ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

Transcription

1 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING May -3, 008 The 7 th Internatonal Conference Faculty of Envronmental Engneerng Vlnus Gedmnas Techncal Unversty Saulėteko ave 11, LT-103 Vlnus, Lthuana Phone: ; Fax.: ; e-mal: ap008@ap.vgtu.lt HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIALISTS COMPETENCE IN THE TEAM WORK AND NEGOTIATIONS Weslaw Dabrowsk 1, Julus Chrstauskas 1 Kelce Techncal Unversty, Al. Tysacleca Panstwa Polskego 1, Kelce, Poland, Vlnus Gedmnas Techncal Unversty, Saulėteko 11,LT-103 Vlnus, Lthuana, E-mal: Weslaw.Dabrowsk@oat.pl 1, julusc@ap.vgtu.lt Abstract. Hghway engneerng work nvolves the need to solve many theoretcal, economcal and techncal problems. The good hghway engneerng specalst has to be a promnent personalty who loves hs/her work and satsfes major engneerng professon and ethcs requrements. He/she should also be creatve and ready to organze teamwork, apply varous negotaton styles. The am of ths presentaton s to explore hghway engneerng specalst s competence n the teamwork and negotatons. The results of ths nvestgaton are dscussed n the paper. Keywords: personalty characterstcs, cooperaton, teamwork, soluton of problems 1. Introducton The transton from ndustral to knowledge socety gves rse to the need for new forms and methods of actvtes. Hghway engneerng work nvolves the need to solve many theoretcal, economcal and psychologcal problems. To acheve the most effcent cooperaton wth local and central government authortes and mplementaton of varous norms and standards n practce, specalsts of hghway engneerng must have the sklls of cooperaton wth many people of dfferent atttudes, and be able to conduct negotatons. In many cases, they should behave as members of a team formed for effcent problem soluton rather than as ndvduals. They must be aware of ther personal characterstcs and try to mprove them f necessary. The hghway engneer has to be a promnent personalty who loves hs work and satsfes major engneerng ethcs requrements. He/she should also be creatve and tolerant as well as beng ready to develop and prepare up to date projectng programs, partcpate n constructon actvtes (plannng, mplementng, evaluatng and adjustng them), organze team work (actng as a member of a team, choosng team members, adjustng and controllng ther functons and provdng the feedback), apply varous negotaton styles, make decsons for cooperaton wth other organzatons, be able to communcate, develop dscusson sklls n dentfyng practcal stuatons and fndng effectve soluton. The goal of ths research s to explore hghway engneer s competence n the teamwork and negotatons.. Methods of nvestgaton Many mportant socal, economc and techncal achevements are made by teams of cooperatng specalsts rather than by ndvduals. To become successful n busness actvtes teamwork s a key factor. Wth the use of teams, the busness wll receve qucker and more effectve solutons to problems. Teams provde more mprovements of long duraton n processes and operatons as well. In teams, every member feel more comfortable brngng up problems that may occur and can receve support from other members of team to fnd a most usable soluton. The nvestgaton of possbltes to form a creatve and hghly moble workng team nvolvng personaltes wth dfferent psychologcal characterstcs was conducted nvolvng the leadng hghway engneerng specalsts who mproved ther qualfcaton durng the MSc studes at the Vlnus Gedmnas Techncal Unversty. The capabltes to conduct negotatons usng dfferent negotaton styles were nvestgated as well. More than 50 specalsts 1136

2 partcpated n the nvestgaton durng the perod The followng methods were used n ths research: Occupatonal Personalty Questonnare SHL was used for analysng psychologcal characterstcs of every partcpant n group work. The Brtsh psychologst Meredth Belbn argues that there are no deal workers but the deal team s possble [1]. He pcked out nne roles nne team types, whch can be represented by every member of the group. Any descrbed type of behavour s a very mportant element n the actvtes of all teams. The team ncludng the representatves of all roles s most successful n occupatonal and creatve work. In our research questonnare adopted for such purposes n Poland was used and one role (specalst) was excluded [1]. Dstrbuton remanng eght team roles among hghway engneers was nvestgated. The questonnare of self-evaluaton of negotaton sklls used n Warsaw School of Economcs was adapted for the purposes of the present research []. In testng, every partcpant had to answer 80 questons expressng hs/her opnon on communcaton wth other people. The results obtaned enable us to determne the profle of the negotatng style of every partcpant, as well as the average profle for the whole group. The above-mentoned methods were used n the nvestgaton of specalsts n other areas n Lthuana and Poland [1-3]. 3. Psychologcal problems encountered n formng an effcent team Ffty-seven specalsts were nvestgated durng four years of research. The man purpose was to determne whch types of possble eght team roles preval among the specalsts of hghway engneerng. The experment was conducted by usng a specal questonnare (contanng seven groups of questons wth eght possble responses n every stuaton). It took every partcpant about 30 mn to fll t n. After the statstcal evaluaton of the obtaned results, t was possble to present them n graphc form as shown n Fg. 1. In ths fgure relatve dstrbutons for averages of every role were expressed n percent scale calculated by usng such equaton: P Q = n % (1) where Q s average value for each nvestgated role ( s varyng from 1 to 8) expressed n percents, P s total sum of ponts for nvestgated role -, n s number of partcpants, 70 s total sum of ponts for all eght roles for one partcpant (ths s a sum ponts of all possble responses for seven groups of questons) ,9 13,6 13,1 14,1 11,7 10,1 10,4 8,1 Co Tw P ME RI I S Com Fg 1. Dstrbuton of results relatng to dfferent psychologcal roles ( Q, %) played n the teamwork The t-test was used for assessment whether the averages of dfferent team roles are statstcally dfferent from each other. Ths analyss s approprate whenever you want to compare the averages of two groups. The formula for the t-test s a rato. The top part of the rato s just the dfference between the two means or averages. The bottom part s a measure of the varablty or dsperson of the scores. When number of observatons n every group s equal e.g. expressed n such form: n 1 = n = n formula can be t = x1 x () S1 + S n 1137

3 where x 1 and x are the averages of nvestgated dfferent team roles n both groups, S1 and S are the varances of same roles n both groups, n s the sum of the persons n every nvestgated group. In the t-test, the degrees of freedom (df) s the sum of the persons n both groups mnus (n our research df=11). In our research the alpha level s set at Ths means that fve tmes out of a hundred we could fnd a statstcally sgnfcant dfference between the averages even f there was none. For the df, and the t-value, we can fnd the t-value up n a standard table of sgnfcance (n our research 1,98) to determne whether calculated by the formula the t-value s large enough to be sgnfcant. If t s, we can conclude that the dfference between the averages for the two groups s sgnfcant. We can conclude that n our research the role of mplementer was dfferent from other seven roles and the role of plant was found dfferent from other seven roles as well. Ths means that for hghway engneers the role of mplementer s most desrable and the role of plant s performed as most unacceptable. Another fndng of ths study s such that roles of shaker and coordnator are used n group work wth great satsfacton as well. Dfference for ths roles was found sgnfcant fve tmes out of a seven. From the other hand dfference for the roles of resource nvestgator and completer was found sgnfcant also fve tmes out of a seven. We can conclude that these roles were performed n most cases as unsatsfactory. The team fnds the successful soluton of the problems, the members of whch play dfferent roles. Each specalst of the team may play only one role (the man one), but, at the same tme, he/she may be rather competent to perform some mnor roles. Sometmes, the exstence of two shapers and too many montor evaluators may cause problems. The stuaton s not good when the leader who s unrvalled ntellectually or creatvely among hs colleagues domnates n the team. Hs poston and nborn sklls allow hs vvd domnaton n the team. However, the team wll not be able to functon when such a leader leaves t. Each member of the group may feel good when performng several roles. Usually, there wll be one role, whch s most desrable, and one role, whch s reluctantly accepted. The man features characterstcs of all types are presented n Table 1. The results of the present nvestgaton have revealed that the role of mplementer belong to the most acceptable. The role of plant s most unacceptable. The roles of shaper and coordnator are used n many cases wth great satsfacton as well. We can conclude that hghway engneers are less competent when the team roles of completer and resource nvestgator for successful team work are needed. Not a sngle problem or task may be solved successfully unless the team has the partcpants of two psychologcal types ncludng mplementer and completer. They are the guarantee of qualty type for the performance of work and the mplementaton of all planned tasks. Results of our nvestgaton showed that hghway engneers n most cases are not competent when the role of completer s performed. Table 1. Characterstc features of dfferent psychologcal roles played n the teamwork Psychologcal team type Advantages Weak ponts Coordnator Co mature, trustworthy not always creatve Shaper S dynamc, ready to accept challenges conflctng, provokng other people Plant P creatve, full of deas, wth lvely magnaton poor ablty of mantanng nterpersonal relatons Montor evaluator M.E. capable of strategc thnkng, foreseeng all poss lackng leadershp abltes solutons Resource nvestgator R.I. enthusastc, capable of developng contacts, quckly loosng enthusasm cooperatve Completer Com dlgent, capable of fndng mstakes, punctual, scrupulous strvng to be an autocrat, concerned about detals Team worker T.W. socal, frendly, capable to lsten and communcate ndecsve, dslkng conflcts Implementer I effcent, practcal, dscplned conservatve, not flexble Specalst Sp provdes specalst knowledge dwell on techncaltes Implementer s the most acceptable role among the specalsts of the nvestgated group. Completer takes the sxth place among eght possble roles, whch shows that, n most cases, engneers are less capable of mplementng ths role n the teamwork as well (see Fg. 1). 4. Investgaton of negotaton sklls Ffty seven leaders of hghway engneerng enterprses were nvestgated for ther negotaton sklls. Durng ths test every partcpant had to answer 80 questons to determne hs/her opnon about communcaton wth other people. It took every respondent about 0 mn to fll n the questonnare. The results obtaned allow us to determne the profle of the negotatng style of every partcpant, as well as the average profle of the whole group. There are four man styles of negotatng: ntutve (I), normatve (N), analytcal (A) styles and the style based on the facts (F). When the data were statstcally evaluated, t was possble to present them n the form demonstrated n Table. 1138

4 Table. Dstrbuton of hghway buldng specalsts usng dfferent styles of negotatng Statstcal parameters Data on usng varous negotatng styles I N A F Average X 61,5 66,5 69,7 67,9 Standard devaton - S y 7,6 7, 7,6 6,5 Varaton V, % 1,4 10,8 10,9 9,6 Range of dsperson The results of nvestgatng the negotaton sklls show that the engneers of the expermental group mostly apply the analytcal style (A) of negotatng, whereas the ntutve style (I) s practcally not popular wth them. The normatve style (N) and the negotatng style based on facts (F) are used almost at the same level. The t-test was used for assessment whether the averages of dfferent styles of negotatng are statstcally dfferent from each other. Ths analyss confrmed our conclusons stated before. We can conclude that n our research the ntutve style of negotatng was dfferent from other three styles and the analtcal style of negotatng was found dfferent from other two styles as well. Dfference between the analtcal style of negotatng and style based on facts was found statstcally not sgnfcant. Every style of negotatng can be characterzed by the man prncple used n negotatng and dfferent symptoms of human behavour durng the negotatons. A graphcal vew of the nvestgaton results s presented n Fg ,5 66,5 69,7 Fg. Profle of negotatng styles related to engneers 67,9 I N A F The negotaton style based on the facts s characterzed by the man prncple statng that facts are speakng for themselves. The man symptoms of behavour are as follows: facts are presented n a natural way, keepng one s word and remndng others about ther prevous statements (opnons), sharng prevous experence n negotatons wth other partcpants, classfyng facts n negotaton, searchng for evdence, keepng documentaton of the statements made. The ntutve style reles on the followng man prncple: magnaton can solve any problem. The man symptoms of behavour are: declaraton of warm and enthusastc confrmatons, concentraton on the whole stuaton or problem, precse defnton of key (sgnfcant) elements, transference to future, creatvty and takng advantage of magnaton for analysng the stuaton, skppng from one topc to another, contnuously presentng new projects and deas. The negotaton style based on standards (norms) reles on the followng man prncple: negotatons are amed at effectng a transacton. Engneers of nvestgated group mostly use such negotatng style. The symptoms of behavour are as follows: judgng and evaluatng the facts n accordance wth a person s herarchy of values, showng approval or dsapproval, expressng consent or dsagreement, offerng a transacton, suggestng a gft, makng great demands, showng power, utlzng hs/her poston and authorty, searchng for compromse, concentratng on people, ther reactons and atttudes, payng attenton to the communcaton process and the stuaton n the group. For the analytcal style, the man prncple s as follows: logc s leadng (gudng) to rght decsons. For ths style, the key symptoms of behavour are: searchng for reasons, suggestng decsons and usng them durng the negotatons, makng arguments for and aganst (pros and cons) when dscussng personal and collectve ponts of vew, subdvdng and groupng facts, analysng every stuaton based on reasons and consequences, dentfyng the matchng parts, puttng thngs (objects) n logcal order, utlzng lnear calculatons. It can be assumed that any style of negotatng s appled nether too frequently or nor too seldom, f the results fall n the nterval of 45 and 70 ponts. Every style of negotatng s used too rare f results n negotatng profle fall below 45 ponts. When results n ths profle are exceedng 70 ponts then ths style s used too frequently. In table 3 we can see dstrbuton of frequences for makng use of every style of negotatng. Table 3. Frequency of usng dfferent negotaton styles, % Style of negotatng Used too rarely 45 Used properly Used too often 70 Intutve 1,5 85,4 13,1 Normatve 0,1 68,5 31,4 Analytcal 0,0 51,6 48,4 Based on facts 0,0 6,7 37,3 The analyss of results presented n Table 3 shows that all styles of negotatng are used ether properly or too often. No one of the dscussed four negotatng styles was used durng negotatons too seldom. In many cases, styles of negotatng were used too frequently. The normatve style (N) of negotatons s used by 31,4 % more often than s recommended by scentsts. Other negotatng styles are also used too often, but the results 1139

5 do not exceed 50 % (the analytcal style (A) s used too often n 48,4 % of cases, the style based on facts (F) s used too often n 37,3 % and the ntutve style (I) of negotatng s used too often n 13,1 % of cases). Some dependences can be observed when comparson the results of Tables and 3 s made. When some style of negotatng s used more often then ths style durng negotatons s used less properly. Ths nterestng fndng of our research show to us that possblty of makng mstakes s greater when some style of negotatng s used more often. 5. Conclusons The results of the present nvestgaton have revealed that the role of mplementer s most acceptable for specalsts of hghway engneerng enterprses as a psychologcal type and the role of plant s most unacceptable from ths perspectve. Other fndng of the Lthuanan study was not so optmstc. Such mportant role as completer, whch s necessary n solvng anyone sngle problem or task was placed only on the sxth place. The results obtaned n studyng the ablty to negotate show that the engneers of the nvestgated group mostly apply the analytcal style of negotaton, whereas the ntutve style s least popular wth them. The analytcal style of negotatons s used by 48 % more often than s recommended by scentsts. The nformaton collected n ths research could be useful for the management of hghway buldng enterprses as well as for the analyss of the roles played by the team members and, n some cases, for the formaton of an deal group to solve some relevant problems and to conduct negotatons. References 1. Małgorzata Lucewcz. Eght brllants. (Ośmu wspanałych). Busnessman 1993, No. 1, 10, (n Polsh language). Semńsk, J; Chrstauskas, J. Investgaton of some personalty characterstcs of teachers and ther actvtes n team work. (Badana cech osobowośc pedagogów oraz sposobów ch dzałalnośc w pracy grupowej) // Studum Vlnense A : VIII Internatonal Conference on the Scence and Qualty of Lfe : 4-6 June, 004, Vlnus, Lthuana: Internatonal transfer of hgher educaton. ISSN , Vol.. p (n Polsh language) 3. Chrstauskas, Julus; Semńsk, Janusz L. Model of leader hghway engneerng specalty. (Kelų tesmo specalybės vadovo models) // Vocatonal educaton: Research and realty / Vytautas Magnus Unversty, Centre for Vocatonal Educaton and Tranng Studes. ISSN , 003, Nr. 6, p (n Lthuanan language) 4. Chrstauskas, Julus. Psychologcal aspects of qualty of specalsts tranng. (Психологические аспекты оценки качества подготовки специалистов) // Qualty management n modern hgh school: nternatonal scentfc-methodcal conference. Proceedngs:Vol. / St. Petersburg-Kaluga, Interna-tonal Insttute of Bankng, 004, p (n Russan language). 1140