Dispute Negotiation Research Articles

Understanding the Dark Side of Power in Project Dispute Negotiation Settlement

Negotiating parties commencing a negotiation are likely to have different levels of intention to settle. Is this attributed to the power differential among them? Little is known about this. Applying power-dependency theory and dual concern theory, this study proposes a power-motive-intention framework, which is empirically tested using the structural equation modeling (SEM) method. The results indicate that negotiating parties with high perceived power could enhance their proself motive and suppress their prosocial motive, thereby stifling the intention to settle. To alleviate this dark side of power, psychological bonding agents, including trust and shared vision, are found to be effective alleviating agents.

Managing Disputes for a Sustainable Construction: A Perspective of Settlement Facilitating Elements in Negotiations

Construction 4.0 presents a multitude of opportunities; however, it also increases the chance of disputes. Efficient dispute management contributes to the sustainable production of construction works. Enhancing negotiation management and negotiators’ settlement ability is valuable, given that negotiation is recognized as the most effective dispute resolution method. This study explores negotiation settlement by identifying negotiators’ settlement facilitating elements in construction dispute negotiation (CDN). A purposive literature review identified six key elements, naming preparation, integration, goodwill, continuity, commitment, and self-efficacy. With data collected from experienced construction dispute negotiators, the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) results confirmed the significance of these elements. Accordingly, recommendations for negotiators include (i) technique (i.e., good preparation and applying integrative tactics); (ii) interaction (i.e., showing goodwill and relationship maintenance); and (iii) attitude (i.e., commitment to negotiate and being confident) if the negotiation settlement is desired. Management can implement these recommendations in their training manual to cultivate negotiators’ problem solving and settlement-oriented mindset. Negotiators can also review their behaviors throughout the negotiations and make timely adjustments as deemed necessary. Reaching an amicable negotiated settlement would not only save resources, preserving business relationships is of equal importance for a sustainable construction industry.

An Instrument for Identification of Intention to Settle in Project Dispute Negotiation

An Instrument for Identification of Intention to Settle in Project Dispute Negotiation

Law of Contracts: Their presence in corporate transactions learning

Abstract Corporate transactions form the foundation of modern business activities, including mergers, acquisitions, partnerships and commercial agreements. Such transactions are supported by contractual relationships that define rights, obligations and expectations between multiple parties. This paper uses a methodology that integrates a comprehensive literature review with a legal analysis, surrounding contract formation, interpretation, performance and remedies in the corporate context. The legal analysis component examines relevant contract law principles and precedents, examining their application and relevance to corporate transactions. This analysis identifies the legal complexities and challenges inherent in these transactions and assesses the effectiveness of contract law in addressing them. This analysis verifies that contract law is an essential aspect of learning and engaging in corporate transactions. It demonstrates how the principles of contract law provide a framework for negotiation, execution and resolution of disputes within these transactions. It underlines the importance of knowledge of contract law in mitigating risks and ensuring the successful implementation of corporate transactions. In conclusion, contract law plays an important role in learning and conducting corporate transactions.

The interaction effect of trust and contract on dispute negotiation strategy: evidence from the Chinese construction industry

Purpose This paper aims to investigate how and when different dimensions of trust and contracts interact to influence the development to negotiation strategies. Specifically, it explores how different dimensions of trust and contracts are combined to influence dispute negotiation strategies when cooperation parties have or do not have expectations of continuity. Design/methodology/approach This paper theoretically identified and empirically examined the interaction effect of trust and contract on dispute negotiation strategies in contractor–subcontractor relationships, by developing a conceptual framework and conducting a questionnaire survey comprising more than 300 disputes in the Chinese construction industry. Hierarchical regression analysis was mainly used to test the hypotheses. Findings This paper finds that contractual control may weaken the effect of goodwill trust in fostering interest-based strategies in the presence of expectations of continuity, while it may strengthen the effect in the absence of expectations of continuity. Contractual coordination negatively moderates the relationship between goodwill trust and interest-based strategies only when parties have little expectations of continuity. Moreover, contractual control enhances the effectiveness of competence trust on fostering interest-based strategies. Practical implications This paper provides insights for practitioners to wisely use different governance mechanisms to manage negotiation strategies and generate desired outcomes of dispute resolution. Originality/value This paper provides a nuanced understanding of how the two types of governance mechanisms interact, by considering trust and contract as multi-dimensional constructs. It explicit the boundary conditions of both the substitute and complementary relationship between them.

Exploring the Concept of Psychological Distance and Its Impact on Intention to Settle in Construction Dispute Negotiation

Negotiation is the most frequently used and economical way of resolving construction disputes. However, negotiators are not always rational decision makers. It is not uncommon to find that negotiations fail despite the tabling of notable settlement options. Having the intention to settle is paramount in achieving an amicable settlement. To improve the success rate of construction dispute negotiations, this study posits exploring negotiators’ intention to settle from the perspective of how they perceive failure. Applying construal-level theory (CLT) and the concept of psychological distance (PD), it is hypothesized that construction dispute negotiators having the proximal psychological distance of negotiation failure would raise the respective concern that mediates intention to settle. With data collected from experienced construction dispute negotiators, the results of the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) supported the hypothesis. The findings of the study indicated that the negotiators’ distal perception of and low concern for failure can obscure their intention to settle. Furthermore, the results indicated that a reduced PD could enhance negotiators’ intention to settle. This finding explains why reality testing is effective in steering negotiators’ decisions along a rational course. In practice, a realistic assessment of the consequences of a negotiation failure by either the negotiation team or a neutral third party would raise attention to failure. The resulting proximal PD would lead to a stronger intention to settle. The study is novel in (1) offering a vital theoretical link between the perception of failure and the settlement intention; and (2) anchoring the functions of reality testing with the concept of PD.

THE ANTECEDENTS OF INTENTION TO SETTLE IN CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE NEGOTIATION

Negotiation can be an art, given the paradox of preserving one’s profits and maintaining a relationship with the counterpart. Negotiation is the most recommended dispute resolution method in construction projects due to its cost and time efficiency. It is not uncommon to find that some negotiations achieve an amicable outcome but far less tractable in others. Intention to settle has been proved indispensable for a fruitful negotiation. The chance of reaching a settlement is doomed if one or both parties have no such intention. However, it is quite complicated to explain what causes or impedes negotiators’ settlement intention. In this regard, this study aims to explore the antecedents of intention to settle (ITS) in the context of construction dispute negotiation (CDN). From the perspective of the intrapersonal level and inter-organizational level, four antecedents were summarized. More specifically, prosocial motive and perceived justice are incentivizers of intention to settle, while proself motive and perceived relative power are dis-incentivizers. An in-depth knowledge of these antecedents can provide the necessary groundwork for a more effective CDN.

Bridging psychological distance of negotiation failure in construction dispute negotiation

Negotiators are not always rational. Prior studies have found that negotiators tend to be overconfident about their ability to win and underestimate the possibility of negotiation failure. This biased judgment may lead to irrational evaluation and miss the chance to settle. It is argued that negotiators handle a negotiation respective to their perception of the risk of failing. The perception of failure therefore has a pivotal influence on the negotiation outcome and warrant deeper conceptual treatments. In this regard, this study aims to conceptualize construction dispute negotiators’ perception of negotiation failure. Applying the construal-level theory (CLT) and the concept of psychological distance (PD), a psychological distance of negotiation failure (PDNF) framework was developed. With data collected from construction negotiators, the PDNF framework was statistically supported. Four types of psychological distance of negotiation failure were identified, which are uncertainty, temporal distance, social distance, and frequency. The empirical findings provide a psychological perspective of how negotiators perceive the potential failure. Management can adopt the PDNF framework to gauge negotiators’ perceptions of failure. Timely interventions, such as conducting internal reviews with detailed information, taking periodic negotiation training, as well as assistance by third-party neutrals, are suggested to offset negotiators’ biased judgment.

Are we ready for a rational discussion? The existence of biases in construction dispute negotiation

Embedded in a network constellation of multi-stakeholders with various professional backgrounds and differing goals, the construction industry is featured with adversarial relationships and inevitable disputes. Therefore, high quality communication and negotiation among the parties are essential in achieving speedy and less costly dispute resolution. As rational evaluation underpins quality negotiation decisions, are construction disputing parties rational as they assumed? Are there any biases that could possibly prohibit them from making prudent judgement? This study seeks to understand the existence and impact of bias in construction dispute negotiation (CDN). The existence of four types of bias in CDN were discussed: preconception, self-affirmation, optimism and interest-oriented. Three categories of de-biasing strategy were also suggested to support the efficient settlement of construction dispute. Vast resources would be saved and amicable relationship among the collaborating parties could be developed when the impact of bias was curbed. Stepping into the digital era, construction dispute resolution professionals should develop the capabilities needed to harness the benefits of technologies for innovative ways of designing a bias-free dispute resolution mechanism.

Improving Custody Dispute Negotiation: Empirical Testing of the Equality Principle

The Equality Principle (EP) is a novel idea to motivate parents litigating in custody disputes to negotiate. The EP is designed for a special but common case in which both parents are individually fit, there are no decisive differences between the two households that the parents live in, but the conflict between the parents is so infected that the children's well‐being is threatened and shared custody must be ruled out. The present paper empirically tested the Equality Principle in its higher bidder version. In this version, both parents are first told that the conditions for the EP are met. Then, both parents are asked how much visitation they would allow the other parent, assuming that they would win sole custody and living. The most generous parent is awarded custody and living, along with a dictum to facilitate the promised amount of visitation. In the present model (PM), the offered amount of visitation has no functional effect on the custody dispute because the judges and jurors award custody as well as the amount of visitation. A within‐subjects vignette experiment measured 52 participants’ levels of visitation generosity in the EP and the PM. Participants showed significantly higher visitation generosity in the EP compared to the PM. The results are discussed in terms of representation of the present model, an equal amount of visitation offered, ecological validity, child perspective, and appellant's rights. In conclusion, the present paper showed that the EP is a promising strategy to resolve seemingly unresolvable custody disputes.

Reactive Devaluation as a Psychological Impediment to Construction Dispute Negotiation

AbstractDisputes are common in construction projects. Protracted dispute resolution processes drain valuable resources. Therefore, promoting efficient construction dispute negotiation (CDN) has bee...

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.

Embracing Debiasing in Mediator’s Tactic of Reality Testing

AbstractBiased decisions hinder rational construction dispute negotiations. Successful use of debiasing strategies enhances the efficiency of construction dispute management. Due to the flexibility...

Alleviating bias to enhance sustainable construction dispute management

Efficient dispute management contributes to cleaner production of construction works. Alleviating bias has been identified as an effective way to enhance construction dispute settlement so as to improve sustainability level of construction projects. In these regards, this study has two objectives. First, a robust bias conceptualization in construction dispute negotiation is developed. Data on practice of biased behaviors in construction dispute negotiation (CDN) were collected from three sources: i) by self-reflection of disputants; ii) by self-realization of disputants in a dispute negotiation simulation; iii) by observations of dispute resolution third-party neutrals. Consistent taxonomies of bias in CDN were obtained, and these are: preconception, self-affirmation, optimism and interest-oriented. The second objective of the study is to suggest bias minimizing approaches to address the afore-mentioned biases. Bias minimizing approaches were firstly identified from literatures and their usefulness against biased behaviors was evaluated by both the simulation and third-party neutral sample. Three bias minimizing approaches were proposed: strategy-based, attitude-based and process-based. It has been found that strategy-based approach is helpful in dealing with preconception bias and self-affirmation bias. Furthermore, attitude-based approach works to alleviate interest-oriented bias and optimism bias, while process-based approach is suitable for preconception bias and interest-oriented bias minimization. Successfully curtailing the influence of bias would smooth and shorten the dispute resolution processes and save valuable resources that can be better deployed for productive uses. Bias minimization in CDN contributes to sustainability of construction projects in the aspects of economic, environment and social influence.

The Every Day Work of Studying the Law in Everyday Life

Susan Silbey began her academic training in political science and in the course of her studies became a sociologist of law, the last two decades as a member of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's anthropology department and management school. The disciplinary transformations ground, in part, her attention to the ways in which the everyday life of scholarship has led her to study the everyday life of the law. In this article, she describes her scholarly life through seven chapters of relatively distinct challenges and themes. Across the arc of her life, she identifies the recurrent influence of both serendipity and theoretical inference acting within the immediate constraints of family and personal capacity. Reading across descriptions of her work on regulatory enforcement, dispute negotiation and mediation, and popular legal culture and consciousness, she points to the necessity of reconciling on-the-ground vicissitudes of doing legal work with the theories and narratives social scientists construct to make sense of institutions and history. She muses on theoretical attempts to align the particular and the general, the micro and macro forces working in legal cultures, and concludes by celebrating the ubiquity of social ordering whose own momentum both seduces and frustrates social scientists.

Dispute Resolution Culture and Negotiation Style of Cambodia in the Perspective of ADR

Dispute Resolution Culture and Negotiation Style of Cambodia in the Perspective of ADR

Research on Criminal Jurisdiction of Computer cybercrime

This article mainly discusses the jurisdiction of computer cybercrime. This article introduces the new theory of cybercrime jurisdiction and puts forward the system of establishing cybercrime jurisdiction: the principle of "priority of power", the principle of "territorial superior rights", criminal jurisdiction dispute negotiation system and drawing on the civil jurisdiction of computer cybercrime system.

An adaptive rule-based approach to resolving real-time VoIP wholesale billing disputes

The Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) industry has grown immensely since its inception, and is predicted to grow at double the rate in the coming years. The growth of the VoIP industry has made significant contributions to the economy, and has also increased the volume of data, which is a challenge for processing. VoIP security vulnerabilities and lack of appropriate tools and infrastructure can lead to billing disputes and fraud attacks, impacting VoTP wholesalers' profits. To reduce economic losses, these challenges need to be addressed in a comprehensive and efficient way. This study proposes an intelligent and adaptive rule based reconciliation process to resolve real-time billing disputes with minimal revenue loss. Real-time disputed Call Detail Records are analyzed to generate adaptive rules to cater for dynamic data sources. These rules are used to classify the Call Detail Record into six categories. A summarized report is generated at the end of the analysis that can be used to come to a better resolution during the billing dispute negotiation process. The complexity and volume of data affects the execution time of reconciliation processes. Spark, a distributed processing framework, is used to reduce execution times. The distributed processing solution has reduced execution times by 81.8% on average as compared to non-distributed solutions. The performance of the proposed solution is evaluated against the CALLS Dispute management system (an Aiztek Technologies solution), and the proposed solution has detected 38% more billing disputes in less time as compared to the existing solution.

The role of justice for cooperation and contract’s moderating effect in construction dispute negotiation

PurposeJustice, although well developed in the organisational field, has not been given adequate attention in the area of construction project dispute negotiations. Based on previous studies, the purpose of this paper is to more elaborately discuss whether each dimension of justice (distributive, procedural and interactional) is important for negotiators to cooperate in construction project dispute negotiation and whether their impact was moderated by the completeness of construction contract.Design/methodology/approachA survey of 164 prime negotiators from different construction projects was conducted. A stepwise multiple regression was employed to test the impact of each dimension of justice, and then a moderated multiple regression model was used to test the moderating effect of contract completeness.FindingsThe results indicated that, while distributive justice is related to cooperative behaviours, the impact of procedural justice and interactional justice also have great impact, and even more significantly related to cooperative behaviours. Moreover, while contractual obligatoriness positively moderates the relationship between procedural justice and cooperative behaviours, the term specificity negatively moderates the relationship between procedural and interactional justice and cooperative behaviours.Research limitations/implicationsFirst, the authors aimed to test the effect of justice on cooperative behaviours in construction dispute negotiations originally, but did not determine whether their relationship is mediated by any other factors. Second, contractual governance was chosen as the moderator; other factors may also influence behaviours in project dispute negotiations.Practical implicationsFirst, project dispute negotiators should not focus their attention solely on the distribution of the negotiation issues. For a cooperative approach, negotiators should also give strong consideration to whether their offers reflect procedural justice and whether their opponents are being treated fairly. Second, while contractual design may affect the frame surrounding the negotiations to help negotiators achieve an integrated outcome, they should give more attention to certain forms of justice.Originality/valueIn contrast to previous studies, the authors defined all three forms of justice in project dispute negotiations, and by adding all three forms of justice into the model, the authors attempted to investigate whether distributive, procedural and interactional justice were all related to cooperative behaviours in project dispute negotiations and to ascertain the extent to which each form of justice is important. Furthermore, the authors explored variations in the importance of each form of justice in negotiations under different contractual conditions.

Speaking of Justice: Encounters in a Legal Self‐Help Clinic

This article explores a new form of legal aid commonly referred to as “legal self‐help.” Through ethnographic research in a legal self‐help clinic, I examine the techniques through which help to legal self‐help is produced, sustained, and sometimes even challenged as a means of better understanding and critiquing the reformist ideal of “access to justice.” In exploring this new context for the negotiation of legal disputes, I show how the shift from legal help to legal self‐help blurs the boundaries between professional and lay people, between procedure and substance, and between rules and relationships. By tracking the discursive movement across and through these categories, I explore the logic of legal self‐help as a form of access to law and the legal process.