Search results

The purpose of this study is to provide evidence to support an emerging theory that interpersonal conflict is the primary cause of workplace stress among a self-selected sample of Irish construction managers.

Eighteen construction managers working in Ireland were recruited for this study. Using semi-structured interviews and interpretative phenomenological analysis as the research methodology, the causes of their workplace stress were investigated.

Participants reported that the principal cause of their workplace stress was high levels of interpersonal conflict between colleagues. The effects of this interpersonal conflict included avoidance behaviour, ill health, absences from the workplace and loss of productivity issues. Deadlines, penalty clauses, lack of appreciation, cliques, costs, communication, temporary contracts and delays were also reported stressors.

A limitation of the study is the small sample of 18 construction managers and the limited geographical area.

The social implications of this study could be to clearly identify that interpersonal conflict may be under reported in the construction industry, and there is a possibility that it is being misclassified as other workplace behaviours such as bullying, harassment and workplace violence. If this is so, this could aid future researchers in addressing this challenging workplace behaviour.

The current consensus in the literature is that the three main causes of workplace stress are bullying, harassment and violence. However, the role and importance of interpersonal conflict as reported in this study, with the exception of North America and China, is not reflected in the wider health and safety research literature. In addition, interpersonal conflict and its reluctance to be reported is largely absent from construction safety research. The findings of this study may be explained if the workplace stress research community is currently misclassifying interpersonal conflict as a manifestation of bullying, harassment or violence. If this is the case, interpersonal conflict needs further research. This is to establish if this cause of construction-related workplace stress needs to be reconsidered as a standalone phenomenon in the wider family of challenging workplace behaviours.

Following an interpretivist approach, the authors draw on semi-structured interviews with parents of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

Responding to limited academic advancement, particularly in the context of consumers experiencing vulnerability, the aim is to deepen marketing scholars’ understanding of value co-destruction (VCD) and its under-explored relationship with consumer ill-being.

Three forms of systemic VCD mechanisms emerged: obscuring, gaslighting and siloing. Ill-being comprised material, physical, psychological and social harms, which consumers experienced individually, relationally and collectively due to VCD. Family members’ experiences of ill-being and vulnerability were deepened by service systems’ inability to recognise the individuality of their needs and provide appropriate support.

In line with the interpretivist paradigm, the focus on families of children with ASD, while illuminating, delimits the generalisability of the findings. The authors call for further research on consumer ill-being, VCD and vulnerability in other service and marketing contexts.

The findings highlight the need for service system adaptability to recognise and address unstandardised needs.

Several systemic failures of (public) service systems which manifested as VCD mechanisms are identified.

The overall contribution is the development of a contextually driven characterisation of both VCD and ill-being and a deeper understanding of how these are interrelated. First, VCD revealed itself as a systemic failure to access, provide or integrate resources to meet actors’ needs as manifested by the three mechanisms. Second, the authors characterise ill-being as comprising material, physical, psychological and social harms due to VCD, which are experienced individually, relationally and collectively. Finally, the authors illuminate the nature of vulnerability and delineate the entanglements between vulnerability and ill-being in a collective (e.g. family) context.

Launched in 2005, the Food Systems Leadership Institute (FSLI) is a 2-year leadership development program primarily focused on academic leaders. As of spring 2020, FSLI has enrolled 15 Cohorts, training a total of 347 Fellows. In 2020, a review of the graduated cohorts was undertaken to understand both the range of institutions served by FSLI and the career trajectory of the 319 graduated Fellows who participated in Cohorts 1-14. A total of 78 different organizations have enrolled FSLI participants, including 79% of the 1862 Land Grant Universities, 68% of the 1890 Land Grant Universities, and 12% of the 1994 Institutions, in addition to fewer participants from non-Land Grant public universities, government institutions, industry, and institutions located outside of the U.S. FSLI has served participants from 84% of the US and Territories. The review showed that 46% of Fellows in Cohorts 1-14 advanced into higher positions of academic administration and they filled 169 new hierarchical positions, including college-level, university-level and system-level administration positions in higher education. Similar trajectories were found in industry-organizations, although in smaller numbers. In all, 470 administrative and leadership positions have been filled in these organizations by the 319 members of the cohorts reviewed. While career progression is a limited measure of leadership success, this brief review supports the hypothesis that participation in the FSLI program contributes to the careers of the enrolled participants.