Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Paradox of Power Asymmetry and Voluntary Participation in Construction Dispute Mediation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Construction Dispute Research Expanded

Part of the book series: Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering ((SPRTRCIENG))

Abstract

The phenomenon of power asymmetry is notable in construction contracting. One-sided contracts and ex post-practice of opportunism would seem inevitable. The relationship between owner and contractor is typically one of principal-agent relationship. When dispute between them arises, their power asymmetry would stifle their voluntary participation in mediation. However, research has shown that it is important to have voluntary mediation so that the settlement reached will be honoured. This stick examines the paradox between power asymmetry and voluntary participation in mediation. Contractual use of mediation is the prevalent approach with voluntary participation as one of the paramount design considerations. Power asymmetry can be less a problem as unwilling party would not be pushed to attempt mediation. In the circumstances, of court encouraged on court-annexed approach, backfiring by the unwilling party cannot be underestimated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. McKenzie DM (2015) The role of mediation in resolving workplace relationship conflict. Int J Law Psychiatry 39:52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.01.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. The Hong Kong Judiciary (2019a) Mediation statistics for building management cases. Retrieved from https://mediation.judiciary.hk/en/figuresandstatistics.html

  3. The Hong Kong Judiciary (2019b) Mediation statistics for civil justice reform related cases. Retrieved from https://mediation.judiciary.hk/en/figures_and_statistics.html

  4. Legal Reference System (2020) Cases reached construction and arbitration proceedings in the high court of Hong Kong special administrative region. Retrieved from https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/judgment.jsp?L1=HC&L2=CT&AR=14#A14

  5. Cheung SO (2016) 4 Court-connected mediation in Hong Kong. In: Court-connected construction mediation practice: a comparative international review. Routledge, pp 55–77

    Google Scholar 

  6. Katz LV (1993) Compulsory alternative dispute resolution and voluntarism: Two-headed monster or two sides of the coin. J Disp Resol 1

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hilmer SE (2013) Mandatory mediation in Hong Kong: a workable solution based on Australian experiences. China-EU Law J 1(3–4):61–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-012-0016-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Leung RHM (2014) Hong Kong mediation handbook. Sweet & Maxwell

    Google Scholar 

  9. Meggitt G (2018) The cases for (and agaist) complusory court-connected mediation in Hong Kong. In: 5th Asian law institute conference, pp 22–23

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cheung SO, Suen HC, & Lam TI (2002) Fundamentals of alternative dispute resolution processes in construction. J Constr Eng manage 128(5):409–417

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jehn KA, Rupert J, Nauta A (2006) The effects of conflict asymmetry on mediation outcomes: satisfaction, work motivation and absenteeism. Int J Confl Manag 17(2):96–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444060610736594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ufkes EG, Giebels E, Otten S, van der Zee KI (2012) The effectiveness of a mediation program in symmetrical versus asymmetrical neighbor-to-neighbor conflicts. Int J Confl Manag 23(4):440–457. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444061211267290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gewurz IG (2001) (Re)designing mediation to address the nuances of power imbalance. Confl Resolut Q 19(2):135–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3890190203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Caputo A (2013) A literature review of cognitive biases in negotiation processes. Int J Confl Manag 24(4):374–398. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-08-2012-0064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Downie BM (1991) When negotiations fail: causes of breakdown and tactics for breaking the stalemate. Negot J 7(2):175–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1991.tb00612.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Li K, Cheung SO (2020) Alleviating bias to enhance sustainable construction dispute management. J Cleaner Prod 249:119311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119311

  17. Zhu L, Cheung SO (2020) Power of incentivization in construction dispute avoidance. J Leg Aff Disput Resolut Eng Constr 12(2):03720001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gao Y (2018) Effects of interdependence asymmetry of parties in construction conflicts. Doctor of Philosophy, The University of Hong Kong, p 991044058175703400. https://doi.org/10.5353/th_991044058175703414

  19. Coleman PT, Kugler K, Mitchinson A, Chung C, Musallam N (2010) The view from above and below: the effects of power and interdependence asymmetries on conflict dynamics and outcomes in organizations: the view from above and below. Negot Confl Manage Res 3(4):283–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2010.00062.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Barakat A, Chernobai A, & Wahrenburg M (2014) Information asymmetry around operational risk announcements. J Bank & Finance 48:152–179

    Google Scholar 

  21. Campo S (2012) Risk aversion and asymmetry in procurement auctions: Identification, estimation and application to construction procurements. J Econ 168(1):96–107

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mnookin RH (2003) Strategic barriers to dispute resolution: A comparison of bilateral and multilateral negotiations. Harv Negot L Rev 8(1)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Golan G (2019) Asymmetry in cross-conflict collaboration: is there a gender factor? (2011). In: Golan G (ed) Galia golan: An academic pioneer on the soviet union, peace and conflict studies, and a peace and feminist activist: with a foreword by William Zartman and a Preface by George Breslauer. Springer International Publishing, pp 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95213-0_12

  24. Mitchell CR (1991) Classifying conflicts: asymmetry and resolution. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 518(1):23–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716291518001003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. French JR, Raven B, Cartwright D (1959) The bases of social power. Classics Organ Theory 7:311–320

    Google Scholar 

  26. Raven BH (1964) Social influence and power. California Univ Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cuevas JM, Julkunen S, Gabrielsson M (2015) Power symmetry and the development of trust in interdependent relationships: the mediating role of goal congruence. Ind Mark Manage 48:149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.03.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yu J, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW, Zhao M (2015) Power asymmetry in conflict resolution with application to a water pollution dispute in C hina. Water Resour Res 51(10):8627–8645. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wolfe RJ, Mcginn KL (2005) Perceived relative power and its influence on negotiations. Group Decis Negot 14(1):3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-3873-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Barnhizer DD (2005) Inequality of bargaining power. U Colo l Rev 76:139

    Google Scholar 

  31. Frost DE, Stahelski AJ (1988) The systematic measurement of French and Raven’s bases of social power in workgroups. J Appl Soc Psychol 18(5):375–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00023.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Handley SM, Benton WC (2012) Mediated power and outsourcing relationships. J Oper Manag 30(3):253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2011.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Balakrishnan S, Koza MP (1993) Information asymmetry, adverse selection and joint-ventures: theory and evidence. J Econ Behav Organ 20(1):99–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(93)90083-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bernardo AE, Cai H, Luo J (2001) Capital budgeting and compensation with asymmetric information and moral hazard. J Financ Econ 61(3):311–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(01)00065-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schmitz PW (2006) Information gathering, transaction costs, and the property rights approach. Am Econ Rev 96(1):422–434. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282806776157722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Schieg M (2008) Strategies for avoiding asymmetric information in construction project management. J Bus Econ Manag 1:47–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ceric A (2014) Strategies for minimizing information asymmetries in construction projects: project managers’ perceptions. J Bus Econ Manag 15(3):424–440. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2012.720601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Xiang P, Zhou J, Zhou X, Ye K (2012) Construction project risk management based on the view of asymmetric information. J Constr Eng Manag 138(11):1303–1311. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Dembe AE, Boden LI (2000) Moral hazard: a question of morality? New Solutions J Environ Occup Health Policy 10(3):257–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Succar B (2009) Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders. Autom Constr 18(3):357–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2008.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Liu LA (2004) Shared mental models in negotiation. Vanderbilt University

    Google Scholar 

  42. Cheung S-O, Ng TST, Wong S-P, Suen HCH (2003) Behavioral aspects in construction partnering. Int J Project Manage 21(5):333–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00052-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jehn KA, Rispens S, Thatcher SMB (2010) The effects of conflict asymmetry on work group and individual outcomes. Acad Manag J 53(3):596–616. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ippolito CA, Pruitt DG (1990) Power balancing in mediation: outcomes and implications of mediatosr intervention. Int J Confl Manag 1(4):341–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R (1988) Status quo bias in decision making. J Risk Uncertain 1(1):7–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Cheung SO, Li K, Chow OY (2020) Reactive devaluation as a psychological impediment to construction dispute negotiation. J Manag Eng 36(4):04020025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. De Dreu CK, Kluwer ES, Nauta A (2008) The structure and management of conflict: fighting or defending the status quo. Group Process Intergroup Relat 11(3):331–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Poitras J (2005) A study of the emergence of cooperation in mediation. Negot J 21(2):281–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Mukerji S (2003) Ambiguity aversion and cost-plus procurement contracts

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kahneman D, Tversky A (2013a) Choices, values, and frames. In: Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I. World Scientific, pp 269–278

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kahneman D, Tversky A (2013b) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. In: Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I. World Scientific, pp 99–127

    Google Scholar 

  52. Bokhari S, Geltner D (2011) Loss aversion and anchoring in commercial real estate pricing: empirical evidence and price index implications. Real Estate Econ 39(4):635–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6229.2011.00308.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Bottom WP, Studt A (1993) Framing effects and the distributive aspect of integrative bargaining. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 56(3):459–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Neale MA, Bazerman MH (1985) The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Acad Manag J 28(1):34–49

    Google Scholar 

  55. Aibinu AA, & Al-Lawati AM (2010). Using PLS-SEM technique to model construction organizations' willingness to participate in e-bidding. Automation in construction 19(6):714–724

    Google Scholar 

  56. Karambayya R, & Reilly AH (1992) Dual earner couples: Attitudes and actions in restructuring work for family. J Organ Behav, 13(6):585–601

    Google Scholar 

  57. Pinkley RL (1990) Dimensions of conflict frame: Disputant interpretations of conflict. J appl psychol 75(2):117

    Google Scholar 

  58. Pinkley RL (1992) Dimensions of conflict frame: Relation to disputant perceptions and expectations. Int J Confl Manage

    Google Scholar 

  59. Kahneman D, & Tversky A (2013) Choices, values, and frames. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I. 269–278

    Google Scholar 

  60. Segal U (1987) The ellsberg paradox and risk aversion: An anticipated utility approach. Int. Econ Rev 175–202

    Google Scholar 

  61. Salanke M (2015) Voluntariness of mediation and cost sanctions for parties refusal to consider mediation: an oxymoron? Academia. Edu) www.Academia.Edu/5169933. Accessed 10

  62. Hanks M (2012) Perspectives on mandatory mediation. UNSWLJ 35:929

    Google Scholar 

  63. Quek D (2009) Mandatory mediation: an oxymoron-examining the feasibility of implementing a court-mandated mediation program. Cardozo J Confl Resol 11:479

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wissler RL (1997) The effects of mandatory mediation: empirical research on the experience of small claims and common pleas courts. Willamette L Rev 33:565

    Google Scholar 

  65. Gazal-Ayal O, Perry R (2014) Imbalances of power in ADR: the impact of representation and dispute resolution method on case outcomes. Law Soc Inquiry 39. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12063

  66. Landau, Pfetsch (2000) Symmetry and asymmetry in international negotiations. Int Negot 5(1):21–42. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718060020848631

  67. Dwyer FR (1984) Are two better than one? Bargaining behavior and outcomes in an asymmetrical power relationship. J Consum Res 11(2):680–693. https://doi.org/10.1086/209004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Rindt J, Mouzas S (2015) Exercising power in asymmetric relationships: the use of private rules. Ind Mark Manage 48:202–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.03.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Moul W (2003) Power parity, preponderance, and war between great powers, 1816–1989. J Conflict Resolut 47(4):468–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002703252980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Shapira O, Introduction I (2008) Exploring the concept of power in mediation: mediators’ sources of power and influence tactics 24:37

    Google Scholar 

  71. Carnevale PJ, Pegnetter R (1985) The selection of mediation tactics in public sector disputes: a contingency analysis. J Soc Issues 41(2):65–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb00855.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Cheung SO, Chow PT, Tse JKM (2015) Performance of mediator tactics in building management disputes. J Manag Eng 31(2):04014033. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Yiu KTW, Cheung SO (2007) A study of construction mediator tactics—Part II: the contingent use of tactics. Build Environ 42(2):762–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Nelson RM, Beauchamp T, Miller VA, Reynolds W, Ittenbach RF, Luce MF (2011) The concept of voluntary consent. Am J Bioeth 11(8):6–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2011.583318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW, Klitzman R (2009) Voluntariness of consent to research: a conceptual model. Hastings Cent Rep 39(1):30–39. https://doi.org/10.1353/hcr.0.0103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Kamuya D, Marsh V, Molyneux S (2011) What we learned about voluntariness and consent: Incorporating “background situations” and understanding into analyses. Am J Bioeth 11(8):31–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2011.583328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Brunk CG (1979) The problem of voluntariness and coercion in the negotiated plea. Law Soc Rev 527–553. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053267

  78. Marquardt CA, Wiedman CI (1998) Voluntary disclosure, information asymmetry, and insider selling through secondary equity offerings*. Contemp Account Res 15(4):505–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1998.tb00569.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Wu J, Babcock BA (1995) Optimal design of a voluntary green payment program under asymmetric information. J Agric Resour Econ 20(2):316–327

    Google Scholar 

  80. Martínez-Ferrero J, Ruiz-Cano D, García-Sánchez I-M (2016) The causal link between sustainable disclosure and information asymmetry: the moderating role of the stakeholder protection context. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 23(5):319–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Shi N, Lee MKO, Cheung CMK, Chen H (2010) The continuance of online social networks: how to keep people using facebook? In: 2010 43rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2010.369

  82. Rebecca Yen H, Gwinner KP, Su W (2004) The impact of customer participation and service expectation on Locus attributions following service failure. Int J Serv Ind Manag 15(1):7–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230410523312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. de Jong SB, Van der Vegt GS, Molleman E (2007) The relationships among asymmetry in task dependence, perceived helping behavior, and trust. J Appl Psychol 92(6):1625–1637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Wang T, Zhao B, Thornhill S (2015) Pay dispersion and organizational innovation: The mediation effects of employee participation and voluntary turnover. Hum Relat 68(7):1155–1181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715575359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Benk S, Budak T (2012) Power and trust as determinants of voluntary versus enforced tax compliance: empirical evidence for the slippery slope framework from Turkey. Afr J Bus Manag 6. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.2157

  86. Cowan K, Paswan AK, Van Steenburg E (2015) When inter-firm relationship benefits mitigate power asymmetry. Ind Mark Manage 48:140–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.03.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Fuchs W, Lippi F (2006) Monetary union with voluntary participation1. Rev Econ Stud 73(2):437–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2006.00382.x

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  88. Matanda MJ, Ndubisi NO, Jie F (2016) Effects of relational capabilities and power asymmetry on innovativeness and flexibility of sub-sahara Africa small exporting firms. J Small Bus Manage 54(1):118–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Aiello A, Pratto F, Pierro A (2013) Framing social dominance orientation and power in organizational context. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 35(5):487–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2013.823614

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Construction Dispute Resolution Research Unit, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Nan Cao & Sai On Cheung

Authors
  1. Nan Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sai On Cheung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nan Cao .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Sai On Cheung

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cao, N., Cheung, S.O. (2022). The Paradox of Power Asymmetry and Voluntary Participation in Construction Dispute Mediation. In: Cheung, S.O. (eds) Construction Dispute Research Expanded. Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80256-1_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80256-1_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-80255-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-80256-1

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation