NCJ Number
100253
Journal
Negotiation Journal Volume: 1 Issue: 4 Dated: (October 1985) Pages: 379-388
Date Published
1985
Length
10 pages
Annotation
This article contrasts the nature of institutional third-party dispute resolution through mediation and arbitration with the nature of conflict resolution by organizational managers.
Abstract
Contrary to institutionalized dispute resolution, managers do not perceive organizational conflicts as disputes but rather as problems embedded in ongoing organizational activity to be resolved through rational decisionmaking. The organizational and self-perception of managers regarding managerial roles in resolving such problems is not typically that of a mediator or arbitrator but as a problemsolver who has wide-ranging authority to address the problem according to personal or organizational standards. Mediation, which requires a third party to act as a neutral facilitator for disputants to resolve a conflict, is not the typical posture of a manager, who usually has a stake in and an opinion about how the conflict or problem should be resolved. Neither can the managerial role be strictly compared to that of an arbitrator, since arbitration is typically restricted to the issues presented by the disputing parties and involves a strong respect for procedure. Managers, whose roles are multifaceted and loosely defined, do not restrict their agendas to the issues as presented nor do they follow specific procedures. They view contended issues as part of a broader agenda and act to solve the problem as they perceive it. Before knowledge and skills associated with institutional dispute resolution can be transferred to the managerial role, it must be adapted to and integrated with the existing role. 29 references.