Combined or Hybrid Processes
Sometimes a dispute may require a combination of ADR processes.
An example of this may be two neighbours arguing about the replacement of a boundary fence; one neighbour has organised the replacement of the fence and there is a dispute about where the new fence should be and how to split the costs of its replacement. The first issue is where the fence should be? This may be best resolved through Arbitration where factual data (surveys, maps, plans etc) provide evidence of the boundary. The second issue is how to split the costs? This could be resolved by Mediation where the respective needs and interests of the parties can be explored, and the parties work to resolve the issue. It also may help to preserve (or build) a relationship between neighbours.
This would be an example of one combined (or hybrid) process called Arb/Med (combination of Arbitration and Mediation). Other variations of this are Med/Arb (Mediation and Arbitration), and Con/Arb (Conciliation and Arbitration.
These are processes that combine ADR processes to achieve the most efficient resolution based on the merits of the dispute. This may mean that the ADR specialist plays multiple roles through the course of the resolution as in the above example. TOP
The Nature of Conflict
Conflict is a normal part of life in organisations and businesses. It happens every day:
- Staff disagree amongst themselves about job boundaries, work priorities and responsibilities - some work doesn't get done, mistakes occur and supervisors have to intervene;
- Staff disagree with their supervisors and managers about hours of work, approval to take leave, allocation of work and resources, and fair treatment – they become de-motivated and distressed;
- Work groups argue about work priorities and responsibilities, and the allocation of work – they lose focus and become disruptive;
- Unions disagree with management over employment conditions, OHS standards, and employee rights – they lodge claims and register disputes;
- Executives and board members disagree on strategies, execution timelines and resource allocation – disagreements become time consuming and disruptive;
- Customers argue with staff about service standards and product quality - they lodge complaints and take their issues to tribunals;
- Suppliers dispute product and service specifications, prices and delivery schedules – they threaten legal action and with-hold services;
- Business partners argue about the distribution of profits and the allocation of non-cash benefits – they lose focus, impetus and trust in each other;
- Business unit managers argue about the use and application of resources and scarce capital – they fail to collaborate and waste precious time and energy.
The existence of conflict is in itself not a bad thing if it is managed constructively, and in many cases it is.
In those cases where it is not managed well, a specialist in dispute resolution can often help. The timely application of ADR can reduce conflict and help preserve, and even improve, relationships between disaffected staff, managers, executives, customers, suppliers, business partners and unions.
Additionally, ADR processes are almost always less costly and less time consuming than litigation. TOP
Our Philosophy
The philosophy behind the approach of Gibson ADR has been strongly based on the concepts of the “principled negotiation method” described by Roger Fisher & William Ury (1). Their work has been informed by their experiences with the Harvard Negotiation Project (2), and by their respective backgrounds in international law and anthropology.
Put simply, “principled negotiation is a method of deciding issues on their merits rather than through a haggling process focussed on what each side says it will and won’t do” (1). It shows you how to obtain what you are entitled to and to still be decent. It enables you to be fair while protecting you against those who may take advantage of your fairness and decency.
This technique is often regarded as Win-Win where neither party gets everything they want, but it is fair to both parties.
The techniques of principled negotiation have been used successfully across the western world to resolve conflict from issues as small as who should pay to replace a boundary fence, to issues as large as negotiating with terrorists or resolving the challenges of world peace.
Gibson ADR also acknowledges the impact on its approach by the work and writings of:
(1) Roger Fisher & William Ury. "Getting to Yes", Random House, 1999
(2) The Harvard Negotiation Project - Negotiation Program, Harvard University
(3) Allan J Stitt "Alternative Dispute Resolution for Organisations", Wiley, 1988
(4) Sir Lawrence Street "Mediation - a Practical Outline" NDC, 2003
TOP
.
