Skip to main content

Relational Teams Turning the Cost of Waste Into Sustainable Benefits

  • Living reference work entry
  • Latest version View entry history
  • First Online:
Handbook of Engaged Sustainability

Abstract

Conventional building processes, which still dominate the industry, take too long, cost too much, and often disregard their social and environmental impacts. Over the past 50 years, while most industries have doubled or tripled productivity, the commercial building sector has experienced negative productivity growth. In order to mitigate these practice outcomes, the industry must transform from a transactional to a relational team structure that is people-centered. An integrated project model that is grounded in relational contracting, climate, and context can significantly improve building project outcomes that benefit the three Ps of engaged sustainability – people, planet, and profit. The relational project environment is built on a foundation of shared vision, values, and the basis for a common vernacular that guides human activity and generates human bonds. This chapter defines the three relational states and translates them into actionable steps with which to positively affect a building project team structure. The integrated project delivery framework lays the groundwork for a building project success model. However, the key to its realization is the level of flexible cohesion exhibited by the project team members. The collective levels of flexible cohesion determine the team’s ability to create and maintain a relational project environment without which project success would be greatly diminished. The individuals’ flexible cohesion potential is driven by their attitudinal and behavioral characteristics. In other words, processes alone do not deliver projects; it requires a team of engaged people.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • ACH Tower Team. (2014). L: Building a lean hospital facility. Signature Book Printing. www.sbpbooks.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baccarini, D. (1996). The concept of project complexity – A review. International Journal of Project Management, 14(4), 201–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, P. (2012). Why society is a complex matter: Meeting twenty-first century challenges with a new kind of science. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1189–1207. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carron, A., & Brawley, L. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31, 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Construction, M. (2013). World green building trends: Business benefits driving new and retrofit market opportunities in over 60 countries. Bedford: McGraw Hill Construction. Smart Market Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, E., LePine, J., & Rich, B. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, A. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franz, B., Leicht, R., Molenaar, K., & Messner, J. (2016). Impact of team integration and group cohesion on project delivery performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 4016088–6(6), 1–12. http://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grönroos, C. (1997). Value-driven relational marketing: From products to resources and competencies. Journal of Marketing Management, 13, 407–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, L. (2001). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampson, R. B., Hulgus, Y. F., & Beavers, W. R. (1991). Comparisons of self-report measures of the beavers systems model and Olson’s circumplex model. Journal of Family Psychology, 4(3), 326–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.4.3.326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4, 390–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, O. (2005). The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on employee innovative behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational, 76, 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction – Job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadushin, C. (2012). Understanding social networks: Theories, concepts, and findings (Kindle ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2012). Work groups and teams in organizations. In I. B. Weiner, N. W. Schmitt, & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, John Wiley (Vol. 2, Illustr ed., pp. 412–469), Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, R. (2007). CEM research for the next 50 years: Maximizing economic, environmental, and societal value of the built environment. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133, 619–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R., Tomlinson, E., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of Management, 32, 991–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (1992). Contemporary views of leadership and individual differences. The Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843 (92)90030-J.

  • Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of feelings. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 4(3), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-1849(05)80058-7.

  • Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, organization and management. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. Oxford University Press. https://info.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/IPD_Guide_2007.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Mossholder, K., & Richardson, H. (2011). Human resource systems and helping in organizations: A relational perspective. Academy of Management, 36(1), 33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. H. (2000). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 144–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, B. V. (2016). Experiential workplace design for knowledge work organizations: Worker-centered approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paolillo, W., Olson, B., & Straub, E. (2016). People centered innovation: Enabling lean integrated project delivery and disrupting the construction industry for a more sustainable future. Journal of Construction Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlow, L., Gittell, J., & Katz, N. (2004). Contextualizing patterns of work group interaction: Toward a nested theory of structuration. Organization Science, 15, 520–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pescosolido, A. T., & Saavedra, R. (2012). Cohesion and sports teams: A review. Small Group Research, 43(6), 744–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412465020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., & Paine, J. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of management, 26(3), 513–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., & Organ, D. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramlall, S. (2004). A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention within organizations. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5, 52–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. (2004). Psychological contracts in the workplace: Understanding the ties that motivate. The Academy of Management Executive, 18, 120–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., & Fiore, S. M. (2004). Why team cognition? An overview. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (1st ed., pp. 3–10). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (APA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 229–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. New York: Crown Business

    Google Scholar 

  • Settoon, R., & Mossholder, K. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person-and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 255–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A newlook at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 518–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffen, W., Crutzen, P., & McNeill, J. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human, 36, 614–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straub, E. R. (2015). Flexible cohesion: A mixed methods study of engagement and satisfaction in defense acquisitions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, K., Evans, J., Karvonen, A., & Whitley, T. (2016). Capturing the social value of buildings: The promise of social return on investment (SROI). Building and Environment, 103, 289–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2008). Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness. In A. Boin (Ed.), Crisis management (Vol. III, pp. 31–66). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolin, S. J., & Bennett, L. A. (1984). Family rituals. Family Process, 23(3), 401–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Branka V. Olson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Olson, B.V., Straub, E.R., Paolillo, W., Becks, P.A. (2018). Relational Teams Turning the Cost of Waste Into Sustainable Benefits. In: Marques, J. (eds) Handbook of Engaged Sustainability. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53121-2_8-2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53121-2_8-2

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-53121-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-53121-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Business and ManagementReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    Relational Teams Turning the Cost of Waste Into Sustainable Benefits
    Published:
    10 January 2018

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53121-2_8-2

  2. Original

    Relational Building Teams
    Published:
    25 October 2017

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53121-2_8-1