Business & Sustainability
4. Analysis, Results and Discussions
codes, concepts and categories. In analyzing methods, the data was developed to reflect multifaceted ideas inductively inspired by a grounded theory analysis approach to add value to the research (Silverman, 2011). Therefore, the data analysis in this research was approached from grounded theory using groundwork concepts from theories in interaction with the findings of the literature review above with regard to conflict among project stakeholders (Silverman, 2011).
3.6 Validity and Reliability of the research
Depending on the ontological and epistemological standpoint on positivist and social constructivist viewpoints respectively, which altogether constitute the critical realism approach of the researcher, this study provides the similar shoes, viewpoints and lenses to other researchers to see the reality and knowledge of the conflicts among project stakeholders in the same understanding and light. Depending on the fundamental and foundational type of this research, it will pave the path for further research as well, disregarding the negligible differences which might occur due to the subjectivity of the researchers in their own constructions.
3.7 Ethics and Quality of the research
The ethical considerations of the study have been respectfully regarded, which ensures the quality of this research as well. In doing so, developing conflict types among project stakeholders without distorting information and respecting intellectual properties have remained a key concern of this research. Furthermore, to establish the overall quality of the research, the types have also been discussed relevantly as and when needed underpinned by relevant theories, and the selection of literature dataset is kept as representative as possible to look at the concepts from different perspectives to ensure the variety of input (Silverman, 2011).
3.8 Delimitation of this study
The research has been limited to the broader types of categories of conflicts among project stakeholders based on the constructions of the researcher, disregarding the possibility of sub- categories which is subject to further research.
what they are up against, what their own position is relative to what they sense, and what they need to do in the project team (Tukiainen et al., 2010). Based on this notion toward coping with uncertainty in teams, the main proposition of this research is that project managers’
sense making processes are highly subjective, leading to the coexistence of multiple, and highly conflicting responses to the unexpected event (Tukiainen et al., 2010). Further to this, the paper also focuses on how the sense making processes between project managers coming from culturally different backgrounds can yield highly contrasting interpretations and responses to the same event given the international project team setting (Tukiainen et al., 2010). Summing up the propositions of this article as concluded by Tukiainen et al. (2010), the overall findings suggest that different interpretations and enactments of the unexpected event are able to carry on concurrently in an international project team.
Depending on the contemporary literature review on conflicts, Witmer (2015) presented that
“Human Relations view of conflict” considers conflict a natural and inevitable outcome in any group. In this natural process, where conflict is bound to take place in a homogenous group, having conflicts in heterogeneous groups is more inevitable (Rogan, 2006) in line with the finding of Tukiainen et al. (2010). Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory as elucidated by Northouse (2013) points out the distance between leader and member as a prospective reason of having in-group conflicts, whether that distance is due to communication gap or preferential associations toward project leader, or even lack of social climate in the group (Muhonen et al., 2013). Likewise, in the context of an international project team, the cultural differences which disassociate members might play a vital role in hampering the sustainable nature of the project (Silvius et al., 2012), which in the long run will create conflicting sense making by different project members in the same group (Jehn &
Mannix, 2001). In line with the article findings of Tukiainen et al. (2010), project members sense risks and unprecedented scenarios differently which therefore requires a collaborative understanding among the team members since the outset of the project (Cobb, 2012). The structure of teamwork is so diverse as argued by Crawford and Lepine (2013) that the diversified views in the form of healthy discussions from divergent viewpoints constitute a sustainable development of the team in the long run. Managing this diversity of team in producing multiple viewpoints and sense making processes to understand different scenarios ultimately contributes to the team success benefitting all the members (Hayes, 2001).
Likewise, Chakhar and Saad (2014) distinguishes and discusses several elements characterizing the group decision-making process regarding extracting, combining and communicating multi-stakeholder preferences given complex group dynamics and decision systems. Summing up the propositions of this article as concluded by Chakhar and Saad (2014), the noteworthy findings suggest for (1) mixed aggregation strategies (both input and output oriented) which advocates for collaboration between decision makers, (2) categorized aggregation rules which advocates for consensus between majority and minority of decision makers, (3) preference parameter elicitation techniques (both direct and indirect) which
denotes the level of cognitive efforts from experts in group decision-making process, and (4) weighting of stakeholders for contribution of each decision maker to the collective decision.
In this context, the main proposition of this research signifies the importance of acquiring knowledge from multiple sources with solid efforts by the group in order to reach a constructive group decision to avoid conflicts in the long run (Chakhar & Saad, 2014).
The Stakeholder Theory as elucidated by Werther and Chandler (2011) advocates for the integration of multi-stakeholder viewpoints in group’s decision making process, which Tolbert and Hall (2009) have argued for preferring the dominant coalition amongst the stakeholders in an organizational development context. In line with the findings of Chakhar and Saad (2014), group decision making process is highly complex and subjective which could depend on the agenda set by the dominant coalition or even participation of the key deciders in the decision making process as per the Garbage Can Model of decision making (Tolbert & Hall, 2009). Depending on the contemporary literature review on conflicts, Witmer (2015) presented that expansion of resources is a key conflict resolution technique which supports the findings of the aforementioned study by Chakhar and Saad (2014) that suggests for acquiring knowledge from multiple sources before group decisions in order to avoid conflict later on. The sustainable development of the organizations largely depends on the effective decision making and integrating the demands of the key stakeholders as proposed by the CSR filter (Werther & Chandler, 2011). In this context, the research by Chakhar and Saad (2014) is interesting to make constructive group decisions integrating organizational stakeholders and maximizing group efforts for the sustainable development of the organization. The collaboration between group members is a key prerequisite to take the project to its set goal (Cobb, 2012), and “management for stakeholders” is of paramount importance to ensure the sustainability of the organizations (Silvius et al., 2012), which this article has concluded by proposing collaboration between decision makers, consensus between majority and minority groups and weighting of stakeholders for contribution of each decision maker to the collective decision (Chakhar & Saad, 2014).
Depending on this amount of subjectivity in the project teams, project members sense risks and unprecedented scenarios differently (Tukiainen et al., 2010) giving rise to subjective conflict among project stakeholders. This therefore requires a collaborative understanding among the team members since the outset of the project (Cobb, 2012). Synthesizing this with the findings of Chakhar and Saad (2014), group decision making process is highly complex and subjective and thus acquiring knowledge from multiple sources before group decisions in order to avoid conflict later on is inevitable for project success and sustainable development of the organization. Summing up the propositions of the articles as concluded both by Tukiainen et al. (2010) and Chakhar and Saad (2014), the overall findings suggest that different interpretations and enactments of the unexpected event are able to carry on concurrently in an international project team (Tukiainen et al., 2010), which requires solid efforts by the group as a whole in order to reach a constructive group decision holistically
and collaboratively to avoid conflicts in the long run as conflicts turn out to be subjective in nature (Chakhar & Saad, 2014).
4.2 Type 2: Objective Conflict among project stakeholders
In contrast, the conflict among the project stakeholders which is not due to subjectivity, rather is concrete due to systems and processes, is understood as objective conflict. Team- based working facilitates collective learning in project organizations contributing to the overall performance of the organization itself (Woerkom & Engen, 2009). Based on this notion toward learning, the main proposition of this research is that one of the core processes that could facilitate team learning is team conflict (Woerkom & Engen, 2009). Further to this, the paper also focuses on how task conflict is not related to team learning but negatively related to team performance; whereas relationship conflict negatively affects team learning (Woerkom & Engen, 2009). Summing up the propositions of this article as concluded by Woerkom and Engen (2009), the overall findings suggest that team learning is a strong predictor of the perceived team performance and partially mediate the relation between relationship conflict and performance as part of organizational learning.
Management of organizational conflict involves organizational learning at all the interpersonal, intra-group and intergroup levels inside a learning organization (Rahim, 2002).
Based on this notion, the main proposition of this research is to determine the type of intervention needed in: (a) maintaining a moderate amount of substantive (group) conflict in non-routine tasks, (b) reducing affecting (personal) conflict in all levels and (c) enabling organizational members to select apt styles of handling conflicts so that various organizational situations can be effectively dealt with (Rahim, 2002). Further to this, the paper also focuses on the significance of organizational diagnosis in determining the need and type of intervention needed for managing organizational conflicts (Rahim, 2002).
Summing up the propositions of this article as concluded by Rahim (2002), the overall findings suggest that organizational learning and effectiveness can be enhanced through an appropriate diagnosis of and process and structural interventions in organizational conflict that seems to be objective in nature.
Depending on the organizational learning systems as objective phenomenon, Lundsten (2015) presented that double loop learning in organizations questions the reasoning behind what went wrong where underlying assumptions, norms, and objectives are open to confrontation (Jehn, 1997; Argyris, 1977). Therefore, double loop learning is adjustable with the theme of conflict playing a critical role in organizational learning itself by opening up the organizational platform for questioning and confrontation as also suggested by Woerkom and Engen (2009) in this selected article where one of the core processes that could facilitate team learning is deemed as team conflict. Likewise, in the context of an organizational set-up, the conflicting differences which disassociate project members (Cobb, 2012) might play a vital
role in hampering the sustainable nature of the learning process (Silvius et al., 2012), which in the long run will diminish the sustainable value of the organizations (Hart & Milstein, 2003) in line with the findings of Woerkom and Engen (2009) in the given article. As team learning is a strong predictor of the perceived team performance (Woerkom & Engen, 2009), organization learning can cater to the concept of sustainable organizational development by focusing on effective team relations inside the organizations which ensure sustainable information sharing and communication process (Santos-Vijande, 2012; Jehn, 1997).
Therefore, depending on the organizational systems, processes and policies – this gives rise to the objective conflict among project stakeholders.
4.3 Type 3: Triangular Conflict among project stakeholders
In contrast, the conflict among the project stakeholders which is triangular due to project networks and involving more actors in the project networks is understood as the triangular conflicts among the project stakeholders. Keeping the network perspective as a linchpin, Roloff (2008) has focused on the way projects that collaborate in multi-stakeholder networks organize their stakeholder management arguing that it differs significantly from approaches used by companies that are not engaged in collaboration with their stakeholders. Based on this notion toward inter-organizational collaboration, the main proposition of this research refers to the typical life cycle of multi-stakeholder networks and thus coins the issue-focused stakeholder management that affects relationship with other societal groups and organizations depending on an analysis of the role of organizations in multi-stakeholder networks and a critical review of stakeholder theory (Roloff, 2008). Summing up the propositions of this article as concluded by Roloff (2008), the overall findings suggest that issue-focused stakeholder management dominates in multi-stakeholder networks, because it enables corporations to address complex problems and challenges in collaboration with stakeholders (Roloff, 2008).
Depending on the inter-organizational collaboration, Caullier-Gustavsson (2015) pointed out that an inter-organizational project is embedded within its environment; it depends on collaborations between participants who furthermore share risks and ensure resources to develop and deliver products and services (Bakker et al., 2010; Bryson et al., 2006). In this context, inter-organizational collaboration paves the path for a networked environment of the key participants critical to the organizational growth as also suggested by Roloff (2008) in this selected article by uplifting the multi-stakeholder networks based on issues of the participants. Likewise, in the context of an organizational network perspective, the conflicting differences which disassociate members (Cobb, 2012) might play a vital role in hampering the sustainable nature of the network’s learning process (Lundsten, 2015; Silvius et al., 2012), which in the long run will diminish the sustainable project leadership (Kaulio, 2008) in line with the findings of Roloff (2008) in the given article. This gives rise to the triangular conflicts among the project stakeholders in the project networks.
In order for cross-sector collaboration involving multi-stakeholder networks (Bryson et al., 2006), it has been argued by Roloff (2008) that most multi-stakeholder networks are tripartite which means that representatives from business, civil society and the state participate at some stage in the network process where different actors emerge in order to address a specific issue or problem that concerns actors from different societal spheres. Depending on this, the issue- focused stakeholder management that dominates in multi-stakeholder networks as proposed by Roloff (2008) eventually contributes to the sustainable development of the inter- organizational collaboration in line with the CSR filter that prioritizes the issues of the stakeholders in strategies (Werther & Chandler (2011; Roloff, 2008; Bryson et al., 2006).
When the issues of the stakeholders in the networks pose conflicts, then this gives rise to the triangular conflicts among the project stakeholders in the project networks.
In this context, keeping the trust orientation as the essence of this article, Dawkins (2014) has focused on strengthening the normative stakeholder theory through a more vigorous notion of stakeholder engagement derived from the concept of good faith (Dawkins, 2014). Based on this notion toward inter-organizational stakeholder collaboration, the main proposition of this research positions good faith stakeholder engagement as a form of substantive stakeholder input that realizes power asymmetries among networks while providing mechanisms dissolving those disparities toward stakeholders’ greater impact on distributive outcomes (Dawkins, 2014). Summing up the key learning of this article as concluded by Dawkins (2014), the overall findings suggest that characteristics of good faith as dialogue, negotiation, transparency, and totality of conduct mobilize the stakeholder collaborations and relations in a network perspective (Dawkins, 2014). Stakeholder engagement based in pluralist notions of conflict resolution and modeled on the principle of good faith can thus sustain the inter- organizational networks effectively as argued by Dawkins (2014) in this given article. In order for building trust in inter-organizational projects (Maurer, 2010), this trust is facilitated through a number of trust building factors which Dawkins (2014) have put forth as processes of dialogue, negotiation and arbitration further complementing the research of Maurer (2010) and Paasovaara and Lassenivs (2003) on building trust between several parties. Depending on this, good faith stakeholder engagement in multi-stakeholder networks as proposed by Dawkins (2014) eventually contributes to the sustainable development of the inter- organizational collaboration in a network perspective. When this trust is remained unmet, then this gives rise to the triangular conflicts among the project stakeholders in the project networks.