Search results

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.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

This paper presents the theoretical rationale for further development of a model for the assessment and management of intraorganizational conflict. The purpose of such a model would be to assist employees, managers, human resources practitioners, and external service providers in selecting the most appropriate conflict management strategy for a given conflict. The framework presented builds on the previous work of Sheppard (1984) and Elangovan (1995, 1998) in suggesting that a contingency‐based model of strategy selection must include attention to characteristics of the conflict, desired outcomes of the participants, and awareness of available conflict management strategies. By expanding the range of conflicts and conflict management strategies typically included within a single model, the framework presented here forms the basis of a comprehensive model for dealing with intraorganizational conflict.

Conventional wisdom suggests that a consultant serving a joint union‐management organization development (OD) change effort acts as a third‐party neutral. However, this paper documents why both parties may distrust the OD consultant and other dangers associated with claims of neutrality. Drawing on the OD literature and that of psychotherapy, as well as over 20 years of experience that the authors have had as consultants to joint efforts, this paper suggests that OD change agents should take on the role as advocates not neutrals. The advantages of actively advocating for the differing and joint interests of union and management are outlined. Clear strategies for using the advocacy approach are identified.

The purpose of this paper is to present a theoretical framework for assessing the effects representatives have on their client's perceptions of justice, outcome and satisfaction, as well as the treatment received by clients from other stakeholders, in workplace dispute resolution processes.

Research propositions are advanced based on constructs and theories drawn from the literature on organizational justice, in particular, as well as social psychology in general.

Representatives are hypothesized to have a profound effect on their client's perceptions of voice, participation and satisfaction as well as on the treatment accorded the client by the other side and third‐party neutral. Representation, per se, is heralded as neither a positive nor a negative force in workplace dispute resolution processes.

The framework of a representative's effects is limited by a focus on individual employees who pursue disputes arising out of the employment relationship against management and, therefore, excludes disputes involving groups as well as non‐employment related disputes.

Suggestions for expanding or contracting the role of representatives in workplace dispute resolution are discussed.

Although it is ubiquitous in US jurisprudence and is a growing presence in alternative dispute resolution, the representative‐client dyad has been unexplored. The impact representatives have on the client's perceptions of justice, and the effects representatives have on other stakeholders in the process, bear scrutiny.

Existing home sellers may be aware of defects in the home that are not observable to the untrained eye of a buyer. Sellers may not disclose the defects in order to receive a higher price. Home warranties for existing homes appear to provide protection against defects. However, it is not clear how home warranty compares against building inspections and seller disclosure laws. In an adverse selection model, we study the tools available to buyers to overcome this problem.

The purpose of this paper is to delineate policy recommendations for federal sector management, labor, and neutrals in the area of alternative dispute resolution and conflict resolution mechanisms in the maturing arena of federal sector labor‐management relations. The great desideratum in the arena of labor relations in the federal sector of the economy is harmony based on the resolving of conflicting interests of employees and their government employers.

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.

Collaborative solutions are increasingly being proposed to generate value in supply chains. Concurrently, firms have progressively outsourced logistics operations to logistics service providers (LSPs). However, many questions remain unsolved regarding the role played by LSPs in supporting supply chain collaboration (SCC) in triadic rather than dyadic contexts. This study aims to explore the relational mechanisms that LSPs can leverage to foster value creation through collaboration, elaborating on an existing theory about SCC by focussing on logistics triads.

By leveraging the view of the network theory, a multiple case study approach was adopted. Seven cases having logistics triads as units of analysis were identified and analysed within the Italian grocery supply chain, allowing for empirical investigation with a middle-range approach to extend the previous theory.

LSPs are pivotal actors that can actively promote SCC. LSPs can exploit large volumes and asset availability to increase efficiency while improving logistics flexibility and developing regular and trustworthy relationships with the other triad members. Building upon their logistics capabilities and the relational mechanisms in place, LSPs can help manufacturers collaborate with retailers by improving mutual trust and communication, acting as trust builders or trust conductors within the triad.

The study explores the role of LSPs in logistics triads, extending the previous literature. It highlights that LSPs facilitate not only supply and demand integration but also relational integration between firms. Trust emerges as a fundamental building block for SCC, as LSPs can look beyond economic benefits to foster partnerships that empower the co-development of original collaborative solutions.