Lu, W; Zhang, L and Li, Z (2015) Influence of negotiation risk attitude and power on behaviors and outcomes when negotiating construction claims. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 141(2): 04014069, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
When confronted with construction claims, negotiation is always the preferred method for owners and contractors. The authors conducted a questionnaire survey to explore the correlation between negotiation risk attitude and power as well as the influence of these two parameters on behaviors and outcomes in construction claim negotiations. The results indicate that to some extent, negotiation risk-taking is correlated with high power. The risk taker usually performs collaborating behaviors (better than avoiding and obliging), while the risk averter always adopts obliging behaviors (which are proved to be less beneficial than collaborating and avoiding). The risk averter enjoys a remarkable increase in reaching better outcomes with an increasing degree of adopting dominating behaviors. The high-power party with frequently used dominating behaviors has access to better outcomes than the low-power party while the low-power party that commonly uses obliging behaviors is more likely to face deterioration. The findings can be used by construction practitioners as references to evaluate their negotiation risk attitude and power in negotiations. Consequently, they can adjust their negotiation strategies accordingly to achieve better outcomes.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction claims; contracting; negotiation; power; risk attitude |
| Index terms: | strategy, face, construction practitioner, survey, risk taking, risk attitude, deterioration, construction claim, questionnaire, negotiating, owner, negotiation |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, material degradation and durability, psychology, professional development, decision-making and reasoning, management, sociology, payment, conflict resolution |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Construction Materials, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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