CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

312 GOLDMAN, CROPANZANO, STEIN, AND BENSON
Conlon’s (2000) ideas as to when arb–med may be preferable over med–
arb offered fresh insights into what is often viewed as a “one-size-fits-all”
approach. Bendersky (2003) offered her own novel twist on the sequencing
issue—that multiple approaches could be pursued at once. An empirical
test of this model, if supported, may offer practical benefits.
Up until this point, we may have left the reader with the impression
that workers and organizations are about equally likely to embrace disputing
mechanisms. However, this is not necessarily the case (Kressel,
2000). Before we leave this section, which deals more with organizational
designs on disputing mechanisms, we wanted to address organizational
acceptance to mediation, as an example of dispute mechanisms. We chose
mediation because it is perhaps the most common dispute resolution
vehicle (it can, for example, constitute both an informal and formal dispute
resolution mechanism) and it is one for which there exists important
research investigating organizational reactions to it.
orGanizational aPProaChes to forMal DisPutinG:
the Case of MeDiation
Historically, claimants (employees) have been more willing to mediate
than organizations (e.g., McDermott et al., 2000). According to the EEOC,
workers want to mediate 87% of discrimination claims while organizations
agree to it only 31% of the time (D. Grinberg, personal communication, July
21, 2004). In that context, one study found that employers were hesitant to
participate for the following reasons: (a) they did not believe the case had
“merit” (although it was not always clear what the organizational basis for
this judgment was it did include the perception that the EEOC itself would
not find a “reasonable cause” finding in the case); and (b) they perceived
that EEOC mediation required monetary settlement (which, by implication,
they must have disagreed with; McDermott, Jose, & Obar, 2003). In another
study, lawyers for the construction industry recommended that their clients
mediate in most or all disputes less than half (49.3%) of the time (Henderson,
1996). Some of the reasons industry lawyers recommended against mediation
were stated as (a) the dispute involved a novel interpretation of law
(something, it should be noted, that a deep pockets organization is more
capable of making “novel” than most workers); (b) the credibility of a witness
is an issue; or (c) the opposing party or his or her representative was
considered untrustworthy or unlikely to compromise.
So why do organizations agree to mediate disputes? In this same construction
industry study, some reasons for a recommendation of mediation
were stated as follows: (a) desire for an ongoing relationship, (b) need
for a quick resolution of disputes, (c) an essential economical alternative
to litigation, and (d) desire for privacy and confidentiality. This last factor,
privacy, can often be compelling. A public dispute, especially in a large,
publicly traded company, can have devastating effects. It can adversely