-

gards her own concerns in order to take care of others’. This

style of conflict management usually happens when conflicts

are going to be managed with superiors, in particular, whenever

the managers or superiors are seen as being quite dominating.

In addition to the above, an accommodating approach has been

observed in situations where personal interests clash with those

of the project, organization, or even when a minority point of

view conflicts with that of the majority. It is associated with

amenable behavior that consists of putting aside one’s own

desires in order to be able to satisfy the other party, agreeing

with the other party’s decisions, and giving way to the argu-

ments or statements of others by denying or declining to

express one’s own ideas (Liu, Fu, & Liu, 2009). Such behaviors

may well negatively impact the functioning of the team; hence,

our fourth hypothesis is:

H4: The accommodating conflict resolution approach

within the TMC organization undertaking projects is nega-

tively related to effective team coordination.

Compromising Approach to Conflict Management and Team Coordination

The compromising conflict management style is placed in the

middle of the continuum of the two dimensions: concern for

self, and concern for others. Compromising strategies exhibit

moderate attention to seek mutual agreements, but have less

interest in putting forth a collaborative effort to achieve them.

This style has been characterized as a half-hearted problem-

solving alternative (Pruitt, Kim, & Rubin, 2004). Both sides

could possibly achieve certain benefits, as well as some losses,

through the give-and-take in which each party may give up

some necessary desires or targets—with a less-than-optimal

result being agreed upon (Rahim & Magner, 1995). People

typically adopt this style in the event that a willingness to

unravel the root causes of conflict is not completely sustained.

A compromising approach entails different tactics, such as:

bowing to the concept of justice, advising on trade-offs,

increasing gains and reducing losses, meeting the parties mid-

way, splitting the costs of variations, and looking for rapid and

short-term resolution to the conflict at hand (Liu et al., 2009). It

has also been outlined as unique in the sense that it focuses on

meeting the individual’s self-needs along with the needs of

others (Gross & Guerrero, 2000). Compromising is typically

perceived as an essential complement to other strategies in

solving conflicts in not only Western organizational contexts

and companies, but also in some East Asian environments (e.g.,

styles adopted by Chinese managers [Liu et al., 2009]). Prior

research suggests that a compromising style has positive con-

sequences on the innovation success of companies (Gobeli,

Koenig, & Bechinger, 1998), is positively related to team per-

formance (Coetzer & Trimble, 2010), and is negatively related

to harmful aspects of conflicts (Vollmer, 2015). Hence, our

fifth hypothesis is as follows:

H5: The compromising conflict management approach

within the TMC organization undertaking projects team is

positively related to effective team coordination.

Conceptual Framework Development

The term performance in a group work environment has been

widely put in place to reflect the activities’ ultimate outcomes

as well as to figure out whether or not an individual and/or a

team is remaining productive (Tabassi, Roufechaei, Bakar, &

NorAini, 2017). In the construction industry, different project

teams mostly form the focal point of project delivery. For that

reason, the dynamic transforming characteristics of construc-

tion activities demand construction organizations to gain or

even develop several teams whenever a new project or a new

phase of a project is carried out (Raiden & Dainty, 2006).

Therefore, any techniques and procedures that are appointed

by the organization as a means to further improve teamwork

coordination could possibly convey favorable results to the

overall team or project performance (Tabassi, Ramli, Roufe-

chaei, & Tabassi, 2014; Tabassi et al., 2017).

Thus far, research on conflict management has shown more

focus on the relationships between conflict-handling style of

the leader and team performance (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008;

Prieto-Remón et al., 2015; Rahim, 2002; Tjosvold, 2008; Tjos-

vold et al., 2001). Alternatively, the relationship between team

coordination and team performance has been the focus of a

number of prior studies in the management literature (Banks,

Pollack, & Seers, 2016; Rico, Sánchez-Manzanares, Gil, &

Gibson, 2008; Tuncdogan, Boon, Mom, Bosch, & Volberda,

2017; Yukl, 2006; Zhang et al., 2011 ). Coordination processes

involve the activities orchestrating the relationship and sche-

duling interdependent tasks in the team environment (e.g.,

managing work, setting up the tasks of each member, and

detailing guidelines and regular procedures) (Yukl, 2006;

Zalesny, Salas, & Prince, 1995). In the same way, coordination

activities are observed as necessary conduct for teams to be

able to exchange information and straighten the course of team

member actions (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001; Tuncdo-

gan et al., 2017). Even though we are aware of the critical

relationship between conflict management and team

104 Project Management Journal 50(1)

performance, limited studies have examined the conflict man-

agement style of leaders, coordination, and performance

together, particularly in multicultural team environments in the

construction industry. We contribute to enriching such an under-

standing by investigating the mediating role of coordination

mechanisms. The overall conceptual framework for the research

reported in this article is depicted in Figure 1. The hypotheses

focus on three specific relationships: the link between conflict

management approaches and team coordination; the link

between team coordination and team performance; and the link

between conflict management approaches and team perfor-

mance, mediated by team coordination.

The relationships between conflict management approaches

and team performance, and between conflict management

approaches and team performance, mediated by team coordi-

nation, are explored through the following two hypotheses:

H6: Team coordination is positively related to team perfor-

mance within the TMC organization.

H7: Team coordination mediates between conflict manage-

ment approaches and team performance within the TMC

organization.

Measuring Instruments and Data Collection

Team performance was measured using an adaption of Tabassi

et al.’s (2017) survey instrument. Tabassi et al.’s instrument

was based on the work of Hirst (1999) and an additional item,

team cohesiveness, which is also pointed out in A Guide to the

Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK ®

Guide) –

Sixth Edition (Project Management Institute, 2017).

The study adapted a scale for measuring the team coordina-

tion that was initially formulated by Hackman (1983, as cited in

Zhang et al., 2011) and is widely applied in organizational

research (De Dreu, 2007; Zhang et al., 2011).

The conflict management styles were measured using a

previously validated instrument devised by Northouse

(2011) and available at www.sagepub.com/northouseintro2e.

The team members were asked to rate the conflict

management style of the leaders on a 5-point Likert scale

(1 ¼ “Never” to 5 ¼ “Always”). Since the team formed the unit of assessment in this study,

and the data on conflict management were acquired at the

individual team members’ level, the data needed to be aggre-

gated. Yet, any such aggregation needs to be validated by the-

oretical as well as empirical justifications (Rousseau, 1985).

Whether conflict resolution and management activities, as per-

ceived by team members, may be aggregated and used to value

the styles of handling conflict is a controversial issue (Yam-

marino & Dansereau, 2008). Interaction among team members

allows for sharing and processing of information regarding the

team leader, which probably results in individuals’ homoge-

neous concepts of approaches for managing conflicts within the

team (Zhang et al., 2011). To achieve the desired aggregation,

James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984) recommend the use of the

multi-item, which is measured as follows:

rWGðJÞ ¼ J � 1 � S

2 k

s2 EU

� �

1 þðJ � 1Þ� 1 � S 2 k

s2 EU

� � ðEquation 1Þ

The rWGðJÞ index applies the Spearman-Brown prophecy method to incorporate the number of items in the calculation

of within-group agreement. Hence, J is the number of items in a

measure and S 2k is the average variance of the J items in a

group of k-raters.

The study evaluates the theorized model (Figure 1) by uti-

lizing a multilevel design (Ju, Qin, & Xu, 2016) with individ-

uals (level 1) nested in projects (level 2). Data were collected

from three different level 1 sources: Team members rated the

five approaches to conflict management that could be exhibited

by team leaders, including cooperative, competitive, accom-

modating, avoiding, and compromising; the team leaders eval-

uated the level of team coordination; and last, the supervisor of

each team rated the team performance. As outlined by Zhang

et al. (2011), this method of data collection will reduce the risk

of common method variance (CMV) as a possible alternative

for justification of the results.

Team Coordination

Conflict Management Approaches

Team Performance

Rated by Team Members Rated by Team Leaders Rated by Team Supervisors

Figure 1. Hypothesized model.

Tabassi et al. 105

With regard to data collection, three distinct types of survey

questionnaires were dispersed between the respondents. The

measurement of items was done primarily using the Likert

scale of five ordinal measures, from one (1) to five (5), based

on the degree of importance/agreement. An invitation notice

was delivered to 800 large-sized construction firms in Malay-

sia. At the end of a six-month period, 126 teams had agreed to

participate in the research. Seven research officers were then

directed to the respondent companies in several locations in

Malaysia. In order to reduce likely bias, the three members

from each team were randomly selected to assess the conflict

management style of their team leader.

Sample

The respondents incorporated 378 members of 126 construc-

tion project teams in Malaysia and their equivalent 126 team

leaders, along with supervisors from the upper-level adminis-

trative headquarters for each organization. The minimum sam-

ple size was verified and a reactive Monte Carlo analysis was

carried out (Chin, 1998). Consequently, the sample size of 126

surpassed the suggested minimum of 54 that is considered

sufficient for model testing (Green, 1991).

The size of the teams ranged from three to above 20 mem-

bers, having an average of six to 10 (Standard Deviation ¼ 1.47). For all of the team members (excluding team leaders),

48.9% were female and 50% were male (1.1% did not clarify their gender). The percentages of different ethnic groups

among the team members were: Malay 25.1, Chinese 58,

Indian 16, and others 0.9. The degree of experience in the

construction industry pertaining to the team members

revealed that 55% had one to five years of experience and 33.6% had six to 10. In terms of education, 71.7% had a bachelor’s degree or higher, 22.4% had acquired a diploma from junior colleges, and 5.9% graduated from technical sec- ondary schools or others. Furthermore, 61.9% of the team leaders were male and 66.7% had six years or more experi- ence in the industry. The percentages of different ethnicities

for team leaders were: Malay 28.6, Chinese 43.7, Indian 27,

and others 0.8. With regard to their educational levels, 77.8% had a bachelor’s degree or higher, and the rest had graduated

from junior colleges.

Data Analysis and Results

To analyze the data and evaluate the hierarchical hypothesized

model, Smart PLS path modeling (PLS-PM) was used, with a

path-weighting scheme for inside approximation (Chin, 2010;

Tenenhaus, Vinzi, Chatelin, & Lauro, 2005; Wetzels, Schroder,

& Oppen, 2009). Subsequently, nonparametric bootstrapping

was employed with 500 replications in order to be able to attain

the standard estimate errors (Chin, 2010). To assess the higher

order latent variables, the method of repeated indicators was

also applied, as outlined by Wold (1985), Lohmöller (1989),

and Efron and Tibshiran (1993).

Conflict Management Assessment

The degree of explained variance in the hierarchical model

was reflected in its components: cooperative (62.6%), com- petitive (1.1%), accommodating (�2.5%), avoiding (23.6%), and compromising (4%). However, only the path coefficient from the cooperative approach to team coordination was sta-

tistically significant (at p < 0.01). In addition, the avoiding

approach to conflict management showed a p value less than

0.1, which is partially significant to team coordination. The

composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted

(AVE) of all constructs were above 0.7 and 0.5, respectively,

which exceed the recommended cutoff values (Hair, Hult,

Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2014).

The rWGðJÞ index scores for each conflict management style were as follows: cooperative (0.908), competitive (0.899),

accommodating (0.91), avoiding (0.913), and compromising

(0.908).

Despite the fact that generally there is some disagreement

related to the cutoff value rWG (Lance et al., 2006), these

values are higher than the commonly agreed-upon 0.70 value.

Furthermore, the percentage of rWG > 0.70 for the aggregated

parameters was calculated to be 86%. Additional analysis was carried out and there was no team with an rWG lower than 0.50

across any given construct.

The Measurement Model

To assess the components of the measurement scales, a con-

firmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed, based on the

procedure of Chin (2010), to assess the reliability, convergent

validity, and discriminant validity of the scales (see Tables 1

and 2). Table 1 shows the results of CMV.

The AVE for all constructs was more than 0.5 and the CR of

the constructs was above 0.7. These values are above the min-

imum recommended levels, so as a result CMV was not been

deemed to be an issue in this study (Fornell & Larcker, 1981;

Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000). Also, as revealed by Table

1, most of the item loadings were close to or larger than 0.7 and

significant at 0.01. The items for the cooperative style of con-

flict management exhibited the lowest CR of 0.7891; even so,

all values were higher than the recommended standard values.

The results confirmed convergent validity, as all indicators

loaded significantly higher onto their particular hypothesized

component as compared to other factors (own construct load-

ings were greater than cross loadings; see Chin, 2010). The

Fornell-Larcker criterion approach was used to assess discri-

minant validity. The square root of the AVEs were calculated

and compared with the latent variable correlations. The results,

which are presented in Table 2, demonstrate discriminant

validity, as the square root of each construct’s AVE was higher

than its largest correlation, compared with any other construct

in the model (Chin, 2010; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Further-

more, there was no correlation higher than 0.9 among the con-

structs observed (Chin, 2010), except for the compromising

style of conflict management construct, which was exactly

106 Project Management Journal 50(1)

0.9. As a result, the proposed model was deemed to be satis-

factory, with proof of sufficient reliability, convergent validity,

and discriminant validity, and was accepted for evaluating the

hypotheses and validating the research model.

Assessment of the Structural Model

In Table 3, the results give a standardized beta of 0.24 from the

avoiding style of conflict management to team coordination,

0.63 from cooperative style to team coordination, 0.11 from

cooperative style to team performance, and 0.35 from team

coordination to team performance.

Thus, there was support for H6: team coordination is posi-

tively related to team performance within the TMC organiza-

tion and for the alternative to H1: the cooperative conflict

management approach within the TMC organization undertak-

ing projects is positively related to effective team coordination.

The other two conflict management approaches, which showed

some positive relationship with team coordination, competitive

and compromising, were not statistically significant. Hence,

H2 and H5 are not supported. The results showed that the

avoiding conflict management style positively related to team

coordination, being significant at the 0.1 level. So, H3 has

been rejected and there is support for the alternative hypoth-

esis to H3, which can be refined as: The avoiding conflict

management approach within the TMC organization under-

taking projects is positively related to effective team coordi-

nation. However, the accommodating conflict management

style showed a negative relationship with team coordination,

but it was not statistically significant. So, H4 was not

supported.

Mediating Effects

In Figure 2, the mediating effect of team coordination on the

relationship between the conflict management styles and

team performance was analyzed, and H7: team coordination

mediates between conflict management approaches and

team performance within the TMC organization was tested.

Three criteria for mediation analysis were established as

follows:

� Two independent variables (avoiding and cooperative styles of conflict management) had a significant effect

on the mediator (team coordination);

� The mediator (team coordination) had a significant influence on the dependent variable (team perfor-

mance); and

� Two independent variables (avoiding and cooperative styles of handling conflict) had a significant influence

on the dependent variable in the absence of the influence

of the mediator.

To set up the mediating influence, the indirect impact of a � b (see Figure 2) must be significant.

The z-statistics test (Sobel, 1982) was employed, which was

significant at p < 0.05. If the z values surpass 1.96 (p < 0.05),

then H2 can be accepted—that is, there is an indirect effect

from the conflict management style (in this particular case,

avoiding and cooperative styles of handling conflict), through

team coordination, on team performance. The z values are

calculated as follows:

z ¼ a � bffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

b2 � s2a þ a2 � s2b þ s2a � s2b q ðEquation 2Þ

za ¼ 0:626 � 0:35ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

ð0:352 � 0:0573Þ2 þð0:6262 � 0:0785Þ2 þð0:05732 � 0:0785Þ2 q

¼ 4:113

zb ¼ 0:236 � 0:35ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

ð0:352 � 0:0687Þ2 þð0:2362 � 0:0785Þ2 þð0:06872 � 0:0785Þ2 q

¼ 2:68

As displayed in Figure 2, there was a significant effect

from the cooperative conflict management style on team coor-

dination (0.626, p < 0.01), as well as from team coordination

on team performance (0.35, p < 0.01). The z value was greater

Table 1. Common Method Variance

Construct Item Loading AVE CR

Accommodating Accom1 0.5639 0.5647 0.8339 Avoiding Accom2 0.6625 Competitive Accom3 0.9121 Compromising Accom4 0.8186 Cooperative Avoid1 0.7223 0.5311 0.8189

Avoid2 0.7824 Avoid3 0.6986 Avoid4 0.7089 Comp1 0.8344 0.5571 0.8334 Comp2 0.7104 Comp3 0.7464 Comp4 0.686 Compro1 0.8217 0.8105 0.9028 Compro3 0.8297 Compro4 0.8978 Coop1 0.7698 0.5045 0.7891 Coop2 0.6545 Coop3 0.6982 Coop4 0.6553

Team Performance PER1 0.6771 0.5269 0.8988 PER2 0.7675 PER3 0.6978 PER4 0.6805 PER5 0.7638 PER6 0.6953 PER7 0.7222 PER8 0.7931

Team Coordination TeamCo1 0.798 0.5044 0.7947 TeamCo2 0.6769 TeamCo3 0.603 TeamCo4 0.7205

Note: CR ¼ composite reliability; AVE ¼ average variance extracted.

Tabassi et al. 107

than 1.96 (p < 0.05); consequently, the result confirms the

mediating role of team coordination, indicating that it has

an indirect effect on team performance—hence, H7 is

supported.

There was also a significant effect from the avoiding con-

flict management style on team coordination (0.236, p < 0.01)

as well as from team coordination on team performance

(0.35, p < 0.01, see Figure 2). The z value also exceeds 1.96

(p < 0.05).

To approximate the size of the indirect effect in the model,

the variance accounted for (VAF) value was calculated, which

represents the ratio of the indirect effect to the total effect. The

VAF value for the first model (see Figure 2) shows that almost

67.1% of the total effect of the cooperative conflict manage- ment style on team performance is explained by an indirect

effect (team coordination).

VAFa ¼ a � b

a � b þ c ¼

0:626 � 0:35 0:626 � 0:35 þ 0:107

¼ 0:671

ðEquation 3Þ

The VAF value for the second model (see Figure 2) indi-

cates that nearly 21.5% of the total effect of the avoiding con- flict management style on team performance is accounted for

by the indirect effect (team coordination).

VAFb ¼ a � b

a � b þ c ¼

0:236 � 0:35 0:236 � 0:35 þ 0:302

¼ 0:215

Results and Discussion

Team leaders’ conflict management styles were framed as hier-

archical constructs, with the results indicating that two dimen-

sions (cooperative and avoiding styles) exert significant

positive influence on team coordination. This result adds the-

oretical support for Ayoko (2016), Tjosvold (2008) and Chen,

Hou, and Wu (2016), who acknowledged the aforesaid two

conflict management styles as methods that result in enhanced

team performance. This contradicts the findings of Chen and

Tjosvold (2002), in relation to the impact of the avoiding style.

In other words, the cooperative and avoiding conflict manage-

ment styles are those that are strongly linked to enhanced team

performance in temporary project organizations in the con-

struction industry, which has not been studied well by preced-

ing research.

The prior literature suggests that the creation of such orga-

nizations in the construction industry presents complex settings

for effective management and leadership due to the dynamic

and complex organizational, project, and skill requirements

Table 2. Correlations Among Constructs

Accommodating Avoiding Competitive Compromising Cooperative Team

Performance Team Coordination

Accommodate 0.7523* Avoid 0.5297 0.7288* Competitive 0.4426 0.5145 0.7473* Compromise 0.526 0.4361 0.4858 0.9003* Cooperative 0.192 0.1147 0.1467 0.0536 0.7173* Team Performance

0.1306 0.297 0.2896 0.2297 0.2524 0.7258*

Team Coordination 0.2352 0.3075 0.265 0.2027 0.6499 0.3492 0.7102*

Note: *Square root of the AVE on the diagonal.

Table 3. Total Effects

Beta Value t-Value p-Value Standard Error

Accommodate -> Team Performance –0.0088 0.2583 0.796 0.0339 Accommodate -> Team Coordination –0.0251 0.2809 0.779 0.0894 Avoid -> Team Performance 0.302 2.3387 0.019 0.0352 Avoid -> Team Coordination 0.236 3.4346 0.0006 0.0687 Competitive Conflict -> Team Performance 0.0036 0.1091 0.913 0.0334 Competitive Conflict -> Team Coordination 0.0104 0.1201 0.904 0.0869 Compromise -> Team Performance 0.0138 0.3772 0.706 0.0367 Compromise -> Team Coordination 0.0396 0.4207 0.674 0.0942 Cooperative Conflict -> Team Performance 0.107 4.1009 ******* 0.053 Cooperative Conflict -> Team Coordination 0.6262 10.8735 ******* 0.0573 Team Coordination -> Team Performance 0.3492 4.4469 ******* 0.0785

108 Project Management Journal 50(1)

(Tabassi et al., 2017). In response to this, team leaders will

have the ability to deal with this dynamism and complexity

and to enhance teamwork accomplishments by employing rel-

evant conflict management styles. In line with situational the-

ory, different circumstances may very well necessitate distinct

leadership behavior by team leaders. Therefore, the condition

in which a project team is performing in a temporary organi-

zation may well influence the appropriate conflict management

style to be adopted by the project team leader.

Whereas some earlier research found a negative relationship

between the accommodating conflict management style and

team performance (Kuhn & Poole, 2000; Liu et al., 2009), our

study found no such statistically significant relationship. In

addition, the two other conflict management styles, competi-

tive and compromising, had no significant relationship with

either team coordination or team performance. These results

may be due to the fact that in such temporary project organi-

zations there are certain situations that will ask for

accommodating or competitive conflict resolution styles in

order to achieve better team performance. The project teams

may not find enough time for communication and mutual inter-

action, rather, the team leaders need to look for some consensus

or even a sense of quick completion in order to reach a solution.

Although accommodating and competitive conflict manage-

ment styles showed positive relationships with team coordina-

tion, which are against the initial expectation that hypothesized

a negative relationship, these relationships were not statisti-

cally significant. It can be concluded, therefore, that there are

no significant relationships between compromising, competi-

tive, and accommodating conflict management styles and team

coordination and, accordingly, on team performance.

Based on the initial investigation of the effects of the five

conflict management styles on team coordination, the study

found that only avoiding and cooperative approaches showed

a significant contribution to team performance, through the

mediation of team coordination. As a result, models were gen-

erated and tested to identify the effects of each of the aforesaid

two conflict management styles on team coordination and team

performance—with the results revealing that of these two ways

of managing conflict, the cooperative style (b ¼ 0.6262) is the most significant influence, accompanied by avoiding conflict

resolution (b ¼ 0.236), on team coordination. In addition, the study has explored the unique role of con-

flict management, team coordination, and team performance in

a nomological network, a measure that has not been demon-

strated in prior research reported in the extant literature. Our

study reveals that the cooperative and avoiding conflict man-

agement styles have significant influence on team coordination

(R 2 ¼ 0.408), which in turn has an influence on team perfor-

mance (R 2 ¼ 0.205). In this interdependence, 67% and 21.5%

of the influence of the cooperative and avoiding conflict man-

agement resolutions, respectively, on team performance is

mediated by team coordination. This finding suggests that team

coordination has a crucial mediating role in the relationship

between the conflict management style adopted by team lead-

ers and the effectiveness of team performance. In addition,

cooperative and avoiding conflict management styles have a

direct impact on team performance, together with team coordi-

nation, and both constructs explain 20.5% of the variance in team performance.

By using the method of repeated indicators, as recom-

mended by Wold (1985), to identify the higher order latent

variables, this particular study has verified fundamental dimen-

sions and structural solutions for the suggested research model.

It makes significant contributions to knowledge and practice by

proposing the avoiding conflict style, along with cooperative

conflict resolution approaches, in temporary project environ-

ments in the construction industry of Malaysia. Furthermore,

assessing the hierarchical conflict management styles of coop-

erating and avoiding, integrating their impact on team coordi-

nation, and evaluating the influence of both styles on team

performance is a further contribution of the study in both

knowledge and practice.

Team Coordination

(0.426)

Team Performance

(0.123)

Cooperative Conflict Style

0.35 (t = 4.447)

0.626 (t = 10.87)

Model (a)

Model (b)

0.107 (t = 4.41)

a

b

c

Team Coordination

(0.088)

Team Performance

(0.206)

Avoiding Conflict Style

0.35 (t = 4.447)

0.236 (t = 3.43)

0.302 (t = 2.34)

a

b

c

Figure 2. Results of hypotheses testing.

Tabassi et al. 109

Given that prior research has mainly focused on exploring

the negative impact of conflict on project performance (Har-

mon, 2003; Mitkus & Mitkus, 2014; Tazelaar & Snijders, 2010;

Yiu & Cheung, 2006), the suggested positive relationships

found in our study between certain conflict management styles,

especially avoiding, highlights potential team-based strategies

for enhancing the performance in certain multicultural project

environments in East Asia.

The positive impact of the cooperating style of conflict

resolution reflects the fact that many project team leaders

typically have a democratic or caring leadership style and that

they engage in open and direct communication with all the

parties that make up the temporary organization. Accordingly,

finding such a positive relationship between this style of con-

flict handling and team coordination is not unexpected and

indeed lends support to the findings from related studies of

other organizational contexts (Ayoko, 2016; Chen & Tjos-

vold, 2002; Fehr & Gachter, 2000; Sanders & Schyns, 2006;

Tjosvold et al., 2003, 2005).

The finding that avoidance, as an approach, may be a good

choice to reach better team coordination and, accordingly, bet-

ter team performance, suggests that in temporary organiza-

tions, conflict management could be considered a situational

management practice, in that different styles may be related to

different team characteristics, such as being multicultural.

Accordingly, there may be certain situations, for example, in

which one party in the temporary organization is demonstrating

a high level of negative emotion, such as anger or frustration,

where perhaps in the short term, the avoiding style is best for

the project . Whereas it is accepted that avoidance, as a passive

method of coping with conflicts, could possibly worsen the

unfavorable effects of a conflict, which may result in one’s

ideas and opinions not being effectively voiced in the conflict

condition (Chen, Hou, et al., 2016), there may a case where an

initial avoidance approach lets a negative situation diffuse.

Then it could be later addressed using more active styles, such

as cooperation. An avoidance approach could be viewed as a

flexible and pragmatic approach, putting a temporary lid on

things, while a lasting solution is found (Fisher, Ury, & Patton,

2011). When differing opinions exist among members of the

temporary organization, it might be useful to note them and

then seek to resolve the conflict later. This is an alternative to a

passive, avoiding conflict management style, which typically

implies not dealing with the conflict at all. Rather, it is avoiding

direct confrontation or argument in order to seek a better time

or a more suitable occasion to deal with the conflict.

Synthesizing the findings of the study with those in the

extant literature help the authors propose Figure 3 in order to

generate a matrix on possible outcomes for the project and team

members from the five conflict-handling styles. In this figure

there are 13 transactional results that can take place in conflict

management resolution, with two of these conflict management

styles being ideal strategies to ensure win-win scenarios where

the concerns of both project and people are met.

Whereas the majority of prior literature states that the avoid-

ing conflict style is a lose-lose scenario, the findings of our

study allow us to accept that there could be situations in which

both the project and the individual parties within the temporary

organization achieve some of their goals, even though one side

wins slightly, or even a great deal, more from the avoiding of

conflict than the other. The study also highlights that the dif-

ferent win-win situations linked to the avoiding conflict style—

represented by boxes A, B, C, and D in Figure 3—are what is

typically suggested by mutuality in avoiding conflictual

relationships.

Conclusion

The main purpose of this research was to evaluate the effects of

the conflict management styles that are adopted by team

HighLow

Low

High

Co nc

er n

fo r

Pr oj

ec t

Pe rf

or m

an ce

Concern for People

A

C

D

B

Avoiding Project Win/People Partially Win

Compromising Partially Win/ Partially Win

Cooperative Win/ Win

Avoiding Win/Win

Avoiding People Win/ Project Lose

Avoiding People Win/ Project

Partially Win

Competitive People Win/ Project Lose

Avoiding Partially Win/ Partially Win

Avoiding People Partially Win/ Project Lose

Cooperative People Lose/Project Win

Avoiding People Lose/Project Win

Avoiding Project Partially Win/

People Lose

Avoiding People Lose/ Project Lose

Figure 3. Possible outcomes for people and project from five conflict management styles.

110 Project Management Journal 50(1)

leaders in temporary organizations with multicultural teams in

the construction industry on team coordination and, accord-

ingly, on team performance. Hence, the article has examined

the mediating impacts of team coordination on conflict man-

agement and team performance. The findings show that team

leaders working in multicultural temporary organizations in

the Malaysian construction industry choose avoidance and

cooperative approaches to manage conflict, rather than the

other three approaches. In the case of the cooperative conflict

management style and its effect on overall team performance,

our findings are similar to Deutsch (1990) and Sanders and

Schyns (2006), in Western organizational contexts, as well as

the works of Tjosvold et al. (2005), Tjosvold (2008), and

Ayoko (2016), which focused on East Asian nations and the

Australasian continent, but in different contexts and not in

temporary organizations. However, our findings on the effect

of the avoiding conflict management style are in contrast with

those presented and claimed by Rahim (2002), but lend prac-

tical weight to the suggestions of Chen et al. (2016) and Fisher

et al. (2011). Accordingly, our final argument is that if the

ideal goals of the team members of the temporary organiza-

tion and of the project are noncommensurable, then equity-

based, win-win results in relationships can be illusory, and an

ideal normative mutuality in relationships will never be

reached. As a result, avoiding conflict resolution could

be deemed as a win-win situation for both the people and the

project.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

The current study has certain limitations that offer direction for

future studies. The study was carried out within temporary

organizations in the construction industry in Malaysia. For that

reason, additional research of a similar nature will be necessary

to test whether the findings are generalizable to other multi-

cultural project environments in other East Asian countries and

in other industries; how they differ from the conditions found in

developed countries can also be studied further. At the same

time, effective parameters that might assist the predictive

strength of the model need to be further explored. A final area

for future work is on aspects relating to the temporal nature of

the project organization and how this might have consequences

in terms of the interdependencies of the different conflict man-

agement styles.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to acknowledge the Malaysian government for

providing the FRGS Grant No. 203/PPBGN/6711301 as financial sup-

port to conduct the research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship,

and/or publication of this article.

References

Ayoko, O. B. (2016). Workplace conflict and willingness to coop-

erate: The importance of apology and forgiveness. International

Journal of Conflict Management, 27(2), 172–198.

Banks, G. C., Pollack, J. M., & Seers, A. (2016). Team coordination

and organizational routines: Bottoms up—and top down. Manage-

ment Decision, 54(5), 1059–1072.

Baron, R. A. (1988). Attributions and organizational conflict: The

mediating role of apparent sincerity. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 69, 272–279.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston,

TX: Gulf Publishing.

Chen, A. S., Hou, Y.-h., & Wu, I.-h. (2016). Handling conflict at

work—The impact of active and agreeable conflict styles. Inter-

national Journal of Conflict Management, 27(1), 50–61.

Chen, G., & Tjosvold, D. (2002). Conflict management and team

effectiveness in China: The mediating role of justice. Asia Pacific

Journal of Management, 19(4), 557–572.

Chen, S.-Y., Uen, J. F., & Chen, C.-C. (2016a). Implementing high

performance HR practices in Asia: HR practice consistency,

employee roles, and performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Man-

agement, 33(4), 937–958.

Chen, Y. Q., Zhang, Y. B., & Zhang, S. J. (2014). Impacts of different

types of owner-contractor conflict on cost performance in con-

struction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Man-

agement, 140(6), 04014017.

Cheung, C. C., & Chuah, K. B. (1999). Conflict management styles in

Hong Kong industries. International Journal of Project Manage-

ment, 17(6), 393–399.

Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation model-

ling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), vii–xvi.

Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. E.

Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of

partial least squares: Concepts, methods and application (pp.

645–689). New York, NY: Springer.

Chiocchio, F., Forgues, D., Paradis, D., & Iordanova, I. (2011). Team-

work in integrated design projects: Understanding the effects of

trust, conflict, and collaboration on performance. Project Manage-

ment Journal, 42(6), 78–91.

Coetzer, G. H., & Trimble, R. (2010). An empirical examination of the

relationship between adult attention deficit, cooperative conflict

management and efficacy for working in teams. American Journal

of Business, 25(1), 25–34.

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence,

task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information

processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3),

628–638.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). The psychology of

conflict and conflict management in organizations. New York,

NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tabassi et al. 111

Yang, M.-Y., Cheng, F.-C., & Chuang, A. (2013). The role of affects

in conflict frames and conflict management. International Journal

of Conflict Management, 26(4), 427–449.

Yiu, K. T. W., & Cheung, S. O. (2006). A catastrophe model of construc-

tion conflict behavior. Building and Environment, 41(4), 438–447.

Yousefi, S., Hipel, K. W., & Hegazy, T. (2010). Attitude-based stra-

tegic negotiation for conflict management in construction projects.

Project Management Journal, 41(4), 99–107.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

Zalesny, M. D., Salas, E., & Prince, C. (1995). Conceptual and mea-

surement issues in coordination: Implications for team behavior

and performance. Research in Personnel and Human Resources

Management, 13, 81–115.

Zartman, I., & Touval, S. (1985). International mediation: Conflict

resolution and power politics. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 27–45.

Zhang, X.-A., Cao, Q., & Tjosvold, D. (2011). Linking transforma-

tional leadership and team performance: A conflict management

approach. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7), 1586–1611.

Author Biographies

Amin Akhavan Tabassi, PhD, is currently an associate pro-

fessor at the School of Housing, Building, and Planning, Uni-

versiti Sains Malaysia (USM), an honorary lecturer at the

University of Liverpool, and a visiting research fellow at Liver-

pool Business School, Liverpool John Moores University

(LJMU), United Kingdom. He holds a doctoral degree in proj-

ect management, has a master’s degree in project management,

and a bachelor of science in civil engineering. He has more than

13 years of experience in the areas of civil engineering and

construction management. He has also been bestowed the glob-

ally recognized Project Management Professional (PMP) ®

cer-

tification from the Project Management Institute (PMI). His

research interests extend to the areas of leadership, conflict

management, contract and procurement management,

construction human resource management and development,

teamwork, and sustainable housing development. He has more

than 20 International Scientific Indexing (ISI) and Scopus jour-

nal publications, more than 22 indexed, peer-reviewed journal

and conference proceedings, and a number of published book

chapters. He has led four research projects in the areas of

transformational leadership, conflict management, and project

management challenges in the construction industry. He can be

contacted at [email protected]

Aldrin Abdullah, PhD, is a professor at USM and has served

the university for 18 years. He obtained his master’s and doc-

toral degrees from the University of Sheffield. His areas of

interest include crime prevention and housing designs as well

as the management of parks and recreational spaces. He has

published more than 100 papers, mainly on those topics. He is

currently the dean of the School of Housing, Building, and Plan-

ning at USM and was also the deputy director of the Interna-

tional Development Division of USM before that. Aldrin

Abdullah is also actively involved in various consultancy proj-

ects, mainly in the areas of housing and planning. He can be

contacted at [email protected].

David James Bryde, PhD, is professor of project management

at LJMU, United Kingdom. He studied management sciences/

computing at Lancaster and Bradford, UK, and completed a

doctorate in project management at LJMU. He is particularly

interested in relational/psychosocial aspects of project teams,

lean and agile approaches to project management, sustainable

procurement in projects, and the management of the temporary

organization set up to deliver projects. He is widely published

in more than a hundred journal papers, research monographs,

and book chapters, and has contributed to numerous conference

presentations, invited keynote speeches, guest lectures, and

expert interviews. He can be contacted at D.J.Bryde@ljmu.

ac.uk

114 Project Management Journal 50(1)

Copyright of Project Management Journal is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.