Methods of Conflict Resolution: Solving the Disagreements Research Paper

Introduction

Over the years, conflicts have been considered inevitable occurrences in human living. They transpire between people involved in any kind of relationships and settings; it can be, business, family members, colleagues, or political related. Scholars explained that it is not the differences in values that cause conflicts directly but individuals’ attempts to force others to leave their beliefs and adopt theirs. If we can understand and manage it well, productivity and satisfaction of relations in terms of business and social life can be improved. To maximize the positive impacts of conflicts and minimize their negative outcomes, it is vital to understand the general approaches and various methods applied to solve the disagreements.

Methods of Conflict Resolution

Based on the Structural and Realist Theories there are two categories of conflicts: Intra-personal conflicts, popularly known as man against himself. It is an internal urge of an individual to compete and battle, and the surrounding environment contributes to it (Folarin, 2015). Inter-personal conflict describes the disagreement between two or more people. It could manifest in terms of arguments between shared resources or where each wants their ideas followed. This level of conflict is also present in the business context and may result in poor performance (Isa, 2015). There are a few techniques discussed to settle these disparities and their negative implications.

Arbitration

In the traditional setup, arbitration was used to settle differences without any formal procedures. However, its use in the contemporary world has been more complex with increased proceedings and legal activities involved. Through this method, the warring individuals use a neutral party to resolve their conflicts (Ranjbar & Dehshiri, 2017). The arbitration process begins with a notice letter setting the expected rules to govern the entire course including the expected pay. Upon agreeing to it, the case is presented through phone or in-person; sometimes in form of writing. Using all the evidence derived from the hearing, the mediator sets a date for issuing the best decision and after considering all viable solutions, sends a printed document to the parties stating what they should do to end their conflict. Advocators of this method prefer it due to its advantages, some of them outlined:

1. It provides the participants with control over their case hearing, unlike legal structures where everything is under the system’s discretion.
2. It allows parties have a range of choices on suggested procedures to apply (Ranjbar & Dehshiri, 2017). Additionally, the method assures confidentiality since the meetings are not held publicly.
3. Chances of corruption are minimal while using arbitration to solve disputes. A mediator is a neutral person who is unknown to the conflicting parties and takes no sides.
4. The process is less tedious and uses less duration time (Isa, 2015).

However, critics of this method do not recommend it based on different arguments:

1. It requires a mutual agreement of both parties at war for it to work.
2. In a business setting, arbitration agreements are occasionally stated in manual handbooks which employees agree to in advance without consent (Isa, 2015).
3. While solving detailed cases, longer procedures may be applied, thus large costs.
4. Sometimes, the arbitrator may use personal prejudice thus making poor choices.

Litigation

This is a civil method that has gained popularity recently where the court is involved and judges or jury makes decisions. The term plaintiff is used to refer to the one bringing the lawsuit while the defendant denotes the person being sued (Menkel-Meadow, 2015). During litigation, both parties are entitled to an attorney and apply the court structure and its procedures to settle their differences. The advocates present their clients’ opinions to the judge who then rules a decision based on these sentiments and weigh witnesses’ evidence if present. Theorists who supported this method of conflict resolution stated the following advantages in its support:

1. For a solution to be reached, both disagreeing people should be ready to come to a conclusion (Menkel-Meadow, 2015); however, if they fail, the court can always assist.
2. Litigation allows witnesses to provide testimony relevant to resolving disputes.
3. There are less costs involved since the court is funded by the state.
4. The final judgment is considered logical since the entire conflict is assessed by a professional.

Scholars against this method list the following disadvantages associated with its application:

1. It is not recommended for a business that is willing to protect its reputation since the trials remain on the public record (Menkel-Meadow, 2015).
2. It consumes a lot of time due to the legal proceedings involved. Upon presentation of the case, it has to be discussed by the jury before its hearing and ruling.
3. Although the judges are professional in their ruling and understand the law, they may lack knowledge about the standards of the specific industry involved (Menkel-Meadow, 2015).
4. The nature of litigation requires revealing all facts of the parties involved thus does not support privacy.

Informal Conflict Resolution

These methods are commonly enacted in workplaces and business models. Most conflicts at work are interpersonal hence requires internal resolution (Isa, 2015). Through such means, team building and individual growth are supported. Mostly head sections and business managers are involved in the problem settlement procedure. The process sets rules for the parties and allows them to express their issues from their side of view after which brainstorming follows. To reach an agreement, each party should own up to their mistakes and be determined to take part in avoiding a future occurrence of the same. This method of settling conflicts is highly recommended by scholars for companies due to the following conveniences:

1. Confidentiality is ensured especially since it does not involve the public. Additionally, colleagues do not necessarily have to be aware of the ongoing dispute.
2. It enhances and preserves relations between the parties since they are involved in personal communication while resolving.
3. Informal methods increase satisfaction among parties involved since the process gives both of them a chance to express their side of the dispute (Menkel-Meadow, 2015).
4. It is simple and fast since it does not involve many proceedings.

Nonetheless, the method has also been continuously disapproved on the basis that:

1. There may lack a neutral means for reaching an agreement since the resolution process includes applying brainstorming models.
2. For parties to express their truth, the character of good faith is vital, which may lack in some of them involved.
3. It cannot be considered legal since there are no recorded documents or procedures involved.
4. If applied between two businesses that may fail to reach an argument it may result in searching for legal means.

An understanding of the above methods of conflict resolution can be used in the case study of Avion parts Inc. and Aero One Business. It is evident that in their business dealings, Aero One out of good faith and trust did not prepare a policy document as a guideline to how the transaction was to be conducted. In addition, Aero One gave the broker the benefit of doubt as they had worked together before. In this case, as outlined by Melvin and Katz (2010), arbitration and litigation prove to be costlier and involve long procedures. Therefore, the informal resolution as suggested by Avion Parts Inc. suits settling their dispute. As Avion states, the broker could be considered the origin of the dispute; their argument can be supported by the photographs provided by the maintenance contractor in Miami of the parts in good shape during shipping. Both companies should take a lawsuit against the broker and settle their disputes in a manner that in the future they can conduct their businesses directly without the broker. Despite this method having a drawback in the fact that the broker-assisted in the navigation of the market, it is favorable than both litigation and arbitration which would put both companies in jeopardize by attracting public involvement in the ongoing conflicts between them.

References

Folarin, S. F. (2015). Types and Causes of Conflict. Web.

Isa, A. A. (2015). Conflicts in organizations: Causes and consequences. Journal of Educational Policy and Entrepreneurial Research (JEPER), 2(11), 54-59.

Melvin, S., & Katz, M. A. (2010). Legal environment of business. McGraw-Hill Publishing.

Menkel-Meadow, C. (2015). Mediation, arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR). International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier Ltd.

Ranjbar, M., & Dehshiri, M. (2017). General and specific conditions of arbitration agreement. J. Pol. & L., 10, 95. Web.