Reactive Crisis Management in Constructive Projects — Patterns of Communication and Behaviour

Abstract

Patterns of communication and behaviour emerge within a construction project in response to a construction crisis. This paper investigates, within a grounded theory framework, the nature of these patterns, the sociological and psychological forces which shape them and their relationship with crisis management efficiency. A grounded theory is presented in four parts. The first part conceives a construction crisis as a period of social instability, arising from conflicting interest groups, seeking to exercise power in the pursuit of social structures which suit their political and economic interests. The second part sees a construction crisis as a desensitizing phenomenon which results in a period of behavioural instability and conflict which is self-perpetuating. The third part cites social structure as an important influence upon construction crisis management efficiency, in determining the efficiency of information flow, and the level of uncertainty between those affected. The fourth part points to the in-built defence mechanisms which construction crises have and to three managerial ironies which make construction crisis management difficult.

Innovative Crisis Management in Construction: Approaches and the Process

“…However, these are far from investigating management practices of construction companies in the crisis process. In fact, they are specifically about theory formulation (Loosemore, 1999), communication structure (Loosemore, 1998e), contractual conditions (Loosemore and Hughes, 1998), real estate-based analysis (Kaklauskas et al, 2011), triple constraints composed of communication, sensitivity, and responsibility (Loosemore, 1998c), environmental and organizational factors (Ocal et al, 2006), organizational behavior (Loosemore, 1998b), reactive communication and behavior (Loosemore, 1998a), disorganization (Loosemore and Hughes, 2001), preparedness (Loosemore and Teo, 2000), social adjustment (Loosemore, 1997), and social network analysis (Loosemore, 1998d). Accordingly, the current study presents the first attempt in this regard.…”

Pandemics, public-private partnerships (PPPs), and force majeure | COVID-19 expectations and implications

“…preparation/prevention, resistance, recovery, and learning) that help us collectively "monitor and react" to crises like COIVD-19 (Kutsch et al 2015). Naturally, this will require academics "to broaden their research focus and engage in more robust critique and analysis of construction systems, as they are realised in practice" (Sherratt et al 2020, p. 1), develop better ways of dealing with crises from a reactive perspective (Loosemore and Hughes 2002), and begin to more systematically synthesise "problems of relevance and rigour" through hybridization-i.e. co-production of knowledge between scholars and practitioners (Harty and Leiringer 2017, p. 400).…”

An exploratory study of organizational uncertainty in times of changing and transitional public administration in Korea

“…In considering coping strategies for organizational uncertainty, there are two contrasting arguments about whether uncertainty can be eliminated or not; these arguments are associated with proactive and reactive styles for uncertainty preparation, respectively. Supporters of a predictive and preventive approach (Sinclair and Haines, 1993;Seymour and Rooke, 1995) state that the uncertainty that organizations face can be eliminated, and so it is possible to create a crisis-free environment through models of universal applicability (Loosemore and Hughes, 1998). However, this proactive approach might overemphasize prevention and anticipation strategies.…”