Multifaceted research on third parties in workplace dispute resolution: an introduction to a special issue

Citation

Posthuma, R.A. (2007), "Multifaceted research on third parties in workplace dispute resolution: an introduction to a special issue", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 18 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcma.2007.34418baa.001

Multifaceted research on third parties in workplace dispute resolution: an introduction to a special issue

Overview

Organizations are keenly aware of the costs of conflicts in the workplace. For that reason they are also genuinely interested in techniques that can help them resolve these disputes. Because of the growing recognition that third parties can help to effectively resolve workplace conflicts, organizations are increasingly adopting dispute resolution techniques that utilize third parties.

There are several different ways that third parties can effectively intervene to achieve resolution of workplace conflicts. Sometimes, when two parties are locked in a head-to-head conflict, things spin out of control and only a neutral third party can unwind the issues to find a solution. Sometimes, two contending parties just can’t imagine any acceptable solution because they are in a competitive frame of mind. In this case, a third party can bring a fresh perspective and new ideas. These are just two examples of how third parties can help to resolve workplace conflicts.

To help us enhance our understanding of how this process works in actual practice, this special issue features four papers that focus on third parties in resolving actual workplace conflicts. Moreover, because we need to expand our knowledge of conflict management beyond North America, these papers represent data from four different countries: Germany, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and the USA (Posthuma, 2005). Three of the papers deal with mediation and one with arbitration. Mediation is a process in which a third party helps the disputing parties to voluntary reach an agreement. Arbitration is a process in which a third party renders a decision that is binding on the disputing parties. Recognizing the need to tap into a variety of research methods and a variety of perspectives, these papers use empirical as well as qualitative methods.

Summary of papers

The paper by Reade and McKenna is a case study of how a multinational enterprise used both interest-based mediation and indigenous dispute resolution methods to build a framework that facilitated the effective resolution of conflicts in a Sri Lankan subsidiary. This paper is important because it illustrates a type of conflict (i.e. women sabotaging the production work of women from another village) that would not typically be observed in a western setting. This paper is also important because it illustrates how adding an innovative and informal channel of conflict resolution can be an appropriate supplement that helps to make a formal conflict management system more effective in non-Western cultures. The paper also shows how in many countries it is more appropriate to view consensual resolution of disputes as the well-established and time-honored method that is typically employed. In these societies, it is more appropriate to view consensual mediation through village councils or an informal “mediation corner” on the shop floor, as the original dispute resolution (ODR) method, and formal litigation as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) method.

The paper by Kozan, Ergin, and Varoglu is an empirical field study that identifies the predictors of strategies used by supervisors in Ankara, Turkey when they act as third party interveners in disputes involving their subordinates. The study indicated that supervisors tended to use five types of intervention strategies: mediational, motivational, restructuring, educational, and inquisitorial. This study showed that the type of strategy depended on the degree to which the organization’s culture focused on harmony and also on the nature of the dispute. The mediational strategy was used more often when the organization emphasized harmony in the workplace. However, motivational intervention strategies were more often used when the conflict had high potential impact on the workplace and the conflict had already escalated.

The paper by Nabatchi, Bloomgren Bingham, and Good is an empirical test of the factor structure of perceived organizational justice in a mediation system used by the US Post Office. Data included exit surveys involving 48,024 participants in the mediation process. In that workplace mediation system the process is a transformative process that is designed to maximize empowerment by enhancing opportunities for parties to describe their own issues and seek their own solutions, and also to increase recognition and understanding the other party’s point-of-view. Because mediation is a dispute resolution process that involves three parties, the authors argue that traditional measures of organizational justice may not be appropriate. They show how perceptions of the justice of the mediation system can be empirically assessed using a model that splits procedural justice into two factors: process and mediator; and also splits interpersonal justice into two factors: interactions between the disputing parties and between the parties and the mediator. The resulting six factors are: distributive, procedural – process, procedural – mediator, informational, interpersonal – disputant-disputant, and interpersonal –disputant-mediator.

The paper by Behrens is an empirical field study that examined the use of arbitration panels to resolve workplace disputes in Germany. In Germany, collective bargaining takes place at the industry level with unions representing industry sectors and negotiating with employer associations to formulate industry wide collective bargaining agreements. However, at the employer or establishment level, a Works Council can be elected to represent the interests of the workers. The Works Council may invoke formal arbitration procedures to resolve disputes. This arbitration procedure uses a panel of representatives from labor, management, and a third party neutral. This study found that the use of arbitration to resolve disputes increased with perceptions of employer interference with the Works Council and perceptions a failure to provide adequate information. More militant Works Councils were also more likely to make use of arbitration. Furthermore, workplace factors such as the number of workplace restructuring projects, the use of external consulting firms, and exit from collective bargaining relationships increased the likelihood of the use of arbitration.

Common themes

These four papers illustrate several common themes. First, conflicts in the workplace are common occurrences in different countries and different cultures. However, the nature of the dispute resolution process varied across contexts. Thus, multinational employers need to find effective ways to resolve workplace conflicts that are both effective and appropriate for the cultures in which they have employees. For example, the Sri Lankan operation found that an informal mediation corner on the shop floor was a good way to tap into the cultural tendency to resolve conflicts informally. The organizations in Turkey recognized that mediational tactics by supervisors were more appropriate when the employer emphasized harmony, but that motivational strategies were needed for high impact and escalated conflicts. In Germany, the use of the arbitration, which can be thought of as more authoritarian than mediation, was the preferred method by employees when they perceived lack of cooperation or threats from restructuring or other factors.

Second, the voluntary resolution of conflict through mediation is often a preferred method of resolving conflict in many different countries. In Sri Lanka, Turkey, and the USA organizations have invested significant resources in developing and designing methods whereby managers or third party mediators can help to reach voluntary resolutions of conflicts. Even in Germany, where the study focused on arbitration, the industrial relations system is set up so that local Works Councils can address their issues with their employer. It is only after this method of dispute resolution fails, that the more formal arbitration procedure would be invoked.

Finally, the involvement of third parties in the resolution of workplace disputes is a multidimensional phenomenon. Although each of these dimensions has been previously addressed in the conflict resolution literature, the juxtaposition of these four papers within a single issue of this journal illustrates how these papers extend our knowledge along these several dimensions. The first dimension focuses on factors that induce parties to use the third party dispute resolution process (Posthuma and Dworkin, 2000a). The Behrens paper focuses on the first dimension because it examines factors that led to the arbitration of workplace disputes. The second dimension focuses on people including the third parties and the parties themselves (Posthuma and Dworkin, 2000b; Posthuma et al., 2000; Posthuma and Swift, 2001). The paper by Nabatchi et al. is an example of this type of paper because it provides a multidimensional evaluation of the parties’ perceptions of mediation. The third dimension focuses on the design of the process (e.g. Posthuma, 2003; Chew and Posthuma, 2002). The Read and McKenna paper is an example of this type of study because it examines the design of dispute resolution in Sri Lanka. The fourth dimension focuses on the tactics used by the third party during the process (e.g. Posthuma et al., 2002). The Kozan et al. paper is an example of this type of study because it focuses on the tactics used by managers when they intervene in disputes. The fifth dimension focuses on the outcomes of the dispute resolution process (Posthuma, 2001; Posthuma et al., 2000). These outcomes can be evaluated both in terms of the outcomes for the parties, and also the costs and benefits of the process compared to other dispute resolution methods.

More research is needed on all of these five dimensions. However, it is particularly important that in future research the fifth dimension be incorporated so that not just the inducements, people, process-design, and tactics are evaluated. It is also important to show how these first four factors relate to the outcomes of the process. Therefore, in planning future studies researchers are encouraged to include outcome measures when they investigate third party dispute resolution processes in the workplace. Moreover, researchers should seek to provide a stronger theoretical framework that can guide future empirical studies that will explain the likely interrelationships and interactions between and among these five dimensions of third party interventions in workplace disputes.

Richard A. Posthuma