Jedt 04 2015 0025

Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology
Relationship between decision-making style, competitive strategies

and organisational performance among construction organisations
Luqman Oyekunle Oyewobi, Abimbola Windapo, James Olabode Bamidele Rotimi,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Luqman Oyekunle Oyewobi, Abimbola Windapo, James Olabode Bamidele Rotimi, (2016)
"Relationship between decision-making style, competitive strategies and organisational
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 04:24 04 May 2018 (PT)
performance among construction organisations", Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology,

Vol. 14 Issue: 4, pp.713-738, https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-04-2015-0025
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-04-2015-0025
Downloaded on: 04 May 2018, At: 04:24 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 96 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1136 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"Relationship between competitive strategy and construction organisation performance: The
moderating role of organisational characteristics", Management Decision, Vol. 54 Iss 9 pp. 2340-2366 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2016-0040">https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2016-0040</a>
(2015),"Decision-maker characteristics and international decisions for SMEs", Management
Decision, Vol. 53 Iss 10 pp. 2226-2249 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2015-
0094">https:// doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2015-0094</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

emerald-srm:551360 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The
company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series
volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer
resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative
for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1726-0531.htm
Constructio
Relationship between n
decision-making style, organisation
s
competitive
strategies and organisational
performance among 713
TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 04:24 04 May 2018 (PT)
construction organisations Revised 27 October

2015
Received 29 April
2015
Accepted 12 December
Luqman Oyekunle Oyewobi 2015
Department of Quantity Surveying, School of Environmental

Technology, Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria
and Department of Construction Economics and
Management, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South
Africa
Abimbola Windapo
Department of Construction Economics and Management,
University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa, and
James Olabode Bamidele Rotimi
School of Engineering, Auckland University of Technology,
Auckland, New Zealand
Abstract
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS
Purpose – The decision-making styles and strategies of organisations play The financial
significant roles in their competitive advantage and the achievement of superior assistance of
performance. The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of decision- the National
making styles on the strength of the relationship between competitive strategy Research
and organisational performance among large construction organisations based Foundation
in South Africa. (NRF) towards
Design/methodology/approach – The study focuses on large construction organisations this research is
in South Africa using a questionnaire survey to elicit information. The sample consists of 72 hereby
large construction organisations, and the measures of decision-making styles, competitive acknowledged.
strategies and organisational performance used for the instrument utilised to elicit Opinions
information were derived from the literature. Descriptive, parametric and multiple expressed or
regression analyses were used to determine the effect of decision-making styles and conclusions
competitive strategies on the organisations’ performance. arrived at, are
Findings – The results of the study show that organisations utilize all types of decision- those of the
making styles, but the most significantly adopted styles are analytical and directive. The authors and are
study found that decision-making styles influence organisational performance through not necessarily
competitive strategies. to be attributed
Research limitations/implications – The research considered large construction to the NRF.
organisations based in South Africa and operating in three provinces, where almost 75 per
cent of all public projects are being implemented. The findings can be generalised to other
large construction organisations functioning within the South African industry, because
most of the organisations surveyed operate
Jour
nal
of
Engi
neer
ing,
Desi
gn
and
Tec
hno
log
y
Vol.
14
No.
4,
201
6
pp.
713
-
738
©
Emer
ald
Grou
p
Publi
shing
Limit
ed
172
6-
053
1
DOI
10.1
108/
JEDT
-04-
201
5-
002
5
JEDT nationally. However, the findings may not be generalizable to the entire industry.
Small and medium-sized organisations vary in terms of structure in relation to
14,4 large organisations; hence, their decision-making styles may be different.
Practical implications – The study makes explicit the need to consider the role of
different decision-making styles being practiced within organisations and how their
moderating effect influences organisational performance beyond rational processes. A
better understanding of this will enable organisations to achieve the total commitment of
714 their staff to achieve superior performance.
Originality/value – The study contributes to the existing literature and body of knowledge
on the strategic management of organisations. It underpins the assertion that decision-
making styles and competitive strategies can influence organisational performance, and
this is validated within the construction industry. Knowledge of the relationships between
the variables measured in this paper will be beneficial to both owners and managers of
construction organisations, because they provide the necessary information on how
strategic decision-making styles influence the strategy adopted and, in turn, the
organisational performance.
Keywords Decision-making, Organisational performance, Competitive
strategy, Contingency approach, Decision-making style, Organisational
issues
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
This paper examines and analyses the influence of strategic decision-making
and competitive strategy on organisational performance based on the
contingency theory. Leaders of organisations are expected to make strategic
decisions that have a significant influence on their organisation’s performance.
The style and speed of decision-making has been reported to be strongly related
to organisational performance (Goll and Rasheed, 1997; Baum and Wally, 2003).
The contingency approach holds that decision-making structures are chosen
based on the competitive strategy used by organisations and assumes that
organisations that carefully select their strategies with adequate attention to
decision-making structures outperform their competitors that do not (Chung,
2008; Chung et al., 2012). Certain key issues in the strategic management field
is the clarification of the developmental process of strategy and the strategic
intent which undoubtedly defines the end so as to provide a plan for decision-
making that will lead to an effective formulation of strategy (Panagiotou, 2008).
The competitive strategy of an organisation and its structural relationship are
vital in improving organisational performance and in enhancing its competitive
advantage, but it may not be sufficient for organisations to plan the current
industry market niche and associated constraints. Therefore, managers of
organisations need to unlock new business opportunities which can make
organisation grow and develop competitive strength through decision-making
(Parnell, 2011; Arasa and K’Obonyo, 2012). Organisational strategic decision-
making and competitive strategy have been topical issues among scholars from
diverse backgrounds, most especially amongst researchers in both the strategic
management field and the field of organisational theory (Dean and Sharfman,
1996; Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2010; Amzat and Idris, 2012). It is believed that the
quality of decision-making is dependent upon organisations’ strategic process
and intent. These exert pressure on organisations to identify their strengths and
weaknesses and devise mechanisms to recognise pertinent business
opportunities and adapt to dynamic business environments in a way that will
reduce or eliminate business threats. The identification of these factors will not
only enable
organisations
to gain
competitive
advantage over their industry rivals but also guarantees the needed survival to Constructio
remain
n
in business by obtaining the anticipated strategic fit (Panagiotou, organisation
2008). s
Rowe and Mason (1987) view decision-making styles from a psychological
viewpoint
and contend that it is a cognitive process that characterises how an individual
solves a
problem and makes use of available information to formulate decisions. The
cognitive
viewpoint considers organisations and their external environment to be
interrelated,
whereas the industrial environment and market margins are considered as 715
constructed
socially through the development of competitive depiction (Porac et al., 1995).
The
cognitive process allows an individual to adopt analogous postures and
behaviours in
different spheres of influence (Raffaldi et al., 2012). The definition of decision-
making
style used in this paper is founded on the observations of previous researchers
such as
Albaum et al. (1995) and Sayles (1999), who argue that the acts of decision-
making are
attributable to organisational behaviour as contrasted to individual behaviour.
The
variation of these attributes do not only depend on the environment in
which the
organisation operates but also within a dynamic and growing history of role-
bounded
interpersonal relationships (McCabe, 1987; Osborn, 1999). Uncertainty that
typically
prevails in construction businesses because of its fragmented nature requires
viable
decision-making. How those decisions are made (style) is an essential element
in the
success of a decision. Hence, managers of an organisation must decide whether
to take
full control of the decision-making process or to allow contributions from
other
employees when making decisions. This is because the eccentricities of key
makers of
decision in any organisation play a pivotal role in the influence style
has on
decision-making (Albaum et al., 1995). In spite of the significance of decision-
making
styles as self-assessment tools that require organisations to evaluate their
modus
operandi inertly, there is a lack of understanding on how the decision-making
style
influences organisational performance taking into cognisance the competitive
The contingent relationship between structure and competitive strategy and
theory (
decision-making style affects organisational performance in the construction
except few studies on leadership styles in construction (

2004).
The primary aim of the study reported in this paper is to examine the
decision-making style has on the strength of relationship between competitive
and organisational performance. The research intends to answer the
fundamental questions:
Q2
Furthermore, there is no known research in construction management research
construction organisation’s performance. Therefore, this study builds on the
culture (
JEDT In answering these basic questions, this paper would, therefore, contribute
14,4 uniquely to the current discourse on strategy in construction and in
understanding of the impact of decision-making style on organisational
performance in the construction context using the contingency approach.
Against this background, the paper also examines the relationship between
different types of decision-making styles and competitive strategy by using
716 multiple measures of organisational performance.
Theoretical background and conceptual frameworks

The theoretical framework of this study is founded on the contingency
theory. The strategic contingency theory upholds that a beneficial strategy
should obtain a strategic fit with the dimensions of the environment in

which it is implemented. This suggests that different strategies are required
in different environments in which organisations operate (Baack and Boggs,
2008). The competitive strategies and the strategic decision-making styles
of construction organisations will be measured based on the contingent
variables identified in literature. The linkages amongst the constructs,
strategy-structure-performance trilogy as it affects organisational
performance, will be the focus. Thus, the study investigates the underlying
theoretical foundation of prior studies in this subject area.
Although, the strategic contingency theory can be traced back to the structure-
strategy-performance paradigm linked to early institutional economists, such as
Mason (1939) and Bain (1956); the idiom “contingency theory” was first introduced
into the organisational studies lexicon by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967). Lawrence and
Lorsch (1967) conducted empirical research to show the influence of organisational
structure on the economic performance of organisations and argue that
organisational performance is contingent upon environmental dimensions. Since
then, the contingency theory continues with its dominance in strategic organisational
management literature as one of the central approaches to the study of
organisational design and remains the most extensively adopted present-day
theoretical approach to organisational studies (Scott, 2003). The theory focuses more
on strategy than structure, and its concern is on the strategic fit or match between
strategy and environment (Lee and Miller, 1996). Porter (1980, p. 3) unequivocally
states that “the essence of formulating competitive strategy is relating a company to
its environment”. According to Parnell (2013), the theory proposes that the most
sustainable strategic posture of an organisation is the one that obtains a beneficial
strategic fit with the business environment. Although one of the main concerns of the
contingency theory is on how an organisation achieves strategic fit with the
environment to enhance performance with respect to its structure, it has also been
applied to a number of studies on organisational characteristics, for example,
leadership (Fiedler, 1966, 1967), decision-making structure (Pertusa-Ortega et al.,
2010; Chung et al., 2012) or strategy (Fredrickson, 1984). Hence, this study’s
theoretical background is explored to establish the link between the constructs.
However, contingency theorists argue that no single ideal style or kind of
organisation exists for all potential types of environment; each organisation must
obtain a beneficial fit between circumstantial elements – business environment, the
organisational structural attributes and the competitive strategy (Parnell, 2013;
Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2008).
The perception “fit” explains the strategic linkages between organisations and
their contextual components to enhance organisational performance. The concept
“fit” as used in the contingency theory is described in Pertusa-Ortega et al. (2008, p.
141) “as the degree of internal coherence among a set of theoretical attributes (for
instance,
certain
strategies will most probably be associated with specific organisational Constructio
structures and
n
environments)”. Miles and Snow (2003) posit that the most effective and organisation
efficient s
organisation is the one that develops mechanisms that permit organisations to
achieve
strategic fit and complement their market strategy. To achieve this strategic fit
being
referred to in the current paper, there must be consistency in the moderated or
mediated
relationship between the competitive strategy and decision-making style 717

used in
enhancing organisational performance/excellence, which is conceptualised in
Figures 1
and 2. It is essential to delimit the fit used in this paper, because many of the
previous
studies that focused on the contingency approach failed to unambiguously
delimit the
description of fit that they use. Lack of delimitation leads to confusion, when
putting
forward the influence of organisational fit on the performance of an
organisation
(Roca-Puig and Bou-Llusar, 2007). This is also considered to be one of the
reasons for
incongruence in the results of the empirical research theorising on the impact
of fit on
organisational performance (Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2008). Pertusa-Ortega et al.
(2008)
argue that within the construction of the contingency concept,
organisational
performance is dependent on the fit that exists between organisational
background, its
structure (this is conceptualised as decision-making style) and the strategic
processes of
organisations. Findings from previous studies indicate that different decision-
making
styles exhibit different impacts on organisational performance, which may be
positive
or negative (Rehman et al., 2012; Amzat and Idris, 2012). Govindarajan (1989)
also found
that problem-solving styles, among other factors, have an influence on the
competitive
strategies of business units.
Decision-making styles
Mediated or indirect
causal relationship
Fi between
decision-making
Competitive strategies
g style and
ur performanc
e e
1.
M
od
er
at
ed
ca
us
al
relationship between
C
o
m
p
et
it
iv
e
st
r
at
e
gi
es
O
r
g
a
ni
sa
ti
o
n
al
c
o
m
p
e
ti
ti
v
e
st
r
a
t
e
g
y
Performance
and performance
Decision-making styles
Fi
g
ur
e
2.
JEDT Decision-making styles
14,4 Researchers in construction management have devoted considerable effort
towards understanding the factors that influence the performance of
construction industry, with much attention given to project managerial
leadership (Chan and Chan, 2005; Limsila and Ogunlana, 2008; Toor and Ofori,
2008). Although the reasons for their interest in project managers is
718 understandable, decision-making is the key activity that impacts performance
(Russ et al., 1995). Hence, the quality of decisions made by project managers
will be fundamental in determining performance. Having acknowledged their
position and the understanding that a construction organisation is conceived as
project-based, decision-making is a collective responsibility of all stakeholders in
an organisation and should be viewed from a broader perspective of an

organisation characteristics as against individually learned or acquired habit of
solving problems (Albaum et al., 1995). Asari and Razak (2007) view strategic
decision-making as those decisions that give overall direction to an organisation
and its eventual sustainability in the face of expectable, changeable and
unforeseen events that may likely occur in an organisation’s vital business
environment. Decision makers are influenced by the unpredictable nature of the
business environment and as such are saddled with the responsibility of making
everyday decisions on issues that affect their organisations and provide
solutions to problems (Tatum et al., 2003). Therefore, the manner of arriving at
decisions by the management of an organisation – their decision-making style –
influences organisational performance (Russ et al., 1995). Tatum et al. (2003)
posit that decision-making styles have been discussed in the literature from
various viewpoints and that a-one-size-fits-all solution does not exist, as there is
no one unanimously accepted categorisation of decision-making styles. Tatum et
al. (2003) contend that decision-making styles vary with regards to the quantity
of information at the disposal of the decision makers, the amount of alternatives
that presents themselves and the degree to which decision makers strive to put
together and coordinate several sources of input (information). This supports the
earlier position of Eisenhardt (1989), who argues that the larger the amount of
information available to a decision maker, the quicker the decision-making
happens, even when various sources of information are taken into consideration.
Eisenhardt’s theory contradicts the traditional decision-making theory that
acknowledges that the speed of decision-making slows down when dealing with
large and multiple sources of information.
Various decision-making typologies exist in literature, Asari and Razaki (2007)
posit that decision-making styles may be categorised based on the approach
used by decision makers in solving organisational problems. Bartol and Martin
(1994) cited in Asari and Razak (2007) contend that multiple models of decision-
making styles exist in literature, and these include the rational model, the non-
rational model, the satisficing model, the incremental model and the garbage-
can model. Scott and Bruce (1995) also categorised decision-making styles into
five different groups which they tagged general decision-making styles. Scott
and Bruce’s classifications include rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant and
spontaneous decision-making styles. The rational decision-making style denotes
that individuals engrossed in the rational decision-making processes anticipate
the need for it and are adequately equipped with all the necessary information
suitable to make an effective decision. Intuitive decision-making suggests that
managers rely solely on premonitions and feelings without adequate information
to make optimal decisions. This may be from sources including innate
response, general experience or focused learning (Patton, 2003). The Constructio
dependant style
n
describes managers that rely heavily on the direction and support of organisation
subordinates or s
other individuals to make vital decisions. This type of manager always
searches for
advice and direction from others to arrive at decisions. Avoidant decision
makers try to
avoid decision-making or perhaps postpone the making of vital decisions either
because
of the fear of failure or any other reasons. Spontaneous decision makers are
known for
making sudden and impulsive decisions. They are quick in making decisions 719
and are
always eager to come through the decision-making process as rapidly as possible
(Omotola, 2012). In contrast, Miller et al., (1996) argue that decision-making is
satisficing
rather than maximising. They contend that decisions cannot be made
wholly in a
rational way considering the constraints of organisational sophistication
and the
cognitive abilities of managers. Russ et al. (1995) contend that decision-
making style
appears to be related to performance; there is, however, no anecdotal or
empirical
evidence in the construction industry context.
Competitive strategy
The concept of competitive strategy originates from Porter’s (1980, 1985),

“competitive
advantage theory” that became an axiom towards the end of the twentieth
century.
Competitive advantage was developed by Porter to enable organisations
sustain their
ability to improve performance and be more innovative in their approaches in
enhancing
the quality of their products. The essence of competitive strategy is to enjoy
superior
profit margins and remain competitively relevant in the marketplace to attain
success
(Porter, 1985). Therefore, competitive strategies that are used mostly in
business
organisations, including construction businesses, as categorised generically by
Porter,
are to strive to be the industry’s low-cost producer through cost-based
business
strategy, practice different strategies based on quality, superior
performance or
technological dominance and concentrate on a market segment using a focus
strategy to
achieve a competitive advantage by performing better than their
competitors in
providing more value to the product required by the buyers.
These strategies are adopted within the construction industry as a result
of the
proliferation of construction organisations on a yearly basis, which forces the
existing
construction firms to eliminate the potential barriers of new entrants to the
business
(Isik et al
strategies
(focus, low-cost or differentiation) to undertake or secure construction works
that are
beyond the capability of the new entrants (
of these
strategies to the five competitive forces given by Porter, threat of new entrants;
threat of
substitute products or services; bargaining power of suppliers; bargaining
power of
buyers; and rivalry amongst existing firms, will provide organisations
with the
opportunity to identify and develop core competence skills required to
achieve a
sustainable competitive advantage and performance excellence.
Robinson
(2007)
must come
from all the three decision-making levels in the hierarchy of an organisation
(corporate,
business or competitive and functional levels). This is because strategic
decision-
making exhibits an immense influence on organisations and demands
a huge
commitment of organisational resources to align decision makers with the
type of
strategic goals and strategies they are more often than not responsible for
(Pearce and
Robinson, 2007
JEDT The focus of this paper is on competitive strategy, and, as such,
14,4 decisions at the business level are its major concern. At that level, decision-
making moves beyond conceptualisation and tends to be more concrete to
bridge the gaps between the corporate and functional decision-making
levels (Morrell, 2004; Pearce and Robinson, 2007). Here, the manager
translates strategic direction statements and intent into concrete objectives
720 and strategies that will ultimately influence all levels of the organisation
and beyond; this will determine how organisations will favourably compete
in the industry (Eberlin and Tatum, 2008).
Decision-making style and competitive strategy

Govindarajan (1989) argues that how managerial characteristics contribute to

the performance of an organisation and the nexus between them may likely
depend upon its strategic context. Govindarajan (1989) buttresses this augment
that if the choice of suitable competitive strategies (Porter, 1980) to be pursued
and implemented by an organisation is considered to be decisive to its survival,
then the selection of specific individuals responsible for making the decision
(choice) and implementation of these strategies should also be regarded as
important. However, some previous studies such as Hambrick and Mason (1984)
and Miller et al. (1985) have empirically related managerial characteristics to
corporate strategy; the strategy in this study comprises the decision by an
organisation on how to compete in the turbulent and uncertain construction
market, and not just the choice of which sector or niche market of the industry
to focus. Porter (1980) highlights resources and managerial or problem-solving
skills among other requirements needed by an organisation for pursuing each of
the generic strategy, and these requirements differ across the choice of
strategies. Problem-solving is viewed as the processes through which
organisations organise relevant information from the environment or from
already occurred problems and evaluate it (Govindarajan, 1989; Edum-Fotwe
and McCaffer, 2000). A decision maker is a problem-solver in an organisation
(Russ et al., 1995), and, as such, problem-solving skills and decision-making
styles are two closely related terms that are used interchangeably and need
inventiveness in recognising and creating options using relevant methods.
Govindarajan (1989) examines the portfolio of managerial attributes along

biographies and personalities and identifies four variables that can be used in
matching managerial characteristics with strategy. These include the functional
background; industry familiarity; locus of control; and problem-solving style.
Problem-solving style was considered from four psychological functions –
sensing, intuition, thinking and feeling. These styles were classified into
information gathering style and information evaluation style. Sensing intuition is
the information gathering style, and research affirmed that cos -leadership
strategy requires sensing, whereas intuitive attribute is relevant for organisation
pursuing differentiation strategy. Few other studies have examined the influence
of executive style and top management teams on the organisation strategic
choice (Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1996; Miller et al., 2008; Hakonsson et al.,
2012). However, Miller et al. (2008) report that above-average of the strategic
choices fail because of factors under the control of the executives. Many of
these studies are from mainstream management or marketing research. Lack of
empirical research linking decision-making style and competitive strategies used
by organisation appears to be a gap in the current discourse on strategy in
construction.
Decision-making style and organisational performance Constructio
n
The relationship between decision-making style and performance has been organisation
established s
in literature. Russ et al. (1995) in a research conducted to examine the
influence of
leadership and decision-making style on performance of sales managers
found that
decision-making style is linked to performance. Their research adopted
Scott and
Bruce’s (1995) classification of decision-making style; the study revealed that
intuitive,
dependent and spontaneous do not affect performance; however, higher 721
performers are
those managers who make quick and careful (rational) decisions. Also, empirically
rationality–performance relationships have been demonstrated in literature, but
some
of the studies were in the context of environments (Friedrickson and Mitchell,
1984). In
a recently conducted research, Hakonsson et al. (2012) with evidence from
Danish small
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) organisations examined how
executive style
affects strategy implementation. Their research showed that failure to align
SMEs
executive style and strategy leads to a significant loss in organisational
performance.
However, most of these studies have been conducted in the area of
decision-making
style in manufacturing industries or marketing domain. Lack of the organisation
theory
research and understanding of the construction industry by social science
researchers
may likely be responsible for paucity of research in this area (Lansley, 1994;
Langford
et al., 1995). In the construction context, few studies have identified problem-
solving
skill as an essential attribute that impacts organisations effectiveness and
as a key
factor in achieving competitive advantage and efficiency (Lansley,
1987, 1994;
Edum-Fotwe and McCaffer, 2000). This study views organisations as having
particular
decision-making styles or problem-solving skills, which represent a
collective of
individual managers.
This study, thus, considers decision-making styles from the four
forces that
determine how decisions are made as argued by Rowe and Mason (1987). This is
because ve feature that is challenged-based achievement with complex
reasoning
it is essential to explore attained through
an organisation’s decisions awithin
methodical
the contextand
of itsslow
set ofdecision-
needs, making process.
predisposition• and the desired values
Behavioural style:while alsopromotes
This taking into account apparent
effortless reasoning and
individual individual orientation and makes employees feel valued within
differences thatthe manifest and become
organisation by stable overtime.
creating These styles
an enabling are as
environment that
follows: allows compromise to be reached and enhances better
• A communication.
n • Conceptual style: The achievement of the organisation is based on the
a intrinsic rewards which are psychological, usually non-financial rewards
l that workers receive from performing their task meaningfully and doing it
y successfully. This includes rewards such as praise and recognition, which
t Thomas (2009) regards as the reinforcements that keep workers actively
i self-encouraging and enhances their work engagement. This style
c improves the employee’s orientation and encourages creativity and an
idealistic environment.
s • Directive style: The characteristics of this include authoritative
t power and dominant behaviour by the superior with clarity of
y purpose and simple reasoning or rational thinking.
l
e
:
T
h
i
s
p
o
s
s
e
s
s
e
s
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
i
n
c
t
i
JEDT Decision-making style, unlike leadership style, where considerable efforts has
been made to establish the link to performance in construction (Nicholas, 1990;
14,4
Naum, 2001), is yet to receive attention. This study posits that the approach
used by managers to arrive at decisions will affect the quality of the decisions
made and how stakeholders (superiors and subordinates) will react to it. When
decisions made by managers are popular, its implementation may likely be
722 faster, thus leading to greater success. Based on the foregoing discussions, this
study also postulates that the decision-making style will lead to a superior
performance, most especially when aligned with an appropriate competitive
strategy. However, effective managerial decision-making styles can be assumed
to exhibit a higher influence on organisational performance, and no known
research has investigated this nexus empirical within the construction industry.
The next section explores organisation performance measurement literature and

justifies the reasons for the choice of measures used in this study.
Organisational performance measurement

The continual increase in the number of construction organisations denotes fierce
competition, most especially in the South African context, where over 30 Acts relating
to the construction industry have been enacted in nearly two decades to balance the
inequality of the past and give preference to black-owned organisations [Construction
Industry Development Board (CIDB), 2004]. Consequently, construction organisations
are confronting many issues of how to successfully exist in the industry by
formulating strategies and making viable and feasible business decisions. Decision
makers within an organisation require multiple sources of information to make
decisions on the ways to achieve the strategic goals of their organisation (Eisenhardt,
1989; Tatum et al., 2003). In making these decisions, a considerable amount of
information is needed, thus, it becomes necessary for decision makers to reappraise
past decisions and evaluate their strategies to ensure the organisations’ objectives
are being realised (David, 2011). This requires measuring the performance of the
organisation. The measures of performance may be subjective or objective, and this
has generated heated arguments within the performance literature (Allen et al.,
2008). The two categories of performance measures have their own inherent merits
and demerits. According to Allen et al. (2008), objective measures of performance
such as return on investment, return on assets or return on capital appear to be more
concrete in explaining an organisation’s performance, but they are often limited in
scope of financial or accounting data.
However, the inappropriateness of objective measures for planning and
making decisions for the healthy growth of organisations has been revealed by
Wongrassamee et al. (2003), and Jusoh et al. (2008). This is considered
inappropriate, because their focus is limited to easily measurable standards
such as profitability and blinds them to other norms essential to competitive
success (Liviu et al., 2008). Subjective measures as argued by Allen et al. (2008)
are leading indicators but indeterminate. Subjective measures, by and large,
offer the researcher a comprehensive description of how effective an
organisation is with respect to its industry or market competitors, and they are
forward-looking (Kale and Arditi, 2003; Beatham et al., 2004; Allen et al., 2008).
Subjective measures of organisational performance permit a wider range of
organisations to be contrasted, unlike the objective measures that frequently
constrain the breadth and scope of organisations that can be involved within a
single study (Parnell et al., 2006; Allen et al., 2008). This paper, therefore, views
organisational
performance from both perspectives in relation to their competitiveness from Constructio
multiple
n
organisational standpoints, and this comprises accounting data, objective organisation
fulfilment s
and overall performance of the organisation. From the review of past
research, the
distinct idiosyncrasies of the industry context and discussion on the nexus
between the
study constructs, the following hypotheses are highlighted to be tested in the
current
paper:
Summary of hypotheses: 723

H1. There is an indirect relationship between decision-making styles and
overall
H2. There is a significant relationship between competitive
strategies and
H3. Decision-making styles moderate the relationship between
competitive
strategies and organisational performance through different
measures
individually emphasised.
Research method
The focus of this study is on large construction organisations in the South

African
construction industry (Grade 7-9 on the CIDB register of contractors) operating in
three
provinces, namely, Guateng, Kwazulu Natal and the Western Cape. The
research
considers large construction organisations based on the classification of
CIDB, as
contractors that have defined strategic planning and have the internal
capabilities in
both technical and managerial areas for competitive advantage could be located
in these
categories [Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB), 2012]. These
categories
are selected, because the study intends to investigate the impact of the
organisation’s
decision-making styles and competitive strategy on performance which many
small or
medium organisations do not exhibit owing to their size (Pertusa-Ortega et al.,
2010).
Also, organisations doing construction business in these provinces were
considered,
because approximately 70 per cent of public contracts in South Africa in the
past five
years were executed in these regions (
number of
organisations in these grades in those regions, CIDB database of registered
contractors
was used, and a total of 577 organisations were identified. It was not possible
to reach
out to all the organisations identified, and the study adopted a non-
response bias
approach using a calculation of minimum sample size (
a figure
of 277 considered to be representative of the sample and to which
questionnaires were
administered.
The development of the questionnaire for the quantitative survey started
with the
review of relevant literature on competitive strategies, decision-making
styles and
organisational performance to identify the variables, and this was
refined by
researchers in construction and the built environment to evaluate the content
validity
(Govindarajan, 1989
tested
through pilot survey to establish whether the questions were clear in
terms of
expression and free of technical jargon or colloquialism that prevent the
research from
obtaining useful data. After making corrections based on the outcome of the
pilot test,
the final questionnaire was mailed to the targeted respondents who have
earlier been
sent a letter of invitation to participate in the study. The respondents were assured
of the
secrecy of their identity that the information provided is only for academic
purposes and
JEDT it will not be divulged to a third party. The survey questions were designed in a
manner that there is no wrong or right answer based on the measurement scale
14,4
that has been extensively validated in different countries. This was used to give
assurance that the questions were unambiguous and easily comprehended by
the respondent.
The research used an internet-based survey to administer questionnaires to
724 277 construction organisations in South Africa. This approach eliminates the
barriers to postal surveys and allows researchers to build in a dynamic error
tracking mechanism for consistency of responses throughout (Easterby-Smith et
al., 2012). The target respondents are chief executive officers and senior
management employees that have a deep and broad knowledge of the
organisation’s philosophy and its processes (Goll and Rasheed, 1997). They are
considered to be the most suitable respondents for the research to explain the
decision-making structure and strategic posture of their organisations (Pertusa-
Ortega et al., 2010). A total of 72 valid responses were obtained and analysed in
this paper. The reliability of the scales was examined using Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient. All the scales exhibit alpha values above 0.6, which is considered
acceptable for exploratory research (decision-making style 0.68, competitive
strategies 0.85 and performance [subjective measure] 0.834).
Unit of analysis
The units of analysis for this study include competitive strategy, decision-
making style and organisational performance. These units of analysis were
chosen because of performance heterogeneity among construction
organisations (heterogeneity is being influenced by different strategies used by
different organisations) and also because of the lack of uniformity in the
decision-making styles among organisations. An effective and viable decision-
making style leads to beneficial strategic decisions, which can vary from one
organisation to another (Miller et al., 1985). This is supported by Papadakis and
Barwise (1998), who argue that every organisational strategic decision is
distinctive and not generic in every circumstance. Papadakis and Lioukas (1996)
contend that the attributes of the decision-making process within the same
organisation can differ significantly between distinct organisational decisions.
This happens because matters relating to decision-making are not viewed in the
same manner. This view is buttressed by the findings of empirical studies which
show that decision makers react differently to different decision-making issues
depending on the way each decision is perceived (Elbanna and Younies, 2008).
Measures
Independent variables.
Decision-making style The decision-making styles in this study are synonymous with
the problem-solving skills of managers or leaders of organisations identified by
Lansley (1987). The classification of the decision-making styles follows Rowe’s
classification so that it is easier to understand the cognitive aspect of managers in
the decision-making process. The styles assist in having full knowledge of how
individuals view and approach problems within an organisation. The organisational
decision-making style was measured by four subscales from Amzat and Idris (2012):
analytic, behavioural, conceptual and directive. The styles were measured on a five-
point Likert scale. To reduce the inherent possibilities of respondents getting confused
while responding to decision-making style questions, the participants were requested
to focus on one specific
characteristic of each of the decision-making styles. The study of Russ et al. Constructio
(1995),
n
Connor and Becker (2003) and Amzat and Idris (2012) form the basis for organisation
determining the s
items of the decision-making styles.
Competitive strategy. This paper considers the three generic strategies as
classified
by Porter (1980, 1985): differentiation, cost leadership and focus. The strategies
were not
considered to be mutually exclusive, because an organisation may choose or 725
combine
more than one strategy. The generic strategies are measured with multi-item
five-point
Likert scales. The study combines previously adopted items of measurement used
by
earlier researchers both within and outside construction management
research and
adapts the same to measure the competitive strategy used by organisations
(Kale and
Arditi, 2002; Nandakumar et al., 2010). Focus strategy was estimated with four
items:
(1) targeting a clearly identified segment (e.g. emphasising a
provincial region or a specific group of consumers);
(2) offering specialty products tailored to a particular group of customers or users;
(3) uniqueness of products (e.g. unique function or design); and
(4) offering products suitable for a high price segment.
Differentiation was measured using the following:
• achieving high quality in the constructed facility;
• achieving high quality beyond the requirements in the specifications;
• being highly responsive to clients’ requests;
• achieving schedule performance in construction operations;
• attempting to deliver constructed facilities ahead of schedule; and
• introducing innovative financing methods.
Cost leadership was calculated with six items all measured on a five-point Likert
scale.
These include:
(1) emphasis on production capacity utilisation;
(2) emphasis on operating efficiency (e.g. productivity in
production or efficiency in outbound logistics);
(3) emphasis on finding ways to reduce costs (e.g. standardising
the product or increasing the economy of scale);
(4) emphasis on efficiency of securing raw materials or
components (e.g. bargaining down the purchase price);
(5) emphasis on tight control of selling/general/administrative expenses; and
6) e petitive prices).
m
Organisational performance. This study analyses the performance of
p
organisations from both subjective and objective perspectives. Some authors
h
view subjective measures of performance as more suitable in measuring
a
organisational performance, because it strengthens the generalizability of the
s findings (Allen et al., 2008; Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2010). Therefore, subjectively,
i organisational performance was measured using an overall objective fulfilment
s which describes the extent to which an
o
n
p
r
i
c
e
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
(
i
.
e
.
o
f
f
e
r
i
n
g
c
o
m
JEDT organisation has attained both its short- and long-term objectives and is
14,4 able to reduce challenges (Nandakumar et al., 2010). The scale used
follows Nandakumar et al.’s (2011) study consisting of six items, which
are:
(1) improvement in long-term performance;
(2) predicting organisation’s future growth;
726
(3) evaluate alternative based on relevant information;
(4) preventing problem areas;
(5) resolving problems; and
(6) promoting management development.
The respondents were asked to rate the extent to which their organisation has
been successful in achieving these performance objectives in the past five years
on a five-point Likert scale. The objective measure of performance used is return
on capital employed (ROCE), as it indicates the level of effectiveness of
organisational management of financial resources in the growth of its business.
ROCE measures essentially how well a business strategy is used and turns
assets into profit. It is very significant for business because of the concept of
opportunity cost, which often plays a role in business organisations, especially in
procuring construction projects. Objective measures of performance (ROCE)
have previously been used to measure performance in a construction context,
because they offer concrete evidence with regards to the explanation of
organisations’ performance (Ibrahim et al., 2009; Oyewobi et al., 2013).
Control variables. This paper uses the size of organisations and the
number of years in business as control variables to remove any
potential influence it might pose on organisational performance
(Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2010). This is because organisation size is a
contingent variable that is capable of influencing the decision-making
style due to the structure and design of the organisation (Huang, 2001;
Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2010). Therefore, size of organisation was
measured by the natural logarithm of the organisation’s employee
numbers; this eliminates any potential effects on organisational
performance due to the heterogeneity in the size of organisations
considered.
Data analysis and results

Profile of the respondents
The data presented in Table I show that 55 (76 per cent) of the organisations
that participated in the research had been in construction business for over 10
years, whereas only 17 (22 per cent) had less than 10 years’ experience. The
majority of respondents’ organisations, thus, possessed considerable experience
in the construction industry. This was beneficial to the study, because it would
improve the reliability of data and subsequent findings. As indicated in Table I, a
large majority (71 per cent) of the organisations participated in the study had
more than 100 full-time employees. Table I also shows the grades of the
organisations that responded to the survey. Out of the organisations considered,
49 per cent were Grade 7 contractors; 23 per cent were in Grade 8; and
contractors in Grade 9 represented 28 per cent of the total respondents. This
indicates that Grade 7 construction organisations participated more than those
in Grades 8 and 9. Table I indicates the class of work in which the organisations
were
engaged. As
seen, 27 (37
per cent) were
in general
building works
only; 20 (28
per cent)
Respondents’ profile Frequency Valid (%) Cumulative (%) Constructio
n
organisation
Years in business
s
1-5 1 1 1
6-10 16 22 23
11-20 20 28.8 51
21-30 14 19 70 727
30 21 29.2 100
Number of employees
0-99 20 28 28
100-199 31 43 71
500 and above 21 29 100
Grades of work
7 35 49 49
8 17 23 72
9 20 28 100
Class of work Table I.
General building works (GB) 27 37 37 Profile of
Civil engineering work (CE) 20 28 65 respondents’
General building and civil engineering 25 35 100 organisations
works
in civil engineering construction works only; and 25 (35 per cent)

executed both civil engineering and general building works.
The data were analysed using descriptive, parametric and multiple
regressions to establish the relationship and determine the impact of the
variables on one another. The analysis follows the method used by Goll and
Rasheed (1997), Huang (2001) and Baum and Wally (2003) in identifying the
moderating variables. Multiple regression analysis was used to explore the
relationship between the dependent variables and independent variables (Kale
and Arditi, 2003; Hair et al., 2010). The independent variables include the
decision-making styles and the competitive strategy as the main predicators in
measuring organisational performance (both objective and subjective measures
of performance). The study also adopts correlational statistics to indicate the
nature and pattern of relationship among the variables tested. This statistical
tool assists in determining the strength of the association between two metric
variables which can exhibit any of these relationships: positive, negative or no
relationship (Hair et al., 2010). The correlation coefficient values can range from
1 to 1, with 1 indicating a perfect positive correlation relationship, 0 indicating
no relationship and 1 indicating a perfect negative relationship.
Organisational performance analysis: correlation results

Table II shows the descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and
Pearson’s product-moment correlation. The correlation between competitive
strategies, decision-making styles and measures of performance show that all
the four types of decision-making styles are present within the organisations
considered (r-values range from 0.319 to 0.352; p 0.01) and are being used
w attention. The directive style of decision-making shows a negative but
h significant
e
t
h
e
r
k
n
o
w
i
n
g
l
y
o
r
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
constructs used in
statistics for the
Descriptive
Table II.
8
2
7
4,
4J
Cost
Directive AnalyticalConceptualBehaviouralDifferentiation leadership Focus Subjectiv Objective Overall
e
Variables Mean SD style style style style strategy strategy strategy measuresmeasures performanc
e
Directive style 4.0694 0.75669 1
Analytical 4.25 0.74588 0.343** 1
style
Conceptual 3.9167 0.83497 0.21 0.328* 1
style *
Behavioural 3.8194 0.89327 0.352** 0.005 0.319** 1
style
Differentiation 0.02 0.17
strategy 4.1157 0.39425 0.067 0.034 1
Cost 0.135 0.068 0.081
leadership
strategy 4.0972 0.43583 0.105 0.209 1
Focus strategy 4.0382 0.45706 0.043 0.106 0.01 0.043 0.109 0.111 1
Subjective 0.061 0.192
measures 4.1574 0.33822 0.021 0.073 0.146 0.185 0.09 1
1
Objective 0.182 0.165 0.345** 0.007 0.077
measures 503.355 1,732.9774 0.141 0.196 0.12 1
6 1
Overall 0.276* 0.137 0.083 0.028 0.131
performance 3.9583 0.86297 0.194 0.192 0.12 0.022 1
Notes: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); * correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)
association with the overall performance of the organisation (r0.276, p Constructio
0.05),
n
whereas the differentiation strategy is negatively but significantly organisation
associated with s
objective performance measure (ROCE). However, this does not wholly
support H1,
which states that “there is an indirect relationship between decision-making
styles and
overall organisational performance”, because the relationship is negative, and,
it thus
proposes the need to explore the role of related variables as potential
moderators of the
association. The correlation among the constructs indicates that the data do not 729
exhibit
multi-collinearity, as the coefficient of correlation is in general less than 0.6
(Teeratansirikool et al.,
2013)
Direct effects of decision-making
styles
Table III summarises the results of the main effects of the multiple regression
analysis
with organisational performance measures as the dependent variables and
different
decision-making styles and competitive strategies as independent variables.
Regression
analysis was conducted to examine whether there was a significant
relationship
between the constructs stated in the hypotheses. The independent
variables were
regressed against the measures of performance separately: overall
performance and
the objective and subjective performance measures. The overall performance
depicts the
combined effects of both objective and subjective performance
perspectives on the
organisation as viewed by the respondents. The results are as shown in Table III
by each
of the models, namely, Model 1 – overall performance; Model 2 – objective
performance;
and Model 3 – subjective
performance.
H3 (decision-making styles moderate the relationship between
competitive
strategies and organisational performance through different measures
individually
emphasised) relating to the decision-making style and competitive strategy was
earlier
proposed in this study; there is a positive and direct relationship between
overall
organisational performance, competitive strategies and decision-making
styles. The
regression results show that the effects of all the decision-making
styles on
organisational performance were non-significant, except for the analytical style,
which
was found to be significantly related to overall performance (
Differentiation
Independent
variables
(Constant)
Directive style
Analytical style
Conceptual style
Behavioural style
Differentiation
strategy
Focus strategy
Cost leadership
strategy
2
R
F-model
Notes:
JEDT strategy was also found to be significant but negatively related to
14,4 objective performance measures (p 0.01). This result partially confirms
the hypothesis that there is a direct relationship between overall
organisational performance and decision-making styles but it is
negatively related.
730
Moderating effects of decision-making styles
Table IV shows the regression results of the moderating effects of decision-
making styles on competitive strategy and organisational performance. The
moderated regression analysis results were controlled using the
organisational size (number of employees) and years of existence in

construction business of the organisation. The performance effects of the
competitive strategy were moderated by the decision-making style, and it
was found that the decision-making style significantly moderated the
influence of the competitive strategy on the objective performance (p 0.01).
The F-statistic was also found to be statistically significant, and the value
shows that there is less loss of fit in the model (p 0.05). Cost leadership and
differentiation strategies were significantly related to objective measures of
performance, although weaker, but do indicate they have an influence on
the performance of organisation through competitive strategy. This is weak,
because approximately 15 per cent of the variance was explained by the
model (Model 5). This partly confirms H3 which states that decision-making
styles moderate the relationship between competitive strategies and
organisational performance through different measures individually
emphasised.
This is a result of the insignificant relationship that exists between
different measures of organisational performance with competitive
strategy when moderated by the decision-making style, as only
objective performance was found to be significantly related.
Overall performance Objective Subjective

Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Independent Beta t Beta t Beta t
variables
(Constant) 5.495*** 1.036 13.457**
*
Differentiation strategy
decision-making 0.01 0.052 0.571 3.191*** 0.024 0.124
Table IV. The styles
moderating Cost leadership strategy
effects of decision-making 0.019 0.107 0.373 2.188** 0.115 0.626
decision-making styles
styles on Focus strategy
strategies and
decision-making 0.058 0.329 0.109 0.658 0.01 0.055
organisational
styles
performance
Organisation size 0.371 1.757 0.065 0.328 0.099 0.46
(log)
Organisation’s
years
of existence (log)
2
R
F-model
Notes: *** p **
0.001;
Discussion of results Constructio
n
The research examines the relationship between the variables with the organisation
measures of s
organisational performance and the moderating effect of decision-
making styles
controlled by organisational size and years of existence in construction
businesses. The
findings indicate that the main effect was significant on objective
performance
measures (financial) and also show that the differentiation strategy is
731
significantly
related to objective performance. This is consistent with the findings of
Spencer et al.
(2009) and Teeratansirikool et al. (2013), who assert that differentiation
strategy
influences organisational performance through financial measures. A
direct but
negative relationship exists between analytical decision-making style and
overall
organisational performance. This supports the findings of Amzat and Idris’s
(2012)
research conducted among research universities in Malaysia. They found
that the
analytical style was dominant and the decision-making style influenced job
satisfaction
of the group studied.
The moderated regression results (Model 5) indicate that the decision-
making style
moderates the relationship between cost leadership, differentiation
strategies and
objective performance. This is in line with the results of Dess and Davis (1984),
Power
and Hahn (2004) and Allen and Helms (2006), who indicate that a positive
relationship is
in existence between cost leadership and organisational performance. The
results are
also in harmony with the findings of Goll and Rasheed (1997) and Baum and
Wally
(2003), who found that decision-making is a strong predicator of
organisational
performance when used as moderators. Also, Rehman et al. (2012) moderate the
impact
of employee decision-making styles on organisational performance using
emotional
intelligence and found that rational and dependent decision-making styles
exhibit high
positive influence on organisational performance, whereas avoidant decision-
making
styles have a negative impact on organisational performance (financial
performance).
Many of these researchers used financial measures, because they
believed in
measuring organisational performance through financial growth, and the
achievement
approach set the benchmark for the top management to appreciate their
managers’
efforts and business capability in making productive business decisions
(Goll and
Rasheed, 1997
popular
saying that the essence of remaining in business is to make profit. More so,
(1990)
contends that financial measures are a true reflection of an organisation’s
operating
efficiency and present profitability, which is a dashboard for
monitoring an
organisation’s performance and ensuring its continuous existence.
Nonetheless, the
results obtained from the study partially support the three hypotheses
tested.
The research demonstrates that differentiation strategy exhibits a direct
relationship
with organisation performance when combined with a suitable decision-making
style,
whereas cost leadership does not. Hence, both cost leadership and
differentiation
strategies impact organisational performance through the objective
measures when
moderated by the decision-making style. These findings support the
assertion of
Teeratansirikool
countries
will benefit tremendously by placing an emphasis on objective measures of
performance
combined with appropriate competitive strategies to confront the fierce
competition due
to trade reforms and liberation. These findings may be partly because of a
combination
of all the variables in one block during the analysis, as it is expected that
alignment of all
JEDT the measures of performance with competitive strategy will lead to
14,4 superior performance (Spencer et al., 2009).
However, in the context of this study, it can be suggested that
organisations use objective measures of performance as a yardstick for
measuring the consequence of their decision-making style when balanced
with any of the competitive strategies adopted. The reasons for this may be
732 as a result of organisations using objective measures as predicators for
future potential earnings which many organisations cannot afford to neglect
to gain stakeholders confidence and attract more funds when giving reports
(Teeratansirikool et al., 2013). Nonetheless, the current study shows that a
viable decision-making style combined with relevant competitive strategy
and the appropriate selection of performance measures will improve

organisational performance and competitive advantage.
Conclusions and implications

The findings from the study give support to the role of decision-making styles as
a mediator in the association between competitive strategies and organisational
performance and as a moderator in the relationship between the return on
capital used (financial measure) and competitive strategies. Based on these
findings, it can be concluded that the lesser the differentiation strategies used
by construction company management in South Africa, the better their
performance financially. This implies that organisations can adopt differentiation
strategy to achieve higher market share and then adopt cost leadership to
improve their objective performance. The results of the research presented in
this paper will be beneficial to owners and managers of construction
organisations in choosing the most appropriate strategy in growing their
businesses to survive in the competitive construction environment. It will also
inform the chief executive officer of the need to identify relevant decision-
making styles that can improve their managerial abilities, enable companies to
compete favourably and organisation financial performance.
The results of this study have to be made clear considering the
limitations of research design, choice of data sourced and unavoidable
trade-offs involved in the interpretation procedures. Competitive
strategy and decision-making style attributes cannot be measured
objectively; thus, subjective data were used using opinion scales. The
sample used was limited to large construction organisations based in
South Africa and was dependent on respondents from each
organisation; hence, the results cannot be generalised to other smaller
construction companies or service organisations in the industry.
However, the research findings present some implications for future research.
They make explicit the need to have a better understanding of the moderating role of
different decision-making styles and their influences on organisational performance
through competitive strategies. It is also essential to study these effects in relation to
the dimensions of the environment concurrently so that content specificity of the
different styles can be ascertained. Although this study did not consider these, there
is a need to take cognisance of how organisational core capabilities influence these
variables. In summary, this research made apparent the need to consider different
decision-making styles being practiced within an organisation, as it affects its
performance beyond rational processes. A better understanding of this will enable
organisations to achieve the total commitment of employees to achieve superior
performance.
References Chung, H.F.L.
(2008),
Albaum, G., Herche, J. and Murphy, B. (1995), “Decision making style
“The
influences on the valuation and uses of information by managers”,
impact of a
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
centralised
Allen, R.S., Dawson, G., Wheatley, K. and White, C.S. (2008), “Perceived diversity and
organisatio
organizational and correlates”, Journal of Employee Relations, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. nal
20-33. structure
Allen, R.S. and Helms, M.M. (2006), “Linking strategic practices and organizational on
performance to porter’s generic strategies”, Business Process Management, Vol. 12 marketing
No. 4, pp. 433-454. standardis
Amzat, I.H. and Idris, A.R. (2012), “Structural equation models of management and ation
decision making styles with job satisfaction of academic staff in Malaysian strategy
research university”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 26 and
No. 7, pp. 616-645. performan
ce: the
Ankrah, N.A. (2007), “An investigation into the impact of culture on construction
experience
project performance”, Unpublished PhD thesis submitted to School of
of price,
Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Wolver Hampton,
place and
Hampton.
manageme
Ankrah, N.A., Proverbs, D. and Y.Debrah, Y. (2009), “Factors influencing the nt
culture of a construction project organization: an empirical investigation”, processes”
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 16 No. 1,
, Journal of
pp. 26-47.
Global
Anumba, C.J., Baugh, C. and Khalfan, M.M.A. (2002), “Organisational Marketing,
structures to support concurrent engineering in construction”, Vol. 21 No.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 102 No. 5, pp. 260-270. 2, pp. 83-
Arasa, R. and K’Obonyo, P. (2012), “The relationship between strategic 107.
planning and firm performance”, International Journal of Humanities Chung, H.F.L.,
and Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 22, pp. 201-213. Wang,
Asari, M.H.A.H. and Razak, R.C. (2007), “Strategic decision making practices and C.L. and
organization performance: a conceptual perspective of Malaysian organizations”, Huang,
Proceeding of Oxford Business and Economic Conference, Oxford University, Oxford, P.H.
24-26 June, pp. 0-14. (2012), “A
Baack, D.W. and Boggs, D.J. (2008), “The difficulties in using a cost leadership strategy in contingen
emerging markets”, International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 125-
cy
approach
139.
to
Bain, J.S. (1956), Barriers to New Competition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, internatio
MA. nal
Bartol, K.M. and Martin, D.C. (1994), Management, 2nd ed., McGraw Hill, New York, marketin
NY. g
Baum, J.R. and Wally, S. (2003), “Strategic decision speed and firm strategy
performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 1107-1129. and
decision-
Beatham, S., Anumba, C., Thorpe, T. and Hedges, I. (2004), “KPIs: a critical appraisal of
making
their use
structure
in construction”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 93-
among
117.
exporting
Chan, A.T.S. and Chan, E.H.W. (2005), “Impact of perceived leadership firms”,
styles on work outcomes: case of building professionals”, Journal of Internatio
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131 No. 4, pp. 413- nal
422. Marketin
g Review,
V es of public managers”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 155- Constructio
ol 180.
. n
2 organisation
9
N s
o.
1,
p
p.
5 73
4- 3
8
7.
or,
P.
E.
an
d
Be
ck
er,
B.
W.
(2
00
3),
“P
er
so
na
l
va
lu
e
sy
st
e
m
s
an
d
de
cis
io
n-
m
ak
in
g
st
yl
JEDT Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) (2012), Construction
Industry Indicators, March.
14,4
David, F.R. (2011), Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases, 13th ed., Prentice
Hall, NJ.
Dean, J.W. Jr and Sharfman, M.P. (1996), “Does decision process matter? A
study of strategic decision-making effectiveness”, The Academy of
734 Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 368-396.
Dess, G.G. and Davis, P.S. (1984), “‘Porter’s (1980), Generic strategies as
determinants of strategic group membership and organizational
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp.
467-488.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P. (2012), Management

Research, Sage Publications, London.
Eberlin, R.J. and Tatum, B.C. (2008), “Making just decisions: organizational justice,
decision making, and leadership”, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 310-
329.
Edum-Fotwe, F.T. and McCaffer, R. (2000), “Developing project management
competency: perspectives from the construction industry”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 111-
124.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity
environments”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp.
543-576.
Elbanna, S. and Younies, H. (2008), “The relationships between the characteristics of the
strategy process: evidence from Egypt”, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp.
626-639.
Fiedler, F.E. (1966), “The effect of leadership and cultural heterogeneity on
group performance: a test of the contingency model”, Journal of
Experimental· and Social Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 237-264.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967), A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Finkelstein, S. and Hambrick, D.C. (1996), “Strategic leadership: top executive
and their effects on organisations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.
22 No. 3.
Fredrickson, J.W. (1984), “The comprehensiveness of strategic decision
processes: extension, observations, future directions”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 445-466.
Friedrickson, J.W. and Mitchell, T.R. (1984), “Strategic decision process:
comprehensiveness and performance in an industry with stable
environment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp.
399-423.
Giritli, H. and Oraz, T. (2004), “Leadership styles: some evidence from the Turkish
construction industry”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp.
253-262.
Goll, I. and Rasheed, A.M.A. (1997), “Rational decision-making and firm performance: the
moderating role of environment”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp.
583-591.
Govindarajan, V. (1989), “Implementing competitive strategies at the
business unit level: implications of matching managers to strategies”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 251-269.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data
Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th ed., Pearson Education, London, Upper
Saddle
River, NJ.
Hakonsson,
D.D.,
Burton,
Richard,
M.R.,
Obel, B.
and
Lauridse
n, J.T.
(2012),
“Strateg
y
impleme
ntation
requires
the right
executiv
e style:
evidenc
e from
Danish
SMEs”,
Long
Range
Planning
, Vol. 45
No. 1,
pp. 182-
208.
Hambrick, D.C.
and
Mason,
P.A.
(1984),
“Upper
echelons:
the
organizati
on as a
reflection
of its top
manager
s”,
Academy
of
Manage
ment
Review,
Vol. 9 No.
2, pp.
193-206.
Huang, T.C. (2001), “The effects of linkages between business and human Miller, D.,
Toulouse, J. and
resources management strategies”, Personnel Review, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp.
Belanger, N.
132-151. (1985), “Top
Ibrahim, Y.M., Ibrahim, A.M., Kabir, B. (2009), “Geographic diversification, executive
performance, and the risk profile of UK construction firms”, Journal of personality and
Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 171-185. corporate
strategy:
Isik, Z., Arditi, D., Dilmen, I. and Birgonul, M.T. (2010), “The role of exogenous factors in the
three
strategic performance of construction companies”, Journal of Engineering, tentative
Construction types”,
and Architectural Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 119-134. Advances
Jusoh, R., Ibrahim, D.N. and Zainuddin, Y. (2008), “The performance consequence of in
Strategic
multiple performance measures usage: evidence from the Malaysian manufacturers”,

Manageme
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. nt, Vol. 3
119-136. No. 1, pp.
Kale, S. and Arditi, D. (2002), “Competitive positioning in United States construction 223-232.
industry”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 128 No. 3, pp. Miller, S.,
238-247. Hickson,
Kale, S. and Arditi, D. (2003), “Differentiation, conformity and construction firm D. and
performance”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 52- Wilson, D.
60. (2008),
“From
Langford, D., Fellows, R.F., Hancock, M. and Gale, A.W. (1995), Human
strategy
Resources Management in Construction, Longman Scientific and
to action:
Technical.
involveme
Lansley, P. (1987), “Corporate strategy and survival in the UK construction nt and
industry”, Construction Economics and Management, Vol. 5, pp. 141- influence
155. in top
Lansley, P. (1994), “Analysing construction organizations”, Construction level
Management and Economics, Vol. 12, pp. 337-348. decisions”
Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967), “Differentiation and integration in , Long
complex organisations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. Range
1, pp. 1-47. Planning,
Vol. 41 No.
Lee, J. and Miller, D. (1996), “Strategy, environment and performance in two technological
6, pp.
contexts: contingency theory in Korea”, Organization Studies, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 729-
606-628.
750.
Miller, S.J.,
Limsila, L. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2008), “Performance and leadership Hickson,
outcome correlates of leadership styles and subordinate commitment”, D.J. and
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 15 No. Wilson,
2, pp. 164-184. D.C.
Liviu, C., Sorina, G. and Radu, O. (2008), “Strategic control and the (1996),
performance Measurement systems”, Management and Marketing, “Decision
Journal of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, making in
University of Craiova, Romania, Stiint¸e Economice Tom, Vol. 17 No. 4, organizati
pp. 189-194. ons”, in
McCabe, D.L. (1987), “Buying group structure: constriction at the top”, Clegg,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 89-98. S.R.,
Hardy, C.
Mason, E.S. (1939), “Price and production policies of large scale and Nord,
enterprises”, American Economic Review, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 61-74. W.R.
Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (2003), Organizational Strategy, Structure, and (Eds),
Process, 2nd ed., Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Managing
Organizat
io Construction organisations
n
s:
C
ur
re
nt 735
Is
s
u
e
s,
S
a
g
e
P
u
bli
ca
ti
o
ns
,
Lo
n
d
o
n,
p
p.
4
3-
6
2.
JEDT Morrell, K. (2004), “Decision making and business ethics: the implications of using image
theory in preference to rational choice”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 239-
14,4
252.
Nandakumar, M.K., Ghobadian, A. and O’Regan, N. (2010), “Business-level
strategy and performance: the moderating effects of environment and
structure”, Management Decision, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 907-939.
736 Naum, S. (2001), People & Organizational Management in Construction, Thomas Telford,
London.
Nicholas, J.M. (1990), Managing Business and Engineering Projects –
Concepts and Implementation, Prentice Hall, NJ.
Omotola, O. (2012), “An investigation into decision making styles practices and
preferences of human resource managers in the banking industry in South-

Western Nigeria”, European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 4 No. 11,
pp. 1-6.
Osborn, R.N. (1999), “Sayles’s managerial behaviour: its impact on understanding
leadership and nuclear power safety”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp.
13-15.
Oyewobi, L.O., Windapo, A.O. and Cattell, K.S. (2013), “Impact of business
diversification on South African construction companies’ corporate
performance”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 110-127.
Panagiotou, G. (2008), “Conjoining prescriptive and descriptive approaches:
towards an integrative framework of decision making: a conceptual
note”, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 553-564.
Papadakis, V. and P. Barwise (1998), “What can we tell managers about
making strategic decisions?”, in Papadakis, V. and Barwise, P. (Eds),
Strategic Decisions, Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, NY, pp.
267-287.
Papadakis, V. and S. Lioukas (1996), “Do early perceptions of strategic
decisions influence strategic processes? An empirical investigation”,
Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, pp. 46-50.
Parnell, J.A. (2011), “Strategic capabilities, competitive strategy, and performance in
Mexico, Peru and the United States”, Journal of Centrum Cathedra, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 150-165.
Parnell, J.A. (2013), Strategic Management: Theory and Practice, 4th ed.,
Sage Publications, London.
Parnell, J.A., O’Regan, N. and Ghobadian, A. (2006), “Measuring
performance in competitive strategy research”, International Journal
Management and Decision Making, Vol. 7 No. 4, 2006.
Patton, J.R. (2003), “Intuition in Decisions”, Journal of Decision Making, Vol. 43 No. 10, pp. 989-
996.
Pearce, J.A. II and Robinson, R.B. Jr (2007), Strategic Management,

Formulation, Implementation, and Control, 10th ed., McGraw-Hill/Irwin,
Boston, MA.
Pertusa-Ortega, E.M., Molina-Azorin, J.F. and Claver-Cortes, E. (2008), “A
comparative analysis of the influence that different fit perspectives
have on firm performance”, Management Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp.
139-150.
Pertusa-Ortega, E.M., Molina-Azorin, J.F. and Claver-Cortes, E. (2010), “Competitive
strategy, structure and firm performance: a comparison of the resource-based
view and the contingency approach”, Management Decision, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp.
1282-
1303.
Porac, F.J.,
Thomas,
H.,
Wilson,
F.,
Paton,
D. and
Kanfer,
A.
(1995),
“Rivalry
and the
industry
model of
Scottish
knitwear
produce
rs”,
Adminis
trative
Science
Quarterl
y, Vol.
40 No.
2, pp.
203-
220.
Porter, M.E.
(1980),
Competi
tive
Advanta
ge:
Creating
and
Sustaini
ng
Superior
Perform
ance,
Free
Press,
New
York, NY.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining intrinsic-
Superior Performance, Free Press, New York, NY. rewards-
Power, T.L. and Hahn, W. (2004), “Critical competitive methods, generic strategy and that-drive-
employee-
firm performance”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 43-
engageme
64.
nt#.UWsru
Raffaldi, S., Iannello, P., Vittani, L. and Antonietti, A. (2012), “Decision-making UpquKk
styles in the workplace: relationships between self-report questionnaires (accessed
and a contextualized measure of the analytical-systematic versus
15 April
global-intuitive approach”, Sage Open Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 1-11.
2013).
Rehman, R.R., Khalid, A. and Khan, M. (2012), “Impact of employee decision Toor, S. and Ofori,
making styles on organizational performance: in the moderating role of
G. (2008),
emotional intelligence”, World Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 17 No. 10, pp.
“Leadership
1308-1315.
for future
Roca-Puig, V. and Bou-Llusar, J.C. (2007), “Organizational fit and performance in miles
constructio
and snow’s configurational theory”, Management Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 17-
28. n industry:
agenda for
Rowe, A.J. and Mason, R.O. (1987), Managing With Style: A Guide to
Understanding, Assessing, and Improving Decision Making, Jossey-Bass, San authentic
Francisco, CA. leadership”,
Internation
Russ, F.A., McNeilly, K.M. and Comer, J.M. (1995), “Leadership, decision
making and performance of sales managers: a multi-level approach”, al Journal of
The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. Project
1-15. Manageme
Sayles, L.R. (1999), “Managerial behaviour and a journey through time”, nt, Vol. 26
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. l, pp. 7-11. No. 3, pp.
Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1995), “Decision-making style: the development and assessment 620-630.
of a new measure”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. Wongrassame
818-831. e, S.,
Scott, W. (2003), Organisations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems, Gardiner,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliff, NJ. P.D. and
Simmons,
Simon, R. (1990), “The role of management control systems in creating competitive
advantage:
J.E.L.
new perspectives”, Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 15 Nos 1/2, pp. 127-
(2003),
143. “Performa
nce
Spencer, X., Sarah, Y., Joiner, T.A. and Salmon, S. (2009), “Differentiation measure
strategy, performance measurement systems and firm performance: ment
evidence from Australia”, International Journal of Business, Vol. 14 No. tools: the
1, pp. 1-22. balanced
StatSA (2012), “Construction industry, 2011 (preliminary)”, Government scorecard
Printers, Pretoria, available at: and EFQM
www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P5002/P50022011.pdf (accessed 7 excellenc
October 2012) e model”,
Tatum, B.C., Eberlin, R., Kotttraba, C. and Bradberry, T. (2003), “Leadership, decision making, Measurin
and organizational justice”, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 10, pp. 1006-1016.
g
Business
Teeratansirikool, L., Siengthai, S. and Badir, Y. (2013), “Competitive strategies Excellenc
and firm performance: the mediating role of performance e, Vol. 7
measurement”, International Journal of Productivity, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. No. 1, pp.
168-184. 14-29.
Thomas, K. (2009), “The four intrinsic rewards that drive employee engagement”,
available at: www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/the-workplace/the-four-
C
o
n
st
r
u
ct
io
n
or
g
a
ni
s
at
io
n
s
737
JEDT Further reading
14,4 Ansoff, H.I. (1984), Implanting Strategic Management, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliff,
NJ.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1984), “Business unit strategy,
managerial characteristics, and business unit effectiveness at strategy
implementation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp.
738 25-41.
About the authors

Luqman Oyekunle Oyewobi is a Lecturer in the Department of Quantity Surveying, School
of Environmental Technology, Federal University of Technology, Minna, Niger State, Nigeria.
He holds HND, BTech (Hons) and MTech in Quantity Surveying. He is a corporate member of
the Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors and also a Registered Quantity Surveyor with
the Quantity Surveyors Registration Board of Nigeria. He obtained his PhD in Construction
Economics and Management in the Department of Construction Economics and
Management. University of Cape Town, South Africa, and his research interests include
performance measurement and strategic performance management Luqman Oyekunle
Oyewobi is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected]
Abimbola Windapo (PhD) is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Construction
Economics and Management, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Dr Windapo is a
Fellow of the Nigerian Institute of Builders and a Register Builder with the Council of
Registered Builders of Nigeria (CORBON). She is a Registered Construction Project
Manager with the South African Council for the Project and Construction Management
Profession (SACPCMP). She has more than 26 years of experience in the construction
industry. Dr Windapo has practiced in, written, lectured and researched on building
regulations, construction innovation, planning, contractor development and project
performance.
James Olabode Bamidele Rotimi is a Senior Lecturer and Programme Leader for
the Masters in Construction Management Programme at Auckland University of
Technology, New Zealand. He has a background in construction management and
publishes in the general area of construction projects and post-disaster
reconstruction management. James has extensive tertiary teaching and research
experience and is currently the Editor of the International Journal of Construction
Supply Chain Management.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our
website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us
for further
details:
permissions
@emeraldin
sight.com

Jedt 04 2015 0025

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jedt 04 2015 0025

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jedt 04 2015 0025

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology

Relationship between decision-making style, competitive strategies

performance among construction organisations", Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology,

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

construction organisations Revised 27 October

Department of Quantity Surveying, School of Environmental

The contingent relationship between structure and competitive strategy and

decision-making style affects organisational performance in the construction

except few studies on leadership styles in construction (

decision-making style has on the strength of relationship between competitive

and organisational performance. The research intends to answer the

Furthermore, there is no known research in construction management research

construction organisation’s performance. Therefore, this study builds on the

Theoretical background and conceptual frameworks

should obtain a strategic fit with the dimensions of the environment in

relationship between the competitive strategy and decision-making style 717

an organisation and should be viewed from a broader perspective of an

The concept of competitive strategy originates from Porter’s (1980, 1985),

Decision-making style and competitive strategy

Govindarajan (1989) argues that how managerial characteristics contribute to

Govindarajan (1989) examines the portfolio of managerial attributes along

The next section explores organisation performance measurement literature and

Organisational performance measurement

Summary of hypotheses: 723

The focus of this study is on large construction organisations in the South

Data analysis and results

in civil engineering construction works only; and 25 (35 per cent)

Organisational performance analysis: correlation results

organisational size (number of employees) and years of existence in

Overall performance Objective Subjective

and the appropriate selection of performance measures will improve

Conclusions and implications

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P. (2012), Management

multiple performance measures usage: evidence from the Malaysian manufacturers”,

preferences of human resource managers in the banking industry in South-

Pearce, J.A. II and Robinson, R.B. Jr (2007), Strategic Management,

About the authors

You might also like