View Original - Middle East Technical University

possibility that what may start out as a misunderstanding escalates into a
conflict, projects thus as life in general, tend to have conflicts. Semple et al.
(1994) also find it natural that a great deal of conflict exists within the
construction industry due to its very complex, high‐risk, multiparty business
nature. Harmon (2003) referring several previous studies (Rhys Jones 1994;
Conlin et al. 1996; Mix 1997; Arditi et al. 1998; Steen and MacPherson 2000)
notes that the construction industry is plagued by an increasingly adversarial
atmosphere existing between the owner and the contractor as a result of these
conflicts. What a paradox that Ng et al. (2007) states due this adversarial society
that the construction industry exists within conflict is unavoidable. In such an
environment where there is always conflict obviously one of the important
variables that impact the success of a project is how the organizations approach
problems and conflicts (Diekmann et al., 1994 cited in Harmon, 2003). Without
a doubt, conflicts between the diverse participants need to be minimized
through better relationships and cooperative teamwork and under flexible
contract conditions (Dissanayaka and Kumaraswamy, 1999 cited in Usta, 2005).
Peña‐Mora et al. (2003) define conflict as any action or circumstance resulting
from incompatible or opposing needs (quoted in Ng et al., 2007). A significant
characteristic of conflict is that it usually presents two incompatible possibilities
at the same time that result in difficulty for either party to make a choice
(Fisher, 2004). According to Stephenson (1996) in the modern construction
industry, where the contract is used to form business relations, conflict can be
generated either by different interpretations of the contract terms or by the risk
and liability to which the industry exposes the contract parties (cited in Fisher,
2004). Harmon (2003) and Lester (2006) in their studies, lists various reasons
for conflicts as: Size and duration of the project, unclear project objectives, loose
contractual arrangements, the complexity of the contract documents and
inadequate design, sloppy or ambiguous documentation and non‐confirmation
in writing of statements or instructions, changed conditions, weak management,
poor communication and understanding, personal attitudes, political
22