Description:This week's lesson introduced the other less common types of ADR. Consider and comment on the following questions:1. Recall the dispute that was the subject of your answer to the Week 3 an
Wk 3 Post
Recently, I had a dispute with a friend based on sharing of roles and duties at work. If I were to use a mediation to solve the conflict I would have used facilitative mediation instead of evaluative mediation. Facilitative mediation refers to the types of solving conflicts where the mediator creates a process to assist the parties in reaching into a mutual agreement. Evaluative mediation on the other hand refers to the type of mediation where the judge helps the parties in reaching into a resolution through using the weakness of the case (Shrout & Bolger, 2017). The nature of the dispute plays a very huge role when choosing the type of mediation style to use. Since some cases can not fit well or makes it hard to find a solution when using a certain mediation style. For instance work related disputes and family related disputes require mediation that won’t seem to favor one party.
I would use transformative mediation, since it is mostly bases on improving the personal power of each party (Folberg & Taylor, 2016). Also transformative mediation mainly helps in creating a sense of understanding between the two parties through communication so as to solve the dispute. And lastly the reason why I would use the mediation is because; the process that is used does not favor one party. During the process, the mediator listens to both parties and from this he or she is able to help in making the two understand each other and be able to come into a mutual agreement.
Wk 5 Post
Lately, I have been having disputes with my co-worker oversharing and allocation of duties in the workplace. To conclusively settle this dispute, I would apply arbitration, an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) method used to resolve conflict within parties without litigation. Arbitration processes are useful in conflict resolution since it entails the participation of a neutral third party who hears the arguments of the two conflicting parties and decides on the most appropriate remedy to the dispute (Brubaker et al., 2014). The inclusion of a third party that is the arbitrator helps mitigate any occurrence of bias since the arbitrator listens to both sides of the argument and uses their knowledge of dispute resolution in finding a solution towards the conflict.
Binding arbitration would be most suitable in our dispute resolution in that, both my co-worker and I will have to waive our rights to a legal trial and agree to abide by the arbitrator's ultimate decision. Binding arbitration is appropriate for resolving business conflicts in which the disputing parties need to reach an immediate agreement to hasten an outcome (Moses, 2017). Unlike litigating processes, binding arbitration is often flexible, cheaper, faster and less hostile in dispute settlement, thus making it more appropriate in small conflict resolutions in the workplace.
To conclusively settle the dispute, I would give the arbitrator all the powers without discretion to decide on the best remedy based on the presented arguments. This will result in a final award being issued that will bind both my co-worker and me into working in peace. For a final award to be reached the arbitrator must be sure that the remedy awarded is effective and able to enhance peaceful co-existence between the conflicting parties (Stipanowich & Lamare, 2014). A final award is appropriate in my case since it is crucial for my co-worker and me to reach a quick and sound agreement of how duties are to be handled in the workplace.
