Search results

In this article, we focus on alternative dispute resolution procedures, in particular third party procedures. We describe eight different procedures and provide examples of how these procedures are used in different cultural contexts. We then evaluate the procedures in terms of how they impact four key criteria that have been noted in the literature related to negotiation: process criteria, settlement criteria, issue-related criteria, and relationship criteria. We subsequently explore the potential impact of culture on evaluations of these criteria. We finish with a discussion of future directions for research and practice, emphasizing that procedural recommendations should be made carefully when the criteria for effectiveness and applicability are derived from US-centric research. In other words, there is not “one best choice” for third party procedures universal to the myriad cultures on our planet.

The model and existing practice of the construction supply chain (CSC) in the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia was presented in this chapter. The policies and reports that support the practice of the CSC were examined in both countries. It was discovered from the review of literature that the UK has a more detailed report targeted at improving the CSC than Australia. However, both countries have a common factor affecting their CSC which originates from fragmentation experienced within their supply chain. Construction stakeholders in the UK and Australia believe that collaboration and integration are vital components for improving performance. The majority of the contractors in both countries embrace collaborative working for the sole purpose of risk sharing, access to innovation and response to market efficiency. However, most of the models developed for managing the CSC in the UK are built around building information modelling (BIM). Also, the reviewed studies show that supply chain management practice will be effective following the following principle: shared objectives, trust, reduction in a blame culture, joint working, enhanced communication and information-sharing. Finally, the UK has a more established framework and more CSC models compared to Australia.

The purpose of this paper is to locate, describe and analyze the differences between the way migrants from communal cultures and local communities in Western Europe resolve intra-communal and inter-communal conflicts, and to use the findings to propose a hybrid alternative model that may be able to bridge across identified differences. Such a hybrid model will facilitate enhanced integration and adaptation between host and migrant communities, contributing to improved conflict resolution outcomes.

This paper starts with an exploration, review and analysis of existing relevant literature describing refugee/migrant–host community interactions and their consequences. The second stage includes review and analysis of relevant alternative dispute resolution (ADR) literature. The third stage undertakes an examination and analysis of the practices identified in stage two, and the fourth stage proposes a method that uses potentially “bridging” practices by incorporating useful and relevant elements from host and refugee communities’ ADR mechanisms, in a way that may help resolve inter-communal disputes.

The paper demonstrates significant differences between host and migrant communities’ dispute resolution practices and the integrability of relevant ADR approaches toward creating a usable, hybrid, bridging approach to handle inter-communal conflicts.

The paper proposes a hybrid “bridging” host–refugee inter-communal conflict management model. The proposed model should be tested to prove feasibility and viability.

Should the proposed model prove useful, the practical implications may lead to the construction and use of different (hybrid) conflict management mechanisms in appropriate communities. Such mechanisms may lead to a reduction in the number and severity of inter-communal conflicts.

A reduction in inter-communal conflicts within the framework of a host–migrant interface may have strong positive outcome to inter (and intra) communal relations and may reduce friction, crime, marginalization, hostility and radicalization.

The paper highlights the challenges to both migrant and host communities when it comes to finding a common ground for resolving inter-communal disputes and offers a pragmatic hybrid model to bridge cultural and functional gaps and help promote mutually satisfactory outcomes.

This paper investigates the adoption, structure, and function of dispute resolution procedures in the nonunion workplace. Whereas grievance procedures in unionized workplaces have been an important area of study in the field of industrial relations, research on dispute resolution procedures in nonunion workplaces has lagged behind. As a result, our knowledge of the development of nonunion procedures remains relatively limited. Similarly, with a few noteworthy exceptions (e.g. Lewin, 1987, 1990), our knowledge of workplace grievance activity is almost entirely based on research conducted in unionized settings. Given the major differences in the institutional contexts of union and nonunion workplaces in the United States, existing ideas about workplace dispute resolution developed in the unionized setting will likely require significant modification in order to understand dispute resolution procedures and activity in the nonunion workplace. Issues relating to dispute resolution in the nonunion workplace are of increasing importance to public policy given the combination of continued stagnation in levels of union representation and mounting concerns over rising levels of employment litigation in the courts. Knowing what nonunion dispute resolution procedures look like and how they function will help answer the question of what role these procedures may play in the future governance of the workplace.

In the construction industry, various parties are involved in a project. Consequently, claims and disputes are inevitable in this industry. This paper aims to develop Integrated project delivery (IPD) practices including early involvement of stakeholders and multiparty contracts which its combination with advanced technologies such as blockchain can lead to better dispute management and improve the whole construction process.

Based on literature review, the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for IPD contacts were identified, and three formats of IPD contracts were selected, and the dispute resolution process of them has been analyzed. Then, based on blockchain review, a conceptual blockchain-based dispute management (BDM) model was generated for ADR in IPD. Model validation was done by an interview. Experts were asked to compare the BDM model with the traditional system regarding the ADR duration.

Analyses of the collected data from the experts demonstrated that the BDM model has better function in terms of time and cost for ADR process when the project is facing serious and considerable number of disputes. The relation between blockchain technology (BCT) and building information modeling (BIM) has been examined through a framework, and the ability of the proposed model for administrating dispute resolution process has been verified using four different scenarios of construction claims that show the system can run successfully.

The current study proposes a truthful model, reliable framework to address the problem of project dispute management in IPD contracts. The system combines the ability to being unchangeable and the reliability characteristics of BCT with informative and automation aspects of BIM together to improve dispute resolution issue in the IPD system.

Much of the management research on socially responsible investment (SRI) consists in demonstrating how SRI is good for business and good for society. But the belief that business and market-based strategies will bring positive social and ecological change is far from natural and results in disputes. This study shows how SRI proponents have to develop and combine arguments in order to construct and defend a valid and plausible discourse on SRI that could resist the critiques and appease the disputes resulting from its institutionalization.

We collect articles in the media to identify the SRI controversies. For these disputes, we look at the attempts of SRI to give a robust justification of the particular arrangement it promotes, vis-à-vis a public audience, and we discuss possible resolutions.

SRI focuses on appealing to conventional finance with a market logic, resulting in very few challenges of the legitimacy of the existing institutional order. In a few cases, SRI seeks a resolution based on a competing principles resulting in hybrid constructions of compromises, which could be consolidated by SRI models and tools.

The results contribute to a better understanding of SRI as it is perceived today, and of how the disputes around its mainstreaming may unfold in the future. This helps us clarify our expectations towards SRI and shows that if we want to address shortcomings in finance, we should probably not rely on SRI as it is defined and practiced in the 21st century.

This study aims to examine the prospects of using an online dispute resolution (ODR) platform for resolving relevant Islamic banking disputes in the usual banker–customer relationship in Malaysia. It is argued that through proper regulation, such innovative dispute management mechanism would not only address some legal risks associated with banking disputes but could also prevent reputational risks in the Islamic financial services industry.

Based on an internet survey, responses were obtained from about 109 respondents in Malaysia. The data obtained were subjected to multivariate statistical analyses considering factors such as access to justice, attitude of stakeholders, resolving disputes, practical issues and understanding of ODR.

The results obtained showed that “access to justice”, “attitude of stakeholders” and “resolving disputes” are the most influencing factors affecting the intention to use ODR among stakeholders, particularly customers and bankers in the Islamic financial services industry in Malaysia.

This study provides a way in which the recently introduced Islamic Financial Services (Financial Ombudsman Scheme) Regulations 2015 can be better enhanced to cater for internet banking disputes which might require an ODR framework.

Though there have been numerous studies on the dispute resolution framework in the Islamic banking industry in Malaysia generally, the current study focuses on a less explored framework – ODR– a new framework for handling banking disputes.

This paper aims to provide insight into mediation as an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to resolve interpersonal conflicts for undergraduate students in Hong Kong.

Mixed methods research approach was utilised to examine university students' understanding of dispute resolution at their respective universities in Hong Kong, and factors that may influence their decision to utilize ADR on campus.

The tendency for university students in Hong Kong to voice criticisms was low due to: (1) unawareness of proper grievance channels; and (2) fear of potential academic retribution from the institution. This may be the result of inadequate promotion and transparency in the existing higher education dispute resolution framework. Academic staff acknowledged the limitation of the existing closed-door dispute resolution system and the need for an alternative conflict management system which emphasises on restoration of harmony in the university community.

As there is a lack of study focusing on ADR practices in Hong Kong universities, this paper provides insight into the feasibility of integrating ADR into the existing dispute resolution processes in resolving interpersonal conflicts at universities in Hong Kong.

Human interaction gives rise to conflict. This paper addresses general characteristics of Korean and United States culture relative to conflict resolution. In general, in the United States, conflict resolution is characterized by a win‐lose philosophy. Americans approach disputes with an attitude that one party is wrong, one is right and the purpose of dispute resolution is to decide who is right. Americans also believe that though the legal system is time‐consuming and expensive it can (for the most part) determine right and wrong. As a general statement most Americans respect the legal system and the law, though they find the process of litigation time consuming and expensive. In general, Koreans approach disputes with an attitude that all parties are partly wrong and partly right. Disputes are to be resolved in indirect and nonconfrontational ways so that harmony is restored and the relationship between the parties returns to one of harmonious interaction. Koreans have little respect for the law and the legal system and tend to depend upon non‐legal techniques to resolve disputes.

There has been considerable research into different approaches to workplace dispute resolution in the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), and to a lesser extent other English-speaking countries. This chapter considers what guidance this research can provide into the practical implications of these different approaches.

One frame of reference for evaluating different approaches to workplace dispute resolution is provided by Budd’s three objectives of the employment relationship: equity, voice and efficiency.

While dispute resolution procedures can contribute to all three objectives, there can be negative consequences for employees who make use of formal workplace dispute resolution procedures. It is desirable that workplace disputes be resolved quickly and informally.

Such an approach places considerable weight on the skills of line managers. Unfortunately, there is evidence of a preference among line managers to replace pragmatic approaches to conflict resolution with a rigid adherence to process and procedure. This is partly due to a lack of skills, but is often compounded by inadequate support from senior management.

While it is important for organisations to have formal workplace dispute resolution procedures, the focus should be on line managers. The role of human resources staff and senior management should primarily be to monitor the dispute resolution system, ensure that it is operating effectively and deal with any emerging issues. They should ensure appropriate training is in place and provide appropriate support to line managers. Only when line managers have failed to resolve disputes should they become directly involved.