The value of apology in construction dispute negotiation

Offering an apology can easily be taken as admission of liability that might well be the least thing the apology offeror has intended. Apology legislations have been enacted in many countries to alleviate this worry. In Hong Kong, the first-ever apology ordinance was enacted in 2017. This study applies the Kelman’s Response-Restriction Theory and examines if offering an apology would solicit positive responses of the counterpart by overcoming barriers against settlement in construction dispute negotiation (CDN). From a literature review, four forms of apology of potential use and six settlement barriers were identified. A pilot with practising mediators confirmed the potential use of these four forms of apology in CDN. With data collected from construction professionals in Hong Kong, multiple regression analyses were conducted. It is found that congruence-driving apology is the most versatile in moderating positive responses with respect to the six settlement barriers. However, only ice-breaking apology offers significant mediating effect in overcoming settlement barriers. It can be concluded that an apology is more likely to be a moderator than a mediator in CDN. In practical terms, the value of offering an apology is to solicit reciprocation of positive responses thereby fostering win-win outcome. It is further suggested that 1) offer which form of apology should be based on the nature of the settlement barrier; 2) an apology should be offered at an appropriate time and manner to maximise its effectiveness.