Building Research & Information

ISSN: 0961-3218 (Print) 1466-4321 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20

On the discourse of construction competitiveness

Stuart D. Green , Chris Harty , Abbas Ali Elmualim , Graeme D. Larsen &
Chung Chin Kao

To cite this article: Stuart D. Green , Chris Harty , Abbas Ali Elmualim , Graeme D. Larsen &
Chung Chin Kao (2008) On the discourse of construction competitiveness, Building Research &
Information, 36:5, 426-435, DOI: 10.1080/09613210802076666

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210802076666

Published online: 14 Aug 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1033

View related articles

Citing articles: 30 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbri20
BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (2008) 36(5), 426 –435

On the discourse of construction

competitiveness

Stuart D.Green, Chris Harty, Abbas Ali Elmualim,Graeme D. Larsen and Chung Chin Kao

School of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading, Whiteknights,

Reading RG6 6AY, UK
E-mails: s.d.green@reading.ac.uk, c.f.harty@reading.ac.uk, a.a.elmualim@reading.ac.uk,
g.d.larsen@reading.ac.uk and c.kao@reading.ac.uk

It is contended that competitiveness is better understood as a discourse rather than as a characteristic that is supposedly
possessed. The discourse of competitiveness derives its legitimacy from the enterprise culture that came to dominance
during the 1980s. Current popularized theories of competitiveness are constituent parts of this broader discourse,
which has had significant material implications for the UK construction sector. The dominant discourse of
competitiveness amongst contracting firms is shaped by the need to achieve structural flexibility to cope with
fluctuations in demand. Fashionable espoused improvement recipes such as total quality management, business
process re-engineering, and lean construction legitimize and reinforce the material manifestations of the enterprise
culture. In consequence, the UK industry is characterized by a plethora of hollowed-out firms that have failed to
invest in their human capital. While the adopted model may be rational for individual firms, the systemic effect across
the sector as a whole equates to a form of anorexia. However, the discourse of competitiveness is by no means
monolithic and continues to be contested locally. There have also been numerous counter-discourses that have been
mobilized in response to the undesirable externalities of unbridled enterprise. Currently, important counter-discourses
promote the ideas of sustainability and corporate social responsibility.

Keywords: competitiveness, construction performance, discourse, enterprise culture, lean construction, sustainability

L’auteur prétend que la compétitivité est mieux comprise comme discours que comme caractéristique qu’elle est supposée
posséder. Le discours sur la compétitivité a pour origine sa légitimité qui vient de la culture d’entreprise dominante depuis
les années 1980. Les théories actuellement popularisées sur la compétitivité font partie intégrante de ce discours au sens
large qui a eu des implications matérielles significatives pour le secteur de la construction au Royaume-Uni. La recette
principale de la compétitivité entre contractants est formée par la nécessité d’arriver à une souplesse structurale
nécessaire pour répondre aux fluctuations de la demande. Les recettes d’amélioration adoptées parce qu’elles sont en
vogue, comme la gestion de la qualité totale, la restructuration des processus commerciaux et l’allégement des
constructions, légitiment et renforcent les manifestations matérielles de la culture d’entreprise. En conséquence,
l’industrie britannique est caractérisée par une pléthore d’entreprises qui se sont vidées car elles n’ont pas investi dans
le capital humain. Bien que le modèle adopté puisse être rationnel pour des entreprises individuelles, l’effet systémique
sur le secteur pris dans son ensemble équivaut à une forme d’anorexie. Toutefois, le discours sur la compétitivité n’est
en aucun cas monolithe et continue à être contesté localement. On a également entendu de nombreux contre-discours
qui ont été mobilisés pour répondre aux démarches d’externalisation non souhaitables d’entreprises débridées.
Aujourd’hui, d’importants contre-discours encouragent les idées de durabilité et de responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise.

Mots clés: compétitivité, performances de la construction, discours, culture d’entreprise, construction allégée, durabilité

Introduction management research community. However, a systemic

Improving the construction industry’s competitiveness bias towards positivist and quantitative research
has long been of interest to the international construction approaches (Bresnen and Marshall, 2001) too easily
Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ⁄ISSN 1466-4321 online # 2008 Taylor & Francis
http: ⁄ ⁄www.tandf.co.uk ⁄journals
DOI: 10.1080/09613210802076666

translates to a recurring fixation with alternative defi-
nitions of competitiveness and the codification of its
underlying determinants (cf. Momaya and Selby, 1998;
Shen et al., 2006; Flanagan et al., 2007). Given the
adopted frame of reference, research has tended to
focus on the means by which competitiveness (and its
various proxies) can be measured, benchmarked and
improved. The practical difficulties improved in such
processes are assumed to be solvable through further
research informed by ever-more-complicated sets of
competitiveness determinants. Rarely is the discourse
of competitiveness taken at anything other than face
value.
The purpose of this paper is to challenge the dominant
interpretation of competitiveness as currently mobi-
lized within the construction management research
community. An alternative perspective is promoted
by viewing competitiveness as a set of mutually sup-
porting discourses that are directly implicated in
shaping the reality within which firms, and actors
within firms, operate. Rather than advocate particular
theories for improving competitiveness, it will be
argued that the theories routinely promoted in them-
selves constitute parts of a broader set of discourses.
Academically grounded improvement models relating
to competitiveness are thereby seen to reflect and
reinforce pre-existing ideas that are rooted within a
broader change narrative. The call for a greater
degree of competition was undoubtedly one of the
primary guiding threads of public policy in the UK
during the 1980s and 1990s. Throughout this period
governments repeatedly exhorted the benefits of com-
petition as a means of achieving efficiency. The combi-
nation of espoused and enacted policies became known
as the enterprise culture. It will be argued that the dis-
course of the enterprise culture has had a lasting effect
on the structure of the UK construction sector, and the
managerial rhetoric that is mobilized in the cause of
improvement. Initially, the most popular ‘theories’ of
competitiveness are reviewed and critiqued. Coverage
includes Michael Porter’s work on competitive advan-
tage, the resource-based view (RBV) and the latest
ideas around ‘dynamic capabilities’. All these theoreti-
cal contributions are found to be riddled with tautolo-
gies and ambiguities. Such models are therefore
unlikely to provide the quantitative certainty for
which construction management researchers continu-
ously strive. It is hence suggested that their persuasive
appeal is best explained by the way in which they
reflect and reinforce a broader dominant discourse.
In advocating that greater attention should be directed
at the discourse of competitiveness, it is important to
concede that the concept of discourse is in itself con-
tested. The adopted interpretation is justified vis-à-vis
the seminal contribution of Michel Foucault. It is
then contended that the discourse of competitiveness
is inseparable from the notion of enterprise culture.
On the discourse of construction competitiveness
Following this, consideration is given to the material
manifestations of the enterprise culture within the UK
construction industry. Ideas such as competition and
flexibility are seen to resonate with the material
effects of policies such as privatization, deregulation
and the incentivization of self-employment. Further-
more, it is contended that the validity of improvement
recipes is at least partially determined by the extent to
which they resonate with and operate within the domi-
nant discourse of competitiveness. The relationship
between dominant and opposing discourses is also
explored, with caution drawn to the dangers of concep-
tualizing the enterprise culture as a monolithic dis-
course in isolation of persuasive counter-discourses.
Theories of competitiveness: ambiguity
and imprecision
Competitive advantage
Much of the current managerial language of competi-
tiveness is derived from Michael Porter’s work on com-
petitive advantage (Porter, 1980, 1985). Although
Porter’s (1979) work initially focused on guiding
firms whether or not to enter a particular industry, it
is now more commonly used to analyse relative
market power as a means of informing strategic
action. The approach is often know as ‘five forces
analysis’, referring to the forces that affect a company’s
ability to serve its customers and make a profit. The five
forces are as follows:
. bargaining power of customers
. bargaining power of suppliers
. threat of new entrants
. threat of substitute products
. intensity of competitive rivalry
Firms are therefore advised to assess these forces before
deciding upon which markets to enter. From this per-
spective, firms become competitive by analysing
market opportunities in terms of the above five
forces, and choosing the most desirable strategy.
Critics argue that Porter’s analysis assumes that the
five forces operate independently and that strategic
decision-makers have access to perfect information
(Coyne and Subramaniam, 1996).
Porter (1980) offers a further dimension of his strategic
model in the form of three alternative ‘generic strat-
egies’, which he labels as cost leadership, differen-
tiation and market segmentation (or focus). Cost-
leadership strategies are traditionally dominant
within the construction sector, largely because firms
frequently struggle to differentiate their products.
427
Green et al.
Nonetheless, larger construction firms frequently
develop differential brands oriented towards different
demand sectors. Other firms undoubtedly adopt a
‘focus’ strategy by concentrating on particular market
niches with a view to providing excellent services to a
limited clientele. However, the assumption that such
strategies are mutually exclusive has been repeatedly
challenged in the literature (Flint, 2000; Klein, 2002).
Furthermore, Porter notably offers little advice on
how organizational resources are to be aligned in the
effective implementation of the adopted strategy
(O’Shaughnessy, 1996). Powell (2001) further observes
that most empirical studies infer competitive advantage
from ex post observation, but then conclude ex ante
that creating competitive advantage produces superior
performance. In essence, the notion of competitive
advantage seems to rest on the tautological observation
that the characteristics of competitive advantage are
those that make firms successful.
Despite the above difficulties, Porter’s terminology con-
tinues to provide much of the lexicon of competitive-
ness and the terms are frequently mobilized by
practising managers. This is especially true for those
who see themselves involved in setting strategy. The
popularity of Porter’s terminology has survived pro-
longed criticism within the strategic management litera-
ture (Klein, 2002; Connor, 2003). The notion of
‘competitive advantage’ invariably remains central to
any espoused organizational strategy, despite its ambi-
guity. The broader community of strategic management
researchers have frequently commented on Porter’s
perceived lack of precision (O’Shaughnessy, 1996;
Klein, 2002; Connor, 2003). Whilst the discourse of
competitive advantage remains attractive, there is
little agreement on what it means in operational
terms. Flint (2000, p. 121) is especially dismissive:
The terminology used in the field of strategic
management that might possibly garner the
prize for the most overworked and least under-
stood catch-phrase is ‘competitive advantage’.
The extension of that phrase into ‘sustainable
competitive advantage’ is currently an elabor-
ation of ambiguity.
It is indeed notable that Porter avoids offering a precise
definition of competitive advantage, other than to
suggest that:
competitive advantage grows fundamentally out
of the value a firm is able to create for its buyers
that exceeds the firm’s cost of creating it.
(Porter, 1985, p. 3)
The fundamental ambiguity of ‘competitive advantage’
means that a multiplicity of interpretations can be gen-
erated. In other words, it can be mobilized to mean
428
different things by different interest groups. According
to Connor (2003, p. 196):
It is clear that the definition will vary with differ-
ing points of view and with the nature of the
viewer’s interest in the performance of business.
Rather than understand ‘competitive advantage’ as
something that can be possessed and measured, it is
perhaps more meaningful to understand it as a discur-
sive resource that is mobilized in the enactment of
strategy. The same argument can also be applied to
concepts such as the ‘value chain’ and other such
terms derived from Porter’s work. Whilst the ambigu-
ity and imprecision of such terms have been extensively
discussed, such debates have had little impact on those
who seek to mobilize the notion of competitive advan-
tage vis-à-vis the construction sector (cf. Betts and
Ofori, 1992; Abdul-Aziz, 1994; Ofori, 1994; Öz,
2001). It would of course be incorrect to suggest that
such authors accept Porter’s ideas entirely uncritically.
Both Öz (2001) and Ofori (2003) observe that Porter’s
perspective has limitations in terms of its application to
construction, but nevertheless the underlying rationale
remains essentially unchallenged. Certainly there is
little interest in the contextualized processes through
which terms such as ‘competitive advantage’ have
become persuasive.
Resource-based view
An alternative discourse of competitiveness to that of
Porter is offered by the resource-based view (RBV) of
the firm (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991). The RBV
emphasizes the unique internal resources that allegedly
make individual firms competitive. The basic ideas can
be linked back to evolutionary theories of the firm such
as those offered by Penrose (1959) and Nelson and
Winter (1982). Resources can be tangible or intangible
in nature, and are variously seen to include assets,
capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes,
information and knowledge (Barney, 1991). Kay
(1999) also refers to capital, equipment, patents and
talented managers. Such resources are seen to be con-
trolled by the firm and provide the basis for identifying
and implementing strategies for improved effective-
ness. Competitive advantage is seemingly secured
when a firm is able to implement a ‘value-creating
strategy’ that others are not able to replicate due to
the lack of necessary resources (Barney, 1991). The
RBV therefore focuses on firm-level resources and
capabilities rather than the industry-level analysis
favoured by Porter. However, the RBV has also been
criticized for failing to provide prescriptive guidance
to managers (Priem and Butler, 2001; Connor, 2002).
Strategic resource assets only seemingly become ident-
ifiable as such once ‘competitive advantage’ has been
secured. Resources that secure competitive advantage
are held to be those that enable a firm to improve its

efficiency and effectiveness whilst being unavailable to
other firms. Furthermore, they must be imperfectly
imitable and non-substitutable (Barney, 1991). The dif-
ficulty lies in that many such attributes can only be
recognized after the event. In other words, the
resources that need to be deployed to ensure competi-
tive advantage are those that have been important in
securing competitive advantage. Hence, in common
with Porter’s work, the basic argument at the heart
of RBV is somewhat tautological.
Despite the above concerns, the resource-based view of
competitiveness remains almost equally as popular
amongst construction management researchers as
Porter’s work. De Haan et al. (2002), Ngowi et al.
(2002) and Phua (2006) are indicative of those who
have attempted to mobilize RBV in the cause of con-
struction sector competitiveness. The emphasis of
such papers tends to be on the use of RBV as an ‘expla-
natory tool’; there is little attempt to engage with the
tautological flaws rehearsed above. It is equally clear
that numerous attempts to apply RBV have consist-
ently failed to provide meaningful prescriptive gui-
dance to practising managers in the construction
sector. This is not to say that managers have not mobi-
lized such ideas as discursive resources to legitimize
their actions; but this of course is a rather more soph-
isticated argument.
Dynamic capabilities
An extension of RBV is provided by the idea of
dynamic capabilities, which relates to a:
firm’s ability to integrate, build and reconfigure
internal and external competencies to address
rapidly changing environments.
(Teece et al., 1997, p. 516)
Once again, the literature abounds with definitional
problems regarding the distinctions between resources,
assets, competencies and capabilities. Nevertheless, it
is possible to understand dynamic capabilities as
‘second-order’ capabilities relating to a firm’s ability
to reconfigure its existing substantive capabilities.
However, in common with the more static conceptual-
ization of resources offered by RBV, dynamic capabili-
ties are too often conceptualized in ways that make it
difficult to separate their existence from their effects
(Zahra et al., 2006). The core literature also too
often confuses the dynamic nature of the environment
with the dynamic nature of the capabilities themselves.
In common with RBV, research informed by the
dynamic capabilities literature again tends only to
identify capabilities retrospectively on the basis of
observed behaviour (Jarzabkowski, 2005). There is
little that provides prescriptive guidance for firms
wanting to develop new capabilities in response to
changing circumstances.
On the discourse of construction competitiveness
The idea of dynamic capabilities is perhaps most
persuasive when linked to organizational learning.
Zollo and Winter (2002) recognize the near tautology
of defining capability as ability, and in consequence
choose to focus on operating routines as the object
upon which dynamic capabilities operate:
A dynamic capability is a learned and stable
pattern of collective activity through which the
organization systemically generates and modifies
its operating routines in pursuit of improved
effectiveness.
(Zollo and Winter, 2002, p. 340)
Whilst Zollo and Winter are themselves light on the
rhetoric of competitiveness, their contribution provides
a bridge between the static ideas of RBV and the more
dynamic, less commodified, theories of knowledge
management and organizational learning. It is these
latter concepts that are frequently mobilized in the
cause of ‘achieving competitiveness’. Many such narra-
tives draw from Grant’s (1996) knowledge-based
theory of the firm. Nevertheless, those who criticize
Porter’s work for its ambiguity and lack of precision
are unlikely to find much comfort within the conflated
lexicons of dynamic capabilities, knowledge manage-
ment and organizational learning. The essential illu-
siveness of dynamic capabilities is readily confirmed
by Green et al.’s (2008) empirical study of enacted
competitive strategy within a regional contracting
firm. Dynamic capabilities are seemingly no less illusive
than competitiveness itself. Certainly, there is little that
can be measured or mobilized in the form of prescrip-
tive guidance.
Persuasiveness in practice
The above review of existing theories of competitiveness
would seem to reveal a recurring problem with attempts
to codify the factors that make firms competitive. The
inherent tautologies and ambiguities revealed within
the theories reviewed suggest that their persuasive
appeal does not rest on their intrinsic logic, or even the
consistency of the arguments mobilized. An alternative
way of understanding their appeal is to position them
as part of a broader and dominant discourse, with an
adherence to a particular version of an ‘objective’
reality of how markets, firms and actors work. Viewed
in this way, theories and models do not have to be coher-
ent or true in order to function as devices for delineating
possible ways of thinking and acting. They can therefore
be seen to reflect and reproduce the assumptions of
wider discourses, not only relating to the iconic status
of competitiveness, but also in terms of underlying
ideas about rationality and objectivity.
There is little doubt that the ideas of ‘enterprise’ and
‘competitiveness’ have permeated the rhetoric and activi-
ties of both management and research. However, the
429
Green et al.
actual machinations and effects of such devices have to
date received little attention, especially in the context of
the construction sector. Within the literature there are
relatively few challenges to the dominant position of
seeing competitiveness in a positivistic and instrumental
fashion. The prevailing tendency is to perceive competi-
tiveness as if it were a corporeal entity that can be pos-
sessed, gained and lost through firms’ actions. Current
popularized theories of competitive advantage directly
contribute to this reification. Such theories reflect and
reinforce pre-existing assumptions about the supposed
objective nature of competitiveness, and hence the
ways in which managers within firms seek to enact it.
In advocating the need for a discursive perspective it
must be recognized that the very nature of discourse
remains heavily contested in the midst of a wide range
of conflicting theoretical perspectives. It is therefore
important to be clear on the adopted perspective on dis-
course before considering its implications and material
consequences within the field of competitiveness.
Contested nature of discourse
Rather than accept established ideas of enterprise and
competitiveness as necessarily representative of reality,
an alternative approach would be to focus on the con-
stituent discourses. In particular, to explore how such
discourses impact and shape the contexts in which
actors, and their ideas and actions, are grounded. But it
is necessary to be precise in what is meant by discourse,
as one of the problems with the term is the multiplicity
of ways in which it is mobilized and interpreted. Some
sources see discourses simply as narratives or storylines
portraying certain series of events or interpretations of
them. Others interpret discourses as rhetorical (and often
implicitly furtive or diversionary) justifications of specific
perspectives and activities. A further interpretation of
discourse is to see them as deterministic mechanisms
that set the very conditions in which society operates.
The position adopted here is that a discourse is a body of
ideas that has significant material effects and conse-
quences as it is mobilized, reproduced and reconstructed
in specific contexts. In this sense, it shares similarities
with Foucault’s definition of discourses as highly ubiqui-
tous devices which not only constrain and enable the pos-
sibilities for action available to actors, but also actually
constitute or configure the subjectivities of those individ-
uals. Foucault’s definition, although both complex and
contested, provides a way of seeing discourse as some-
thing other than just words. It goes beyond the position
of discourse as smokescreen to look for the material con-
sequences of its operation – the ‘formidable materiality
of discourse’ (Foucault, 1981, p. 52).
Notwithstanding the above, it is also important to
make clear that the adopted perspective does not
situate discourse as something separate from and
a priori to some effect or end. Discourse and its
430
consequences are seen as inseparable; discourse both
instigates and mediates interaction and is recursively
adapted and shaped in the process. Discourses
include practices and courses of action, as well as
beliefs and ideas, and indeed much of Foucault’s
work is concerned with describing the ways that differ-
ent discourses have been produced, reproduced and
shaped through practice. By examining the discourse
of enterprise as a multifaceted system of ideas, beliefs
and activities, light can be shed not only on the
appeal and influence of often ambiguous and tautologi-
cal theories of competitiveness, but also on the broad
ideological contexts in which they are grounded.
From this perspective, new insights can be gained
into the ways in which the discourse of competitiveness
has shaped ‘common sense’ reality. And any such
diagnosis must start with the basic parameters of the
‘enterprise culture’.
Competitiveness and the enterprise culture
The legitimacy of ‘competitiveness’ amongst practis-
ing managers is undoubtedly derived from the
broader rhetoric of the enterprise culture, as propa-
gated widely in the UK and US since the early
1980s. Competitiveness in the global economy
became the new mantra of both the Ronald Reagan
and Margaret Thatcher administrations as a means
of achieving economic growth after the widespread
failure of centralized state planning. Managerial
sources on competitiveness both reflected and
reinforced this new emphasis on ‘survival of the
fittest’. Individual firms, and entire national econom-
ies, had to become competitive in order to survive.
The espoused policies sought to extend the domain
of the free market throughout the economy in the
cause of competition. The shift to the political right
denied legitimacy for the continued state support of
‘lame ducks’. National economies and individual
firms were obliged to compete in the marketplace.
Harsh medicine was advocated to overcome sluggish
economies characterized by low productivity, over-
manning and a lack of investment. Key policy dimen-
sions of the espoused doctrine included privatization,
deregulation and the reduction of trade union power.
Taxation levels were reduced in an effort to encou-
rage ‘enterprise’, with a consequent reduction in
welfare benefits. The combination of policy initiat-
ives, legislation and rhetoric has been characterized
as the ‘enterprise discourse’ (Du Gay, 1991; Keat
and Abercombie, 1991; Du Gay and Salaman,
1992). In this sense, the discourse of the enterprise
culture includes a complex web of ideas, linguistic
expressions, policies, social institutions and, impor-
tantly, material practices. And it has had a significant
and lasting impact on the UK economy and society at
large. The decimation of the manufacturing sector
resulted in urban decay and widespread unemploy-
ment. Many firms in traditional heavy industries

failed to survive exposure to the harsh winds of
competition. In the UK, the discourse of enterprise
was subsequently enthusiastically embraced – and
even extended – by the Tony Blair Labour govern-
ment elected in 1997. The end result is an economy
oriented towards services rather than manufacturing,
with consequent growth in part-time and temporary
employment. The accepted euphemism for such
trends is the ‘flexible economy’, which is too often
characterized by a widespread reduction of employ-
ment protection; too many restrictive regulations
are deemed ‘uncompetitive’. The discourse of the
enterprise culture has shaped business education
and practice to such an extent that it has since
become accepted ‘common sense’.
Material manifestations in the construction
context
The preceding discussion of the enterprise culture is
of course by no means unique to the construction
sector, but the underpinning discourse has had a sig-
nificant material impact in shaping the landscape
within which construction companies operate.
Indeed, the discourse of competitiveness both
constitutes and is constituted by the contextual
landscapes in which it is mobilized. Of particular
importance is the recursive relationship between
enacted strategy and context that unfolds over time
(Pettigrew, 1997). Related to this is the way in
which the discourse of the enterprise culture has
shaped the modern-day reality of the UK construction
industry.
The rhetoric of competitiveness was perhaps first
mobilized in the construction industry during the
1970s in response to policy statements by the
Labour Party in support of building industry nationa-
lization. The Conservative Thatcher government
elected in 1979 enacted supporting policies by
opening up local authority Direct Labour Organiz-
ations (DLOs) to private sector competition. The
period 1980–95 saw the widespread institutionalized
incentivization of self-employment through the tax
and insurance system, with resulting reductions in
trade union membership. In consequence, the percen-
tage of self-employed operatives grew from under
30% in 1980 to over 60% in 1995 (Harvey, 2001;
International Labour Office (ILO), 2001). Such
changes were mutually constituted with the discourse
of competitiveness. The process of labour market
change was supported by a shadowy organization
called the ‘Economic League’, to which most of the
major construction companies subscribed. Its prime
role was the blacklisting of ‘militant’ trade unionists
in the cause of competitiveness (Hollingsworth and
Tremayne, 1989). Many individuals found themselves
blacklisted for entirely legal involvement in trade
On the discourse of construction competitiveness
union affairs. Such actions were seen to be necessary
in the broader cause of ‘competitiveness’.
Construction firms were therefore not only encour-
aged to adopt strategies based on outsourcing and
labour-only subcontracting by rhetorical exhortations;
they also received material incentives through the tax
and insurance system. For many, the shift towards
non-standard forms of employment aligned perfectly
with the adopted model of ‘structural flexibility’ as
the key means of achieving competitive advantage
(Winch, 1998). The need to expand or contract in
response to fluctuating demand became central to
the competitive strategy of the construction sector.
In consequence, contractors progressively withdrew
from taking responsibility for direct employment and
training, preferring to rest their competitiveness on
effective ‘contract trading’. Associated trends include
the retreat of most major contractors from any
direct involvement in training. This has led to a dra-
matic decline of the apprentice system and an increas-
ing reliance on migrant workers supplied through
agencies. Such trends were exacerbated by the popu-
larity of ‘management’ procurement routes, whereby
teams of management consultants responsible only
for coordination replaced the main contractor. In con-
sequence, the key capabilities of UK contractors argu-
ably became the efficient use of working capital
coupled with the management and coordination of
subcontractors. Also of importance is the ability of
main contractors to off-load risk to the supply
chain. More recently, the adopted competitive strat-
egy has been legitimized by the discourse of ‘supply
chain management’. Of particular note are the iso-
morphic pressures through which firms in the same
sector come to resemble each other (Powell and
DiMaggio, 1991). Spender (1989) also refers to
‘industry recipes’ to explain the tendency for firms
within the same sector to adopt similar approaches
to decision-making.
As a caveat to the above, there are always exceptions
to the dominant industry recipe. This is especially
true for sectors as diverse as construction. Neverthe-
less, the emergence of the ‘hollowed-out’ firm as the
exemplar of UK contracting companies has raised
concerns about the sector’s absorptive capacity and
its ability to innovate (cf. Gann, 2001). It could
further be argued that the relentless pursuit of nar-
rowly constituted ‘competitiveness’ by individual
firms has led to a free-loading mentality whereby
the costs of training and investing in the future are
left to others. Thirty years of outsourcing and de-
layering have resulted in many contracting firms evol-
ving into exemplars of the ‘lean organization’. While
this may be perfectly rational for each individual unit
of analysis, the systemic effect across the sector as a
whole equates to a form of anorexia (Green and
May, 2003).
431
Green et al.
Counter-discourses
Notwithstanding the above, it must also by recognized
that ‘enterprise’ is ultimately perhaps too vague a term
to constitute the monolithic discourse to which Du Gay
alludes. Indeed, Du Gay’s characterization of the
‘enterprise culture’ has been criticized for being
overly deterministic as a result of paying too little
attention to the disrupting affects of counter-discourses
(Fournier and Grey, 1999). There is also a danger in
conflating too easily the discourses of competitiveness
and enterprise. While they are undoubtedly to some
extent mutually constituted, there are important differ-
ences in emphasis. For example, enterprise tends to be
positioned as an alternative to bureaucracy, whereas
competitiveness tends to be promoted as a desirable
product of free markets. Again, there is an obvious tau-
tology in that ‘competitiveness’ is the outcome of
making markets more competitive.
Perhaps the most obvious counter-discourse mobilized
in response to competitiveness has been that promoted
by the political left, and in particular the trade unions.
This has been especially pronounced in terms of sus-
tained campaigns against bogus self-employment and
the exploitation of migrant workers. The Inland
Revenue clampdown in 1997 resulted in 185 000–
210 000 workers moving back into direct employment
(Harvey, 2003). This was in part a direct result of trade
union success in mobilizing a counter-discourse.
Health and safety is a further continuing concern to
those who work in the construction sector, and as
such represents a longstanding counterbalance to the
dominant discourse of competitiveness. The ethos of
professionalism has also been traditionally strong in
the construction sector. In many respects the pro-
fessions supposedly numbered amongst the institutio-
nalized ‘vested interests’ against which the enterprise
culture was directed. Whilst the status of the pro-
fessions may have declined in the construction sector,
they have by no means been swept aside. The pro-
fessional institutions continue to provide resistance
to the notion of unregulated enterprise, and certainly
continue to play an important part in shaping the
self-identities of their members.
In contrast to the hegemony of the enterprise culture,
there have been numerous managerial counter-
discourses that seek to alleviate the damaging side-
effects of the industry’s dominant recipe of ‘structural
flexibility’. In the construction sector the Egan Report
(Egan, 1998) arguably marked the highpoint of compe-
titiveness discourse in the UK construction industry.
But there have been several ebbs and flows both
before and since. To suggest that there is one hegemo-
nic discourse that has shaped and patterned the
evolution of the construction sector would be to over-
simplify the complex processes involved. All discourses
are contested and localized arenas are invariably
432
characterized by multiple, competing discourses.
Examples are provided by the interrelated narratives
of teamwork, partnering and collaborative working.
Latham (1994) certainly sought to redress the con-
struction sector’s adversarial competitive recipe of
‘bid low, claim high’. In this respect the Construction
Act of 1996 is a material component of a mobilized
counter-discourse. Egan’s (1998) subsequent focus on
narrowly defined efficiency represented a fight back
for the discourse of competitiveness; but even Egan
paid lip-service to relational concepts such as partner-
ing and teamwork. The Strategic Forum (2002) sub-
sequently went further in that it embraced trade
union concerns about bogus self-employment. Also of
significance is the Strategic Forum’s emphasis on the
need for ‘integrated teams’ as a supposed antidote to
fragmentation. More broadly, it is interesting to
observe the increasing interest in corporate social
responsibility whereby firms are expected to go
beyond narrowly defined self-interest in pursuit of
social and environmental sustainability. Such
arguments undoubtedly run contrary to the unidimen-
sional ‘greed is good’ philosophy of the enterprise
culture.
Determinism and human agency
Any interpretation of the extent to which the construc-
tion industry has been shaped by the discourse of enter-
prise culture depends upon how deterministic an
interpretation of discourse is adopted. It is easy to
subscribe to a position that leaves little or no room
for any course of action outside of those prescribed
within the dominant discourse. Hence, Fournier and
Grey’s (1999) criticism of Du Gay (1991) for being
overly deterministic, and for not recognizing the impli-
cations and effects of counter-discourse. Du Gay
certainly adopts a relatively deterministic position,
but he is by no means alone in this interpretation;
others have likewise positioned dominant discourses
as able to produce the very identities of individual sub-
jects (e.g. Zuboff, 1988; Poster, 1990).
Notwithstanding the above, important and influential
counter-discourses to that of the enterprise culture
undoubtedly exist. Examples include those from the
political left and the long-running and well-founded
criticisms of Porter’s concepts of competitiveness.
However, such counter-discourses can be seen as
central to the constitution of a dominant discourse; it
is only through challenges and deviance that dominant
ideas and practices emerge and are shaped. Without sub-
version there can be no dominant position, otherwise
there is nothing either to compare with or dominate.
Nevertheless, challenges to the mainstream must orig-
inate somewhere, which suggests that individuals are
in some fashion able to resist the totalitarianism of

dominant discourse. Less deterministic interpretations
of the workings of discourse do find room for extensive
agency on the part of individuals. Foucauldian
approaches have been used to frame the resistance of
individuals to managerial coercion and the develop-
ment of alternative, subversive strategies and actions
in the workplace (Townley, 1993; Brewis, 1996;
Knights and McCabe, 2003). Adopting this second
perspective allows an escape route from the trap of
determinism, whilst maintaining the importance of
understanding the ways that discourse has significant
material constituents and consequences. Above all,
for researchers interested in competitiveness in the
construction sector the message is straightforward:
discourse matters.
The ability of individuals to manoeuvre both within
and outside of the dominant discourse of enterprise,
rather than being mechanistically enslaved to it, is sig-
nificant when considering much of the literature on
management fashion (Abrahamson, 1996; Keiser,
1997; Clark and Salaman, 1998). Popular improve-
ment recipes such as total quality management,
business process re-engineering and lean production
can be seen as constitute parts of the discourse of com-
petitiveness, but are at the same time characterized as
‘interpretively flexible’ rather than as rigid conscrip-
tion devices. In other words, they are subject to mul-
tiple interpretations. This vagueness of definition
aids diffusion by enabling managers to mobilize differ-
ent storylines in different contexts. Such management
fashions derive their legitimacy from the enterprise
culture, and provide a range of rhetorical resources
that can be mobilized in unique and transient combi-
nations. They are all shaped by the discourse of com-
petitiveness, and at the same time their enactment
comprises constituent parts of the discourse of compe-
titiveness. But practising managers have significant
freedom to adopt different interpretations and to
pursue divergent courses of action. Also of note is
the way in which management gurus align their
outputs with the existing dominant discourse, includ-
ing its material manifestations. Hence ‘new’ manage-
ment ideas may provide legitimizing devices for
changes that have already occurred; but they might
equally provide rhetorical resources for ‘bucking the
trend’. Of additional interest is the way in which man-
agement fashions are frequently positioned against
each other. For example, whilst business process re-
engineering was primarily positioned against ‘old-
fashioned’ practices of over-manning and hierarchical
forms of management, it was also positioned as a
means of overcoming the limitations of total quality
management. Numerous sources highlight the way
in which socially constructed knowledge is created
and disseminated by groups of individuals with
vested interests in the diffusion process (e.g. Sturdy,
2004; Swan and Scarbrough, 2005). But the infra-
structure within which such groups operate can also
On the discourse of construction competitiveness
be read as a material manifestation of the broader dis-
course of competitiveness. Ultimately, it can be argued
that the actions of individual managers are patterned
and conditioned by the discourse of competitiveness
even if they seek to position themselves against it.
Conclusions
This paper has offered an alternative perspective on
competitiveness in the construction sector. The exist-
ing tendency is to view competitiveness as if it were a
tangible entity that can be measured, benchmarked
and improved. Current popularized theories of compe-
titiveness are seen to contribute directly to this reifica-
tion. As such, they can be seen to be directly implicated
in the way in which competitiveness is constituted. The
re-conceptualization of competitiveness as a discourse
rather than an intrinsic characteristic of organizations
has significant implications for research. It certainly
questions the relevance of positivist research method-
ologies and points towards the need to understand
the unfolding complex processes through which com-
petitiveness is enacted and legitimized. It further ques-
tions the assumption that there can ever be a
straightforward or universal relationship between
theory and practice within socially and discursively
mediated contexts. Rather than view theories as
lenses through which reality can be viewed, it has
been suggested that such theories are themselves con-
stituent parts of a broader discourse. Such theories
combine with the broader discourse of the enterprise
culture to provide a suite of discursive resources that
practitioners mobilize to legitimize their actions.
These actions in turn combine to constitute the
material reality within which firms – and actors
within firms – operate. Indeed, according to Foucault,
such material manifestations are themselves part of the
discourse itself; hence, the ‘formidable materiality of
discourse’. From this perspective, the discourse of the
enterprise culture refers not only to the justifying
exhortations of policy initiatives, but also to the
material consequences of privatization, deregulation
and the incentivization of self-employment. Theories
of competitive advantage, RBV and dynamic capabili-
ties are no less directly implicated than the institutions
of government and the various ‘quangos’ that
have promoted enterprise in the form of popularized
improvement recipes. Government-sponsored reports
such as those by Latham (1994) and Egan (1998)
have played an especially important role in legitimiz-
ing changes that were already happening, thereby rein-
forcing them.
But care must also be taken to avoid characterizing
‘enterprise’ as a monolithic culture from which there is
no escape. Attention has been directed at several
counter-discourses than have continued to run concur-
rently. It has also been suggested that such counter-
discourses can in themselves be construed to be essential
433
Green et al.
components of the mainstream. Indeed, in the absence of
any counter-discourse there is no ‘other’ against which
the advocates of the mainstream can position themselves.
In this respect, the discourses of trade unionism and the
political left are essential to the continued survival of
the enterprise culture. Also of note is the way in which
potentially disruptive discourses are contained by their
absorption into the mainstream. For example, criticism
of the dehumanizing and totalitarian side-effects of
‘lean construction’ was alleviated by the ‘Respect for
People’ initiative (Rethinking Construction, 2002). The
very existence of such an initiative emasculated criticism
and thereby avoided the need for policy-makers to take
unpalatable actions towards the re-introduction of
labour market regulation. In the same way, the currently
topical counter-discourses of sustainability and corpor-
ate social responsibility can be seen to be essential to
the continued dominance of the mutually conflated dis-
courses of enterprise and competitiveness.
Far from being a tangible entity that can be measured,
competitiveness therefore becomes one discourse
amongst many. As such, it cannot be understood in iso-
lation. Indeed, there is an argument that discourses
such as competitiveness are so broad and multifaceted
they can only be understood in interaction with others.
Of key importance are the pragmatic and transient
assimilations between seemingly competing discourses
in localized contexts. Such assimilations frequently
have real material consequences and hence are
worthy of research effort in themselves. Local enact-
ments are inevitably patterned and conditioned by
broader contextual issues. Indeed, social scientists
have long sought to understand the complex interplay
between human action and the context within which it
occurs. The important point for researchers is that the
context within which strategic decisions are made must
be conceptualized as an active part of any analysis. But
context is not only shaping, it is also shaped by action
(Pettigrew, 1997). Issues of consideration include the
relationship between language and action and the
way that human agency relates to structural aspects
of society. Such a research agenda would require a sig-
nificant shift in theoretical orientation, together with a
multitude of research skills beyond those normally
mobilized in the cause of construction competitiveness.
Of key importance would be the need to shift from a
‘being ontology’ towards a ‘becoming ontology’ (cf.
Chia, 1995). Such a shift equates directly with a con-
ceptualization of competitiveness as an unfolding dis-
course subject to continuous processes of flux and
transformation, rather than an objective characteristic
that can be possessed and measured.
References
Abdul-Aziz, A.R. (1994) Global strategies: a comparison between
Japanese and American construction firms. Construction
Management and Economics, 12, 473–484.
434
Abrahamson, E. (1996) Management fashion. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 21(1), 254– 285.
Barney, J.B. (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive
advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99– 120.
Betts, M. and Ofori, G. (1992) Strategic planning for competitive
advantage in construction. Construction Management and
Economics, 10, 511–532.
Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2001) Understanding the diffusion
and application of new management ideas in construction.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
8(5/6), 335 –345.
Brewis, J. (1996) The ‘making’ of the ‘competent’ manager. Com-
petency development, personal effectiveness and Foucault.
Management Learning, 27(1), 65–86.
Chia, R. (1995) From modern to postmodern organisational
analysis. Organization Studies, 16(4), 579–604.
Clark, T. and Salaman, G. (1998) Telling tales: management
guru’s narratives and the construction of managerial iden-
tity. Journal of Management Studies, 35(2), 137–161.
Connor, T. (2002) The resource-based view of strategy and
its value to practising managers. Strategic Change, 11,
307–316.
Connor, T. (2003) Managing for competitiveness: a proposed
model for managerial focus. Strategic Change, 12(4),
195–207.
Coyne, K.P. and Subramaniam, S. (1996) Bringing discipline to
strategy. McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 14–25.
De Haan, J., Voordijk, H. and Joosten, G.J. (2002) Market strat-
egies and core capabilities in the building industry. Construc-
tion Management and Economics, 20, 109–118.
Du Gay, P. (1991) Enterprise culture and the ideology of excel-
lence. New Foundations, 13, 45–61.
Du Gay, P. and Salaman, G. (1992) The cult(ure) of the customer.
Journal of Management Studies, 29, 615 –633.
Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction, DETR, London.
Flanagan, R., Lu, W., Shen, L. and Jewell, C. (2007) Competitive-
ness in construction: a critical review of research. Construc-
tion Management and Economics, 25, 989–1000.
Flint, G.D. (2000) What is the meaning of competitive advan-
tage? Advances in Competitiveness Research, 8(1),
121–129.
Foucault, M. (1981) The order of discourse, in R. Young (ed.):
Untying the Text: A Post Structuralist Reader, Routledge,
London, pp. 48–78.
Fournier, V. and Grey, C. (1999) Too much, too little and too
often: a critique of du Gay’s analysis of enterprise. Organiz-
ation, 6(10), 107–128.
Gann, D. (2001) Putting academic ideas into practice: technologi-
cal progress and the absorptive capacity of construction
organisations. Construction Management and Economics,
19, 321 –330.
Grant, R.M. (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the
firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.
Green, S.D., Larsen, G.D. and Kao, C.C. (2008) Competitive strat-
egy revisited: contested concepts and dynamic capabilities.
Construction Management and Economics, 26(1), 63–78.
Green, S.D. and May, S.C. (2003) Re-engineering construction:
going against the grain. Building Research & Information,
31(2), 97–106.
Harvey, M. (2001) Undermining Construction, Institute of
Employment Rights, London.
Harvey, M. (2003) Privatization, fragmentation and inflexible
flexibilization in the UK construction industry, in G. Bosch
and P. Philips (eds): Building Chaos: A International Com-
parison of Deregulation in the Construction Industry,
Routledge, London, pp. 188–209.
Hollingsworth, M. and Tremayne, C. (1989) The Economic
League: The Silent McCarthyism, National Council for
Civil Liberties, London.
International Labour Office (ILO) (2001) The Construction
Industry in the Twenty-first Century: Its Image, Employ-
ment Prospects and Skills Requirements, ILO, Geneva.

Jarzabkowski, P. (2005) Strategy as Practice: An Activity-Based
Approach, Sage, London.
Kay, J. (1999) Strategy and the delusion of grand designs. Master-
ing Strategy – Part One, Financial Times, 27 September, 4.
Keat, R. and Abercombie, N. (1991) Enterprise Culture,
Routledge, London.
Keiser, A. (1997) Rhetoric and myth in management fashion.
Organization, 4(1), 49– 74.
Klein, J. (2002) Beyond competitive advantage. Strategic Change,
11(6), 317 –327.
Knights, D. and McCabe, D. (2003) Governing through team-
work: reconstituting subjectivity in a call centre. Journal of
Management Studies, 40(7), 1587–1619.
Latham, M. (1994) Constructing the Team, HMSO, London.
Momaya, K. and Selby, K. (1998) International competitiveness
of the Canadian construction industry: a comparison with
Japan and the United States. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 25(4), 640– 652.
Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Econ-
omic Change, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ngowi, A.B., Iwisi, D.S. and Mushi, R.J. (2002) Competitive
strategy in a context of low financial resources. Building
Research & Information, 30(3), 205– 211.
O’Shaughnessy, N. (1996) Michael Porter’s competitive advan-
tage revisited. Management Decision, 34(6), 12–20.
Ofori, G. (1994) Formulating a long-term strategy for developing
the construction industry of Singapore. Construction Man-
agement and Economics, 12, 219–231.
Ofori, G. (2003) Frameworks for analysing international con-
struction. Construction Management and Economics, 21,
379– 391.
Öz, Ö. (2001) Sources of competitive advantage of Turkish con-
struction companies in international markets. Construction
Management and Economics, 19, 135–144.
Penrose, E.T. (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm,
Blackwell, Oxford.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1997) What is processual analysis? Scandina-
vian Journal of Management, 13(4), 1 –31.
Phua, F.T.T. (2006) Predicting construction firm performance: an
empirical assessment of the differential impact between
industry- and firm-specific factors. Construction Manage-
ment and Economics, 24, 309–320.
Porter, M.E. (1979) How competitive forces shape strategy.
Harvard Business Review, March/April, 2–10.
Porter, M.E. (1980) Competitive Strategy, Free Press,
New York, NY.
On the discourse of construction competitiveness
Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive Advantage, Free Press,
New York, NY.
Poster, M. (1990) The Mode of Information, Polity, Cambridge.
Powell, T.C. (2001) Competitive advantage: logical and philoso-
phical considerations. Strategic Management Journal, 22,
875–888.
Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P. (eds) (1991) The New Institu-
tionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Priem, R.L. and Butler, J.E. (2001) Is the resource-based ‘view’ a
useful perspective for strategic management research?
Academy of Management Review, 26, 22–40.
Rethinking Construction (2002) Respect for People: A Frame-
work for Action, Rethinking Construction, London.
Shen, L., Lu, W. and Yam, C.H.M. (2006) Contractor key
competitiveness indicators (KCIs): a China study. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management ASCE,
132(4), 416–424.
Spender, J.-C. (1989) Industry Recipes, Blackwell, Oxford.
Strategic Forum (2002) Accelerating Change, Rethinking
Construction, London.
Sturdy, A. (2004) The adoption of management ideas and prac-
tices – theoretical perspectives and possibilities. Manage-
ment Learning, 35(2), 155 –179.
Swan, J. and Scarbrough, H. (2005) The politics of networked
innovation. Human Relations, 58(7), 913–943.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997) Dynamic capabilities
and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,
18(7), 509 –533.
Townley, B. (1993) Foucault, power/knowledge and its relevance
for human resource management. Academy of Management
Review, 18(3), 518 –545.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 5, 171–180.
Winch, G. (1998) The growth of self-employment in British con-
struction. Construction Management and Economics, 16,
531–542.
Zahra, S.A., Sapienza, H.J. and Davidson, P. (2006) Entrepre-
neurship and dynamic capabilities: a review, model and
research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4),
917–955.
Zollo, M. and Winter, S.G. (2002) Deliberate learning and the
evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science,
13(3), 339 –351.
Zuboff, S. (1988) In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of
Work and Power, Heinemann, Oxford.
435