Cheung, S O and Chow, P T (2011) Withdrawal in construction project dispute negotiation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(12), pp. 1071-1079. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
A negotiation is doomed if a negotiator loses the desire to continue with the discussion, and it is described as withdrawal (WA). Construction project disputes are content-specific, with resolution options governed by the contract, thus fitting neatly with the rationality framework. Nevertheless, failure in construction project dispute negotiation (CPDN) is not uncommon. The prospect of having a successful negotiation is hampered when behavioral factors creep in. This study aims to uncover the underlying factors affecting WA in CPDN from a behavioral perspective. The behavioral tradition of negotiation study identifies three behavioral primers: motivation (task versus relation), cognition (emotion versus rationality), and personality (competition versus cooperation). With these, a relationship framework between WA and the three behavioral primers is proposed. With data collected from construction professionals in Hong Kong, the relationship framework is subjected to a confirmatory analysis by structural equation modelling (SEM). Emotion under the cognitive domain is found to be the most critical contributor to WA in CPDN. This finding reinforces the fact that negotiators should be good at the technical aspects of the dispute subject matter and be emotionally stable.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | behavioral primers; construction project dispute negotiation; relationship framework; withdrawal |
| Index terms: | cooperation, construction project, cognition, competition, structural equation modelling, motivation, rationality, resolution, option, negotiation, construction professional, dispute, personality, Hong Kong |
| Subjects: | psychology, dispute resolution, cognitive psychology, decision analysis, conflict resolution, market analysis, behavioral psychology, statistical analysis, decision-making and reasoning, professional development, production management, Geography |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Information Management, Organizational Design, Legal Issues, Human Resources |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here