Values orientation influencing relationship cooperative behavioural mechanisms between health PFI project leaders

Complex multi-sector relationships are created in long-term health private finance initiative (PFI) projects within and across the inter-organisational (IOR) boundary. Relationship engagement and cooperative behaviour are influenced by an individual's values orientation, which in turn affects attitude and influences the selection and operation of various cooperation mechanisms. The study considered the use of behavioural cooperation mechanisms by project leaders within role-sets created within a PFI environment from the theoretical positions of role-set theory (Katz and Kahn, 1966), behavioural mechanisms influencing cooperation (Chen et al. 1998), and values orientation (Schwartz, 1992). The research adopted the position that values act as general guiding principles in one's life (Schwartz, 1992), a stance that extends Rokeach's (1973) research of the universal nature of human values. A mixed methodology was used to obtain the values orientation profiles of twenty-nine respondents from six project environments using the Schwartz Values Survey Instrument (SVS) combined with repertory grid interviews to elicit the individuals' construct structures. Cluster and principal components analyses were subsequently carried out to enable values profiles to be assessed against construct categorisation. Two-dimensional values domains were obtained for all respondents where respondent propensity tended towards self-transcendent and openness-to-change domains (Schwartz, 1992). Values orientation was examined against elicited constructs after cluster and principal components analysis was carried out for each repertory grid interview response. Analysis enabled construct categorisation to be aligned with the categories identified in an amended model of cooperation. Cooperation mechanisms clustered into two groupings. These reflected the high importance to the sample of trust and accountability in relationships, and the lower importance of group membership, communication process and goals. However, the ranking of the second cluster of attributes was highly sensitive to a changing order. Consistently, the least important behavioural mechanism was reward structures.