1. Between conciliation, mediation, and arbitration, mediation is the preferred method for companies to resolve peer-to-peer and manager-to-subordinate disputes. All three methods are suitable, depending on the circumstance. For instance, conciliation is most beneficial if both parties are unfamiliar with each other and are more comfortable having a third party communicating with them. What I personally like about conciliation is that the informality of this process allows both sides to agree on the structure and timing of the proceedings, which may lead to leaving both sides satisfied at the end of the dispute. Mediation is best suited for both parties who are familiar with each other and want more involvement in creating a mutually agreeable solution. Mediation also strengthens work relations between the two sides. The main reason why I like mediation the most is because it generally unites both sides more effectively, and the mediator’s proposals don’t concretely determine anything. Arbitration is most effective if both sides cannot reach a mutually beneficial agreement and give a third party “the authority to impose a settlement on the parties” (Griffin, P. 371). While it is the most severe method of the three, it is generally faster than litigating in court, and the dispute details are not publicized.
2. The best method to resolve a peer-to-peer dispute is through mediation. In practice, a mediator is perceived as neutral, and if not, then “he or she is not likely to be effective” (Griffin, P. 371). Since mediation is generally used in situations where both parties are familiar with each other, both sides must preserve their working relationships together. The two most significant advantages are the mutually beneficial solutions and cost-efficacy that arise from this dispute structure. For instance, if two employees are complaining about the other not doing enough work in a shared assignment, the mediator can begin by coming up with common areas between the two employees. Chances are, both employees strive to make sure their work is completed well and on time. Also, it was evident that there needed to be a clear set of guidelines for who was supposed to do each task. As a result, the mediator may propose a solution that ensures their supervisor communicates to these two employees about their tasks, which properly addresses the situation at hand. Meanwhile, the company saves resources by not having to litigate in court and risk this information going public.
3. Although the dynamic between the two parties is different since it is between the boss and the subordinate, the mediation process should be executed similarly. The two biggest factors that have shifted from the peer-to-peer example are the power imbalance and fear of retaliation of the subordinate. The employee is disadvantaged since they are disputing a problem with the boss. It’s normal for the subordinate to be concerned because since the boss has a “higher status” within the company, he may use his authority to make the subordinate’s time at work miserable. On the other hand, since bosses are considered “higher up,” they also do not want to be seen as incompetent or ineffective at their job, and being challenged by a subordinate is a clear sign of this. If other subordinates find out about one of their coworkers disputing something about the boss, these coworkers may lose faith in their boss, which could result in a less engaged and motivated staff. Therefore, it is also in the boss’s best interest to come to a reasonable agreement with his employee to make sure he has the respect of everyone he manages. With this being said, it’s essential that mediators “insist on objective fairness criteria” (Griffin, P. 368). Despite the boss having more experience and knowledge, the mediator must treat both parties equally by following any industry norms or agreed-upon rules set up by the company.
Works Cited
Griffin, Ricky (2020). Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations. Cengage.
Written by Mikael La Ferla
Mikael La Ferla 