Appropriate Dispute Resolution Procedures
Determining the
appropriate dispute resolution procedure for a given situation may be a
difficult challenge. Although the
selection process is more art than science, “both theoretical and practical
indications should guide this process choice” (Moffitt & Bordone, 2005, p.
386). There are several factors to
consider when choosing a strategy, such as which process is complimentary to
both parties or to society as a whole, the climate in the environment of the
conflict, the goals for the processes, etc.
Of the “four principal attempts to develop a taxonomy for deciding which
process is best for a dispute” (Moffitt & Bordone, 2005, p. 389), the
following shall consider the Dauer model and the CPR approach.
To
begin with, the Dauer model does not specify any particular dispute resolution
process for consideration, yet it focuses on the characteristics of the case,
the attributes of the parties, features of the environment, and the barriers to
settlement (Moffitt & Bordone, 2005).
Characteristics of the case may be inclusive of contracts, third
parties, court-relative or out-of-court processes, etc. The parties’ individual understanding, age,
position / occupation, and relation to one another, also determines what type
of process will be chosen. As far as the
environment is concerned, “one should determine the dispute resolution climate
in the place of the dispute” (Moffitt & Bordone, 2005, p. 388).
Is this a work environment, a
public or private school, a household, within a government office, between
neighbors, or a community issue? State
and federal laws coupled with cultural acceptance must be taken into account as
well. Then, what are the barriers to the
settlement? Is this issue time
contingent, how many resources are available to either party, are both parties
competent enough to represent themselves, or is travel involved, are examples
of possible obstacles when deciding which process to select. Utilizing the Dauer model is most effective
when the parties are unfamiliar with one another, loosely related, and / or the
environment is uncommon. This strategy
is applicable in the following scenarios;
- A store owner is debating with the salon owner next door over customer-parking.
- An Islamic student is denied the right and time to pray during the school day.
The Dauer model would help to
secure a desirable outcome for the disputants in either scenario because it
helps to define the issue and / or the common goal (adequate parking /
individual religious rights versus interrupting the educational system),
pinpoints any potential impediments (property rights, street zoning / school
and county by-laws), and will determine what type of third party assistance may
be required (landlord, county zoning agents / private attorney, school and government
officials). Negotiation may be utilized
initially in scenario one, however if unsuccessful mediation or arbitration may
be sought. In scenario two, mediation
should be the first step, followed by arbitration if unsuccessful.
Secondly,
the CPR approach is tailored towards mediation within business disputes. It focuses on the parties’ goals for managing
the dispute, how suitable the dispute is for problem-solving, the potential
benefits of mediation, and the possible contraindications for mediation
(Moffitt & Bordone, 2005). One must
consider what each party desires to accomplish or achieve throughout or as a
result of the ordeal. Also, does the
conflict in question lend itself to be resolved by a process of mediation? Or is this issue a win / lose scenario? How would mediation improve or better the
situation? In addition, why would the
disputants utilize mediation? For what
reasons? Utilizing the CPR approach
would be beneficial under the following circumstances;
- Co-workers having difficulty sharing a common work area.
- An unwanted sexual advance between co-workers.
The CPR approach is beneficial in
either situation due to the fact that it pinpoints the desirable goals of the
disputants (suitable time and utilization of resources on hand / a comfortable
work environment), identifies whether or not the dispute may be resolved by
problem-solving (creating workable solutions and suitable conditions),
identifies the benefits (cost and time efficiency / sets the stage for future
success and workability), and identifies the necessity for mediation (to
resolve the issue between the opposing parties by the use of a neutral third
party mediator).
Possessing
the ability to select “these informal conflict resolvers make a significant
impact upon organizations either by resolving the conflict or channeling it to
a formal mechanism” (Taylor,
2000). This capability benefits
household, community, and societal disputes as well. Although it may be challenging, utilizing
these selection strategies will help secure a desirable outcome for the
disputants.
References:
Moffitt, M.L. & Bordone, R.C.
(2005) The Handbook of Dispute Resolution.
San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, M. Informal Conflict Resolution: A
Workplace Case Study. Retrieved
May 22, 2010, from
http://www.mediate.com/articles/taylor.cfm.
No comments:
Post a Comment