Search results

Using an institutional theory perspective (micro and macro), the authors examined employment lawsuits across case type and alternative dispute resolution methods (negotiated settlements versus trials and arbitrations).

The authors examined actual data from US federal court lawsuits (N = 98,020). The data included the type of lawsuit, the dispute resolution method used and the outcome of the lawsuit in terms of the dollar amounts awarded.

The results show that employers were more likely to win in high social context cases (civil rights) than in other cases (Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, ERISA). In arbitrations, plaintiffs won more frequently and were awarded higher amounts in arbitration than in court trials. In arbitration, plaintiffs received more in high social context cases than in other cases.

The results show that employers lose more often and in larger dollar amounts in arbitration than in litigation. However, if arbitration rulings more closely matched the likely outcomes of trials, subsequent litigation would be less likely to be overturned, and transaction costs would be reduced. If this were the case, the arbitration of employment lawsuits would more closely match the arbitration of contractual grievances under the typical labor relations system, where the arbitrator’s decision is usually final and binding. This could be a better outcome for all stakeholders in the dispute resolution process.

This is the first study of its kind to examine actual workplace conflicts that result in employment-related lawsuits from the perspective of social contextual factors.

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.

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.

Is there a need for more influential international conflict management research? This question takes on two dimensions. The first is whether there is a need for more influential conflict management research. The second is whether there is a need for more international conflict management research. Both questions can be answered in the affirmative. Research should be influential so that it will help to guide and shape future research efforts. If it is not influential, it is an unfortunate waste of intellectual and other resources. Research should also be more international because business is becoming more international and there are an increasing number of international influences in many areas of everyday life. Thus, it is important for journals to encourage the publication of influential international conflict management research. The extent to which this journal has disseminated influential international conflict management research is addressed in this note.

In this chapter, the authors examine the turnover of employees in Latin America, with a particular focus on Mexico. Employee turnover is important in Latin America and in Mexico, as it is in many other places, because the cost of labor typically accounts for 70% of a firm’s operating cost. When employees leave, it requires that the employer replaces the workers through human resource management processes that include recruiting, selection, orientation, and training. These costs are a significant expense to firms that they could avoid if turnover was lower. The authors identify cultural, economic, legal, and other factors that could influence employee turnover. The authors also summarize many managerial practices that can help employers to effectively manage employee turnover. Finally, the authors provide insights for future research on employee turnover in this important region of the world.