|
|
|
|
performance management
| Loss of Leadership | Confront Challenges | Non Articulated Values |
| Corporate Culture | Executive In Trouble | Poor Performance |
| Compensation Policy | Decision Making | Irrational Beliefs |
| performance management - The facilitator may be a member of one of the parties to the dispute or may be an external consultant. Facilitators focus on procedural assist_ance and remain impartial to the topics or issues under discussion. The method of facilitating is most appropriate when: (1) the intensity of the parties' emotions about the issues in dispute are low to moderate; (2) the parties or issues are not extremely polarized; (3) the parties have enough trust in each other that they can work together to develop a mutually acceptable solution; or (4) the parties are in a common predicament and they need or will benefit from a jointly-acceptable outcome. Factfinding is the use of an impartial expert (or group) selected by the parties, an agency, or by an individual with the authority to appoint a factfinder in order to determine what the "facts" are in a dispute. The rationale behind the efficacy of factfinding is the expectation that the opinion of a trusted and impartial neutral will carry weight with the parties. Factfinding was originally used in the attempt to resolve labor disputes, but variations of the procedure have been applied to a wide variety of problems in other areas as well. Factfinders generally are not permitted to resolve or decide policy issues. The factfinder may be authorized only to investigate or evaluate the matter presented and file a report establishing the facts in the matter. In some cases, he or she may be authorized to issue either a situation assessment or a specific non-binding procedural or substantive recommendation as to how a dispute might be resolved. In cases where such recommendations are not accepted, the data (or facts) will have been collected and organized in a fashion that will facilitate further negotiations or be available for use in later adversarial procedures. Interest-based problem-solving is a technique that creates effective solutions while improving the rela_tionship between the parties. The process separates the person from the problem, explores all interests to define issues clearly, brainstorms possibilities and opportunities, and uses some mutually agreed upon standard to reach a solution. Trust in the process is a common theme in successful interest-based problem-solving. Interest-based problem-solving is often used in collective bargaining between labor and manag_ement in place of traditional, position-based bargaining. However, as a technique, it can be effectively applied in many contexts where two or more parties are seeking to reach agreement. Mediated arbitration, commonly known as "med-arb," is a variation of the arbitration procedure in which an impartial or neutral third party is authorized by the disputing parties to mediate their dispute until such time as they reach an impasse. As part of the process, when impasse is reached, the third party is authorized by the parties to issue a binding opinion on the cause of the impasse or the remaining issue(s) in dispute. In some cases, med-arb utilizes two outside parties--one to mediate the dispute and another to arbitrate any remaining issues after the medi_ation process is completed. This is done to address some parties' concerns that the process, if handled by one third party, mixes and confuses procedural assist_ance (a characteristic of medi_ation) with binding decision making (a characteristic of arbitration). The concern is that parties might be less likely to disclose necessary information for a settlement or are more likely to present extreme arguments during the medi_ation stage if they know that the same third | party will ultimately make a decision on the dispute. Mediated arbitration is useful in narrowing issues more quickly than under arbitration alone and helps parties focus their reso_urces on the truly difficult issues involved in a dispute in a more efficient and effective manner. medi_ation is the intervention into a dispute or negotiation of an acceptable, impartial and neutral third party who has no decision-making authority. The objective of this intervention is to assist the parties in voluntarily reaching an acceptable resol_ution of issues in dispute. medi_ation is useful in highly-polarized disputes where the parties have either been unable to initiate a productive dialogue, or where the parties have been talking and have reached a seemingly insurmountable impasse. A mediator, like a facilitator, makes primarily procedural suggestions regarding how parties can reach agreement. Occasionally, a mediator may suggest some substantive options as a means of encouraging the parties to expand the range of possible resol_utions under consideration. A mediator often works with the parties individually, in caucuses, to explore acceptable resol_ution options or to develop proposals that might move the parties closer to resol_ution. Mediators differ in their degree of directiveness or control while assisting disputing parties. Some mediators set the stage for bargaining, make minimal procedural suggestions, and intervene in the negotiations only to avoid or overcome a deadlock. Other mediators are much more involved in forging the details of a resol_ution. Regardless of how directive the mediator is, the mediator performs the role of catalyst that enables the parties to initiate progress toward their own resol_ution of issues in dispute. Minitrials involve a structured settlement process in which each side to a dispute presents abbreviated summaries of its cases before the major decision makers for the parties who have authority to settle the dispute. The summaries contain explicit data about the legal basis and the merits of a case. The rationale behind a minitrial is that if the decision makers are fully informed as to the merits of their cases and that of the opposing parties, they will be better prepared to successfully engage in settlement discussions. The process generally follows more relaxed rules for discovery and case presentation than might be found in the court or other proceeding and usually the parties agree on specific limited periods of time for presentations and arguments. A third party who is often a former judge or individual versed in the relevant law is the individual who oversees a minitrial. That individual is responsible for explaining and maintaining an orderly process of case presentation and usually makes an advisory ruling regarding a settlement range, rather than offering a specific solution for the parties to consider. The parties can use such an advisory opinion to narrow the range of their discussions and to focus in on acceptable settlement options--settlement being the ultimate objective of a minitrial. The minitrial method is a particularly efficient and cost effective means for settling contract disputes and can be used in other cases where some or all of the following characteristics are present: (1) it is important to get facts and positions before high-level decision makers; (2) the parties are looking for a substantial level of control over the resol_ution of the dispute; (3) some or all of the issues are of a technical nature; and (4) a trial on the merits of the case would be very long and/or complex. |
