Search results

The aim of this study is to take a construct validation approach toward developing and testing a parsimonious, yet comprehensive, higher‐order factor model of arbitrator acceptability that helps to identify what matters most in the arbitrator selection process.

The paper uses structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques to examine data from a sample of union advocates attending an arbitration conference to test a hypothesized model of arbitrator acceptability that includes procedural justice, experience, and education as first‐order indicators of arbitrator acceptability. Three competing alternative models that add age, race/gender, and distributive justice, respectively, to the hypothesized model as an additional indicator of arbitrator acceptability were also examined.

Results suggest that the hypothesized model is the best fitting of the four models tested. In addition, the path coefficients of the added paths in each of the alternative models were non‐significant.

Knowledge regarding the relative importance of the various factors involved in arbitrator acceptability will be of interest to future researchers in determining which variables to study in arbitrator selection research as well as to practitioners seeking to better understand and manage the complex arbitrator selection process.

This study makes an important contribution to the literature by being among the first to examine both arbitrator characteristics and organizational justice concepts simultaneously in a single model. This study also takes an important step toward more clearly defining and validating the arbitrator acceptability construct. Finally, this study helps to provide an answer to the question of what matters most in the arbitrator selection process.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the determinants of arbitrator acceptability and investigate whether the perceived costs of arbitration moderate the relationship between arbitrator acceptability and arbitrator characteristics in international commercial arbitration.

A two-stage analytic process is used to test the dimensionality, reliability and validity of each construct and then the proposed hypotheses.

The findings show that the five constructs of arbitrator characteristics – reputation, practical expertise, legal expertise, experience and procedural justice – statistically significantly explain arbitrator acceptability. Moreover, perceived cost of arbitration moderates the relationship between arbitrator acceptability and arbitrator characteristics. However, the moderating effect of perceived costs of arbitration is not equal across characteristics.

Knowledge regarding potential moderators of the strength of the indicators of arbitrator acceptability will be useful to future researchers in determining which variables to study in arbitrator selection research.

Useful guidelines in the selection of an international arbitrator are proposed.

This study contributes to arbitrator acceptability literature through the suggestion of a hypothesized model of arbitrator acceptability with auxiliary hypothesis of reputation in international contexts. In addition, this study investigates the moderating role of perceived cost of arbitration on the relationship between arbitrator acceptability and arbitrator characteristics.

Much of the prior literature on arbitrator acceptability is focused primarily on demographic characteristics of arbitrators and parties. This article draws from several behavioral theories to build a single conceptual model of arbitrator acceptability. Key concepts from the theory of planned behavior, control theory, organizational justice theories, and the decision making literature are integrated into a single framework that enhances our understanding of this topic and provides useful directions for future research.

This paper uses 1992 nonunion employment arbitration awards to examine how parties currently use arbitration outside collective bargaining. It presents descriptive data on the costs of arbitration. It compares employer and employee claims, and finds that employees win higher damage awards. Employees recover a higher proportion of the damages they claim or have a better outcome than employers, notwith‐standing the theory that an arbitrator will rule in favor of employers because they have more resources to pay the arbitrator. While both employers and employees have lower outcomes when the arbitrator is paid a fee, this appears to be because the fee‐paying cases are higher stakes claims, and higher stakes claims result in proportionally lower damage awards. The findings tend to contradict the theory that employment arbitrators will be biased in favor of employers in a nonunion setting.

We examine how different neutral sources and third-party neutral qualification differences relate to mediation and arbitration usage at large US firms. Neutral sourcing is controversial, particularly in employment arbitration, where many have expressed concern that unregulated sourcing arrangements may bias outcomes in favor of employers. We use agency and structure theories to hypothesize that firms will be less likely to use mediation when the neutral is sourced as a result of court-annexed mediation, but that firms may be more likely to use arbitration when the neutral is sourced from a private third-party provider. Utilizing human capital theory, we also hypothesize that organizations will use both mediation and arbitration more frequently when neutrals are perceived to be more highly qualified. Empirically, we rely on data gathered from a survey of US Fortune 1000 corporations to test these hypotheses and find support for each of them. Our results suggest that, while firms uniformly value professionalization in their neutrals, employers may impose structures on themselves in high-stakes circumstances like arbitration to ensure standardized and consistent processes, but prefer agency in lower-stakes circumstances like mediation.

Reports the results of two experimental tests of the extent to which the large disparity between people’s valuation of gains and losses, and related fairness determinations, are used in judging the acceptability of alternative negotiating or conflict resolution proposals. Participants acted as arbitrators and selected their preferred resolution of conflicts, involving either the division of gains or sharing responsibility for losses. Different cases were presented in which one or the other party incurred varied combinations of direct or opportunity costs, or received varied forms of payments. Contrary to conventional economic assumptions, but consistent with earlier behavioural findings, direct costs incurred by one party to the negotiation were far more important than opportunity costs in setting the terms of a more acceptable resolution. The results strongly suggest that recent behavioural findings might be used to improve the design of negotiating and conflict resolution proposals.

The authors sought to examine how hegemonic masculinity and sexism functioned in a storied, historic corporation, a test of MAnne's (2017) claim that misogyny is a structural phenomenon rather than being about anger and hatred of individual men.

This study was an archaeological excavation of discourse in a well-documented employment relationship. The researchers were informed by feminist poststructuralism and drew on critical discourse analysis of labour arbitration and media from the case of a woman, twice wrongfully dismissed.

The authors concluded that the employer was the site of hegemonic masculinity, which led to a train conductor being repeatedly targeted and demeaned in a bad faith and discriminatory manner for disrupting the conductor’s employer's patriarchal strictures. The authors found that misogyny shaped the conductors’s experience as a repeated pattern of abuse, a gendered feature of a patriarchal organisation, and a coercive matter of maintaining the conductor’s subordination. The authors also found that the male arbitrator in the conductor’s second dismissal arbitration became complicit in misogyny by penalising the conductor for acts of resistance, giving the employer what the employer wanted, to purge the conductor for violating the patriarchal norms.

The authors traced how a historic corporation demonstrated vulnerability to the resistance of a lone female worker, who faced discriminatory, disturbing and bad faith managerial behaviour in the creation of the conductor’s own meaning and resistant identity. The authors concluded that evidence of the regulation of employee relations, such as the decisions of arbitrators, can reveal the processes and outcomes of work under hegemonic masculinity, sexism and misogyny.

The purpose of this paper is to select the best model among alternative models explaining the relationship maintenance in mediation.

Four alternative models are employed in order to select best fit model through the test of each construct using Korean and Indonesian firm data.

The settlement model out of four alternative models is the best fit model in both Korea and Indonesia. The nexus of experience-settlement is not similar between Korea and Indonesia. The nexus of cost-saving-settlement is similar between two countries.

The field manager and policy maker get useful information from the findings. In particular, Korea and Indonesia belong to different cultural clusters.

This study contributes to the mediation literature through the suggestion of hypothesized model of relationship maintenance intention in mediation.