A Conceptual Approach to Studying the
Organisational Culture of Construction Projects
Thayaparan Gajendran, (The University of Newcastle, Australia)
Graham Brewer, (The University of Newcastle, Australia)
Andrew Dainty, (Loughborough University, UK)
Goran Runeson, (University Technology of Sydney, Australia)
Abstract
Studying the culture of project organisations requires a robust theoretical framework, which
provides a platform for generating understanding. It is proposed that cultural analysis
frameworks are most effectively conceptualised from multiple philosophical and multimethodological positions. The goal of the present paper is to describe a cultural analysis
framework for studying construction project organisations, based on a synthesis of the
culture literature. Four key aspects underpinning organisational cultural frameworks are
explored: the paradigms used to conceptualise organisational culture, the methods by which
individuals represent and assess cultural dimensions, the cultural perspectives assumed by
the observer when defining and describing culture, and the managers’ orientation toward
culture in their organisations. The proposed framework comprises three synthesised cultural
philosophical positions: integration-technical, differentiation-practical and fragmentationemancipation. These philosophical positions span the polar extremes defining the cultural
paradigm continuum, which and when combined provide researchers and organisational
managers with a sound foundation from which to study the culture of project organisations.
Keywords: Culture, Cultural Analysis, Project Organisation, Integration, Fragmentation
Introduction
Attention to cultural issues in the construction industry, both in the form of permanent and
temporary project organisations, has gained significant momentum in recent times (Fellows
2010). Moreover, the increasing internationalisation of construction also warrants better
understanding of cross-national cultural practices (Tijhuis and Fellows 2012). Industry
reviews (e.g. Latham 1994; Egan 1998) have cited culture as an impediment to the
industry’s functioning and wellbeing. In the light of such reviews, researchers have focused
on studying issues perceived as being connected to culture with the view to improving
industry performance. However, the tendency to treat culture solely as a variable that can
be manipulated for improvement is not an amenable enough conceptualisation of culture to
shed meaningful insight into the ills of the construction industry (Green 2011).
The culture as a variable within an organisation or project, the ‘Functional’ paradigm, is
amenable to control and thereby could contribute to organisational performance. Evaluation
of selected literature reveals that the key motivation of cultural studies in construction was to
develop empirical understandings of the impact of culture upon different construction
industry issues, to assist with some form of performance improvement. Although
performance focus is critical for organisational development, studies focussing solely on
manipulation of culture for performance improvement will not develop adequate and
meaningful understanding of project organisations (Alvesson 2002).
One of the cultural research issues focused on since the nineties is managing the
adversarial attitudes arising out of procurement (Cheng et al. 2004; Walker et al. 2001) and
contractual (Phua & Rowlinson 2003) approaches to improve the landscape of the
construction industry. Impact of the differences in the cross-national cultures on construction
organisations (Pheng & Yuquan 2002; Ling, Ang & Lim 2007; Zou et al. 2007; Ankrah,
Proverbs, & Debrah 2009) is another key research issue that is focused on project
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
improvement. Cultural studies also centre on developing an understanding of professional
cultures (Ankrah & Langford 2005), including behaviour of professions (Liu & Fellows 2008)
and ethical disposition of professions (Liu, Fellows & Ng 2004).
Cultural issues associated to improved knowledge transfer in project organisations
(Brochner, Rosander & Waara 2004), topologies of corporate culture of construction firms
(Igo & Skitmore 2006) and motivational aspects in the construction workplace (Smithers &
Walker 2000; Hartmann 2006) have also been studied. In the same period, influence of
culture on ICT system implementation (Anumba et al. 2006) and construction safety (Root
2005; Nielsen 2007) was explored. Most of the above studies, although having mobilised
various methodological approaches, essentially seek to understand, or change, cultures
(Cheung et al 2011; Price & Chahal 2006) for improved performance of project
organisations; a position closely associated to the functional paradigm.
Despite the empirical contributions of these recent studies to the understanding of the
impact of culture in project organisations, it can be argued that use of a non-functional
approach (Adriaanse and Voordijk 2005; Rooke, Seymore & Fellows 2003, 2004) to study
culture, could provide an attentive lens.
Essentially, researchers assume a philosophical position(s), explicitly or implicitly, when
conducting cultural studies. Their position(s) will influence the choice of methodologies
employed to assess culture. As way of example, research that uses existing frameworks
such as Hofstede’s cross-cultural analysis framework (see Hofstede 2010) and Carmon and
Quinn’s competing values framework (2006), are grounded in functional paradigm. Although
proven popular, these frameworks are set in a pre-determined singular philosophical
position, offering limited flexibility for researchers wishing to combine multiple philosophical
positions. Moreover, Nakata (2009) suggests that it is time to look beyond Hofstede for
constructing alternative cultural frameworks for global marketing and management.
This paper offers a conceptual ‘cultural analysis’ framework that serves dual purposes in
analysing organisational cultures. Firstly, it simplifies and guides cultural studies of
organisations, providing a framework against which cultures can be defined, evaluated and
understood. Secondly, it assists in designing a suitable cultural assessment approach, from
multiple cultural philosophical positions, to study cultures in practice. It will be argued that a
more in-depth and comprehensive understanding of organisational cultures within
construction project organisations can be garnered from such a cultural analysis approach.
Cultural Assessment: a Background
Complicating this cultural framing is the fact that a single definition of culture does not exist,
and the characteristics of culture have not yet been consistently agreed upon. Despite this
lack of agreement, consistent efforts have been made in recent years to transcend the
intellectual debate through a broad conceptualisation of culture (e.g. Martin, Frost & O’Neill
2004) focusing on the underlying assumptions, beliefs and values (referred to as ‘cultural
manifestations’) of groups. These factors are transmitted as cultural meanings that guide the
way a group thinks, feels and acts. The culture of an organisation can then be characterised,
based on to what extent the ‘underlying beliefs’ are shared and other associated cultural
manifestations within a group and among groups (Schein 2004; Alvesson 1993a, 1993b,
2002). The level of harmony or ambiguity will be reflected in the environments in which the
group(s) operates.
Cultural analysis accommodates multiple philosophical positions, allowing researchers to
engage with culture by drawing on differing theoretical standpoints (Martin 2004). This paper
constructs such a synthesised cultural analysis framework by drawing from a number of
philosophical positions, an approach which assists in the investigation of cultures as part of
project organisations. Initially, two cultural paradigms, ‘functional’ and ‘non-functional’, are
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
2
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
discussed to explain the fundamental difference in the way culture is conceptualised in
organisational studies.
Various levels of cultural manifestation are identified, including their characteristics and how
they represent organisational culture, resulting in a number of definitions of culture being
presented. The discussion then leads to three cultural perspectives: integration,
differentiation and fragmentation, that conceptualise culture according to the ways in which
cultural manifestations are shared in organisations. The three cultural philosophical
orientations (a) technical (b) practical and (c) emancipatory, are introduced in order to
illustrate how each perspective tends to deal with culture. Finally, these three perspectives
and orientations are synthesised to form a cultural analysis framework, philosophical
positions that provides a unique and comprehensive approach to studying specific project
organisations.
Culture in Organisations: a Review of the Cultural Paradigms
The literature on organisational culture shows an enormous variation in the
conceptualisations, definitions and approaches of research, due to the influence from
various disciplines and schools of thought (Alvesson 2002; Martin, Frost & O’Neill 2004;
Rousseau 1990). Philosophical conceptualisations of culture are generally divided between;
(a) the concept of real, objective and functionalist ‘out there’ phenomena (Davis 1985; Deal
and Kennedy 1988; Denison & Mishra 1995; Ouchi 1981; Peters and Waterman 1982) and
(b) a non-functional paradigm for thinking about the social world or social reality in
organisations (Smircich 1983b, 1985; Smircich & Calas 1995; Morgan 1980; Alvesson 1987;
Denison 1996).
The difference in cultural research methodologies is underpinned by the expected outcomes
of cultural studies; that is, whether the outcomes are ‘context specific’ or ‘generalisable to
the population’. Generally, researchers who ascribe to quantitative research (e.g. statistical
inference, large sample sizes, reliability and validity measures) seek generalisable cultural
analysis outcomes. However, researchers who undertake qualitative research and context
specific analysis (e.g. ethnography) argue that the goal of cultural analysis is to provide an
interpretative frame within a cultural context (Martin 2004). These methodological divisions
are also reflected in conceptualisations of organisational culture. As indicated previously,
these concepts are divided into two polar categories—the functional and non-functional
view, as Smircich (1983a: 354) describes below:
Some researchers give high priority to the principles of prediction, generalisability,
causality, and control; while others are concerned by what appear to them to be more
fundamental issues of meaning and the process by which organisational life is
possible.
Arguably, combining these perspectives through a blend of both approaches offers a more
complete understanding. Although this raises issues around the commensurability of the
knowledge that they respectively generate, such a suggestion is broadly in line with wider
assertions as to the need to mobilise multiple perspectives in project management research
in the pursuit of ‘middle range’ theories (Söderlund 2004; Green and Schweber 2008).
Culture as a Variable vs. Root Metaphor: the Difference between Functional
Paradigm and non-Functional Paradigm
Viewing culture as a variable subject to conscious manipulation, provides a simplified and
functional approach to cultural understanding. From this perspective, it is possible to
manage culture and to link culture to organisational performance implying a causal
relationship. Researchers who embrace the ‘variable’ view of culture rely on a traditional
functionalist framing of social reality, approaching culture as one variable among many
others (communication, organisational structure, strategy, etc.) in an organisation. This
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
3
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
approach also asserts that organisational operations are embedded in cultural symbols (e.g.
rituals, values or norms) and that through the modification of member behaviours, changes
in organisational outcomes can be achieved. Therefore, studies of culture that adopt this
view propose that culture is linked to organisational performance. Moreover, positive virtues,
attitudes and behaviours are claimed to be useful in achieving corporate goals and these
relevant dynamics can, and should, be manipulated for corporate performance (Deal and
Kennedy 1988; Ouchi 1981).
In the functional view, instrumental reasons dominate the discussion of culture, with the
emphasis on economic growth, advancement of technology and the exploitation of nature
(Deal and Kennedy 1988; Ouchi 1981; Ouchi & Wilkins 1985; Wilkins 1983; Wilkins & Ouchi
1983; O’Reilly, Chatman & Cadwell 1991). According to Alvesson (2002), this has led to
research on corporate culture, which focuses on values that directly relate to the
organisation’s effectiveness and state of success. He argues against equating the ‘strong’
cultures, which are characterised as advantageous to firms, to those ‘valuable’ cultures that
foster ‘good’ performance in general (e.g. values supportive of excellence, team work,
profitability, honesty). The consequence of the functionalist approach is that culture is
reduced to those limited aspects that are perceived to influence organisational efficiency.
Researchers who avoid such notions of a causal link between culture and organisational
performance argue that this view is simplistic and seriously underestimates the theoretical
potential and value of culture (Alvesson 1993b, 2002; Meyerson 1991a, 1991b, 1994;
Meyerson & Martin 1987; Geertz 1975). They favour a non-functional approach to culture
whereby culture is ‘thickly’, or more comprehensively, described. Such ‘thick descriptions’ do
not merely attempt to explain human behaviour, but its context as well, such that the
behaviour becomes meaningful to an outsider. This notion of ‘thick descriptions’, originally
coined by Clifford Geertz to describe his ethnographic methodology (Geertz 1975), has
gained widespread recognition in the social sciences and beyond. In organisational studies,
this paradigm supports the study of the informal aspects of organisations—aspects that may
be obscured, paradoxical and contradictory. Thus, such descriptions offer radically differing
perceptions of culture and its consequences within organisations, as has been revealed
within a project context (de Bony 2010).
Contrary to the view that culture is something that an organisation can possess and
command, proponents of the ‘root metaphor’ view stress that the organisation is itself a
culture, or a collection of cultures. This philosophical position has its roots in anthropology
and sociology (Geertz 1975). The proponents of a ‘root metaphor’ approach argue that
cultures are organisations—whereby culture is a context in which social events, behaviours,
and institutions materialise. Smircich (1983a, p 348) describes this approach below:
Culture as a root metaphor promotes a view of organisations as expressive forms,
manifestations of human consciousness. Organisations are understood and analysed
not mainly in economic or material items, but in terms of their expressive, ideational,
and symbolic aspects.
According to this view, the social world is constructed by people and reproduced by the
networks of symbols and meanings that people share (Burrell & Morgan 1979). The root
metaphor conceptualisation of culture emphasises a more general understanding of, and
reflection upon, cultural settings. Advocates of the root metaphor approach oppose the view
that organisational effectiveness can be attained through direct cultural manipulation, as this
fails to address the negative features of peoples’ behaviour such as resistance to change.
Those who adopt this approach shun simplistic, objectivist, functionalist views of culture
which link culture to performance, preferring a practical/blended conceptualisation of culture.
Such a perspective has been mobilised in project management research with respect to
managing cultures (see Marrewijk 2007; Marrewijk et. al. 2008).
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
4
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
Cultural Manifestations
The two key paradigms of culture described above are also associated with certain cultural
manifestations and definitions. Manifestations are a critical component of the
conceptualisation of culture as they are the aspects that enable culture to be felt, observed
and deciphered. The literature suggests that culture can be assessed via different levels of
cultural manifestation (e.g. shallow to deep). The level of manifestation also impacts on the
ability to decipher and study culture. Marrewijik (2007) and Cheung, Wong and Wu (2011)
have discussed the use of cultural manifestations in relation to project management
research and emphasised the need for using appropriate manifestations to decipher culture.
Levels of Cultural Manifestations
Researchers hold varying views on the manifestations that represent culture. This has led to
the classification of cultural manifestations into a number of levels, each based on how
deeply and accurately they decipher cultures. Hofstede (1998a, p. 479) indicates that:
Culture is a characteristic of the organisation, not individuals, but it is manifested in
and measured from the verbal and/or non-verbal behaviour of individuals—aggregated
to the level of the organisational unit.
The cultural model in Figure 1(a), developed by Hofstede et al. (1990, 2001), identifies
symbols, rituals and heroes as manifestations. He believes that these manifestations are
exposed or brought to the surface by practices adopted by organisations. However, he
proposes ‘value’ as a deep manifestation of culture and uses it to decipher cultures
(Hofstede 1998a; Hofstede et al.1990). Schein (2004) identifies a number of attributes that
are used to describe culture. They include observed behavioural irregularities, group norms,
espoused values, shared meanings, root metaphors, formal rituals and celebrations.
However, Schein (1984, 2004) articulated all attributes into three levels of cultural
manifestations, namely ‘artefacts’, ‘espoused values and beliefs’, and ‘underlying
assumptions’. A model developed by Rousseau (1990), Figure 1(b), is consistent with
Schein’s model, but identifies two more layers of cultural manifestations, namely
‘behavioural norms’ and ‘patterns of behaviour’.
A: Adopted from Hofstede
et al. (1990, 2001)
B: Adopted from
Rousseau (1990)
Figures 1(a) & 1(b) Different layers of cultural manifestations
proposed by Hofstede et al. (1990) and Rousseau (1990)
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
5
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
It is believed that artefacts, such as patterns of behaviour and behavioural norms, are the
more visible parts of culture. Values (that is, espoused values) are generally reflected in the
goals and strategies of an organisation. The underlying assumptions/beliefs generally
represent unconscious or taken-for-granted perceptions or beliefs. Taken-for-granted
assumptions are powerful and deep-seated, and are thus more difficult to detect than
espoused values. Based on their philosophical position, researchers employ different
cultural manifestations to decipher culture.
Use of Cultural Manifestations in the Assessment of Culture
The most appropriate manifestations to use to decipher culture are highly contested within
the literature. Early popular cultural studies (Deal & Kennedy 1988; Peters & Waterman
1982; Ouchi 1981) focused on the outer layers of manifestations, such as artefacts and
patterns of behaviour, and linked culture to organisational performance. These studies
favour the ‘functional-variable’ paradigm of culture. Schein (1993, 2004) and Rousseau
(1990), however, have stressed the importance of in-depth understanding, labelling artefacts
as ‘superficial’. Indeed, Schein (1984, 1990, 2004) discourages the analysis of
organisational culture through the ‘visual artefacts’ of the constructed environment (e.g. the
architecture, technology, office layout, dress code, behaviour patterns, public
documentation, employee orientation and stories). Alvesson (2002) also agrees that
employing artefacts in cultural analysis can be misleading. For example, he suggests that
trying to understand organisational culture by studying the coffee breaks, dress code, and
meeting arrangements, may not give the best insight into culture. Both Schein (2004) and
Alvesson (2002) argue that the surface level cultural data are easy to obtain but difficult to
analyse and decipher. Although this level of analysis describes behavioural patterns, it does
not explain why a group behaves in a particular way.
To explain why the artefacts and patterns of behaviour have certain characteristics, studies
need to analyse the underlying assumptions/beliefs and values. Therefore, it is suggested
that a study of culture should focus on the underlying, or ‘taken-for-granted’ assumptions
and orientations, rather than the customary behaviour of a group of people. Understanding
the underlying assumptions will enable identification of the reasons for conflict, ambiguity
and self-contradiction in organisations and groups (Meyerson & Martin 1987; Alvesson
1993b). Extracting deep and inner layers of manifestations generally involves ethnographic
methodologies and interviews with key members of an organisation (Morse & Richards
2002; Schein 1993).
Cultural Perspectives and Orientations
In addition to manifestations of culture, there is also a range of cultural perspectives that
emerge from the paradigms of culture. The cultural definitions can be clustered into three
cultural perspectives integration, differentiation, and fragmentation as proposed by Martin
(1992, 2002, 2004) that span the two extreme intellectual cultural paradigms. The three
perspectives act to distinguish cultures based on how cultural manifestations are shared
among the unit/organisation (the ‘shared nature of culture’). The cultural definitions, by
associating cultural perspectives, also differ based on their view of how cultural
manifestations should be, or are, shared within a cultural unit (Martin 2004).
In revealing organisational cultures, it is important to give attention to the role of the cultural
perspectives as they provide an account of the mind-set or belief influencing different forms
of cultural studies. The kind of cultural understanding developing in the project management
domain is deeply rooted in the way the cultural studies are designed; essentially, which of
the above perspectives is adopted by the researchers. The key aspects that distinguish the
three cultural perspectives are; how culture is shared, how boundaries are conceived, and
how ambiguity is associated in organisations.
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
6
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
In addition to the perspectives, culture literature also discusses three types of cultural
orientation to demonstrate approaches; technical, practical and emancipation, that
organisations employ to intervene with culture. These three cultural orientations distinguish
intervention approaches e.g. ‘control’ to manipulate culture or ‘emancipate’ to transform
cultures based on the assumptions of how cultural manifestations should be shared among
the unit/organisation (Alvesson 2002). Shifting from technical and practical, to emancipation
orientations also relates to a move from ‘culture is controllable/pro-management of culture’
to ‘culture is not controllable/anti-management of culture’ (Alvesson and Willmott, 1992).
A Philosophical Framework for Cultural Analysis
Based on the above discussion, it is clear that the most effective cultural analyses attempt to
decipher culture from deeper manifestations and assess whether they are consistent
(shared) or inconsistent (not shared) with other cultural manifestations in organisations.
Project organisational culture can be comprehensively described as follows:
Culture is a set of deeply held beliefs or underlying assumptions possessed by the
individuals that make up groups in organisations, which provide a means to
understand the values, behaviours and artefacts exhibited by the group. The
underlying cultural beliefs that manifest themselves in groups in an organisation may
be in harmony (shared) or in conflict (unshared), sometimes displaying apparent
ambiguity, paradox or contradiction. The level of harmony or ambiguity among beliefs,
values, behaviours and artefacts will impact upon the emergent culture and shapes
organisational environments in which the group operates.
In support of the above cultural description, a cultural analysis framework, developed as part
of a synthesized outcome of this review, identifies three philosophical positions in relation to
conceptualising, interpreting and managing culture.
Overview of the Conceptual Framework for Cultural Analysis
The framework presented in Table 1 presents three philosophical positions from cultural
studies: integration-technical, differentiation-practical and fragmentation-emancipatory. In
essence, two philosophical paradigms proposed by Smircich (1983a) are aligned to Martin’s
three cultural perspectives to provide a platform on which to build a cultural analysis
framework. Three cultural perspectives, namely Integration, Differentiation, and
Fragmentation are used to explain how culture is conceptualised and how cultural
environments are described. The alignment of Smircich’s paradigms with Martin’s concept of
cultural perspectives will assist in interpreting cultural environments and the outcomes of
cultural analysis.
Martin (1992, 2002)
Cultural Perspective
Integration
Culture shared across
entire unit
Differentiation
Culture shared by
parts of the unit
Fragmentation
Culture may or may
not be shared
Smircich (1983a)
Cultural Paradigm
Culture as variable
(Functional
Culture as a root
metaphor
(Non-functional)
Willmott (1997)
Knights & Willmott
(1987)
Alvesson (2002)
Hofstede (1998a)
Schein (2004, 1993)
Rousseau (1990)
Cultural Orientation
Cultural Manifestations
Technical
Removal of formal
irrationality
Practical
Removal of
misunderstanding
Emancipatory
Removal of socially
unnecessary suffering
Artefacts (Symbols,
rituals, heroes)
Patterns of Behaviour
Behavioural Norms
Espoused Values
Underlying Assumptions/
Beliefs
Table 1 Cultural analysis of organisations: a synthesis and research framework
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
7
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
In Table 1, three types of cultural orientations outlined by Willmott (1997) and Alvesson
(2002) are aligned with Martin’s (2002, 2004) three perspectives of culture The three cultural
orientations, namely Technical, Practical, and Emancipatory are used to explain how to
manage or make meaning of cultural environments. The first orientation relates to the
functional/variable paradigm while the last relates to the non-functional/metaphorical
paradigm. Along with these cultural positions, differences also emerge in the manifestations
used to decipher culture and the ontological/methodological approach taken to assess
culture of project organisations (Hofstede 1998a; Schein 1993, 2004; Rousseau 1990).
Perspective/
Attributes
Relationship to
manifestation
Degree of
consensus
Orientation to
ambiguity
Perspectives/
Attributes
Orientation/
Attributes
Focus
Integration
Differentiation
Fragmentation
Consistency exists among
cultural manifestations. Various
levels in the hierarchy display
similar viewpoints. Culture is
monolith, integrated and
homogeneous
Organisation wide consensus on
issues among all members of
the organisation.
Consistency and inconsistency
among cultural manifestations
exists at different levels. This
promotes differentiation and
diversity at group and individual
level.
Consensus exists within
subcultures but not between
them.
Lack of clarity of consistency
or inconsistency among
cultural manifestations.
Culture as shared across the
organisation
Culture as shared within
groups but not across an
organisation
Channels ambiguity to outside
subculture. Culture is often
emphasised by disagreements.
Excludes ambiguity. Culture is
defined in a way that denies
ambiguity. It assumes that
culture is about agreements
because values are shared.
Integration
Technical
Practical
Process
The emergence/ management of
culture is influenced by a
‘Calculation’ process that
enhances prediction and control
The focus is to generate and
interpret symbolic
communication to assist cultural
understanding
The emergence/ management of
culture is influenced by an
‘Appreciation’ process that
improve mutual understanding
Outcome
The outcome of this orientation
is the removal of formal
irrationality in organisations
The outcome of this orientation
is the removal of
misunderstanding
Orientation/
Attributes
The focus is to identify and
manipulate cultural variables to
generate the intended culture.
Differentiation
Technical
Practical
Issue-specific consensus
and confusion among
individuals. Overall lack of
consensus.
Culture unshared in the
organisation
Acknowledges ambiguity.
Ambiguity is accepted as
inevitable and continues. It
is part of the usual way of
doing business.
Fragmentation
Emancipatory
The focus is to expose
domination and exploitation
aspects of a culture
The emergence/
management of culture is
influenced by a
‘Transformation’ process
that develops more rational
social relations
The outcome of this
orientation is the removal of
socially unnecessary
suffering
Emancipatory
Figure 2 Three philosophical positions on culture: A snapshot
(Martin 1992, 2002; Willmott 1997; Alvesson 2002)
The cultural analysis framework presented in this study linking the three cultural
perspectives (Martin 2002) to manifestations (Denison 1996; Hofstede et al. 1990; Schein
1990) and to paradigms (Alvesson 2002; Smircich 1983a) provides a comprehensive basis
to analyse culture. This framework can be employed to study a cultural situation whereby the
cultural environment is conceptualised through harmony (integration), conflict between
groups (differentiation) and webs of ambiguity, paradox, and contradiction (fragmentation).
Conceptual blind spots in each of these perspectives on culture (for example, the integration
view is blind to ambiguities, and the fragmentation and differentiation views are blind to that
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
8
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
which most cultural members share) are dealt with when a study is approached with a
combination of all three perspectives (Martin 2002). Figure 2 (an elaboration of Table 1)
summarises the essence of the cultural descriptions attributed to the three cultural
perspectives, while linking them to cultural orientations. The following discussion compares
and contrasts the alternative philosophical positions and synthesises a cultural analysis
framework.
The above conceptualisation of culture can also assist in designing the empirical component
of a study. This can assist in developing research instruments (e.g. survey questions,
observations, and interview) by identifying the boundaries of theoretical constructs and the
sample selection by identifying the members and physical scope of the units of analysis.
Moreover, these conceptualisations can assist in identifying the appropriate blend of
methods to study the relevant constructs.
This framework could enable researchers to contextualise their research direction and
practicing managers to contextualise the proposed solutions to problems. It is argued that all
three philosophical positions identified in the framework play a role in finding practicable
solutions to construction industry problems (see Gajendran and Brewer 2007). The following
section characteristics of project organisations as a base to discuss the application of the
cultural analysis framework to study culture in construction.
The Integration-Technical Philosophical Position
Although studies in construction culture have not argued for an explicit unitary project
culture, they do seek to develop and extend shared culture by the way of focusing on
integration within organisations. Researchers have assumed this position in an attempt to
remove irrationalities in the construction process and seek improved project outcomes. Both
in construction (e.g. Baiden, Price & Dainty 2006; Dainty, Briscoe & Millett 2001a; London
2008; Winch 1989, 2001; Winch, Ushani & Edkins 1998) and mainstream literature (e.g.
Berggren, Soderlund & Anderson 2001), there is a focus on the need for greater integration
across project organisations to deal with fragmentation. These studies generally focus on
coordination and monitoring of the diverse groups of participants and their operations in a
construction project, proposing systems to monitor the progress made towards the
achievement of the stakeholders’ goals. Moreover, they suggest that shared expertise is a
key characteristic of an integrated team, promoting free sharing of information among
different units and developing the ability to predict project time and costs accurately.
Therefore, integration-technical position is assumed in studies that focus on fragmentation
within teams, firms and across project supply chains, in order to promote aligned and
improved project outcomes.
Integration Perspective
The ‘integration’ perspective belongs to the functional paradigm. It seeks to understand the
shared cultural manifestations in an organisation that hold it together, i.e. the ‘glue’ that
holds different and diverse groups together in an organisation (Alvesson 2002). Therefore,
‘Integrated’ perspectives favour definitions of culture that view cultural manifestations as
shared across an organisation/unit in its entirety, where ambiguity is non-existent or ignored.
From this perspective, culture is considered as something that is shared by, or is unique to,
a given group or organisation. The opposing ‘fragmentation’ perspective, belonging to the
non-functional paradigm, argues that organisations, by nature, are paradoxical, hindering
development of a unitary shared culture. It assumes that organisations cannot exist without
ambiguity and that any ambiguity should not be ignored.
In many studies that support an integration view, culture is associated with peoples’
customary behaviour and their habitual ways of seeing the world (Wilkins 1983; Schein
2004). In this way, Schein (2004, p. 17) characterises culture as
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
9
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
a pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its
problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough
to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way
to perceive, think, and feel in relating to those problems.
Schein (1984, 1993, 2004) further suggests that groups learn culture by forming ‘shared
assumptions’; they solve problems through interpreting and acting upon the environment
while integrating internal operations. In a similar vein, Wilkins (1983, p. 26) proposes
culture primarily as the ‘givens’ or the taken-for-granted and shared assumptions that
people make about how work is to be done and evaluated and how people relate to
one another (…) the way we see the world is applied unthinkingly as the underlying
assumptions develop, and most others in the organization or the unit also apply it in
the same manner - so it does not get challenged.
Davis (1984, p.1) further argues culture is ‘the pattern of shared beliefs and values that give
members of an institution meaning, and provide them with the rules for behaviour in their
organization.’
In essence, any idealistic organisational integration studies will be rooted in the belief that a
project organisation should develop a shared understanding aiming for a unitary culture,
implying that the lack of such shared understanding is a problem. It is argued that supporting
integration in organisations, through modifying rules of behaviour will deliver strong cultures
that enhance organisational profitability (Kotter & Heskett 1992; Peters & Waterman 1982;
Denison & Mishra 1995; Latham 1994; Egan 1998). Although the integration perspective, in
terms of a unitary culture, is not widely endorsed by cultural researchers, using tools to
manage cultures for enhanced performance is popular.
Culture–Performance Link
Most of the proponents of the integration perspective propose that culture can be used as a
‘tool’ to improve the performance of an organisation. Some argue that many of these studies
use outer layers of cultural manifestations (refer Figure 1) to interpret culture (Simircich
1983, Alvesson 2002). For example, Deal and Kennedy (1988) focus on interpreting the
shared espoused values of top management (e.g. mission statements) and Ouchi (1981)
focuses on studying the shared formal or informal practices such as communication or
decision-making. Popular literature on organisational culture in the 1980s generally
subscribes to this integration perspective, relating ostensible artefacts, symbols and stories
to the generation of organisation-wide consensus of cultures and values (Barley 1983;
Schein 1984; Martin 2004; Schein 2004). Significant proportions of cultural studies relating
to project organisations also make culture-performance links (see Cheung, Wong and Wu
2011; Ankrah, Proverbs and Debrah 2009; Andersen 2003; Zhang and Liu 2006; Baiden and
Price 2011).
The unconscious attraction to adopt the ‘integration’ perspective in project cultural studies
resonates from the argument for more integrated projects, which is closely associated to
achievement of performance gains. Moreover, the position that culture is controllable and
can be manipulated for performance gains, conforms to the popular view and offers the
appeal of tangible outcomes from cultural studies.
Some Critiques of Integration Perspective
In synthesis, the integration perspective may employ varying ‘cultural manifestations’ to
decipher culture. However, its essence is in the consistency of cultural manifestation and the
consensus about basic beliefs among the members of the group. There is also a tendency to
focus on the leaders of the group as the creators and interpreters of the group’s culture
(Schein 1983; Meyerson & Martin, 1987). Alvesson (2002) argues that the integration
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
10
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
perspective has a bias towards the positive functions of culture, that culture is controllable
and has causal links to organisational performance.
The image of organisations presented in an integration perspective (an image of
organisation-wide harmony and homogeneity) is difficult to sustain, given the prevalence of
real-life paradoxes, inconsistencies, disruptions, conflicts and ambiguities in contemporary
organisations (Martin 2004; Meyerson 1991 a & b). Indeed, one of the key criticisms of this
perspective is the linear approach it takes to framing culture; including an over-reliance on
symbols as functional elements of the organisation and the use of moral judgement to
identify ‘good’ and ‘bad’ cultures (Alvesson 2002). The integration perspective views any
deviation from the ideal culture as a problem, which needs to be fixed. It is argued that
inconsistencies (or subcultures) exist due to poor communication and, therefore, all that is
required to remedy the lack of integration is a clear, shared understanding of the
organisation’s vision/mission, careful supervision and a better performance measurement
regime.
The critiques of integration are overshadowed by the ‘fragmentation perceptive’ that evades
moral judgements on culture and acknowledges paradoxes and ambiguity as an integral part
of organisations. Of course, not all integration studies deny deviation from the unitary culture
(see Wilkins 1983; Schein 2004) and they take an intermediate position between integration
and fragmentation- the ‘differentiation’ perspective. Some cultural studies in project
management (e.g. Ankarah and Langford 2005) favour the ‘differentiation’ perspective by
focusing on sub cultures. Although they shy away from arguing for a unitary culture within an
entire organisation, they may assume unitary culture within each sub culture.
Technical Orientation to Culture
The intention of a technical orientation is to fulfil the role of rational instrument to enhance
prediction and control of functions in an organisation. This orientation focuses on the
identification and manipulation of variables that are perceived to impact on an organisation’s
performance (Martin 2002; Alvesson 2002; Willmott 1997). Therefore, most of the
‘technically-oriented’ literature on culture is optimistic, believing that managers can control
the values of their subordinates to achieve effective behaviour—viewing culture as a
resource for effective managerial action. For example, Ouchi and Wilkins (1985, p. 462)
observed that organisations use the integrated notion of culture as a rational instrument to
solve problems. Therefore, culture is designed by senior management to profile the
employees to fit the organisation’s espoused values. Willmott (1997) states that the
‘technical’ cognitive orientation is based on ‘empirical-analytic science’, one that removes all
aspects of formal irrationality from organisations, denies ambiguity and seeks to develop
organisation-wide shared understanding. The expected outcome of ‘technically’ orientated
intervention is to create an integrated culture. Therefore, the technical orientation aligns with
the integration perspective. Although cultural studies in organisations do not explicitly
assume technical orientation, their approach to culture is influenced by removal of
irrationality (see Young and Pheng 2008; Wong, Wong and Heng 2007; Höök and Stehn
2008; Price and Chahal 2006).
Argument for the Integration-Technical Philosophical Position
Although studies in construction culture have not argued for an explicit unitary project
culture, they do seek to develop and extend shared culture by the way of focusing on
integration within organisations. Researchers have assumed this position in an attempt to
remove irrationalities in the construction process and seek improved project outcomes.
There is a focus on the need for greater integration across project organisations to deal with
fragmentation in both construction (e.g. Baiden, Price & Dainty 2006; Dainty, Briscoe &
Millett 2001a; London 2008; Winch 1989, 2001; Winch, Ushani & Edkins 1998) and
mainstream literature (e.g. Berggren, Soderlund & Anderson 2001). These studies generally
focus on coordination and monitoring of the diverse groups of participants and their
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
11
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
operations in a construction project, proposing systems to monitor the progress made
towards the achievement of the stakeholders’ goals. Moreover, they suggest that shared
expertise is a key characteristic of an integrated team, promoting free sharing of information
among different units and developing the ability to predict project time and costs accurately.
The Differentiation-Practical Philosophical Position
Differentiation Perspective
The differentiation perspective, unlike the integration perspective, accepts some level of
diversity (in shared assumptions, or consensus) in the member groups of an organisation.
That is, cultural manifestations are shared within sections of an organisation. Therefore, the
emerging cultural environment is ‘differentiated’- an intermediate philosophical position
between ‘integration’ and ‘fragmentation’ perspectives.
Consequently, ‘differentiated’ perspectives favour definitions in which cultural manifestations
are shared within parts of an organisation (e.g. departments, groups etc.) and are unitary
within those units/groups. In this perspective, ambiguity is acknowledged but confined to the
subgroups (e.g. Smircich 1983b; Denison 1996; Mills 1988; Schein 1996; Martin 2002). For
example, Denison (1996) suggests that values, beliefs and assumptions are the roots for the
deep structure of organisations. Meanings are established through socialisation that
produces a symbolic world. This leads to the stable or fragile nature of culture based on the
cognition and action of individuals. Mills (1988) supports this view and suggests culture in an
organisation is based on defined conditions, which could foster contradictions and conflict
among segments. Each segment, however, develops a shared understanding of the cultural
manifestations. Smircich, (1983b p.56) suggests culture is shared within a group based on
how they develop a worldview:
In a particular situation the set of meanings that evolves gives a group its own ethos,
or distinctive character, which is expressed in patterns of belief (ideology), activity
(norms and rituals), language and other symbolic forms through which organisation
members both create and sustain their view of the world and image of themselves in
the world. The development of a worldview, with its shared understanding of group
identity, purpose, and direction is a product of the unique history, personal
interactions, and environmental circumstances of the group.
The differentiation perspective also acknowledges cultural variations within an organisation
through growth or new ventures, and engagement with groups who are geographically
dispersed and technically/functionally varied. Therefore, as the age and size of the
organisation grows, or makes connections with outer entities, differentiation occurs (Gregory
1983). This view argues for the recognition of subcultures; however, it holds that subcultures
have unitary or consistent shared understanding. Schein (1990, p. 117) describes this
perspective as follows:
(…) once the group has many subcultures, its total culture increasingly becomes a
negotiated outcome of the interaction of its subgroups. Organisations then evolve
either by special efforts to impose their overall culture or by allowing dominant
subcultures that may be better adapted to changing environmental circumstances to
become more influential.
Clearly, it is difficult to establish whether this perspective falls directly under the functional or
non-functional paradigm, as research from both the integration (functional) and
fragmentation (non-functional) paradigms acknowledge aspects of the differentiation
paradigm, with some restrictions. The differentiation paradigm offers pragmatism pragmatic
position in enabling researches to position their study between the extreme ideological views
(that is ‘integration’ and ‘fragmentation’).
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
12
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
Boundaries and Subcultures in the Differentiation Perspective
The differentiation perspective promotes the view that organisations are generally composed
of a diverse set of subcultures that share some integrating elements of a dominant culture.
The mix of sub cultures will depend on the nature of the environment in which the
organisation operates and its internal composition (Martin, Sitkin, and Boehm, 1985). In this
view, an organisation is described as a collection of subcultures based on arbitrary
boundaries. These boundaries, from a cultural point of view, are not defined in legal or
formal terms but are based on identification, interaction and the development of shared
meaning and ideas (Alvesson 2002).
The commonly used boundaries in cultural studies are physical location (e.g. head office,
site, precast yard, etc.) and bodies (people are embodied with culture and they carry it)
(Santos & Eisenhardt 2005; Moore & Dainty 2001). Parker (2000) sees the origin of
subcultures in different sources: spatial/functional (geographical location of work function),
generational, (age and length of time in the organisation) and occupational/professional
training.
Hofstede (1998b), Schein (1993) and Jones (1983) identify a number of sub cultural
classifications. Schein (1996) characterises three types of subcultures, namely: operator,
engineer, and executive and discusses the tensions between them. Hofstede (1998) identify
three sub cultures, namely professional, administrative, customer interface, along the six
dimensions (Process vs. results, employee vs. job, parochial vs. professional, open vs.
closed, loose vs. tight, normative vs. pragmatic). The three subcultures discussed by Jones
(1983) include product, bureaucratic and professional. Kumaraswamy et al. (2002) identified
organisational, operational, professional and individualistic sub-cultures in the context of
construction project organisations (c.f. Ankrah, Proverbs and Debrah 2009).
According to Meyerson (1994) different professions generate distinct ideologies due to the
embodiment of different cognitive and symbolic systems producing different rules,
conventions and meanings. The ideologies and approaches of the different professional
subsystems come into contact when they work interdependently within organisations and as
the actions and interpretations of their members negotiate and create order. As behaviours,
interpretations, and justifications become adopted, they create an order that constitutes the
particulars of that subculture, which reconstitutes the institutional system in a particular time
and context. This explains the dynamic and complex sub-cultural taxonomies that emerge in
construction organisations.
Martin (2002) argues that some literature assumes that the boundaries of a collective
coincide with the boundaries of a culture. For example, an organisation’s culture is
coincident with the boundaries of that organisation. However, this view is considered to be
problematic as most collectivities may be holding boundary roles, temporary or virtual roles,
etc. In the context of a project, boundaries of architectural, engineering, quantity surveying
and contracting firms and their cultures may not provide a clear separation on how their
cultures engender the culture of a project organisation. The virtual communication does, to
some extent, express a culture without bodily contact between group members. Moreover,
temporary workers also violate traditional assumptions concerning subcultures in
organisations, displaying an ambivalent relationship to the project and the associated
organisation(s) (Usdiken, Soxen & Enbiyaoglu 1988). Evidently, the boundaries of cultures
and project organisations cannot be simply equated or clearly defined; boundaries need to
be viewed as dynamic and changing.
In effect, boundaries have significant impact on emergent sub cultures in project
organisation, at least from professional (see Ankarah 2005; Liu, Fellows and Ng 2004;
Akiner and Tijhuis 2007, operational (see Lansley and Riddick 1991), and geographical
boundaries (see Bony 2010; Pheng and Yuquan 2002; Toor and Ogunlana 2008). In
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
13
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
addition, the temporary nature of project organisations elevates the tendency for more
dynamic and transient boundaries (Turner and Muller 2003; Turner 2006). The emergence
of new and hybrid procurement arrangements generates different natures of boundaries in
each project, specifically from an operational point of view. Ultimately the inherent nature of
the project environment poses significant challenges in developing a coherent and static
understanding of sub cultures, pointing cultural studies towards the fragmentation
perspective.
Ambiguity and Conflict in Differentiation
Earlier discussion on boundaries highlighted the acknowledgement of the presence of
inconsistencies as well as consistencies in cultural manifestations among sub cultures.
Therefore the differentiation perspective does not totally deny ambiguity in project
organisations. Instead, it channels ambiguity and conflict to subcultures, so that each
subculture responds to a small part of the organisational complexities and uncertainties. The
differentiation view acknowledges that subcultures may conflict with the dominant
organisational culture or may be orthogonal to a dominant culture, reflecting differences in
functional, national, and occupational or project affiliations.
A ‘conflict and claims culture’, partly arising from ambiguity, is an area that has concerned
the construction sector. Most studies channel conflicts arising from ambiguities to sub
cultures: such as client, contracting, quantitative surveying, estimator sub cultures (see
Rooke, Seymour and Fellows 2003; Loosemore 1999a; Ankrah and Langford 2005). The
ambiguity focus of these studies remains on those sub-cultural aspects that are ostensible.
Research assuming differentiation perspective is not too far removed from the
oversimplifications of the integration perspective. Consistency and clarity still predominate
within a culture, and ambiguity is only prevalent among subcultures.
In essence, the differentiation perspective in cultural studies arises from the view that
cultural manifestations are shared within subgroups, but shared among partly among the
groups. Therefore, cultures are not considered monolithic, but are treated as a collection of
subcultures (Martin 2004; Schein 2004; Ankrah, Proverbs and Debrah 2009). In the
differentiation view, multiple sources influence culture generation rather than an individual
leader, as in the integration view. This creates multiple subcultures that share common
histories or assumptions within an organisation (Martin 2004). Studies on the differentiation
perspective have revealed that in an organisation, tensions could exist between subsystems
of subcultures; for example: managers versus site workers, young versus older workers,
consultants versus contractors, contractors vs. sub-contractors (Awakul and Ogunlana,
2002).
The attraction to adopt this perspective in cultural studies resonates from the argument for
managing boundaries and national/professional cultures for enhanced project
understanding. More specifically, to deal with conflicts (that may arise from ambiguity)
between different groups of members in project organisations- that is to deal with different
sub-cultures. The belief that sub-cultures are controllable and can be manipulated for
aligning the interests of the project organisation, offers the appeal of tangible outcomes from
cultural studies, as in the integration studies. However, the nature of the project
organisational environment, particularly the complex transient boundaries and uncertainties,
advocates conceptualising culture of organisations from the fragmentation perceptive.
Although, extreme non-functional fragmentation studies do not believe in the existence of
any form of shared culture within organisations, most studies shy away from this extreme
stance.
The Practical Orientation to Culture
The ‘practical orientation’ to culture does not take an optimistic view of culture as technical
orientation. Moreover, it does not advocate that managers can control the values of their
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
14
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
subordinates to achieve effective behaviour (Alvesson 2002). By acknowledging
misunderstanding, this orientation accepts ambiguity and intends to remove it through
symbolic communication. This non-functional orientation to culture contests the idea that
management effectiveness can be attained through cultural manipulation and emphasises
the importance of generating a more holistic understanding and reflection of an
organisation’s life. By assuming this emphasis, a ‘practical orientation’ to studying
organisations involves observing and interpreting organisations through ‘appreciation’ rather
than ‘calculation’ (Willmott 1997). This orientation, therefore, aligns with the ‘differentiation’
perspective on culture (Martin 2002).
In the differentiation perspective ambiguity is acknowledged, but confined to the subgroups
and sub cultures (Martin 2004). Here, meanings are established through socialisation that
produces a symbolic world and leads to the stable or fragile nature of culture that fosters
contradiction and conflict among subcultures. The aim of the practical orientation is, ‘to
achieve common interpretations of situations [for] coordinated action’ (Smircich 1983a, p.
351) and associates closely with removing misunderstanding among sub cultures in an
organisation to achieve coordinated action. The ‘practical’ orientation recognises and
appreciates ‘questions of interpretation and description’ and explores the inter-subjective
experience of organisation thus removing unnecessary misunderstandings in organisations.
Practical orientation, addressing communication issues to improve information flows (and
thereby attempting to reducing misunderstanding), is widely adopted in construction project
management (see Phua and Rowlinson 2003; Loosemore and Muslmani 1999; Ochieng and
Price 2010).
Argument for the Differentiation/Practical Cultural Position
Research assuming this position focuses on improving communication in the construction
process and to minimise misunderstandings. Studies acknowledging the elusiveness of total
integration and aiming for partial integration with selected firms, tiers, or groups that fall into
this cultural position. This position can be argued for studies dealing with (e.g. professional,
trade, informal groups) sub-culture of groups, lack of collaboration and trust among groups
and those seeking understanding of communications between different sub-cultures
(Ankrah, and Langford, 2005; Loosemore and Muslmani, 1999). These studies can assist in
improving understanding between sub-cultures that lead to conflict mitigation and enhanced
project collaboration.
The Fragmentation-Emancipation Philosophical Position
Fragmentation Perspective
The third key perspective of organisational culture studies is ‘fragmentation’ (Martin et al.
1983; Meyerson and Martin 1987; Martin, 2004). This approach views culture as a disorder
that contributes to dysfunctional aspects in organisational life—thereby, this approach aligns
with the ‘non-functional’ cultural paradigm (Alvesson 1993b, 2002; Meyerson 1991a, 1991b;
Feldman 1991). The fragmentation perspective accepts ambiguity, rather than denying or
channelling it, and views organisational culture as inherently ambiguous leading to
‘fuzziness’ in organisational life (Meyerson, 1991a, 1991b; Alvesson 1993b; Sveningasson &
Alvesson 2003).
The fragmentation approach to culture is described aptly by Meyerson (1991a p. 256) who
notes that ‘culture was the code word for the subjective side of organisational life (…) its
study represented an ontological rebellion against the dominant functionalist or “scientific’
paradigm”.’ Ignoring this perspective in organisational studies according to Meyerson
(1991b) means ‘to dismiss the [informalities and] ambiguities in favour of strictly what is clear
and shared. [This] is to exclude some of the most central aspects of the members’ cultural
experiences and to ignore the essence of their cultural community’ (p. 131-132). Recent
literature in construction management has raised attention to the subjective informal,
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
15
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
aspects of project organisations (see Chan & Raisanen 2009; Marrewijk 2008), highlighting
the potential of such a perspective in developing a better understating of project
organisations. Meyerson (1991b, p.131-132) argues that, in reality:
( …) members do not agree upon clear boundaries, cannot identify shared solutions,
and do not reconcile contradictory beliefs and multiple identities. Here culture is
characterised as a web, where individuals are nodes in the web–temporarily
connected by shared concerns to some nodes and not to others. When a particular
issue comes to the surface, certain nodes and patterns of connections become
relevant. The emerging patterns of connection in an organisation will consist of
agreements, disagreements, and ignorance. Most importantly, from this perspective
the inherently active and dynamic nature of culture is made apparent.
The characteristics of project organisations resemble some of the above features.
Particularly, construction projects are characterised as loosely coupled systems with
transient boundaries. In each project a web of temporarily connected organisations forms a
project organisation to deliver a product or service (see Turner and Muller 2003; Dubois, and
Gadde, 2002). Although members of organisations are connected via a transient web, they
believe they belong to a culture. Meyerson (1991b, p.131-132) also argues that
organisations:
(…) share a common orientation and overarching purpose, face similar problems [e.g.
project goals- delivering a project within the established cost and timeframe with
desired quality, while making profits], and have comparable experiences. However,
these shared orientations and purposes accommodate different beliefs and
incommensurable technologies, these problems imply different solutions, and these
experiences have multiple meanings (…) Thus, for at least some cultures, to dismiss
the ambiguities in favour of strictly what is clear and shared is to exclude some of the
most central aspects of the members’ cultural experienced and to ignore the essence
of their cultural community.
Primarily, Meyerson’s view is that organisational members do not necessarily display a high
level of shared understanding, but can still share cultures through common orientations and
purposes which accommodate different beliefs and ambiguities. Unlike the ‘integration’
perspective, awareness of ambiguity is not experienced as a temporary stage during an
organisational change process; rather, ambiguity is seen as a permanent state—'the way
things are’. It is argue that this perspective adds a sound basis to cultural analysis of
organisations by acknowledging ambiguities could be inherent and perpetual in
organisations (Meyerson & Martin, 1987; Martin 2002; Alvesson 2002). Therefore, cultural
manifestations are not necessarily shared across or within sections of the organisation,
creating a cultural environment that is ‘fragmented’. The approach fundamentally challenges
the dominant idea that a culture (subculture) is a clear and known entity that creates unity
and harmony within an organisation (or a group within it). In this perspective, irreconcilable
interpretations are simultaneously entertained, paradoxes are embraced and the lack of a
shared/integrated set of values is accepted as normal.
Here, relationships between manifestations are characterised by a lack of clarity caused by
ignorance or complexity. Any attempt to design organisational processes to resolve
irreconcilable conflicts in organisations is regarded as a temporary and superficial ‘smoke
screen’. The confusion emanating from inconsistent viewpoints and disagreements makes it
difficult to draw cultural and subcultural boundaries. The boundary around the organisation
then becomes amorphous and permeable, as various ‘feeder’ cultures from the surrounding
environments fade in and out of attention (Martin 2002).
The difficulty in articulating the ever-changing patterns and ambiguities of culture makes the
fragmentation perspective the most difficult to conceptualise (Martin 2002). Fragmentation
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
16
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
studies see ambiguity as the defining feature of cultures in organisations. As such, Martin
(2004) argues that understanding ambiguities should be the central component of any study
of culture. However, the very nature of the fragmentation approach has resulted in very few
researchers adopting it as a framework for organisational studies, due to its emphasis on
uncertainty, contradiction and confusion and for acknowledging that some ambiguities
cannot be eliminated (Martin 2004). Those who embrace the fragmentation perspective
could argue the interpretations of the recommendations proposed by industry reviews (e.g.
Latham 1994 and Egan 1998), in terms of embracing integration by controlling, manipulating
and predicting cultures to address construction industry issues, is fundamentally flawed. This
does not mean cultures cannot be changed. Here, cultures are transformed via
emancipation that liberates members from exploitation by making them aware of their
traditionally held unconscious values. Therefore, this perspective discredits the practice of
manipulating and controlling cultures.
Defining Ambiguity and Sources of Ambiguity
In organisations and projects, managers frequently emphasise an informal, family-like
community spirit. However, everyday practices and relationships often deviate from this ideal
(Alvesson 1990). In most instances, the term ‘organisational culture’ conjures the image of
an organisation as being:
typically unitary and unique, characterized by a stable set of meanings (…) arguably
[however] cultural manifestations are far from always neatly organized, values not
easily ranked and cultural ideas may be unsystematic and incoherent.(Alvesson 2002,
p. 145)
Meyerson (1991a) argues that in some cultures, boundaries are not agreed, shared
solutions are non-existent, and members do not reconcile contradictory beliefs and multiple
identities. This leads to lack of clarity in organisations with ambiguity as a figure (or antifigure) that emerges from this context. Two types of ambiguities are identified in the
literature, arising from:
a lack of clarity - whereby ambiguity is felt as an internal state and occurs due to the
absence of information - once the information is available it vanishes; e.g. incomplete
drawings/specifications could lead to ambiguity with respect to how a detail should be
constructed. This kind of ambiguity is removed when the required information
becomes available. However, not supplying the information within a reasonable
period of time could lead to conflict and subsequent litigation (Meyerson, 1990;
Meyerson & Martin, 1987).
irreconcilable contradictions – in which ambiguity is the result of conflicts between
individuals (or groups) which embrace two or more meanings that are irresolvable.
E.g. irresolvable contradictions could emerge when a client and contractor attach
different meaning to a product, process or situation (Meyerson, 1990; Meyerson &
Martin, 1987).
In organisations, there is both unity and division in work relations depending upon the
complexity of the surrounding environment, group membership and the degree of ambiguity
in organisational rules and policies (see Ankrah, and Langford, 2005). Although the
fragmentation perspective is considered to be important, some researchers question the
extensive use of this perspective, as fragmentation could be interpreted as no culture in an
organisation (Alvesson 2002).
One could argue that fragmentation could be one of the perspectives for exploring cultures
in organisations in the construction industry. However, construction organisations are
underexplored from this perspective. Adoption of this perspective could provide a meaningful
approach to understand culture in construction.
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
17
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
The Emancipatory Orientation
The ‘emancipatory’ cognitive interest is based on ‘critical science’ and intends to develop
more rational social relations through realisation (Alvesson 2002; Knights & Willmott 1992;
Willmott 1997). The focus of this mode is the exposure of domination and exploitation,
therefore, it takes a ‘transformation’ orientation. That is, it endeavours to make members of a
group aware of the emancipatory approach to investigate the negative features of
organisational life and to develop an understanding of, and to counteract, the taken-forgranted beliefs and values that exploitation and domination that characterise relationships in
their culture, while encouraging them to transform the way they operate.
One outcome of this mode of analysis concerns the removal of ‘unnecessary suffering’ in
organisations (Willmott 1997). The main focus imposes limits on actions and interactions.
This orientation provides insight into organisational life by grasping the traditional patterns
and the repressive aspects of culture and may contribute to liberating the organisation from
its traditional cultural environment. It includes understanding irreconcilable tensions between
opposites, sometimes described as ironies, paradoxes, or contradictions (Martin 2002).
Ambiguity studies, generally, view such occurrences as normal and salient, and part of the
organisation’s function.
This orientation, therefore, aligns with the ‘fragmentation’ perspective on culture in that
ambiguity is acknowledged as an inherent part of an organisation, and views organisational
culture as inherently ambiguous leading to ‘fuzziness’ in organisational life. Therefore, the
organisations face contradictions and paradoxes (e.g. through information conflicts, un
reasonable risk exposure) contributing to unnecessary suffering of members. Such suffering,
from a construction point of view, includes the culture of claims, litigation, unsafe practices
and other forms of exploitation etc. By liberating the members of the organisation from taken
for granted assumptions, unnecessary suffering can be minimised.
Although the emancipatory approach does not relate to business results directly, it
nevertheless, influences people in relation to their ways of constrained thinking and acting.
Therefore, the purpose of emancipatory cultural studies is about liberating human potential
or, more defensively, illuminating the obstacles to emancipation. Encouraging critical
reflection on beliefs, values and understanding of social conditions becomes the prime task
of this cultural orientation. This orientation is underexplored in construction project
management.
Argument for the Fragmentation-Emancipatory Cultural Position
Clearly, when culture is discussed in the project literature, fragmentation is most often
associated with transient boundaries, ambiguity and conflicts. However, studies of project
organisations cultures based on a Fragmentation - emancipation position are not common in
construction. The complex characterisation of culture along with no explicit link between
project performance enhancements makes this perspective unattractive. Nevertheless,
burgeoning interest can be sensed in certain elements of these approaches in studying
issues such as conflicts (e.g. Awakul & Ogunlana 2002; Loosemore, Nguyen & Denis 2000;
Rooke, Seymour & Fellows 2003), disputes (e.g. Loosemore 1999a, 1999b), claims (e.g.
Rooke, Seymour & Fellows 2004), and general fragmentation emanating from industry
structure, information and attitude (Marrewijk et al 2008).
This position does not believe that culture can be fully manipulated or controlled to achieve
desired outcomes; rather cultures are transformed by emancipation. Change management
literature suggests that managers are neither in total control of cultures nor without any
influence for transforming cultures. Moreover, acknowledging that some of the initiatives to
remove irrationality are smoke screens that are not sustained with time- but rather seek
solutions acknowledging paradox and chaos can provide a new range of initiatives in project
management. This means, empowering members of a culture to transform traditionally held
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
18
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
beliefs resulting in exploitative outcomes into new egalitarian beliefs producing coconstructed outcomes. There is a need for future cultural studies to explore this perceptive
and to understand the process of cultural transformation in inherently fragmented
organisational contexts.
Contextualising Cultural Analysis in Construction Organisations
This paper argues that cultural studies can adopt a single philosophical position or mix of
positions. The characterisation of organisational issues to be studied is fundamental to
identify a suitable cultural position(s) to conduct meaningful cultural studies. It is arguable
that the worldview (e.g. objectivist-subjectivist) of the researchers/managers/authors
characterise the way in which the organisational issues are approached. However, adopting
the pragmatism view using multiple or mixed research methods (Creswell and Clark 2007)
enable to maintain a balance among different ideologically extreme worldviews.
Construction organisations are inherently unique and fragmented- subjected to boundaries
and multiple stakeholders (Lam et al. 2007; Rahman & Kumaraswamy 2005; Gajendran
2010). The stakeholders play a critical role in characterising the culture: by having
organisational goals that are not shared across the project organisation, stakeholders can
create unnecessary boundaries between members and, thus, bring fragmentation (Usdiken,
Soxen & Enbiyaoglu 1988; Cox 1996; Cox & Thompson, 1997; Walker & Wing 1999; Dainty,
Briscoe & Millett 2001a, 2001b). Indeed, Hansfield and Nichols (1999) point to poor
alignment of organisational cultures as the factor adversely affecting integration, a point
broadly supported in the literature (see Baiden, Price & Dainty 2006; Dainty, Briscoe &
Millett 2001a; Voordijk, Meijboon & Haan 2006).
Studies into project organisations have proposed numerous initiatives for integration, to
address the ills caused by fragmentation (see Latham 1994 and Egan 1998). Extensive
focuses on removal of irrationality or manipulation of culture to improve performance may
not yield the expected outcomes. By nature, construction project organisations are
paradoxical and contradictory, generating ambiguity and leading to conflicts (Chan and
Raisanen 2009; Marrewijk et. al. 2008). Such inherent characteristics of project
organisations, e.g. paradoxes, boundaries, and ambiguity cannot be totally eliminated;
rather, project organisations need to be studied and managed within those constraints. It is
important to note that implementation of any initiatives or solutions to deal with
fragmentation are also subject to the fragmentation of the construction industry- to some
extent beyond the control of organisations. Not contextualising the cultural studies without
appropriate acknowledgment to inherent fragmentation could lead to failed or ineffective
outcomes. Therefore, with any integration initiative, due consideration needs to be given to
the project characteristics that generate fragmentation, in order to facilitate more effective
integration (or reduction of fragmentation) (Charoenngam et al. 2004; Chatman & Jehn
1994).
Conclusions
Theoretical perspectives should drive project management practice as much as empirical
enquiry. Although cultural studies have mobilised various methodological approaches in the
project management domain, the point of departure for this research is that they have
predominantly been conceptualised within the ‘functional’ paradigm, and driven by empirical
inquiry. These approaches invariably treat culture as a feature of an organisation or project,
which is amenable to conscious control and manipulation towards performative outcomes.
Moreover, these offer limited flexibility by prescribing a singular philosophical position from
which to observe culture. In contrast, by reviewing cultural studies literature as applied to
organisations this paper has synthesised a robust theoretical platform for understanding the
culture of projects and organisations. It concludes that when investigating cultural
environments adopting the ‘non-functional’ paradigm: facilitates the better understanding of
individuals’ behaviour within group settings, therefore allowing project participant behaviour
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
19
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
to be contextualised within a temporary project organisation, and; provides a richer, more
compelling explanation of project performance/outcomes as an emergent feature of the
complex network of relationships that is inherent in project organisations.
This paper presents a conceptual framework that serves dual purposes. Firstly, it simplifies
and guides the cultural analysis of organisations, providing a framework against which
cultures can be defined, evaluated and understood. Secondly, it reveals the three
philosophical perspectives (Integration, Differentiation, and Fragmentation) and three
orientations (Technical, Practical and Emancipation), which necessarily underpin all cultural
analyses. This paper suggests that a hybrid functional/non-functional cultural analysis
framework will be more effective, allowing researchers and practicing managers to identify
and operate from one or more possible positions. In this way they can embrace a pragmatic
approach to the study of organisational cultures, using both positivist and subjectivist
methods to obtain authentic outcomes.
References
Adriaanse, A. and Voordijk, H. (2005) ‘Inter-organisational communication and ICT in
construction project: a review using meta-triangulation’, Construction Innovation, 5, 159-177
Alvesson, M. (1987) ‘Organisations, culture and Ideology’, International Studies of
Management & Organisations, VXII (3), 14-18
Alvesson, M. (1990) ‘On the popularity of organisational culture’, Acta Sociologica, 33 (1),
31-49
Alvesson, M. (1993a) Cultural Perspectives on Organisations, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Alvesson, M. (1993b) ‘Organisations as rhetoric: Knowledge-intensive firms and the struggle
with ambiguity’, Journal of Management Studies, 30 (6), 997-1015
Alvesson, M. (2002) Understanding Organisational Culture, SAGE Publications, London
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1992) ‘On the idea of emancipation in management and
organisational studies’, The Academy of Management Review, 17 (3), 432-464
Andersen, E S (2003) ‘Understanding your project organisation's character’, Project
Management Journal, 34 (4), 4-11
Ankrah, N. A. and Langford, D. A. (2005) ‘Architects and contractors: a comparative study of
organisational cultures’, Construction Management and Economics, 23 (6), 595-607
Ankrrah, N. A. Proverbs, D. and Debrah, Y. (2009) ‘Factors influencing the culture of a
construction project organisation: An empirical investigation’ Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 16 (1), 26-47
Anumba, C. E. H. Dainty, A. Ison, S. and Sergeant, A. (2006) ‘Understanding structural and
cultural impediments to ICT systems integration: A GIS based case study’, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 13 (6), 2006
Awakul, P. and Ogunlana, S. O. (2002) ‘The effect of attitudinal difference on interface
conflicts in large scale construction projects: a case study’, Construction Management and
Economics, 20, 365-377
Baiden, B. K. Price, A. D. F. and Dainty, A. R. J. (2006) ‘The extent of team integration
within construction projects’, International Journal of Project Management, 24, 13-26
Baiden, B. K. and Price, A. D. F. (2011) ‘The effect of integration on project delivery team
effectiveness’, International Journal of Project Management, 29 (2), 129-136
Barley, S. R. (1983) ‘Semiotics and the study of occupational and organisational cultures’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 393-413
Berggren, C. Soderlund, J. and Anderson, C. (2001) ‘Clients, contractors, and consultants:
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
20
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
the consequences of organisational fragmentation in contemporary project environments’
Project Management Journal, 32 (3), 39-48
Brochner, J. Rosander, S. and Waara, F. (2004) ‘Cross-border post-acquistion knowledge
transfer among construction consultants’, Construction Management and Economics, 22 (4),
421-427
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis:
Elements of the sociology of corporate life, Heinemann, London
Cameron, K. S. Quinn, R. E. and DeGraff, J. (2006) Competing Values Leadership: Creating
Value in Organisations, Edward Elgar, Lancaster
Cameron, K. S. and Quinn, R. E. (2006) Diagnosing and changing organisational culture,
CJossey-Bass, San Francisco
Chan, P. W. and Raisanen, C. (2009) ‘Editorial: informality and emergence in construction’,
Construction Management and Economics, 27 (10), 907-912
Charoenngam, C. Ogunlana, S. O. Ning-Fu, K. and Dey, P. K. (2004) ‘Re-engineering
construction communication in distance management framework’, Business Process
Management Journal, 10 (6), 645-672
Chatman, J. A. and Jehn, K. A. (1994) ‘Assessing the relationship between industry
characteristics and organisational culture: How different can you be?’, The Academy of
Management Journal, 37 (3), 522-553
Cheng, E. W. L. Li, H. Love, P. and Irani, Z. (2004) ‘A learning culture for strategic partnering
in construction’, Construction Innoation, 4 (1), 53-65
Cheung, S.O., Wong, P.S.P. and Wu, A.W.Y. (2011) ‘Towards an organisational culture
framework in construction’, International Journal of Project Management, 29, 33-44
Coffey, V. (2010) Understanding organisational culture in the construction industry, Spon,
London
Cooper, C. L. and Rousseau, D. M. (1999) The Virtual Organisation, Wiley, West Sussex
Cox, A. (1996) ‘Relational competence and strategic procurement management’, European
Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 2 (1), 57-70
Cox, A. and Thompson, L. (1997) ‘'Fit for purpose' contractual relations: determining a
theoretical framework for construction projects’, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, 3 (3), 127-135
Creswell, J. W. and Clark, V. L. P. (2007) Designing and conducting mixed method
research, Thousand Oaks: Sage
Dainty, A. Green, S. and Bagilhole, B., Eds. (2007), People and culture in construction: A
reader, Taylor & Francis, Oxen
Dainty, D. R. J. Briscoe, G. H. and Millett, S. J. (2001a) ‘New perspectives on construction
supply chain integration’, Supply Chain Management, 6 (3/4), 163-173
Dainty, D. R. J. Briscoe, G. H. and Millett, S. J. (2001b) ‘Subcontractor perspectives on
supply chain alliances’, Construction Management and Economics, 19, 841-848
Daly, J. P. Pouder, R. W. and Kabanoff, B. (2004) ‘The Effects of Initial Differences in Firms’
Espoused Values on Their Post-merger Performance’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 40 (3), 323-343
Davis, S. (1984) Managing Corporate Culture, Ballinger, Cambridge MA
de Bony, J. (2010) ‘Project management and national culture: A Dutch-French case study’,
International Journal of Project Management, 28, 173-182
Deal, T. E. and Kennedy, A. A. (1988) Corporate cultures: the rites and rituals of corporate
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
21
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
life, Penguin Books, London
Denison, D. R. (1996) ‘What is the difference between organisational culture and
organisational climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars’, Academy of
Management Review, 21 (3), 619-654
Denison, D. R. and Mishra, A. K. (1995) ‘Towards a theory of organisational culture and
effectiveness’, Organisation Science 6 (2), 204-223
Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.-E. (2002) ‘The construction industry as a loosely coupled system:
implications for productivity and innovation’ Construction Management and Economics, 20,
621-631
Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction, Department of the Environment, London.
Feldman, M. S. (1991) ‘The meaning of ambiguity: Learning from stories and metaphors’,
Peter J Frost, L. F. M., Meryl Reis Louis, Craig C Lundberg, Joanne Martin (Ed.), Reframing
Organisational Culture, Sage. California, 145-164
Fellows, R. (2006) ‘Understanding approaches to culture’, Construction Information
Quarterly, 8 (4), 159-166
Fellows, R. (2010) ‘Book Review: Understanding Organisational Culture in the Construction
Industry’, Construction Management and Economics, 28 (8), 898-900
Gajendran, T. (2010) The role of Culture in the Integration of Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) in construction projects, The University of Newcastle,
Doctor of Philosophy, Newcastle, 469
Gajendran, T. and Brewer, G. (2007) ‘Integration of information and communication
technology: Influence of the cultural environment’, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 14 (6), 532-549
Geertz, C. (1975) The Interpretation of Cultures, Hutchinson, London.
Gregory, K. L. (1983) ‘Native View Paradigms: Multiple cultures and culture conflicts in
organisations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 359-376
Hansfield, R. B. and Nichols, E. L. (1999) Introduction to supply chain management.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ
Hartmann, A. (2006) ‘The role of organisational culture in motivating innovative behaviour in
construction firms’, Construction Innovation, 6, 159-172
Hofstede, G. (1998a) ‘Attitudes, values and organisational culture: Disentangling the
concepts’, Organisational Studies, 19 (3), 477-492
Hofstede, G. (1998b) ‘Identifying organisational sub cultures: an empirical approach’,
Journal of Management Studies, 35 (1), 1-12
Hofstede, G. Neuijen, B. Ohayv, D. D. and Sanders, G. (1990) ‘Measuring organisational
cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases’, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 35 (2), 286-316
Hofstede, G. Hofstede, G. J. and Minkov, M. (2010) Cultures and organisations: software of
the mind, McGraw Hill, London
Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and
organisations across nations, 2nd ed, Sage, Thousand Oaks
Höök, M. and Stehn, L. (2008) ‘Applicability of lean principles and practices in industrialized
housing production’, Construction Management and Economics, 26 (10), 1091-1100
Jones, G. R. (1983) ‘Transaction cost, property rights, and organisational culture: An
exchange perspective’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 454-467
Kabanoff, B. Waldersee, R. and Cohen, M. (1995) ‘Espoused values and organisational
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
22
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
change themes’, Academy of Management Journal, 38 (4), 1075-1104
Knights, D. and Willmott, H. C. (1987) ‘Organisational culture as management strategy: A
critique and illustration from the financial services industry’, International Studies of
Management & Organisations, 17 (3), 40-63
Kornelius, L., Wamelink, J.W.F (1998) ‘Case Study: The virtual corporation learning from
construction’, Supply Chain Management, 3 (4), 193-202
Kotter, J. P. and Heskett, J. L. (1992) Corporate culture and performance, Maxwell
Macmillan, New York.
Kumaraswamy, M., Rowlinson, S., Rahman, M. and Phua, F. (2002) ‘Strategies for
triggering the required ‘cultural revolution’ in the construction industry’, in Fellows, R. and
Seymour, D. (Eds), Perspectives on Culture in Construction, CIB Report, CIB, Shizuoka, 275
Lam, K. C. Want, D. Lee, P. T. K. and Tsang, Y. T. (2007) ‘Modelling risk allocation decision
in construction contracts’, International Journal of Project Management, 25, 485-493
Latham, M. (1994) Constructing the Team, HMSO, London
Ling, F. Y. Y. Ang, A. M. H. and Lim, S. S. Y. (2007) ‘Encounters between foreigners and
Chinese: Perception and management of cultural differences’, Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, 14 (6), 501-518
Liu, A. and Fellows, R. (2008) ‘Behaviour of quantity surveyors as organisational citizens’,
Construction Management and Economics, 26 (12), 1271-1282
Liu, A. Fellows, R. and Ng, J. (2004) ‘Surveyors' perspective on ethics in organisational
culture’, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11 (9), 438-449
Loosemore, M. (1999a) ‘Responsibility, power and construction conflict’, Construction
Management and Economics, 17, 699-709
Loosemore, M. (1999b) ‘A grounded theory of construction crisis management’, Construction
Management and Economics, 17, 9-19
Loosemore, M. and Muslmani, H. S. A. (1999) ‘Construction project management in the
perian culf: inter-cultural communication’, International Journal of Project Management, 17
(2), 95-100
Loosemore, M. Nguyen, B. T. and Denis, N. (2000) ‘An investigation into the merits of
encouraging conflict in the construction industry’, Construction Management and Economics,
18, 447-456
Marrewijk, Av. (2007) ‘Managing project culture: The case of Environ Megaproject’,
International Journal of Project Management, 25, 290–299
Marrewijk, Av. Clegg, S. R. Pitsis, T. S. and Veenswijk, M. (2008) ‘Managing public–private
megaprojects: Paradoxes, complexity, and project design’, International Journal of Project
Management, 26 (5), 591-600
Martin, J. (1992) Cultures in organisations: Three perspectives, Oxford University Press,
New York
Martin, J. (2002) Organisational Culture: Mapping the terrain, Sage, Newbury Park, CA
Martin, J. (2004) Organisational culture, Research Paper Series, Stanford, Research Paper
No 1847
Martin, J. Frost, P. J. and O'Neill, O. A. (2004) Organisational culture: Beyond struggles for
intellectual dominance, Stanford Research Paper Series, No 1864.
Martin, J. Sitkin, S. B. and Boehm, M. (1985) ‘Founders and the elusiveness of a cultural
legacy’, Frost, P. J. More, L. F. Louis, M. R. Lundberg, C. C. and Martin, J. (eds.),
Organisational Culture, Sage. California, 99-124
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
23
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
Meyerson, D. (1994) ‘Interpretations of stress in institutions: The cultural production of
ambiguity and burnout’, Administrative Science quarterly, 39 (4), 628-653
Meyerson, D. and Martin, J. (1987) ‘Cultural Change: An integration of three different views’,
Journal of Management Studies, 24 (6), 623-647
Meyerson, D. E. (1991a) Acknowledging and uncovering ambiguities in cultures, Frost, P.
Moore, L. Louis, M. Lundberg, C. and Martin, J. (eds.), Reframing Organisational Culture,
Sage. California, 254-270
Meyerson, D. E. (1991b) ‘'Normal' ambiguity? A glimpse of an occupational culture’, Frost,
P. Moore, L. Louis, M. Lundberg, C. and Martin, J. (eds.), Reframing Organisational Culture,
Sage, California, 131-143
Mills, A. (1988) ‘Organisation, gender and culture’, Organisation studies, 9 (3), 351-370
Moore, D. R. and Dainty, A. R. J. (2001) ‘Intra-team boundaries as inhibitors of performance
improvement in the UK design and build projects: a call for change’, Construction
Management and Economics, 19, 559-562
Morgan, G. (1980) ‘Paradigms, Metaphors and Puzzle solving in organisation theory’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 605-622
Morse, J. M. and Richards, L. (2002) Readme First for a User's guide to Qualitative
Methods, Sage Publications, California
Nielsen, J. (2007) ‘Struggles for health and safety in the Danish construction Industry’,
International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 13 (1), 21-27
O'Reilly, C. A. Chatman, J. and Cadwell, D. F. (1991) ‘People and organisational culture: A
profile comparison approach to assessing person-organisation fit’, The Academy of
Management Journal, 34 (3), 487-516
Ouchi, W. G. (1981) Theory Z: how American business can meet the Japanese challenge,
Addison-Wesley, Reading
Ouchi, W. G. and Wilkins, A. L. (1985) ‘Organisational Culture’, Annual Review of Sociology,
11, 457-483
Parker, M. (2000) Organisational culture and identity, SAGE, London
Peters, T. J. and Waterman, R. H. (1982) In search of excellence: Lessons from America's
best run companies, Hamper & Row, New York
Pheng, L. S. and Yuquan, S. (2002) ‘An exploratory study of Hofstede's corss-cultural
dimensions in construction projects’, Management Decision, 40 (1), 7-15
Price, A. D. F. and Chahal, K. (2006) ‘A strategic framework for change management’,
Construction Management and Economics, 24, 237-251
Ochieng, E. G. and Price, A. D. F. (2010) ‘Managing cross-cultural communication in
multicultural construction project teams: The case of Kenya and UK’, International Journal of
Project Management, 28 (5), 449-460
Phua, F. T. T. and Rowlinson, S. (2003) ‘Cultural difference as explanatory variable for
adversarial attitudes in the construction industry: the case of Hong Kong’, Construction
Management and Economics, 21 (7), 777-785
Rahman, M. M. and Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2005) ‘Assembling integrated project reams for
joint risk management’, Construction Management and Economics, 23, 365-375
Rooke, J. Seymour, D. and Fellows, R. (2003) ‘The claims culture: a taxonomy of attitudes in
the construction industry’, Construction Management and Economics, 21 (2), 167-174
Rooke, J. Seymour, D. and Fellows, R. (2004) ‘Planning for claims: an ethnography of
industry culture’, Construction Management and Economics, 22 (6), 655-662
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
24
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
Root, D. (2005) ‘Creating a culture of safety on construction sites’, Risk management, 52
(11), 56-60
Rousseau, D. M. (1990) ‘Assessing Organisational Culture: The Case for Multiple Methods’,
Goldstein, I. L. (Ed.), Frontiers of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Jossey-Bass
Inc, California
Ruikar, K. Anumba, C. J. and Carrillo, P. M. (2005) ‘End-user perspective on use of project
extranets in construction organisations’, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 12 (3), 325-343
Santos, F. M. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (2005) ‘Organisational boundaries and theories of
organization’, Organisation Science, 16 (5), 491-508
Sathe, V. (1985) Culture and related corporate realities: texts, cases and readings on
organisational entry, establishment, and change, Irwin, Homewood IL
Schein, E. H. (1984) ‘Coming to a new awareness of organisational culture’, Sloan
Management Review, 25 (2), 3-16
Schein, E. H. (1990) ‘Organisational Culture’, American Psychologist, 45 (2), 109-119
Schein, E. H. (1993) ‘Legitimating Clinical Research in the study of organisational culture’,
Journal of counseling and Development, 71 (6), 703-708
Schein, E. H. (1996) ‘Three Cultures of management: The key to organisational learning’,
Sloan Management Review, 38 (1), 9-20
Schein, E. H. (2004) Organisational culture and leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Schneider, B., Ed. (1990) Organisational climate and culture, Jossey-Bass, San Grancisco
Schultz, M. (1994) On Studying Organisational Cultures: Diagnosis and understanding, W
De G, Berlin
Smircich, L. (1983a) ‘Concepts of Cultures and Organisational Analysis’, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 28 (3), 339-358
Smircich, L. (1983b) ‘Studying organisations as cultures’, Morgan, G. (Ed.), Beyond Method,
Sage, Beverly Hills
Smircich, L. (1985) ‘Is the concept of culture a paradigm for understanding organisations
and ourselves’, Frost, P. J. More, L. F. Louis, M. R. Lundberg, C. C. and Martin, J. (eds.),
Organisational Culture, Sage, California, 55-71
Smircich, L. and Calás, M. B., Eds. (1995) Critical perspectives on organisation and
management theory, Dartmouth, Brookfield
Smithers, G. L. and Walker, D. H. T. (2000) ‘The effect of the workplace on motivation and
demotivation of construction professionals’, Construction Management and Economics, 18,
833-841
Sveningasson, S. and Alvesson, M. (2003) ‘Managing managerial identities: Organisational
fragmentation, discourse and identity Struggle’, Human Relations, 56 (10), 1163-1193
Toor, S-u-R and Ogunlana, S O (2008) ‘Leadership skills and competencies for crosscultural construction projects’, International Journal of Human Resources Development and
Management, 8 (3), 192-215
Turner, J R (2006) ‘Towards a theory of project management: The nature of the project’,
International Journal of Project Management, 24 (1), 1-3
Turner, J R and Muller, R (2003) ‘On the nature of the project as a temporary organisation’,
International Journal of Project Management, 21 (1), 1-8
Usdiken, B. Soxen, Z. and Enbiyaoglu, H. (1988) ‘Strategies and boundaries: subcontracting
in construction’, Strategic Management Journal, 9 (6), 633-637
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
25
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
Vakola, M. and Wilson, I. E. (2004) ‘The challenge of virtual organisation: critical success
factors in dealing with constant change’, Team Performance Management, 10 (5/6), 112-120
Van-Maanen, J. and Barley, S. R. (1985) ‘Cultural Organisation. Fragments of a theory’,
Frost P. J. (Ed.), Organisational Culture, Sage, California, 31-53
Voordijk, H. Meijboon, B. and Haan, J. d. (2006) ‘Modularity in supply chains: a multiple case
study in the construction industry’, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 26 (6), 600-618
Wainwright, D. and Waring, T. (2004) ‘Three domains for implementing integrated
information systems: redressing the balance between technology, strategic and
organisational analysis’, International Journal of Information Management, 24 (4), 329-346
Wakefield, R. L. Leidner, D. E. and Garrison, G. (2008) ‘Model of conflict, leadership, and
performance in virtual teams’, Information Systems Research, 19 (4), 434-59
Walker, A. and Wing, C. K. (1999) ‘The relationship between constriction project
management theory and transaction cost economics’, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 6 (2), 166-176
Walker, D. H. T. Peters, R. J. Hampson, K. D. and Thompson, M. J. (2001) ‘Achieving a
responsive industrial relations environment for construction industry workers: a project
aliancing case study’, Construction Innovation, 1, 211-225
Wilkins, A. L. (1983) ‘The Culture Audit: A tool for Understanding Organisations’,
Organisational Dynamics, 12 (2), 24-38
Wilkins, A. L. and Ouchi, W. G. (1983) ‘Efficient Cultures: Exploring the relationship between
culture and organisational performance’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 468-481
Willmott, H. (1997) ‘Management and organisation studies as science’, Organisation, 4 (3),
309-344
Winch, G. M. (1989) ‘The construction firm and the construction project: a transaction cost
approach’, Construction Management and Economics, 7, 331-345
Winch, G. M. (2001) ‘Governing the project process: a conceptual framework’, Construction
Management and Economics, 19, 799-808
Winch, G. Ushani, A. and Edkins, A. (1998) ‘Towards total project quality: a gap analysis
approach’, Construction Management and Economics, 16, 193-207
Wong, J. Wong, P. N. K. and Heng, L. (2007) ‘An investigation of leadership styles and
relationship cultures of Chinese and expatriate managers in multinational construction
companies in Hong Kong’, Construction Management and Economics, 25 (1), 95-106
Yong, K. T. and Pheng, L. S. (2008) ‘Organisational culture and TQM implementation in
construction firms in Singapore’, Construction Management and Economics, 26 (3), 237-248
Zaghloul, R. and Hartman, F. (2003) ‘Construction contracts: the cost of mistrust’,
International Journal of Project Management, 21, 419-424
Zhang, S. B. and Liu, A. M. M. (2006) ‘Organisational culture profiles and construction
enterprise in China’, Construction Management and Economics, 24 (8), 817-828
Zou, P. X. W. Fang, D. Wang, S. Q. and Loosemore, M. (2007) ‘An overview of the Chinese
construction market and construction management practice’, Journal of Technology
Management in China, 2 (2), 163-176
Gajendran et al. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects ,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 1-26
26