Content area
Full Text
We contrast two hybrid dispute resolution procedures (arbitration-mediation and mediation-arbitration) that involve using mediation and arbitration in different sequences. The former's strengths stem from lowering disputant expectations and enhancing cooperative behaviors during the mediation phase. The latter procedure likely will be less costly and time consuming, enhance fairness judgments, and produce greater compliance to arbitrated decisions. We argue that the greatest benefit from arbitration-mediation is that it should encourage disputants to settle differences themselves.
The intervention of a third party-a person, government agency, or other institution-often can facilitate conflict resolution between disputing parties (Conlon & Sullivan, 1999; Kressel & Pruitt, 1989; Purdy & Gray, 1994). For example, formal third-party procedures often are used for public sector labor-management disputes, where dispute resolution system designers want to avoid strikes. Other contexts in which third parties intervene include intraorganizational disputes; small claims business disputes; and consumer complaint disputes, such as in the securities industry (cf. Kressel & Pruitt, 1989; Lewicki, Litterer, Minton, & Saunders, 1994; Podd, 1997). Although differences exist among these third parties and the contexts in which they serve, all fulfill similar roles and, thus, are more alike than different. This reflects the "generic view" of conflict resolution (Levinger & Rubin, 1994; Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993).
Our purpose here is to compare and evaluate hybrid third-party dispute resolution procedures. By hybrid we mean procedures that combine elements of mediation and arbitration. We believe such hybrid forms hold great promise for managing conflicts, although such procedures have been undertheorized conceptually. We analyze two procedures: the well-known mediation-arbitration procedure and the novel arbitration-mediation procedure. We first briefly define each and then identify criteria for evaluating them. Next, we consider why disputants might prefer one type of hybrid procedure, and, finally, using these criteria, we consider the consequences of choosing one type of hybrid procedure for disputant behaviors, expectations, and outcomes. Throughout this discussion, we develop testable research propositions. We anticipate that such an analysis will prove valuable both to researchers and policy makers seeking to design their third-party systems.
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
Our hybrid procedures reflect different combinations of two well-established third-party procedures: mediation and interest arbitration. Mediation is a procedure whereby a third party assists disputants in achieving a voluntary settlement (i.e., the mediator...