- Email: [email protected]
Conflict management styles in Hong Kong industries
International Journal of Project Management Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 393±399, 1999 # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0263-7863/99 $20.00 + 0.00
PII: S0263-7863(98)00059-3
Con¯ict management styles in Hong Kong industries C C Cheung and K B Chuah
Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong, 83 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China
Review of literature has revealed that little research on con¯ict management has been conducted in Hong Kong industries despite Hong Kong being one of the world's most competitive economies, and a major commercial, ®nancial, industrial centre. This paper examines the use of dierent con¯ict resolutions in 63 actual case studies from Hong Kong industries. Contrary to common perception and previous ®ndings, `confrontation', as a mode of con¯ict resolution, is found to be more commonly used in handling con¯ict. And signi®cantly, almost all of the case incidents which used the `confrontation' approach were said to have achieved positive consequences. The authors argue that this change of resolution strategy in the past decade could be due to the increasing number of Hong Kong companies adopting the matrix structure explicitly or implicitly in carrying their projects. It appears that in Hong Kong industries, the in¯uence of the Chinese culture and traditional values in attitude, behaviour and professional practices of both engineers as well as managers, is diminishing. Although the `withdrawal' and `forcing' approaches were also being used for certain types of con¯ict, as revealed by some of the case studies, the consequences are often recognised to be dysfunctional to team work. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved Keywords: con¯ict resolution, con¯ict management styles, case studies, Hong Kong industries
Introduction In recent years, a number of researchers and practitioners in project management have reported that there is an increasing trend in the use of cross-functional project teams because of the dynamic nature of today's projects and their life cycles.1, 2 More and more, con¯ict is being perceived and accepted as inevitable in such a stressful project-oriented environment. Project managers should therefore be able to identify the sources of con¯icts and apply appropriate resolutions in today's project environment.1 Tjosvold3 and Deustch4 suggest that when con¯ict is appropriately managed, it could be constructive and even add substantial value to an organisation. They, and a number of other Western researchers, have written much about how to eectively confront and resolve the various types of organisational, task-related or personal con¯icts (e.g.1, 3±8). Hong Kong was ranked as the world's third most competitive economy in the Institute for Management Development's 1996 World Competitiveness Yearbook.9 It is located at the major con¯uence of east±west commercial, ®nancial, industrial and cultural activities. From our extensive literature search on con¯ict management and its related issues in Hong Kong industries, to our surprise, we have found little being written about this subject locally in the last few dec-
ades. One of the few such studies was done by Tang and Kirkbride10 a decade ago, on the development of con¯ict handling skills in Hong Kong under the in¯uence of dierent cultures. They found that the Chinese executives of both the Government and private sectors in Hong Kong preferred to use the `compromising' and `withdrawal' approaches to handle or resolve con¯ict. They concluded that the choice of con¯ict handling styles was culture speci®c. In a dierent study conducted by Tsang11 in 1993, on con¯ict management styles of Chinese and Western managers in Hong Kong, the author had observed that most Chinese managers in Hong Kong generally adopted the nonconfronting approachesÐi.e. `withdrawal' and `smoothing' when dealing with con¯icts in organisations.
Purpose of the present study Do culture issues and traditional values still play a signi®cant role in managers' choice of con¯ict resolution strategies in Hong Kong industries today? This is one question we seek to answer. In a recent study conducted by Chuah et al.12, the matrix organization structure is found to be the most widely used project organization structure in Hong Kong. Contemporary Hong Kong engineers' and engineering managers' 393
Con¯ict management styles in Hong Kong industries: C C Cheung and K B Chuah
views on project management were found to be much in¯uenced by modern Western concepts and practices. Have these local engineers and engineering managers started to view con¯icts and con¯ict management with a dierent perspective too? Research into con¯ict management concepts, techniques and tools and their use to improve project team's eciency and eectiveness have been undertaken in the West for many decades (see e.g.1±8, 13±21). There are, broadly speaking, two dierent approaches in con¯ict management. The classical approach sets out to reduce and minimise the occurrence and level of con¯ict to achieve harmony and co-operation within an organisation.13, 14, 19, 20 Contemporary researchers, however, suggest that con¯ict in many of today's organisations is inevitable and unavoidable, with the possibility of positive or negative consequences depending on how eectively it has been resolved or managed.1, 3±8, 15±18, 21 Increasingly in recent years, more researchers and practitioners have adopted the latter approach. They believe that when properly managed, in what Tjosvold3 aptly calls, ``a positive con¯ict organization'', disagreements and con¯icts can in fact be used as opportunities which help to improve group cohesion and project team performance.3, 4, 21 The signi®cance and eectiveness of using the `confrontation' or `collaboration' mode to manage con¯ict is particularly emphasized by Tjosvold.3 His ®ndings point out that conscious and deliberate eort to understand con¯ict, confronting and managing it with a positive attitude, will help a present day company to achieve continuous improvement in its competitive edge and employees' job satisfaction. In the last two decades, the success of Hong Kong companies, whether they are indigenous or subsidiaries of overseas corporations, is well acknowledged around the world. The tremendous pace of economic development is partly the result of these Hong Kong companies and entrepreneurs' willingness and ability to seize the opportunities brought about by the open-market policies in China since the early eighties. The World Bank has estimated that Asia will account for half the growth in world trade between 1993 and 2000.22 In the few months before and after 1 July 1997, changeover of Hong Kong's sovereignty from Britain to China, much has been written about Hong Kong and from many perspectives. Among them, there have been a lot of articles about real and potential political and societal con¯icts in Hong Kong during this time of change. However, as mentioned earlier, apart from work by Tang and Kirkbride,10 Tsang11 and Lau,28 we have found nothing in recent literature about intra-organisational con¯icts and con¯ict management in Hong Kong industries. Today Hong Kong is well established as one of the ®ve `Dragons' in the Asia± Paci®c region, namely Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and the new addition, Southern China. With other south±east Asian countries and other developing countries pushing hard, the level of competition is expected to become more severe. Certainly, the rapid growth of China's economy has attracted much attention and investment. Owing to Hong Kong's historical lineage and traditional link with Mainland China, coupled with its rapidly rising costs of labour and land, the opening up of South China, the Pearl River Delta in particular, two decades ago 394
oered a golden opportunity which the Hong Kong manufacturers and entrepreneurs took with earnest. Hong Kong has been the largest source of `foreign' direct investment in China since the start of Deng Xiaoping's bold experimentÐ`Capitalism with Chinese Characteristic'.23 This study sets out to examine how contemporary Hong Kong engineers and engineering managers deal with the day-to-day intra-organizational con¯icts. The study also aims to identify the main factors which in¯uence the general practice of con¯ict management in Hong Kong. This paper presents our ®ndings on their con¯ict-management styles.
Methodology The ®ndings presented in this paper are based on the analysis of 63 con¯ict case incidents written and submitted by part-time students of the MSc in Engineering Management (MScEM) programme at the City University of Hong Kong over the last 3 years. This MScEM is a post-experience engineering management development programme conducted in the evenings. These students (i.e. the original case authors) come from a diversi®ed industrial background including government agencies, public utilities, large corporations and small enterprises. They are professional engineers, technical personnel or engineering managers from dierent Hong Kong industrial sectors and have an average of 7 years' working experience. The piechart in Figure 1 shows the distribution of the MScEM students across industries involving public utilities (electricity, gas, telecommunications, transportation), manufacturing (electronics, electrical products, computers and peripherals), government agencies (highway department, electrical and mechanical services department), and engineering services (construction, electrical and mechanical engineering services, and installation and maintenance). Although there were occasionally a few non-Chinese students in the MScEM classes during the past few years, all of the case authors of these 63 case incidents were local Chinese. As a part of the programme requirements, the students were required to submit a written assignment selecting from a set of questions. One of the questions asked them ``to describe a good and/or bad experience of con¯ict and con¯ict resolution'' in their respective organisations with consideration of the following suggested areas:
Figure 1 Distribution of MScEM students across industries
Con¯ict management styles in Hong Kong industries: C C Cheung and K B Chuah
. . . . . .
the situation in which the con¯ict occurred; the types of con¯ict described; the key persons involved; the likely causes of the con¯icts; how they were resolved of handled; and why he/she have felt particularly good or bad about the experience.
The students were also instructed to use Kezsbom's 13 con¯ict sources1 and the 5 classical modes of con¯ict resolution, discussed in the next two sections, as reference in their evaluation and write-up of their chosen case incidents. The cases reported were all based on actual con¯ict events which the students either were directly involved in or had ®rst hand knowledge of. It is worth pointing out that these case incidents had not been pre-selected for the present study and analysis. The information extracted from these case incidents gives a truly representative picture of the types of con¯icts that commonly occur, and how they are resolved in Hong Kong industries today.
Con¯ict sources Thamhain and Wilemon15, 16 have categorised causes of con¯ict over the life cycle of a project into 7 major sources, namely, project priorities, administrative procedures, technical opinions and performance trade-os, manpower resources, cost, schedules and personality. Recently, Kezsbom1 presented a more comprehensive list of 13 major con¯ict sources. She included in this expanded list, 6 other sources like, communication, reward structure/performance appraisal, politics, leadership, ambiguous roles/structure, and unresolved prior con¯icts. Brief descriptions of these 13 con¯ict sources are given below: 1. SchedulingÐdisagreements that develop around the timing, sequencing, duration of projects and feasibility of schedule for project-related tasks or activities. 2. Managerial and administrative proceduresÐdisagreements that develop over how the project will be managed; the de®nition of reporting relationships and responsibilities, interface relationships, project scope, work design, plans of execution, negotiated work agreements with other groups, and procedures for administrative support. 3. CommunicationÐdisagreements resulting in poor information ¯ow among sta or between senior management and technical sta including, such topics as misunderstanding of project-related goals and the strategic mission of the organisation and the ¯ow of communication from technical sta to senior management. 4. Goal or priority de®nitionÐdisagreements arising from lack of goals or poorly de®ned project goals, including disagreements regarding the project mission and related tasks, diering views of project participants over the importance of activities and tasks, or the shifting of priorities by superiors/customers. 5. Resource allocationÐdisagreements resulting from the competition for resources (for example, personnel, materials, facilities and equipment) among projects members or across teams, or from lack of resources of downsizing of organisations.
6. Reward structure/performance appraisal or measurementÐdisagreements that originate from dierences in reward structure and from the insucient match between the project team approach and the performance appraisal system. 7. Personality and interpersonal relationsÐdisagreements that focus on interpersonal dierences rather than on `technical' issues; includes con¯icts that are ego-centred, personality dierences or caused by prejudice or stereotyping. 8. CostsÐdisagreements that arise from the lack of cost control authority within either the project management or functional group, or from the allocation of funds. 9. Technical opinionÐdisagreements that arise, particularly in technology-oriented projects, over technical issues, performance speci®cations, technical trade-os, and the means to achieve performance. 10. PoliticsÐdisagreements that centre on issues of territorial power, personal in¯uences or hidden agendas. 11. Leadership: poor input or directionÐdisagreements that arise from a need for clari®cation from upper management on project-related goals and strategic mission of the organisation, or from a perception by specialists of a lack of decision-making regarding project goals. 12. Ambiguous roles/structureÐdisagreements, especially in matrix structures where two or more individuals or sections have related or overlapping assignments or roles. 13. Unresolved prior con¯ictÐdisagreements stemming from prior unresolved con¯icts. There is also a number of other authors who have classi®ed con¯icts sources or causes dierently in dierent working environments (see e.g.24±27). We are of the opinion that Kezsbom's list is more comprehensive in today's dynamic project environment. As mentioned in the previous section, it is used by the MScEM students as a reference checklist in their evaluation and write-up of their chosen case incidents.
Con¯ict handling methods More than three decades ago, Blake and Mouton13 identi®ed 5 main methods for resolving or handling con¯ict. Subsequent researchers have largely concurred on these but some have called them by dierent terms. These 5 classical methods or modes of con¯ict resolution (with other common alternative terms given in brackets) are described below. The case authors were asked to refer to these 5 con¯ict resolution modes in their reporting of their respective con¯ict incidents. The description of each resolution mode below is supported by an appropriate incident selected from the 63 case studies: 1. Withdrawal (Denial/Avoidance)Ðto ignore or deny an actual or potential disagreement. Case incident: In a building consultancy ®rm, a quantity surveyor was required to report his work progress regularly to both a project manager and a quantity surveying manager. There was always disagreement over the job priority set by the quantity surveyor with these two managers 395
Con¯ict management styles in Hong Kong industries: C C Cheung and K B Chuah
but the managers never tried to face or resolve the con¯ict directly with each other. They had chosen to ignore the `awkward or dicult situation' for as long as they could so as to maintain the supposedly good relationship or `guan-xi' with one another.
as soon as possible, they eventually agreed on a compromiseÐi.e. to accept the current design and work on a new system for those countries having more than 15-digit international call numbers at the later stage.
2. Smoothing (Suppression)Ðto emphasise the commonalities or strong points and to de-emphasise or even suppress any dierences in viewpoints among con¯icting parties. Case incident: In a hospital workshop, artisans were not satis®ed with the new job assignment in a remote hospital and at ®rst, nobody was willing to take the new jobs. The supervisor managed to persuade them to change their minds and accept (reluctantly) the new assignments by repeatedly emphasising on the bene®ts, the common good it was going to bring to the company as well as the artisans. Deep-down, the artisans aected were still very unhappy about the longer travelling time and higher cost incurred and other inconveniences caused as a result of the move.
5. Confrontation (Integration / Collaboration / Problem Solving)Ðto face or confront con¯ict directly with a problem-solving attitude and generate the `best' solution even though the original views of either or both con¯icting parties may need to be modi®ed or discarded. Both parties set out to seek for a win± win situation.
3. Forcing (Power)Ðto exert one's point of view at the expense of another and often lead to a win/lose situation. Case incident: In a manufacturing company, there had been some disagreement about the quality acceptance level for a new product between the quality engineer and the manufacturing engineer. The manufacturing engineer was of the opinion that production people needed time to `move up the learning curve' and become familiar with the new product and the intricacies of its production process. Therefore, he argued, the acceptance level should not be the same as that of the current products. However, the more senior quality engineer simply insisted on reworking all rejected items. Although the quality engineer might have had some valid reasons for his decision and insistence, he had not bothered to explain or justify his action. He got his way because of his seniority, but there were many disgruntled people on the shop ¯oor, not to mention the manufacturing engineer! 4. Compromising (Negotiation)Ðto determine `acceptable' solutions in which con¯icting parties have some degree of satisfaction with a `give and take' attitude Case incident: Two communication network consultancy companies jointly developed a new network for international call services. A functional manager was not satis®ed with the existing design which only supported a maximum of 15digit call identi®cation code. Because of some countries having international call with more than 15-digit numbers, he requested the project team to redesign the system which could support up to 20-digit codes. The project team did not agree with the requested design enhancement owing to the project time constraint. In order to be able to launch the new service to the market 396
Case incident: In a manufacturing company, the procurement department complained that time required for new parts' approval by quality department was too long. In order to speed up the process of new product development, the new project team structure was modi®ed and adopted. The quality department was to assign an engineer to participate in the project team early at the design stage to formulate all relevant testing speci®cations and start the design work on testers early in the product development cycle. Although originally some of the more experienced members of the product development project team were reluctant to change existing procedures and practices, after some open discussions and exchange of opinions, they felt that it was for the good of all concerned and were willing to accept and support the change. More than two decades ago, a study done by Thamhain and Wilemon15 found that dierent modes of con¯ict resolution may lead to either positive or negative consequences. A `withdrawal' approach may intensify the con¯ict in the future as it is neglected and left unresolved. A `smoothing' approach may have similar consequences although the con¯icting parties are less resentful as there is inherent emphasis on identifying some common ground in resolving the con¯ict. A `forcing' approach always leads to a win±lose situation, thereby generating feelings of resentment among con¯icting parties regardless of whether they come out as winners or losers. Before using this approach, a project manager should always assess the probable eects on the team members and all the parties involved. Although the `compromising' approach can generate resolutions which satisfy to some degree both the con¯icting parties, they are most probably not the optimal ones. It would be too risky to use this approach to handle disagreements over quality or technical performance issues.21 Finally, the `confrontation' approach was found to be the most eective solution in handling con¯ict.14, 15, 21 The con¯icting parties set out with a positive frame of mind in search of what is the best course of action to take. The root causes of the con¯ict are identi®ed and dierent alternatives and solutions are generated, debated and the best is selected. The problems are confronted and solved by means of a collaborative eort from all concerned.
Con¯ict management styles in Hong Kong industries: C C Cheung and K B Chuah Table 1 Use of con¯ict resolutions across dierent types of con¯ict Type of con¯ict Interpersonal Intragroup Intergroup Organisational Inter-organisational Total
Withdrawal
Con¯ict resolutions Forcing
(4) (2) (21) (2)
8 (0)
1 (0)
2 (0) 3 (0)
7 (0) 2 (0)
1 (1) 3 (0) 1 (1)
30 (29)
13 (0)
10 (0)
5 (2)
Confrontation 4 2 22 2
Smoothing
Compromising
Total
1 (0)
14 3 36 8 2 63
2 (1) 2 (0) 5 (1)
Note: each bracketed ®gure shows the number of cases which are said to have been resolved with positive eects or consequences.
Contrary to the ®ndings of past local studies, it is clearly evident that the `confrontation' mode was the most commonly used approach in handling the types of con¯icts detailed in the cases. Indeed, it was used in 30 of the 63 cases, or nearly 50% of the reported cases! The percentage admittedly is lower than the approximately 70% usage by project managers found in Thamhain and Wilemon's study16 more than two decades ago. Nevertheless, it is very signi®cant and surprising that this result is quite dierent from past studies in Hong Kong, in which `compromising' and `withdrawal' modes were found to be the dominant con¯ict-management styles.10, 11 In Tsang's study11 some 5 years ago, only 12% of the cases had used the `confrontation' approach while more than 50% of the cases chose the `withdrawal' and `smoothing' approaches; `confrontation' was not the most commonly used approach in handling con¯ict among the Chinese executives as the traditional Chinese culture and values were thought to be the major factor in shaping the attitude and behaviour of those Chinese managers. Moreover, this study also shows that the `confrontation' mode has proved to be eective in handling or resolving con¯ict of dierent types, in particular intergroup con¯ict which was the most common type of con¯ict among the reported case incidents. As shown in Table 1, 36 of the 63 reported cases belonged to this intergroup con¯ict. Of these 36 cases, 22 were resolved by the `confrontation' approach. And strikingly, 21 of these 22 usage of `confrontation' mode were reported by the respective case authors to have resulted in some `positive consequences' to the project team or organisation. Also, we can see from the breakdown of usage of the `confrontation' mode in Table 2 (second column) it
Discussion of collated information The summarised case data are presented in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1 shows the use of the 5 dierent con¯ict±resolution modes in the reported cases. The case incidents in which these modes were used were classi®ed into such types of con¯ict as: interpersonal, intragroup, intergroup, organisational and inter-organisational. The number in each pair of brackets shows the number of con¯ict cases which are said to have been handled or resolved with positive consequences by the case authors. Some examples of positive consequences reported are: enhancement of the project team's collaboration or eciency; enhancement of intra- or inter-team communication eectiveness; shortening of the product development cycle time; empowerment of sta in handling future con¯ict etc. The sources of con¯ict in the 63 reported cases are categorised in Table 2, using Kezsbom's list of 13 con¯ict sources discussed earlier. These are further broken down according to the con¯ict resolution modes used. The end column of Table 2 gives the sub-total of the occurrence of each con¯ict category or source in the 63 reported cases.
Con¯ict resolution modes The analysis of the case incidents revealed that the con¯ict management styles of Chinese managers or executives have switched from the adoption of the `compromising' or `withdrawal' approach to the `confrontation' approach. The result also clearly indicates that the `confrontation' approach is eective in handling con¯ict, especially the intergroup con¯ict and the outcome is usually constructive to an organisation. Table 2 Use of con¯ict resolutions across dierent con¯ict categories
Con¯ict categories Scheduling Managerial and administration procedures Communication Goal/priority de®nition Resource allocation Reward structure /performance appraisal Personality and interpersonal relations Costs Technical opinion Politics Leadership: poor input or direction Ambiguous roles/structure Unresolved prior con¯ict
Con¯ict resolutions Confrontation Withdrawal Forcing (intergroup (interpersonal (intergroup con¯ict) con¯ict) con¯ict) Smoothing 3 7 6 1 6
(3) (3) (5) (1) (6) ± 3 1 (1) 1 (1) ± ± 1 (1) 1 (1)
± 3 1 (1) 1 ± ± 5 (5) ± 2 (1) ± ± ± 1 (1)
1 2 (1) ± 1 (1) 3 (3) ± 1 ± 1 (1) ± ± 1 (1) ±
± 2 ± 1 ± ± ± 1 ± ± 1 ± ±
Compromising
Sub Total
1 ± ± ± 1 ± 1 ± 2 ± ± ± ±
5 14 7 4 10 0 10 2 6 0 1 2 2
Note: each bracketed ®gure shows the number of cases where the dispute or disagreement was classi®ed as intergroup or interpersonal con¯ict.
397
Con¯ict management styles in Hong Kong industries: C C Cheung and K B Chuah
was often used to handle intergroup con¯icts concerning `managerial and administration procedures', `resource allocation' and `communication'. We suggest that this may be directly linked to the increasingly popular use of matrix organisation structures, as noted in a recent study of Chuah et al.12 The matrix project team is a temporary structure. It is often unlikely that every member of a matrix team is at the same stage of the `learning curve' and there will inevitably be confusion in procedures and communication, or disagreements on individuals' level of responsibility and authority etc. The project manager or co-ordinator in such an environment needs to work with other functional members under the inherent project constraints of time, costs and resources. The level of intergroup communication increases dramatically in this type of project organisation structure. The project manager or co-ordinator must ensure eective cross-functional as well as intra project team communication. The project's cost and schedule objectives and performance speci®cations have to be met. Sub-optimal compromises or partial completion are not acceptable. And the project manager or co-ordinator in a matrix project team does not have the full authority to dictate terms or to `force' a solution he/she wants. Confronting the con¯ict issues openly then seems to be the only acceptable option under such circumstances. `Withdrawal' ranked the second most favoured con¯ict resolution mode and was used in about 20%, or 13 of the 63 reported cases. In contrast, Thamhain and Wilemon16 found that `withdrawal' was the least favoured con¯ict resolution mode and more than 40% of the project managers in their sample rejected this mode of con¯ict resolution. It is interesting to note that the `withdrawal' approach is popularly used to handle con¯ict over personality clashes and interpersonal relations in 8 out of 13, in other words, more of the 60% of the `withdrawal' cases. We believe that this phenomenon is related to the inherent in¯uence of Chinese culture and traditional values,10 especially in these types of con¯ict. The Chinese engineers or managers tend to prefer to avoid interpersonal con¯ict in the belief that maintaining the personal `guan-xi' or relationship and `being a friend rather than an opponent' are necessary for sustaining goodwill and ensuring future co-operation or collaboration. However, the case data in Table 1 have shown that none of the reported con¯ict issues including the interpersonal ones, could be satisfactorily resolved by this approach. In other words, there was no reported `positive' consequence in all of the 13 cases where the `withdrawal' approach was adopted! The third choice was the `forcing' mode. Ten out of the 63 cases had used it. The data in Table 1 show that more engineers/managers used this technique to handle intergroup con¯ict. Table 2 shows that the `forcing' mode was more likely to be used to resolve issues related to resource allocation and managerial and administration procedures. This perhaps is related to the unique organisational culture in Hong Kong that there is still a large proportion of ®rms being owned and run by members belonging to the same families or clans.23 In such organisations, autocracy in decision making and con¯ict resolution is still very much the norm. However, as in the cases which used the `withdrawal' approach, none of the 10 cases where the `for398
cing' mode was used were said to have been resolved satisfactorily. Most of the case authors reported that personnel in the cases disliked being forced to do a particular job and their working morale was adversely aected. They observed that gradually a barrier between the con¯icting parties would tend to build up. The `smoothing' and `compromising' modes were the least preferred, being used in only 5 out of the 63 cases each. Of these 10 cases, 7 were concerned with resolving intergroup and inter-organisational con¯icts. Unpopular though they were, 3 out of these 10 cases were reported to have been resolved with some positive consequences. Sources of con¯ict The last column of Table 2 shows that dispute over `managerial and administration procedures' has been identi®ed as the major source of con¯ict. Over 22% or 14 of the 63 con¯ict cases were said to be due to some disputes or disagreements in procedural matters. And 7 of these 14 cases were resolved by `confrontation' mode and two by `forcing' mode. In 3 cases, one party simply `withdrew' from the disputes. `Resource allocation' and `personality and interpersonal relations' ranked equal second, each with 10 out of the 63 cases. The former were predominantly intergroup con¯icts (9 out of the 10 cases) and was resolved mainly by the direct `confrontation' approach (6 out of the 10 cases); but half of the latter were said to be interpersonal con¯icts, and understandably, all were `resolved' by one party `withdrawing' from the scene. `Communication', `technical opinion', `scheduling' and `goal or priority de®nition' were the next 4 more common sources of con¯ict, causing problems in 7, 6, 5 and 4 cases, respectively. In 6 out of the 7 `communication' disputes, and 3 out of 5 of the `scheduling' disagreements were resolved by direct `confrontation'. There seems to be a even spread of resolution modes by which the `technical' and `goal or priority' con¯icts were resolved. The remaining 6 of Kezsbom's list of 13 con¯ict sources were less frequent causes of con¯ict in this sample of 63 cases. Surprisingly, none was in fact said to have been caused by `reward structure/performance appraisal' disputes or `politics'! Some possible explanations and reasons for the observed pattern of con¯ict resolution have been discussed in the previous section. We hypothesize that these same factors are equally at play in shaping the pattern of con¯ict sources noted here. Extracted information from the 63 cases helps us to paint a trend not previously noted. A proper correlation between the in¯uencing factors and the observed phenomenon or consequence in Hong Kong industries' con¯ict management practices would require a series of further, more structured studies.
Conclusions This study has found some empirical evidence from collected case incidents that the in¯uence of Chinese culture and traditional values on Hong Kong engineers/managers' perception of con¯ict, and their choice of resolution methods is diminishing. The information extracted from the 63 case incidents signi®es a trend
Con¯ict management styles in Hong Kong industries: C C Cheung and K B Chuah
that the Chinese engineers and managers in Hong Kong today prefer to use the `confrontation' mode in their handling of con¯icts instead of the `compromising' and `withdrawing/avoiding' approaches as reported in the past. It seems that the cultural and ethnic background is no longer a predominant factor in determining the con¯ict management style in Hong Kong. We believe that the change is related to the increasing use of Western management philosophy and paradigm and, in particular, the common adoption of matrix organisation structure. In the light of this changing trend, further research is being carried out by the authors to develop a practical framework and methodology for con¯ict management practices for selected industrial environment. We foresee that Hong Kong management practice will continue to be oriented towards Western management philosophy and paradigm while still retaining some of the Chinese culture and values even after its return to Chinese sovereignty in July 1997. The Chinese leaders in Beijing have repeatedly emphasized that the `One Country, Two Systems' concept is here to ensure Hong Kong does not become another Chinese city, at least in the next 50 years!
References 1. Kezsbom, D. S., Re-opening Pandora's box: sources of project con¯ict in the `90s. Industrial Engineering (USA), 1992, May, 54±59. 2. Ranney, J. and Deck, M., Making teams work: lessons from the leaders in new product development. Planning Review, 1995, 23(4), 6±12. 3. Tjosvold, D., The Con¯ict Positive Organization: Stimulate Diversity and Create Unity. Addison Wesley, 1991. 4. Deutsch, M., Constructive con¯ict resolution: principles, training and research. Journal of Social Issues, 1994, 50(1), 13±32. 5. Thamhain, H. J. and Wilemon, D. L., The eective management of con¯ict in project±oriented work environments. Defence Management Journal, 1975, 11(3), 29±40. 6. Rahim, M. A., Managing Con¯ict in Organizations. Praeger Publishers, New York, 1986. 7. Gupta, A. K. and Wilemon, D., The Credibility±co-operation connection at the R&D±marketing interface. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1988, 5, 20±31. 8. Amason, A. C., Distinguishing the eects of functional and dysfunctional con¯ict on strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams. The Academy of Management Journal, 1996, 39(1), 123±148. 9. The World Competitiveness Yearbook 1996. Institute for Management Development, (1996). 10. Tang, S. F. Y. and Kirkbride, P. S., The Development of Con¯ict Handling Skills in Hong Kong: some cross-cultural issues. Working Paper No. 7, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 1986. 11. Tsang, C. H. Y., An Exploratory Research on Con¯ict Management Styles of Chinese and Western Managers in Hong Kong. Undergraduate Final-year Project Report, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 1993. 12. Chuah, K. B., Tummala, V. M. R. and Nkasu, M. M., Project management structures in Hong Kong industries. International Journal of Project Management, 1995, 13(4), 253±257. 13. Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S., The Managerial Grid. Gulf Publishing, Houston, Texas, 1964. 14. Burke, R. J., Methods of resolving interpersonal con¯ict. Personnel Administration, 1969, July±August, 48±55. 15. Thamhain, H. J. and Wilemon, D. L., Diagnosing con¯ict determinants in project management. Transactions on Engineering Management, 1975, EM-22(1), 35±44. 16. Thamhain, H. J. and Wilemon, D. L., Con¯ict management in project life-cycle. Sloan Management Review, 1975, 16(3), 31± 49.
17. Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsh, J. W., Organization and Environment: Managing Dierentiation and Integration. Harvard Business School, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1976. 18. Amason, A. C., Thompson, K. R., Hochwarter, W. A. and Harrison, A. W., An important dimension in successful management teams. Organisational Dynamics, 1995, 24, 20±35. 19. Weber, M., The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation (A. M. Henderson and T. Persons, translated from German). Oxford University Press, New York, 1947. 20. Fayol, H., General and Industrial Management. Routledge, London, 1949. 21. Kezsbom, D. S., Schilling, D. L. and Edward, K. A., Dynamic Project Management: a Practical Guide for Managers and Engineers. Wiley Interscience Publication, 1989. 22. The Economist, A Billion Consumers. A Survey of Asia. October 30, 1993. 23. Berger, S. and Lester, R. K., Made By Hong Kong. Oxford University Press, Hong Kong, 1997. 24. Ginn, M. E. and Rubenstein, A. H., The R&D/production interface: a case study of new product commercialization. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1986, 3, 158±170. 25. Powers, T. L., Sterling, J. U. and Wolter, J. F., Marketing and manufacturing con¯ict: sources and resolution. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 1988, First quarter, 56±60. 26. Crittenden, V. L., Gardiner, L. R. and Stam, A., Reducing con¯ict between marketing and manufacturing. Industrial Marketing Management, 1993, 22, 299±309. 27. Gerwin, D., Integrating manufacturing into the strategic phases of new product development. California Management Review, 1993, 35(4), 123±136. 28. Lau, W. K., Con¯icts and Con¯ict ResolutionÐA Study of HK Engineers and Engineering Managers' Personal Experience. BEng Manufacturing Engineering Project Report, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 1997. Mr C. C. CHEUNG is an MPhil research student in the Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong. He has a Mechanical Engineering degree from the University of Hong Kong. After completing a formal period of professional training in 1992, in Outboard Marine Corp. (Asia), he continued to work for the company until 1996 as a project engineer dealing with the development of new four-stroke outboard motors. He became a corporate member of IMechE and a Chartered Engineer in 1996 and later a corporate member of the Hong Kong Institute of Engineers in 1997. His MPhil research is in con¯ict and con¯ict management in Hong Kong manufacturing industry. Dr K. B. CHUAH is an Associate Professor in the Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Engineering Management, CityU of Hong Kong. He teaches metrology, project/technology management and CIM systems development and implementation. He has a Mechanical Engineering degree and his PhD was awarded for his work on a US Navy sponsored project on Roughness and Hydrodynamic Drag. He obtained his DMS while working as a Senior Research Co-ordinator managing a multidisciplinary CIM Research Team at Teesside Polytechnic, UK. He joined CityU in 1990 and is now a core faculty member of both the BEng Manufacturing Engineering and MSc Engineering Management programmes. His current research areas are: CAPM and CIM systems implementation and organization restructure, project management practices in Hong Kong and China, con¯ict management, 3D surface mapping and characterization and knowledge-based project risk management.
399
PII: S0263-7863(98)00059-3
Con¯ict management styles in Hong Kong industries C C Cheung and K B Chuah
Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong, 83 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China
Review of literature has revealed that little research on con¯ict management has been conducted in Hong Kong industries despite Hong Kong being one of the world's most competitive economies, and a major commercial, ®nancial, industrial centre. This paper examines the use of dierent con¯ict resolutions in 63 actual case studies from Hong Kong industries. Contrary to common perception and previous ®ndings, `confrontation', as a mode of con¯ict resolution, is found to be more commonly used in handling con¯ict. And signi®cantly, almost all of the case incidents which used the `confrontation' approach were said to have achieved positive consequences. The authors argue that this change of resolution strategy in the past decade could be due to the increasing number of Hong Kong companies adopting the matrix structure explicitly or implicitly in carrying their projects. It appears that in Hong Kong industries, the in¯uence of the Chinese culture and traditional values in attitude, behaviour and professional practices of both engineers as well as managers, is diminishing. Although the `withdrawal' and `forcing' approaches were also being used for certain types of con¯ict, as revealed by some of the case studies, the consequences are often recognised to be dysfunctional to team work. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved Keywords: con¯ict resolution, con¯ict management styles, case studies, Hong Kong industries
Introduction In recent years, a number of researchers and practitioners in project management have reported that there is an increasing trend in the use of cross-functional project teams because of the dynamic nature of today's projects and their life cycles.1, 2 More and more, con¯ict is being perceived and accepted as inevitable in such a stressful project-oriented environment. Project managers should therefore be able to identify the sources of con¯icts and apply appropriate resolutions in today's project environment.1 Tjosvold3 and Deustch4 suggest that when con¯ict is appropriately managed, it could be constructive and even add substantial value to an organisation. They, and a number of other Western researchers, have written much about how to eectively confront and resolve the various types of organisational, task-related or personal con¯icts (e.g.1, 3±8). Hong Kong was ranked as the world's third most competitive economy in the Institute for Management Development's 1996 World Competitiveness Yearbook.9 It is located at the major con¯uence of east±west commercial, ®nancial, industrial and cultural activities. From our extensive literature search on con¯ict management and its related issues in Hong Kong industries, to our surprise, we have found little being written about this subject locally in the last few dec-
ades. One of the few such studies was done by Tang and Kirkbride10 a decade ago, on the development of con¯ict handling skills in Hong Kong under the in¯uence of dierent cultures. They found that the Chinese executives of both the Government and private sectors in Hong Kong preferred to use the `compromising' and `withdrawal' approaches to handle or resolve con¯ict. They concluded that the choice of con¯ict handling styles was culture speci®c. In a dierent study conducted by Tsang11 in 1993, on con¯ict management styles of Chinese and Western managers in Hong Kong, the author had observed that most Chinese managers in Hong Kong generally adopted the nonconfronting approachesÐi.e. `withdrawal' and `smoothing' when dealing with con¯icts in organisations.
Purpose of the present study Do culture issues and traditional values still play a signi®cant role in managers' choice of con¯ict resolution strategies in Hong Kong industries today? This is one question we seek to answer. In a recent study conducted by Chuah et al.12, the matrix organization structure is found to be the most widely used project organization structure in Hong Kong. Contemporary Hong Kong engineers' and engineering managers' 393
Con¯ict management styles in Hong Kong industries: C C Cheung and K B Chuah
views on project management were found to be much in¯uenced by modern Western concepts and practices. Have these local engineers and engineering managers started to view con¯icts and con¯ict management with a dierent perspective too? Research into con¯ict management concepts, techniques and tools and their use to improve project team's eciency and eectiveness have been undertaken in the West for many decades (see e.g.1±8, 13±21). There are, broadly speaking, two dierent approaches in con¯ict management. The classical approach sets out to reduce and minimise the occurrence and level of con¯ict to achieve harmony and co-operation within an organisation.13, 14, 19, 20 Contemporary researchers, however, suggest that con¯ict in many of today's organisations is inevitable and unavoidable, with the possibility of positive or negative consequences depending on how eectively it has been resolved or managed.1, 3±8, 15±18, 21 Increasingly in recent years, more researchers and practitioners have adopted the latter approach. They believe that when properly managed, in what Tjosvold3 aptly calls, ``a positive con¯ict organization'', disagreements and con¯icts can in fact be used as opportunities which help to improve group cohesion and project team performance.3, 4, 21 The signi®cance and eectiveness of using the `confrontation' or `collaboration' mode to manage con¯ict is particularly emphasized by Tjosvold.3 His ®ndings point out that conscious and deliberate eort to understand con¯ict, confronting and managing it with a positive attitude, will help a present day company to achieve continuous improvement in its competitive edge and employees' job satisfaction. In the last two decades, the success of Hong Kong companies, whether they are indigenous or subsidiaries of overseas corporations, is well acknowledged around the world. The tremendous pace of economic development is partly the result of these Hong Kong companies and entrepreneurs' willingness and ability to seize the opportunities brought about by the open-market policies in China since the early eighties. The World Bank has estimated that Asia will account for half the growth in world trade between 1993 and 2000.22 In the few months before and after 1 July 1997, changeover of Hong Kong's sovereignty from Britain to China, much has been written about Hong Kong and from many perspectives. Among them, there have been a lot of articles about real and potential political and societal con¯icts in Hong Kong during this time of change. However, as mentioned earlier, apart from work by Tang and Kirkbride,10 Tsang11 and Lau,28 we have found nothing in recent literature about intra-organisational con¯icts and con¯ict management in Hong Kong industries. Today Hong Kong is well established as one of the ®ve `Dragons' in the Asia± Paci®c region, namely Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and the new addition, Southern China. With other south±east Asian countries and other developing countries pushing hard, the level of competition is expected to become more severe. Certainly, the rapid growth of China's economy has attracted much attention and investment. Owing to Hong Kong's historical lineage and traditional link with Mainland China, coupled with its rapidly rising costs of labour and land, the opening up of South China, the Pearl River Delta in particular, two decades ago 394
oered a golden opportunity which the Hong Kong manufacturers and entrepreneurs took with earnest. Hong Kong has been the largest source of `foreign' direct investment in China since the start of Deng Xiaoping's bold experimentÐ`Capitalism with Chinese Characteristic'.23 This study sets out to examine how contemporary Hong Kong engineers and engineering managers deal with the day-to-day intra-organizational con¯icts. The study also aims to identify the main factors which in¯uence the general practice of con¯ict management in Hong Kong. This paper presents our ®ndings on their con¯ict-management styles.
Methodology The ®ndings presented in this paper are based on the analysis of 63 con¯ict case incidents written and submitted by part-time students of the MSc in Engineering Management (MScEM) programme at the City University of Hong Kong over the last 3 years. This MScEM is a post-experience engineering management development programme conducted in the evenings. These students (i.e. the original case authors) come from a diversi®ed industrial background including government agencies, public utilities, large corporations and small enterprises. They are professional engineers, technical personnel or engineering managers from dierent Hong Kong industrial sectors and have an average of 7 years' working experience. The piechart in Figure 1 shows the distribution of the MScEM students across industries involving public utilities (electricity, gas, telecommunications, transportation), manufacturing (electronics, electrical products, computers and peripherals), government agencies (highway department, electrical and mechanical services department), and engineering services (construction, electrical and mechanical engineering services, and installation and maintenance). Although there were occasionally a few non-Chinese students in the MScEM classes during the past few years, all of the case authors of these 63 case incidents were local Chinese. As a part of the programme requirements, the students were required to submit a written assignment selecting from a set of questions. One of the questions asked them ``to describe a good and/or bad experience of con¯ict and con¯ict resolution'' in their respective organisations with consideration of the following suggested areas:
Figure 1 Distribution of MScEM students across industries
Con¯ict management styles in Hong Kong industries: C C Cheung and K B Chuah
. . . . . .
the situation in which the con¯ict occurred; the types of con¯ict described; the key persons involved; the likely causes of the con¯icts; how they were resolved of handled; and why he/she have felt particularly good or bad about the experience.
The students were also instructed to use Kezsbom's 13 con¯ict sources1 and the 5 classical modes of con¯ict resolution, discussed in the next two sections, as reference in their evaluation and write-up of their chosen case incidents. The cases reported were all based on actual con¯ict events which the students either were directly involved in or had ®rst hand knowledge of. It is worth pointing out that these case incidents had not been pre-selected for the present study and analysis. The information extracted from these case incidents gives a truly representative picture of the types of con¯icts that commonly occur, and how they are resolved in Hong Kong industries today.
Con¯ict sources Thamhain and Wilemon15, 16 have categorised causes of con¯ict over the life cycle of a project into 7 major sources, namely, project priorities, administrative procedures, technical opinions and performance trade-os, manpower resources, cost, schedules and personality. Recently, Kezsbom1 presented a more comprehensive list of 13 major con¯ict sources. She included in this expanded list, 6 other sources like, communication, reward structure/performance appraisal, politics, leadership, ambiguous roles/structure, and unresolved prior con¯icts. Brief descriptions of these 13 con¯ict sources are given below: 1. SchedulingÐdisagreements that develop around the timing, sequencing, duration of projects and feasibility of schedule for project-related tasks or activities. 2. Managerial and administrative proceduresÐdisagreements that develop over how the project will be managed; the de®nition of reporting relationships and responsibilities, interface relationships, project scope, work design, plans of execution, negotiated work agreements with other groups, and procedures for administrative support. 3. CommunicationÐdisagreements resulting in poor information ¯ow among sta or between senior management and technical sta including, such topics as misunderstanding of project-related goals and the strategic mission of the organisation and the ¯ow of communication from technical sta to senior management. 4. Goal or priority de®nitionÐdisagreements arising from lack of goals or poorly de®ned project goals, including disagreements regarding the project mission and related tasks, diering views of project participants over the importance of activities and tasks, or the shifting of priorities by superiors/customers. 5. Resource allocationÐdisagreements resulting from the competition for resources (for example, personnel, materials, facilities and equipment) among projects members or across teams, or from lack of resources of downsizing of organisations.
6. Reward structure/performance appraisal or measurementÐdisagreements that originate from dierences in reward structure and from the insucient match between the project team approach and the performance appraisal system. 7. Personality and interpersonal relationsÐdisagreements that focus on interpersonal dierences rather than on `technical' issues; includes con¯icts that are ego-centred, personality dierences or caused by prejudice or stereotyping. 8. CostsÐdisagreements that arise from the lack of cost control authority within either the project management or functional group, or from the allocation of funds. 9. Technical opinionÐdisagreements that arise, particularly in technology-oriented projects, over technical issues, performance speci®cations, technical trade-os, and the means to achieve performance. 10. PoliticsÐdisagreements that centre on issues of territorial power, personal in¯uences or hidden agendas. 11. Leadership: poor input or directionÐdisagreements that arise from a need for clari®cation from upper management on project-related goals and strategic mission of the organisation, or from a perception by specialists of a lack of decision-making regarding project goals. 12. Ambiguous roles/structureÐdisagreements, especially in matrix structures where two or more individuals or sections have related or overlapping assignments or roles. 13. Unresolved prior con¯ictÐdisagreements stemming from prior unresolved con¯icts. There is also a number of other authors who have classi®ed con¯icts sources or causes dierently in dierent working environments (see e.g.24±27). We are of the opinion that Kezsbom's list is more comprehensive in today's dynamic project environment. As mentioned in the previous section, it is used by the MScEM students as a reference checklist in their evaluation and write-up of their chosen case incidents.
Con¯ict handling methods More than three decades ago, Blake and Mouton13 identi®ed 5 main methods for resolving or handling con¯ict. Subsequent researchers have largely concurred on these but some have called them by dierent terms. These 5 classical methods or modes of con¯ict resolution (with other common alternative terms given in brackets) are described below. The case authors were asked to refer to these 5 con¯ict resolution modes in their reporting of their respective con¯ict incidents. The description of each resolution mode below is supported by an appropriate incident selected from the 63 case studies: 1. Withdrawal (Denial/Avoidance)Ðto ignore or deny an actual or potential disagreement. Case incident: In a building consultancy ®rm, a quantity surveyor was required to report his work progress regularly to both a project manager and a quantity surveying manager. There was always disagreement over the job priority set by the quantity surveyor with these two managers 395
Con¯ict management styles in Hong Kong industries: C C Cheung and K B Chuah
but the managers never tried to face or resolve the con¯ict directly with each other. They had chosen to ignore the `awkward or dicult situation' for as long as they could so as to maintain the supposedly good relationship or `guan-xi' with one another.
as soon as possible, they eventually agreed on a compromiseÐi.e. to accept the current design and work on a new system for those countries having more than 15-digit international call numbers at the later stage.
2. Smoothing (Suppression)Ðto emphasise the commonalities or strong points and to de-emphasise or even suppress any dierences in viewpoints among con¯icting parties. Case incident: In a hospital workshop, artisans were not satis®ed with the new job assignment in a remote hospital and at ®rst, nobody was willing to take the new jobs. The supervisor managed to persuade them to change their minds and accept (reluctantly) the new assignments by repeatedly emphasising on the bene®ts, the common good it was going to bring to the company as well as the artisans. Deep-down, the artisans aected were still very unhappy about the longer travelling time and higher cost incurred and other inconveniences caused as a result of the move.
5. Confrontation (Integration / Collaboration / Problem Solving)Ðto face or confront con¯ict directly with a problem-solving attitude and generate the `best' solution even though the original views of either or both con¯icting parties may need to be modi®ed or discarded. Both parties set out to seek for a win± win situation.
3. Forcing (Power)Ðto exert one's point of view at the expense of another and often lead to a win/lose situation. Case incident: In a manufacturing company, there had been some disagreement about the quality acceptance level for a new product between the quality engineer and the manufacturing engineer. The manufacturing engineer was of the opinion that production people needed time to `move up the learning curve' and become familiar with the new product and the intricacies of its production process. Therefore, he argued, the acceptance level should not be the same as that of the current products. However, the more senior quality engineer simply insisted on reworking all rejected items. Although the quality engineer might have had some valid reasons for his decision and insistence, he had not bothered to explain or justify his action. He got his way because of his seniority, but there were many disgruntled people on the shop ¯oor, not to mention the manufacturing engineer! 4. Compromising (Negotiation)Ðto determine `acceptable' solutions in which con¯icting parties have some degree of satisfaction with a `give and take' attitude Case incident: Two communication network consultancy companies jointly developed a new network for international call services. A functional manager was not satis®ed with the existing design which only supported a maximum of 15digit call identi®cation code. Because of some countries having international call with more than 15-digit numbers, he requested the project team to redesign the system which could support up to 20-digit codes. The project team did not agree with the requested design enhancement owing to the project time constraint. In order to be able to launch the new service to the market 396
Case incident: In a manufacturing company, the procurement department complained that time required for new parts' approval by quality department was too long. In order to speed up the process of new product development, the new project team structure was modi®ed and adopted. The quality department was to assign an engineer to participate in the project team early at the design stage to formulate all relevant testing speci®cations and start the design work on testers early in the product development cycle. Although originally some of the more experienced members of the product development project team were reluctant to change existing procedures and practices, after some open discussions and exchange of opinions, they felt that it was for the good of all concerned and were willing to accept and support the change. More than two decades ago, a study done by Thamhain and Wilemon15 found that dierent modes of con¯ict resolution may lead to either positive or negative consequences. A `withdrawal' approach may intensify the con¯ict in the future as it is neglected and left unresolved. A `smoothing' approach may have similar consequences although the con¯icting parties are less resentful as there is inherent emphasis on identifying some common ground in resolving the con¯ict. A `forcing' approach always leads to a win±lose situation, thereby generating feelings of resentment among con¯icting parties regardless of whether they come out as winners or losers. Before using this approach, a project manager should always assess the probable eects on the team members and all the parties involved. Although the `compromising' approach can generate resolutions which satisfy to some degree both the con¯icting parties, they are most probably not the optimal ones. It would be too risky to use this approach to handle disagreements over quality or technical performance issues.21 Finally, the `confrontation' approach was found to be the most eective solution in handling con¯ict.14, 15, 21 The con¯icting parties set out with a positive frame of mind in search of what is the best course of action to take. The root causes of the con¯ict are identi®ed and dierent alternatives and solutions are generated, debated and the best is selected. The problems are confronted and solved by means of a collaborative eort from all concerned.
Con¯ict management styles in Hong Kong industries: C C Cheung and K B Chuah Table 1 Use of con¯ict resolutions across dierent types of con¯ict Type of con¯ict Interpersonal Intragroup Intergroup Organisational Inter-organisational Total
Withdrawal
Con¯ict resolutions Forcing
(4) (2) (21) (2)
8 (0)
1 (0)
2 (0) 3 (0)
7 (0) 2 (0)
1 (1) 3 (0) 1 (1)
30 (29)
13 (0)
10 (0)
5 (2)
Confrontation 4 2 22 2
Smoothing
Compromising
Total
1 (0)
14 3 36 8 2 63
2 (1) 2 (0) 5 (1)
Note: each bracketed ®gure shows the number of cases which are said to have been resolved with positive eects or consequences.
Contrary to the ®ndings of past local studies, it is clearly evident that the `confrontation' mode was the most commonly used approach in handling the types of con¯icts detailed in the cases. Indeed, it was used in 30 of the 63 cases, or nearly 50% of the reported cases! The percentage admittedly is lower than the approximately 70% usage by project managers found in Thamhain and Wilemon's study16 more than two decades ago. Nevertheless, it is very signi®cant and surprising that this result is quite dierent from past studies in Hong Kong, in which `compromising' and `withdrawal' modes were found to be the dominant con¯ict-management styles.10, 11 In Tsang's study11 some 5 years ago, only 12% of the cases had used the `confrontation' approach while more than 50% of the cases chose the `withdrawal' and `smoothing' approaches; `confrontation' was not the most commonly used approach in handling con¯ict among the Chinese executives as the traditional Chinese culture and values were thought to be the major factor in shaping the attitude and behaviour of those Chinese managers. Moreover, this study also shows that the `confrontation' mode has proved to be eective in handling or resolving con¯ict of dierent types, in particular intergroup con¯ict which was the most common type of con¯ict among the reported case incidents. As shown in Table 1, 36 of the 63 reported cases belonged to this intergroup con¯ict. Of these 36 cases, 22 were resolved by the `confrontation' approach. And strikingly, 21 of these 22 usage of `confrontation' mode were reported by the respective case authors to have resulted in some `positive consequences' to the project team or organisation. Also, we can see from the breakdown of usage of the `confrontation' mode in Table 2 (second column) it
Discussion of collated information The summarised case data are presented in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1 shows the use of the 5 dierent con¯ict±resolution modes in the reported cases. The case incidents in which these modes were used were classi®ed into such types of con¯ict as: interpersonal, intragroup, intergroup, organisational and inter-organisational. The number in each pair of brackets shows the number of con¯ict cases which are said to have been handled or resolved with positive consequences by the case authors. Some examples of positive consequences reported are: enhancement of the project team's collaboration or eciency; enhancement of intra- or inter-team communication eectiveness; shortening of the product development cycle time; empowerment of sta in handling future con¯ict etc. The sources of con¯ict in the 63 reported cases are categorised in Table 2, using Kezsbom's list of 13 con¯ict sources discussed earlier. These are further broken down according to the con¯ict resolution modes used. The end column of Table 2 gives the sub-total of the occurrence of each con¯ict category or source in the 63 reported cases.
Con¯ict resolution modes The analysis of the case incidents revealed that the con¯ict management styles of Chinese managers or executives have switched from the adoption of the `compromising' or `withdrawal' approach to the `confrontation' approach. The result also clearly indicates that the `confrontation' approach is eective in handling con¯ict, especially the intergroup con¯ict and the outcome is usually constructive to an organisation. Table 2 Use of con¯ict resolutions across dierent con¯ict categories
Con¯ict categories Scheduling Managerial and administration procedures Communication Goal/priority de®nition Resource allocation Reward structure /performance appraisal Personality and interpersonal relations Costs Technical opinion Politics Leadership: poor input or direction Ambiguous roles/structure Unresolved prior con¯ict
Con¯ict resolutions Confrontation Withdrawal Forcing (intergroup (interpersonal (intergroup con¯ict) con¯ict) con¯ict) Smoothing 3 7 6 1 6
(3) (3) (5) (1) (6) ± 3 1 (1) 1 (1) ± ± 1 (1) 1 (1)
± 3 1 (1) 1 ± ± 5 (5) ± 2 (1) ± ± ± 1 (1)
1 2 (1) ± 1 (1) 3 (3) ± 1 ± 1 (1) ± ± 1 (1) ±
± 2 ± 1 ± ± ± 1 ± ± 1 ± ±
Compromising
Sub Total
1 ± ± ± 1 ± 1 ± 2 ± ± ± ±
5 14 7 4 10 0 10 2 6 0 1 2 2
Note: each bracketed ®gure shows the number of cases where the dispute or disagreement was classi®ed as intergroup or interpersonal con¯ict.
397
Con¯ict management styles in Hong Kong industries: C C Cheung and K B Chuah
was often used to handle intergroup con¯icts concerning `managerial and administration procedures', `resource allocation' and `communication'. We suggest that this may be directly linked to the increasingly popular use of matrix organisation structures, as noted in a recent study of Chuah et al.12 The matrix project team is a temporary structure. It is often unlikely that every member of a matrix team is at the same stage of the `learning curve' and there will inevitably be confusion in procedures and communication, or disagreements on individuals' level of responsibility and authority etc. The project manager or co-ordinator in such an environment needs to work with other functional members under the inherent project constraints of time, costs and resources. The level of intergroup communication increases dramatically in this type of project organisation structure. The project manager or co-ordinator must ensure eective cross-functional as well as intra project team communication. The project's cost and schedule objectives and performance speci®cations have to be met. Sub-optimal compromises or partial completion are not acceptable. And the project manager or co-ordinator in a matrix project team does not have the full authority to dictate terms or to `force' a solution he/she wants. Confronting the con¯ict issues openly then seems to be the only acceptable option under such circumstances. `Withdrawal' ranked the second most favoured con¯ict resolution mode and was used in about 20%, or 13 of the 63 reported cases. In contrast, Thamhain and Wilemon16 found that `withdrawal' was the least favoured con¯ict resolution mode and more than 40% of the project managers in their sample rejected this mode of con¯ict resolution. It is interesting to note that the `withdrawal' approach is popularly used to handle con¯ict over personality clashes and interpersonal relations in 8 out of 13, in other words, more of the 60% of the `withdrawal' cases. We believe that this phenomenon is related to the inherent in¯uence of Chinese culture and traditional values,10 especially in these types of con¯ict. The Chinese engineers or managers tend to prefer to avoid interpersonal con¯ict in the belief that maintaining the personal `guan-xi' or relationship and `being a friend rather than an opponent' are necessary for sustaining goodwill and ensuring future co-operation or collaboration. However, the case data in Table 1 have shown that none of the reported con¯ict issues including the interpersonal ones, could be satisfactorily resolved by this approach. In other words, there was no reported `positive' consequence in all of the 13 cases where the `withdrawal' approach was adopted! The third choice was the `forcing' mode. Ten out of the 63 cases had used it. The data in Table 1 show that more engineers/managers used this technique to handle intergroup con¯ict. Table 2 shows that the `forcing' mode was more likely to be used to resolve issues related to resource allocation and managerial and administration procedures. This perhaps is related to the unique organisational culture in Hong Kong that there is still a large proportion of ®rms being owned and run by members belonging to the same families or clans.23 In such organisations, autocracy in decision making and con¯ict resolution is still very much the norm. However, as in the cases which used the `withdrawal' approach, none of the 10 cases where the `for398
cing' mode was used were said to have been resolved satisfactorily. Most of the case authors reported that personnel in the cases disliked being forced to do a particular job and their working morale was adversely aected. They observed that gradually a barrier between the con¯icting parties would tend to build up. The `smoothing' and `compromising' modes were the least preferred, being used in only 5 out of the 63 cases each. Of these 10 cases, 7 were concerned with resolving intergroup and inter-organisational con¯icts. Unpopular though they were, 3 out of these 10 cases were reported to have been resolved with some positive consequences. Sources of con¯ict The last column of Table 2 shows that dispute over `managerial and administration procedures' has been identi®ed as the major source of con¯ict. Over 22% or 14 of the 63 con¯ict cases were said to be due to some disputes or disagreements in procedural matters. And 7 of these 14 cases were resolved by `confrontation' mode and two by `forcing' mode. In 3 cases, one party simply `withdrew' from the disputes. `Resource allocation' and `personality and interpersonal relations' ranked equal second, each with 10 out of the 63 cases. The former were predominantly intergroup con¯icts (9 out of the 10 cases) and was resolved mainly by the direct `confrontation' approach (6 out of the 10 cases); but half of the latter were said to be interpersonal con¯icts, and understandably, all were `resolved' by one party `withdrawing' from the scene. `Communication', `technical opinion', `scheduling' and `goal or priority de®nition' were the next 4 more common sources of con¯ict, causing problems in 7, 6, 5 and 4 cases, respectively. In 6 out of the 7 `communication' disputes, and 3 out of 5 of the `scheduling' disagreements were resolved by direct `confrontation'. There seems to be a even spread of resolution modes by which the `technical' and `goal or priority' con¯icts were resolved. The remaining 6 of Kezsbom's list of 13 con¯ict sources were less frequent causes of con¯ict in this sample of 63 cases. Surprisingly, none was in fact said to have been caused by `reward structure/performance appraisal' disputes or `politics'! Some possible explanations and reasons for the observed pattern of con¯ict resolution have been discussed in the previous section. We hypothesize that these same factors are equally at play in shaping the pattern of con¯ict sources noted here. Extracted information from the 63 cases helps us to paint a trend not previously noted. A proper correlation between the in¯uencing factors and the observed phenomenon or consequence in Hong Kong industries' con¯ict management practices would require a series of further, more structured studies.
Conclusions This study has found some empirical evidence from collected case incidents that the in¯uence of Chinese culture and traditional values on Hong Kong engineers/managers' perception of con¯ict, and their choice of resolution methods is diminishing. The information extracted from the 63 case incidents signi®es a trend
Con¯ict management styles in Hong Kong industries: C C Cheung and K B Chuah
that the Chinese engineers and managers in Hong Kong today prefer to use the `confrontation' mode in their handling of con¯icts instead of the `compromising' and `withdrawing/avoiding' approaches as reported in the past. It seems that the cultural and ethnic background is no longer a predominant factor in determining the con¯ict management style in Hong Kong. We believe that the change is related to the increasing use of Western management philosophy and paradigm and, in particular, the common adoption of matrix organisation structure. In the light of this changing trend, further research is being carried out by the authors to develop a practical framework and methodology for con¯ict management practices for selected industrial environment. We foresee that Hong Kong management practice will continue to be oriented towards Western management philosophy and paradigm while still retaining some of the Chinese culture and values even after its return to Chinese sovereignty in July 1997. The Chinese leaders in Beijing have repeatedly emphasized that the `One Country, Two Systems' concept is here to ensure Hong Kong does not become another Chinese city, at least in the next 50 years!
References 1. Kezsbom, D. S., Re-opening Pandora's box: sources of project con¯ict in the `90s. Industrial Engineering (USA), 1992, May, 54±59. 2. Ranney, J. and Deck, M., Making teams work: lessons from the leaders in new product development. Planning Review, 1995, 23(4), 6±12. 3. Tjosvold, D., The Con¯ict Positive Organization: Stimulate Diversity and Create Unity. Addison Wesley, 1991. 4. Deutsch, M., Constructive con¯ict resolution: principles, training and research. Journal of Social Issues, 1994, 50(1), 13±32. 5. Thamhain, H. J. and Wilemon, D. L., The eective management of con¯ict in project±oriented work environments. Defence Management Journal, 1975, 11(3), 29±40. 6. Rahim, M. A., Managing Con¯ict in Organizations. Praeger Publishers, New York, 1986. 7. Gupta, A. K. and Wilemon, D., The Credibility±co-operation connection at the R&D±marketing interface. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1988, 5, 20±31. 8. Amason, A. C., Distinguishing the eects of functional and dysfunctional con¯ict on strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams. The Academy of Management Journal, 1996, 39(1), 123±148. 9. The World Competitiveness Yearbook 1996. Institute for Management Development, (1996). 10. Tang, S. F. Y. and Kirkbride, P. S., The Development of Con¯ict Handling Skills in Hong Kong: some cross-cultural issues. Working Paper No. 7, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 1986. 11. Tsang, C. H. Y., An Exploratory Research on Con¯ict Management Styles of Chinese and Western Managers in Hong Kong. Undergraduate Final-year Project Report, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 1993. 12. Chuah, K. B., Tummala, V. M. R. and Nkasu, M. M., Project management structures in Hong Kong industries. International Journal of Project Management, 1995, 13(4), 253±257. 13. Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S., The Managerial Grid. Gulf Publishing, Houston, Texas, 1964. 14. Burke, R. J., Methods of resolving interpersonal con¯ict. Personnel Administration, 1969, July±August, 48±55. 15. Thamhain, H. J. and Wilemon, D. L., Diagnosing con¯ict determinants in project management. Transactions on Engineering Management, 1975, EM-22(1), 35±44. 16. Thamhain, H. J. and Wilemon, D. L., Con¯ict management in project life-cycle. Sloan Management Review, 1975, 16(3), 31± 49.
17. Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsh, J. W., Organization and Environment: Managing Dierentiation and Integration. Harvard Business School, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1976. 18. Amason, A. C., Thompson, K. R., Hochwarter, W. A. and Harrison, A. W., An important dimension in successful management teams. Organisational Dynamics, 1995, 24, 20±35. 19. Weber, M., The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation (A. M. Henderson and T. Persons, translated from German). Oxford University Press, New York, 1947. 20. Fayol, H., General and Industrial Management. Routledge, London, 1949. 21. Kezsbom, D. S., Schilling, D. L. and Edward, K. A., Dynamic Project Management: a Practical Guide for Managers and Engineers. Wiley Interscience Publication, 1989. 22. The Economist, A Billion Consumers. A Survey of Asia. October 30, 1993. 23. Berger, S. and Lester, R. K., Made By Hong Kong. Oxford University Press, Hong Kong, 1997. 24. Ginn, M. E. and Rubenstein, A. H., The R&D/production interface: a case study of new product commercialization. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1986, 3, 158±170. 25. Powers, T. L., Sterling, J. U. and Wolter, J. F., Marketing and manufacturing con¯ict: sources and resolution. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 1988, First quarter, 56±60. 26. Crittenden, V. L., Gardiner, L. R. and Stam, A., Reducing con¯ict between marketing and manufacturing. Industrial Marketing Management, 1993, 22, 299±309. 27. Gerwin, D., Integrating manufacturing into the strategic phases of new product development. California Management Review, 1993, 35(4), 123±136. 28. Lau, W. K., Con¯icts and Con¯ict ResolutionÐA Study of HK Engineers and Engineering Managers' Personal Experience. BEng Manufacturing Engineering Project Report, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 1997. Mr C. C. CHEUNG is an MPhil research student in the Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong. He has a Mechanical Engineering degree from the University of Hong Kong. After completing a formal period of professional training in 1992, in Outboard Marine Corp. (Asia), he continued to work for the company until 1996 as a project engineer dealing with the development of new four-stroke outboard motors. He became a corporate member of IMechE and a Chartered Engineer in 1996 and later a corporate member of the Hong Kong Institute of Engineers in 1997. His MPhil research is in con¯ict and con¯ict management in Hong Kong manufacturing industry. Dr K. B. CHUAH is an Associate Professor in the Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Engineering Management, CityU of Hong Kong. He teaches metrology, project/technology management and CIM systems development and implementation. He has a Mechanical Engineering degree and his PhD was awarded for his work on a US Navy sponsored project on Roughness and Hydrodynamic Drag. He obtained his DMS while working as a Senior Research Co-ordinator managing a multidisciplinary CIM Research Team at Teesside Polytechnic, UK. He joined CityU in 1990 and is now a core faculty member of both the BEng Manufacturing Engineering and MSc Engineering Management programmes. His current research areas are: CAPM and CIM systems implementation and organization restructure, project management practices in Hong Kong and China, con¯ict management, 3D surface mapping and characterization and knowledge-based project risk management.
399