Table of Contents |
Suitability of process is the degree to which a conflict resolution process is appropriate in a given conflict. This degree of appropriateness is determined by the following:
Determining the most suitable conflict resolution approach involves evaluating several crucial factors. First, consider how many people are involved in the conflict. A dispute between two individuals may be resolved differently than one involving multiple parties or groups, as the dynamics and communication needs vary significantly with the number of participants. Next, the location of the conflict—whether it is a personal, workplace, or community issue—can impact the choice of resolution strategies. Different settings may call for tailored approaches to address specific environmental or contextual factors.
The stage or intensity of the conflict also plays a critical role in determining the appropriate resolution method. Early-stage or less intense conflicts might benefit from less formal approaches, such as open dialogue or mediation, while more severe or entrenched disputes may require formal arbitration or more structured intervention. Additionally, understanding the parties’ particular issues or needs is essential. Each party may have unique interests, concerns, or goals that need to be addressed, and a resolution strategy must be crafted to meet these diverse needs effectively.
Finally, consider whether technical expertise is required to resolve the conflict. Some conflicts, particularly those involving specialized knowledge or complex issues, may necessitate the involvement of experts who can provide informed insights or solutions. For instance, technical disputes in a workplace setting might require input from professionals with specific expertise related to the issue at hand. By carefully assessing these factors—number of parties, location, stage and intensity, specific issues or needs, and technical requirements—you can better determine the most effective and suitable approach to resolving the conflict.
In restorative justice, the focus is on the accountability of the offender and on a dialogue in which all the parties are able to hear one another speak. Through this dialogue, the parties reach an agreement that will allow the victims to receive some sort of restoration on the part of the offender.
Thus, restorative justice is an effective method in a conflict where the relationship between the parties and the use of open dialogue are important.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine a community where a young person, Alex, has vandalized a local park, causing damage to playground equipment and community benches. The incident has upset many community members, particularly Maria, a local resident who frequently brings her children to the park. The damage not only affects the park’s usability but also strains the sense of community and trust among its residents.
In a restorative justice approach, Alex and Maria, along with other affected community members and a trained facilitator, come together for a restorative circle. During this meeting, Alex acknowledges the harm caused and listens to Maria and other community members express how the vandalism affected them personally and emotionally. Maria shares how the damaged playground has disrupted her family’s activities and affected her sense of safety and pride in the community.
Through open dialogue, Alex gains a deeper understanding of the impact of their actions and expresses genuine remorse. The group collaboratively discusses ways Alex can make amends, leading to an agreement where Alex will participate in repairing the damage to the park and volunteer to help with future community events to rebuild trust and demonstrate accountability.
By engaging in this dialogue and agreeing on a restoration plan, restorative justice helps address the harm done, foster reconciliation between Alex and the community, and strengthen relationships through mutual understanding and accountability.
The mediation process is also based on a relationship. Whether the conflict is intense or not, the important fact is that the parties are willing to come together and collaborate.
As you know, mediation is facilitated by a neutral mediator who does not offer opinions or solutions and is not invested in the outcome. The goal of mediation is to get the conflicting parties together so that they can collaborate to reach an agreement on their own.
Like restorative justice, mediation is a good method in a situation where emphasis needs to be placed on relationships and dialogue.
IN CONTEXT
Consider a small business, TechSolutions Inc., where two key team members, Emma and David, have been in conflict over project responsibilities. Emma, a senior developer, feels that David, a project manager, has been micromanaging her work and not respecting her expertise. On the other hand, David feels that Emma’s reluctance to follow project guidelines is causing delays and compromising the team’s efficiency.
The conflict has started to affect team morale and project progress, prompting the company to seek mediation. A neutral mediator is brought in to facilitate the process. The mediator’s role is to guide Emma and David through a structured conversation, helping them express their concerns and listen to each other’s perspectives without taking sides or offering solutions.
During the mediation sessions, Emma and David each have the opportunity to articulate their views and feelings in a safe and controlled environment. The mediator encourages them to discuss their specific issues and work collaboratively to understand each other’s needs and priorities.
As they engage in dialogue, Emma learns that David’s micromanagement stems from a need for better project visibility and control, while David realizes that Emma’s resistance is due to a lack of clarity and trust in the guidelines. Through the mediation process, they identify common goals and agree on a revised project management approach that balances oversight with autonomy.
Emma and David also commit to regular check-in meetings to ensure ongoing communication and proactively address future concerns. By focusing on their relationship and using open dialogue, mediation helps them rebuild trust, resolve their differences, and improve their collaboration on the project.
While collaborative law (also referred to as divorce mediation) is also based on a relationship, this process involves divorcing or separating parties who want to work together to come to an agreement instead of going through the court system.
Unlike mediation and restorative justice, collaborative law requires the technical expertise of a lawyer. A mediator can help facilitate a conversation toward a resolution, but a lawyer must be present to evaluate and approve any sort of mediated agreement.
Collaborative law is obviously suitable for a relationship-based conflict, but it’s important to remember that technical expertise is also required in this process.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine Jeane and Mark are a married couple seeking a divorce. They both wish to part ways amicably and agree on the division of their assets, custody of their two children, and other critical matters without resorting to a contentious court battle. They value their ability to work together respectfully and are committed to reaching a fair settlement.
Jeane and Mark decide to use collaborative law to handle their divorce. They each hire a collaborative attorney who specializes in divorce mediation. Unlike traditional litigation, where a judge makes decisions, collaborative law involves both parties and their lawyers working together to negotiate terms in a series of meetings.
In the initial sessions, the collaborative attorneys help Jeane and Mark clarify their goals and concerns. The lawyers provide legal advice and ensure that both parties understand their rights and obligations under the law. They also help Jeane and Mark explore options and work through complex legal and financial issues, such as the equitable distribution of assets and the creation of a parenting plan for their children.
The collaborative process emphasizes open communication and cooperation. Jeane and Mark participate in joint meetings where they discuss their needs and preferences. The collaborative attorneys facilitate these discussions, helping to resolve disputes and draft agreements that reflect both parties’ wishes.
In this case, the collaborative lawyers play a crucial role by providing legal expertise and ensuring that any agreements are legally sound and fair. Jeane and Mark reach a comprehensive settlement approved by their lawyers, avoiding the need for a court trial and preserving their mutual respect.
Arbitration is appropriate when the parties want someone to actually make the decision outside of the courts. Many businesses choose arbitration to settle contractual matters or legal matters; these companies often have it written right into the contract that any dispute will be settled by arbitration.
Arbitration can involve two parties or a larger number of parties who want to meet together. In either case, the dispute is handed to a third party, who then reviews it and makes a decision.
The focus here isn’t so much on the relationship between the parties as on the actual decision. Of course, both parties must agree to this process.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine a manufacturing company, TechSolutions Inc., and a supplier, PartsCo, have a long-term contract for the delivery of electronic components. The contract includes a clause stipulating that any disputes arising from the contract will be resolved through arbitration.
After several months of dealing with quality issues and delays in deliveries, TechSolutions Inc. and PartsCo find themselves in disagreement over the terms of their contract. TechSolutions claims that PartsCo has not met the agreed-upon quality standards, while PartsCo disputes these claims and believes it has fulfilled its obligations as per the contract.
Instead of taking the dispute to court, which could be time consuming and costly, both companies agree to arbitration as outlined in their contract. They select an experienced arbitrator, who is a neutral third party specializing in contractual disputes.
The arbitration process begins with both parties presenting their evidence and arguments to the arbitrator. TechSolutions provides documentation and expert testimony regarding the quality issues and delays. PartsCo presents its records and counterclaims to refute the accusations.
The arbitrator reviews all the evidence and listens to the arguments from both sides. After careful consideration, the arbitrator makes a binding decision on the matter. The ruling includes a detailed explanation of the findings and specifies how the dispute will be resolved, such as requiring PartsCo to compensate TechSolutions for the losses incurred or adjusting the terms of future deliveries.
In this case, arbitration focuses on resolving the contractual dispute rather than on the relationship between TechSolutions and PartsCo. It provides a formal and enforceable decision, which allows both parties to move forward with a clear resolution without resorting to litigation in the courts.
In shuttle diplomacy, the parties in conflict do not meet together in the same room, and the conflict-resolver moves between the parties.
This method is very appropriate in diplomatic international relations, as it focuses on tangible outcomes involving the proposals and requests that the conflict-resolver brings from one party to the other.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine two neighboring countries, Country A and Country B, that are in a dispute over the control of a shared river that affects the water resources for both nations. The tension between the two countries is so high that direct negotiations would likely escalate the conflict rather than resolve it.
In this situation, the United Nations appoints a special envoy to mediate the conflict using shuttle diplomacy. The envoy meets with representatives from Country A to understand its demands and concerns about the river’s management. The envoy then travels to Country B to gather its perspectives and proposals.
Throughout the process, the envoy shuttles between the two countries, presenting proposals and counterproposals based on the feedback from each side. By not having the parties meet directly, the envoy helps avoid further confrontation and ensures that each side’s concerns are addressed in a controlled and constructive manner.
In the end, the envoy successfully negotiates an agreement that includes a water-sharing plan and a joint management committee. The focus on tangible outcomes—such as the equitable distribution of water resources and the creation of a framework for future cooperation—proves effective in resolving the conflict without the parties having to engage in face-to-face confrontations.
Conciliation is also used when parties do not want to meet because it’s impractical or, in some cases, potentially dangerous. Like the conflict-resolver in shuttle diplomacy, the conciliator moves back and forth between the parties.
However, the difference between conciliation and shuttle diplomacy is that conciliation focuses on both the nontangible and the tangible.
Thus, the conciliator will address issues of tension and communication between the parties because those issues are important to the relationship.
IN CONTEXT
Consider a situation involving two large technology companies, Cookie Co and BakeIt Inc., that are embroiled in a conflict over a patent dispute. The nature of the conflict is such that direct meetings between the two companies could lead to heated arguments and further escalate the dispute. The companies also have long-standing rivalries and concerns about confidentiality and security.
To manage the conflict, a professional conciliator is appointed. The conciliator’s role is to address not only the tangible issues related to the patent rights but also the underlying relationship tensions and communication barriers between the two companies.
The conciliator starts by meeting with Cookie Co’s leadership team, listening to their concerns about the patent and the frustrations they feel regarding BakeIt Inc.’s stance. The conciliator then moves to BakeIt Inc.’s offices to understand their perspective and the reasons behind their position on the patent.
As the conciliator shuttles between the two companies, they focus on both tangible and intangible elements. They work to de-escalate the tensions by addressing communication issues and misunderstandings that have built up over time. For example, the conciliator helps both parties recognize each other’s concerns and misgivings, which have contributed to the strained relationship.
In addition to negotiating a practical resolution for the patent dispute—such as licensing agreements or settlements—the conciliator facilitates improved communication channels and suggests ways to rebuild trust between the companies. The goal is to resolve the immediate legal conflict while also improving the long-term working relationship between Cookie Co and BakeIt Inc.
As you can see, all six of these methods are certainly appropriate at one time or another. Their suitability in a given situation depends upon the specifics of the following:
IN CONTEXT
Parties involved:Issues and needs:
- Department A: Led by Manager X, responsible for product development
- Department B: Led by Manager Y, responsible for marketing and sales
Location:
- Conflict over the launch of a new product line: Department A accuses Department B of insufficient marketing support and missed deadlines, while Department B claims they were not adequately informed about the product specifications and timelines.
- Both departments feel their concerns are not being heard, leading to strained communication and collaboration.
Stage or intensity of conflict:
- Both departments are located in different wings of the corporate headquarters, making face-to-face meetings convenient but potentially emotionally charged.
Determine appropriate methods of conflict resolution:
- The conflict has escalated to a point where productivity and morale are being affected, and there is a risk of project delays impacting company revenue.
Restorative justice:Mediation:
- Appropriateness: Restorative justice focuses on repairing harm and restoring relationships. This scenario could involve facilitated dialogues between the managers and team members from both departments to discuss their grievances, understand each other’s perspectives, and agree on actions to move forward collaboratively.
Collaborative law:
- Appropriateness: Mediation involves a neutral third party facilitating discussions to help parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. It would be suitable here if both departments were willing to engage in a structured process to address their concerns and find common ground under the guidance of a mediator.
Arbitration:
- Appropriateness: Collaborative law involves lawyers working in a collaborative rather than an adversarial manner to resolve disputes. In this context, if legal considerations regarding contracts or intellectual property rights are involved in the product launch, collaborative law principles could guide discussions to ensure legal compliance while fostering cooperation.
Shuttle diplomacy:
- Appropriateness: Arbitration involves a neutral arbitrator making a binding decision based on the presented evidence. If the conflict between the departments escalates despite attempts at mediation or collaborative discussions, the parties could choose arbitration to resolve specific disputes, such as contractual obligations or resource allocations.
Conciliation:
- Appropriateness: Shuttle diplomacy involves a mediator or facilitator conducting separate meetings with each party to convey proposals and bridge gaps. It could be useful if direct negotiations between Departments A and B are too emotionally charged or confrontational initially, allowing for a gradual approach to building trust and consensus.
Conclusion: In this scenario, the suitability of each method depends on the parties involved (Managers X and Y or their respective teams), the issues at stake (product launch disagreements), the location (convenient access within the corporate headquarters), and the stage of conflict (moderate intensity affecting productivity). Employing a combination of these methods could help resolve the dispute effectively, restore collaboration, and ensure the successful launch of the new product line while maintaining positive working relationships within the organization.
- Appropriateness: Conciliation involves a neutral third party facilitating discussions to clarify issues and propose solutions. It would be appropriate here if there is a need for a structured process to address specific grievances related to communication breakdowns or misunderstandings between the departments.
Source: THIS TUTORIAL WAS AUTHORED BY MARLENE JOHNSON (2019) and STEPHANIE MENEFEE and TRACI CULL (2024). PLEASE SEE OUR TERMS OF USE.
