How dependence asymmetry and explicit contract shape contractor-subcontractor collaboration: A psychological perspective of fairness

Wu, S; Yu, L; Cao, T; Yuan, C and Du, Y (2023) How dependence asymmetry and explicit contract shape contractor-subcontractor collaboration: A psychological perspective of fairness. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 149(11): 04023103, ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

The contractor-subcontractor relationship is evolving from a traditional structure to a collaborative and partnering arrangement, leading to subcontracting project success and relationship stability as dual goals. Subcontracting project success denotes a good performance assessed by cost, time, quality, and collaboration satisfaction, whereas relationship stability implies a tendency of long-term orientation toward the dyadic relationship. However, dependence asymmetry, which refers to the different dependence magnitude levels between general contractors and subcontractors, hinders such dual goals. This article collected 223 questionnaires from subcontractors to investigate how to reduce the negative effect of dependence asymmetry on subcontracting project success and relationship stability. Meanwhile, this article employed the fairness perception as the psychological mechanism to aggregate such negative effect and took an explicit contract as an efficient moderator to reduce it. Results confirm the context-sensitive nature of fairness perception, showing that distributive fairness perception and procedural fairness perception mediated the relationship between dependence asymmetry and two dependent variables (subcontracting project success and relationship stability), whereas the effect of interactional fairness perception was not significant. Moreover, an explicit contract weakens the negative impact of dependence asymmetry on distributive fairness perception and procedural fairness perception, while it does not regulate the impact of dependence asymmetry on interactional fairness perception. Theoretically, this article clarifies the necessity of emphasizing long-term relationship development between general contractors and subcontractors in construction. Furthermore, this article extends dependence asymmetry research in contractor-subcontractor collaboration by adding both the psychological lens of fairness perception and a restraining moderator of explicit contract. Practically, the findings help project managers to identify dual means of explicit contract and psychological perception to balance the degree of dependence asymmetry and prompt collaborative performance.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: dependence asymmetry; explicit contract; fairness perception; project success; relationship stability
Index terms: dependent variable, subcontractor, questionnaire, collaboration, contractor-subcontractor relationship, general contractor, stability, fairness, subcontracting, aggregate, project manager, project success, satisfaction, partnering
Subjects: structural engineering, management, project management theory and practice, contract management, partnership management, statistical analysis, leadership, organization, profession, data collection methods, practitioner, materials science, project delivery
Topics: Organizational Design, Contract Administration, Supply Chain Management, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles
Descriptive scope: 3 PCA

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