工程管理专业英文文献

工程管理专业英文文献内容摘要：

ty can cause outofintegrity and untrustworthy be havior. Bosse et al. [5] frame similar issues in terms of fairness: people behave reciprocally by rewarding others whose actions they deem fair, and by willingly incurring costs to punish those they deem unfair. A. Communication and Project Management Communication is a behavioral petence for project man agement practice. Building on the experience of practitioners, the Project Management Institute‘s (PMI‘s) Code of Profes sional Conduct acknowledges that munication styles vary according to the personality of the project manager. Still, it highlights a set of principles for effective munication: listen to the concerns of stakeholders, maintain professional integrity, adhere to ethical standards, balance stakeholder interests, and be aware of the emotional barriers (., preconceived opinions and beliefs, prejudices, biases, egos, and politics). Likewise, Gadeken‘s [26] experiencebased reflection on behavioral petences required for successful project managers spells out key attributes relevant for effective munication: 1) Assertiveness: stating one‘s own position forcefully in the face of opposition from influential others. 452 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 57, NO. 3, AUGUST 2020 2) Strategic influence: building coalitions with influential others to overe obstacles and obtain support. 3) Relationship development: spending time and energy get ting to know program sponsors, contractors, and other influential people. 4) Political awareness: understand who the influential players are, what they want, and how to work with them. Along the same lines, Pinto [50] encourages managers to de velop political acumen and persuasive skills so as to account for the ubiquitous presence of politics and power imbalances in projects. Communication is also part of the critical factors for determining project success, namely, the abilities: to mu nicate what the issues are with affected constituencies, to deal with the issues, and to sell the project output [51]. The literature on managing architecture–engineering– construction projects has also long established that effective munication is central to high project performance [49], [62]. Extant studies are mostly descriptive, and focus on internal munication between design and construction teams, and between the project suppliers and the client. Building predomi nantly upon anecdotal evidence and exploratory surveys, these studies reveal that onsite construction project managers may spend up to nearly 80% of their workdays municating ver bally [38]。 and that interpersonal munication is critical to crisis management [40] as well as to develop proper design briefs [6]. Not surprisingly, munication skills also play an essential role in developing relationships with local munities affected by new infrastructure projects. In these settings, antagonistic vo cal minorities can create difficulties, while the silent majority may sit on the sidelines [66]. Using vigtes on projects to il lustrate the issues, but not as an empirical basis, Wideman [66] exhorts managers to attend public meetings, produce mu nity information bulletins, and support talks with visual aids and scale models. ElDiraby and Wang [21] develop a semantic model to municate to local munities (via an eportal) the environmental impacts of highway construction and miti gation measures. More strategically, Baker [3] discusses how project managers may need to shift the munication pattern occasionally, for example, from coalition building and listening to counterattack and delaying tactics, but he does not elabo rate on the topic. Such shifts should not promise, however, on the principles of honesty, fairness, and integrity that should underpin project relations [63], [67]. Clearly, the infrastructure project managers face the challenge of developing a positive relationship with the local people. The next section discusses how the T5 managers took on this chal lenge. III. M ETHODS AND RESEARCH BASE The research method is a singlesetting case study with mul tiple embedded units of analysis [69]. Case study research suits well to examine ―underexplored‖ topics [20]. This is exactly the case of investigating how project management teams can use language for protecting legitimacy. This method is also appropriate because studies of how anizations deploy lan guage in the management of self–other relations must consider the socioanizational contingencies to generate meaningful insights [56], [57]. The units of analysis are the pairs of resi dents‘ claims and corresponding accounts produced by the T5 managers in the interaction with the residents. This approach borrows from studies of talkininteraction, which consider lan guage a resource to coordinate social action [56], [57]. But the focus here is on the tones that project managers‘ words and phrasing convey. The empirical setting—the T5 project at Heathrow airport— is relevant to studies on managing external stakeholders and local munities in particular. As a monopolistic owner of the three major London airports, BAA operated under the eye of the public and regulator. Many people were frustrated that the gov ernment had approved T5 on the basis that the economic benefits outweighed the environmental impacts. ―T5 was not for the ben efit of the residents as illustrated by BAA‖, a resident claimed. If the T5 managers neglected the well being of the residents or the environment during the construction works, they would offer an argument to the oppositionists lobbying the regulator to call for the government to break up the monopoly. Further, 90% of the residents had opposed in a ballot against the government plans (backed by BAA) to add a third runway t。