Special Issue on Construction Dispute Negotiation: Nuts and Bolts of Negotiation as a Means of Construction Dispute Resolution

Abstract

This special issue provides a rich and inspiring deliberation on negotiation as a means of construction dispute resolution. Negotiation is a human activity that inevitably is affected by personality and behavioral dimensions. Yates timely reminds us that negotiation remains the most significant resolution method of construction disputes. Notwithstanding the wider use of alternative dispute resolution in construction in recent years, Yates explains that contract claims are a source of dispute. If these claims can be settled by negotiation, there is no more demand for alternate dispute resolution (ADR). The skill set of effective negotiators is also discussed. The performance of a negotiator depends on how confident the negotiator is on the tactics chosen for the negotiation. This is the proposition of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. Yiu and Cheung elaborate on this proposition in the context of construction dispute negotiation. The degree of confidence will influence the result that in turn will drive the use of appropriate tactics. Four sources of selfefficacy are discussed, and these are performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and emotional arousal. Liu and Zhai are more concerned with the influence of personality on the adoption of conflict handling styles and conflict outcomes. Working with a sample of facility managers in Hong Kong, it was found that integrating and compromising conflict-handling styles could lead to functional conflict outcome, whereas avoiding style predicts dysfunctional conflict outcomes. It is suggested that in forming project teams, the personality of the members should be considered in the process of having these members working interdependently together. The mutual dependence and inherent diverging interests of the team members are a potential source of conflict. Charoenngam and Mahavarakorn further explore the notion of a negotiator’s behavior. The findings of a survey with construction managers in Thailand suggested that where collaborative behavior is derived, the chance of achieving win-win results in negotiation is higher. Five collaborative attributes, namely, rational, goal-oriented, reactive, cooperative, and rational, are developed. With respect to four types of common construction disputes, the respective negotiating behaviors are discussed. This study reinforces the human side of negotiation. Lau singles out distrust as the root cause of conflict relationship. Using 10 Hong Kong court cases, Lau illustrated how distrust featured and contributed to the dispute. Furthermore, the study unveils that in the 10 cases, a network of workers were involved. This complication is not uncommon in construction and is often the futile ground for dispute. Distrust hampers effective communication that is an essential success factor of a successful negotiation. Ren, Shen, Xue, and Hu provide two international project cases to illustrate the application and limitations of principled negotiation in construction disputes. Principled negotiation builds on the assumption that negotiators are rational utility maximizers. This is workable if emotional factors can be suppressed. The cases aptly illustrate this observation. International disputes are far more complex. Caroee and Singh describe the arguments and proceedings of an international dispute between Finland and Denmark in relation to a planned fixed link across the Great Belt. This case demonstrates the pragmatic side of negotiation and the art of compromise, as well as the wisdom in formulating innovative resolutions. After all, these are only available in consensus negotiation.