Search

Introduction

Construction industry is gaining its importance all over the world. It has a very crucial role in the overall development of economy. It is a part of Infrastructure sector of an economy. Therefore it is quite important that BGC PTY Ltd. takes care of all the aspects before investing in major projects. The current assignment report will have a discussion on BGC PTY Ltd. And High health PTY Ltd. Both companies came under a joint venture to carry a project of Public Hospital (Berger and Meng eds., 2014). There were various issues and conflict that has arisen in the execution of the project. The report will throw light on the causes of such conflicts, and how both the companies have arrived to a point of mutual consent for completing the ultimate project in an effective as well as efficient manner. The role of various macro and micro factors also can not be undermined while framing any policies for the construction company as it is the most important sector of economy and is a part of Infrastructure of economy.

Main Body 

1. Causes of Conflict in the Case and Various Types of Conflicts  

The two companies have decided to do a joint venture for the purpose of executing a Construction Project of Hospital in an efficient manner. But after a certain period of time both the companies BGC PTY Ltd. And High Health PTY Ltd. Started having issues in their workings and therefore it was essential that such conflicts should be resolved at the earliest, so that a public project of this importance can become a reality and will eventually help Citizens and general Public of Australia.

The Causes of Conflict

BGC PTY Ltd. And HH PTY Ltd. Were responsible to execute the construction of a public hospital. The initial phases of the project was completed easily, but after certain point of time, when the necessary equipment were needed to be installed within the Hospital, The task was Given to BGC PTY Ltd. Equipments has to be procured from GPA (Government Procurement Agency), Documents has to be submitted by this agency in proper form for the purpose of getting equipments on time. HH PTY Ltd. Made the necessary arrangements of documents and sent it to BGC PTY Ltd. , But soon the issues started to arise, when GPA denied to give equipments, on the Ground that the documents were not proper and completed (Cope, Kempster and Parry, 2011). This lead to a conflict among the Two companies as BGC was asking to provide full documents in proper form for the purpose of getting equipments on time and HH PTY Ltd. Claimed that it has provided all the necessary document and the job of getting equipments rest with BGC (Uhl-Bien and et.al., 2014).

The primary causes for such conflict was that both the companies were not ready to accept each other's mistakes and were running away from responsibility to complete the project on time. This can be termed as the primary cause of conflict in the case because, it can be seen that things started to become difficult after the issue of procurement of necessary equipments from GPA and this has to be resolved in a proper manner as soon as possible.

Types of Conflict

Conflicts are categorised into different types and therefore, it can be approached in a different manner in different situations. The different types of conflicts and approaches to resolve them can be explained in detail as follows :

  • Competing(Win-Lose): This kind of approach is used by people who have the determination regrading their decisions and they believe in what they want. Such kind of approach is basically used by people who are sitting at a higher position or authority who will be having higher strength as well as expertise (Thorpe, Gold and Lawler, 2011). It is highly useful for situations of Emergency and when an immediate decisions needs to be made. This kind of style demonstrate assertiveness and offer almost no Cooperativeness. In these kind of style the The person would either want a win situation or Lose Situation.
  • Accommodating(Lose-Lose): These types of people are reasonable in their decision making and do not show much assertiveness or firmness. They are ready to co-operate on  certain situations and will not hesitate in giving away some of the favourable part to opposition (Eacott, 2015). Managers use this kind of style when they want to act as a peace maker, and there are willing to yield wherever possible. Creation of the goodwill is the ultimate aim. But such managers appears to be weak and indecisive in their workings, hence a improvement can be expected from them.
  • Avoiding(Win-Lose): When certain managers do not want to face the conflict, they will avoid it. The manager's own concerns is not taken care of in this approach and this will lead to an unresolved conflict. It can be useful in certain threatening situations. Such approach shall not be overused.  
  • Collaborating(Win-Win): Under this, The manager would work with another individual or person to develop a Win-Win situation for both the parties. Under the current case, This Approach is not used by any of the manager as they both were reluctant to arrive at any conclusion or result. This kind of style or approach can be helpful when, the situation  is not urgent, An important decision has to be made, involvement of large number of people in the conflict etc.
  • Compromising(Yield-Lose): Under this approach each side will compromise a bit for contributing in Conflict Resolution. The ultimate aim is to resolve the conflict and to get rid of the problem. Instead of fighting an Ego battle ( Griffin, 2013). This approach is appropriate when  a particular decision has to be made at the earliest and no delay can be made in the same, Powers between the two parties who are involved usually is equal. It can be said therefore that managing directors of both the company were using this approach in the end to end the conflict as soon as possible because the project has to be completed in the given time frame.  

2. Various Phases of the Conflict and Members who were involved in the conflict

The conflict between the two companies has arisen and it has taken a big size soon after when it arise. The members who were involved within the conflicts have also been increasing during the whole tenure and it has further worsen off the conflict (Sullivan, Williams and Jeffares, 2012). A detail explanation about the various phases of the conflict and people involved in that are as follows :

PHASES

Project Team Members

Escalation/ De-escalation

Explanation

Phase 1

Construction Manager(BGC) and Technical Manager (High Health)

Escalation: Both the companies and their respective managers thought they were right at their point and asked others to solve the problem as soon as possible. But nothing happened from any from and this has worsen off the conflict and it Escalated from the situation which was there.

The construction manager of BGC was of the view that the documents provided by  him to Government Procurement Agency was enough fro his side, but the problem was from the side of High health as their Technical manager is unable to provide right kind of documents to the BGC and He should have validated the Same with GPA before sending it to Construction manager of BGC.

Phase 2

Construction Directors of Both the companies.

Escalation: Up till now the construction directors of both the companies were involved and were having necessary conversation with each other from time to time, but have not been able to arrive at a decision. The construction director of BGC was not satisfied with his meeting with the construction director of HHH and this has further fuels the conflict.

The construction director of HH said that even if HH would have estimated the price of equipments, this price may turn out be higher than the GPA data book. He also said that there were no as such acceptable standards for estimating the price of equipments other then what is laid in the GPA data book. But the same explanation is not able to satisfy the construction director of BGC and this has lead to an further increase in the conflict (Kaynak and Darling, 2013). BGC wanted to buy Equipments directly from manufacturer rather than from GPA and from the point of view of HH, this was not good for the health of Project as this will unnecessarily increase the overall cost and time of Project.  

Phase 3

Managing Directors of Both Companies

De-escalation: When the issue reaches to the Managing director of both the companies, The director of BGC decided to  meet wit GPA authorities along with the director of HH, but he refused to meet saying it was the responsibility of managing director of BGC. But the directors than took decision based on their experience and hence, did not escalated the issue further and solved the situation by their own (Mavin and Grandy, 2012).  

The managing director of BGC asked the director of HH to have a meet together with GPA authority but the same proposal was categorically denied by the manager of HH. He said that it was  not good to meet the authorities informally like this but a formal letter can be sent to them asking the validity of the documents. The director of HH then sent the same documents without any further changes to BGC and managing director of BGC then sent the same to GPA authorities after the delay of two weeks.

3. Various Peoples in the case and their Conflict Resolution Approaches

       PHASES

      PEOPLES

    APPROACH

   EXPLANATION

1

(1).Construction Manager (BGC)

(2).Technical Manager (HH)

The Approach used by the construct manager of BGC is Competing approach and the one used by Technical manager is Avoiding Approach.

The competing approach is a situation of win or lose. The construction Manager of BGC wanted to win the conflict by asking the manager of HH to provide them with updated documents which can be submitted to GPA. The manager of HH was firm and not ready to accept any mistakes of him. This has further worsen off the issue and conflict which takes it to the Phase Two.

2

(3).Construction Director (BGC)

(4).Construction Directors (HH)

The approach use by BGC is accommodating, and the approach used by HH is Avoiding (Nicholson and Carroll, 2013).

The manager of BGC wanted to reach to a conclusion or Resolution by meeting with the directors of HH but the avoidance approach from HH directors has lead the conflict to remain the same. The director of the HH does not wanted to face the problems and conflicts that were arising and continuously wanted to avoid the same. On the other Hand, the director of BGC always wanted to accommodate and come to a resolution by finding a mid way.

3

(5).Managing Director (BGC)

(6).Managing Director( HH)

Under this Phase, Both the companies and their Managers has used Compromising approach for the purpose of resolving the issues.

Managing directors of Both the companies has shown a level of maturity, though the manager of HH was still stiff with regards to his decision of not going to authorities with Manager of BGC but he has shown some efforts and advised genuinely to the director of other company to send the documents of procurement to the concerned authority as soon as possible.

From the above analysis of various situations, it can be assessed that at different phases of the case, there were different approaches that were adopted by the key six people of both the companies. Both of them were not ready to lose on their front and wanted to prove themselves Right. This has resulted in in a prolonged conflict and a delay in overall project. The project was quite big and important and such delay has damaged the reputation of both the companies.

4. Alternative approaches that can be used in different Scenarios

PHASES

APPROACHES

ALTERNATE APPROACH

EXPLANATION

1

Competing and Avoiding

Collaborative

If the managers of both the companies would have chosen Collaborative approach, then their ultimate aim would be to  make sure that conflict is resolves at the earliest and it will be a win win situation for both the party (Parris and Peachey, 2013). The manager of HH can create a mid way by giving an updated document to the concerned manager of BGC and then the issue could have been resolved at first Phase itself.  

2

Accommodating and Avoiding

Collaborative

Both the directors of companies have not been able to manage the Conflict and this has resulted in a prolonged conflict which affected the project as well as the reputation of company and people within it. If both the directors would have used collaborative or a win-win approach in handling the situation then, the issue might not have arisen later on and could have been resolved earlier only. They should have devised a plan so that ultimate benefit will be a win-win situation for all (Sarros, Cooper and Santora, 2011).

3

Compromising

Collaborative

If this approach will be selected by the Directors of both the companies, then a win-win situation can be arrived at by them. When the Director of BGC asked the director of HH to come with him and meet with GPA then in that particular situation, Director of HH can could have replied positively and would have ended the discussion as well as the conflict in the Third Phase itself.

Conclusion

It can be said from above discussion that construction industry is very crucial for growth and development of a Economy. It is thus quite clear that a business who is engaged in the sector of construction have to make sure that various aspects of managing and leading a construction business is fulfilled by the company. But while managing the business of construction, It is quite necessary that a partnership or a joint venture is managed properly. Because of the fact, that Construction projects are usually large and is concerned with public Utility, like Hospitals etc. There might arise certain Issues as well as conflicts, which shall be managed in a proper way by the management of company. The management can choose various approaches of different authors for the purpose of managing the conflicts within the workplace. Leadership is important in these sector as they have to lead various sections of the business like labours, subordinates, managers as well as directors.

References

  • Berger, B.K. and Meng, J. eds., 2014. Public relations leaders as sensemakers: A global study of leadership in public relations and communication management. Routledge.
  • Cope, J., Kempster, S. and Parry, K., 2011. Exploring distributed leadership in the small business context. International Journal of Management Reviews. 13(3). pp.270-285.
  • Eacott, S., 2015. Educational leadership relationally: A theory and methodology for educational leadership, management and administration. Springer.
  • Griffin, R.W., 2013. Fundamentals of management. Cengage Learning.
  • Kaynak, E. and Darling, J.R., 2013. International management leadership: The primary competitive advantage. Routledge.
  • Mavin, S. and Grandy, G., 2012. Doing gender well and differently in management. Gender in Management: An International Journal. 27(4). pp.218-231.
  • Nicholson, H. and Carroll, B., 2013. Identity undoing and power relations in leadership development. Human Relations. 66(9). pp.1225-1248.
  • Parris, D.L. and Peachey, J.W., 2013. A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of business ethics. 113(3). pp.377-393.
  • Sarros, J.C., Cooper, B.K. and Santora, J.C., 2011. Leadership vision, organizational culture, and support for innovation in not-for-profit and for-profit organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 32(3). pp.291-309.

app

Download App

Avail the Best Assignment Writing Services in Just One Tap!

Get the App Today!

iphone android
QRcode
× Due to the impact of COVID-19 outbreak on economy, we are dropping our prices by upto 50% to help you. You can also face slight delays in response time of call answering, chat support and email replies but no delays in assignment deliveries