Introduction

Third party resolution of conflict is an attempt by a relatively neutral person to help the parties
resolve their differences. There are various types of third party conflict resolution. Three,
namely, arbitration, inquisition and mediation, are the core type. The rest include fact-finding and
alternative dispute resolution. Each of these types of third party intervention solves disputes in
specific ways. An arbitrator is a neutral third party who after hearing from both the sides about
the dispute determines a final, binding outcome. In the case of inquisition, inquisitors control all
discussion about the conflict. The inquisitor chooses which information to examine and how to
examine it, and generally decides how the conflict resolution process will be handled. He has
high control over decisions like arbitration. Mediation process involves a neutral third party that
encourages interaction between the disputants but has no authority to force a solution upon them.
In fact-finding a neutral third party determines a reasonable solution to the dispute based upon
the evidence presented by the parties as in the mediation the parties are not bound to follow the
recommendations of the fact-finder.
Mediation
Basic features of mediation process are as follow:

1. Parties agree to mediate.

2. Mediator is selected.
3. Mediation session is scheduled.
4. Mediation session is conducted.
5. If parties agree to settle, than case is closed.
6. If parties disagree and deadlock is reached then arbitration process follows.
The mediation session can be described in the following manner.

Mediator's opening statement The mediator's opening statement is used to build

rapport with the disputants so that the later discussion will be open and candid. The
opening statement begins with the introduction of the parties involved in the
process for mediation including mediator. Mediator then commends the disputants
that they agreed to meet and state the goals for the mediation that is for the parties
to find a solution that will be fair and workable in the long run and explains the very
high success.
Disputants opening statement The mediator job is to help disputants tell their
story. Besides asking clarifying questions, the mediators should echo comments and
summarize statement and order to fully understand.
Discussion age This stage begins with direct exchange between parties. The factual
information shared may be helpful in narrowing areas of conflict . The mediator can
also help the parties to reframe the issue. Reframing refers to redefining an image
of reality.
Caucus After some period of joint negotiations The discussion often bog down.
Parties begin to restate their positions repeatedly and all proposed solution are
rejected . At this point the mediator must gain a better understanding of the impasse
and provide the parties with an atmosphere that is conducive to exploring new ideas
without the threat of their immediate rejection.
Reaching agreement If the mediator has done his job properly, the final rounds of
joint negotiation will have a collaborative rather than a competitive tone. The parties
will understand the issues which have been reduced in scope and number during
mediation process. The mediator's job at this stage is to keep the parties focused on
the real issues and to facilitate the changing negotiation.

MEDIATION is a form of negotiation. As a neutral third party, mediator encourages

interaction between the disputants. It has no decision-making power but has high control
 over the intervention process. The main purpose of the mediators is to manage the
process and context of interaction between the disputing parties. However, the parties
make the final decision about how to resolve their differences.
Mediator's key objectives is to get the conflicting parties to look at the problems
objectively, instead of playing any blame game.
It helps parties in accepting one another viewpoint as valid and tries to make one party to
understand others viewpoint.
The purpose is to try and find common ground.
The goal of mediation is to find ways of communicating with mutual trust and a genuine
desire to set an example for others.
The role of the mediator is to create an environment conducive to reaching an agreement
by the disputants.

Arbitration
An arbitrator is a neutral party and is chosen by the concerned parties. His task is to listen to the
cause of the problem. The charted institute of arbitrators describes arbitration as a procedure
for the settlement of disputes, under which the parties agree to be bound by the decision of an
arbitrator whose decision is in general final and legally binding on both parties. It adds that as a
dispute resolution procedure arbitration is the only means of dispute resolution, which is an
alternative to litigation because an arbitrators award is final binding and enforceable summarily
in the courts. The royal institutions of chartered surveyors RICS, in its advice on dispute
resolution gives the following explanation: Arbitration is procedure whereby two parties in a
dispute agree to be bound by the decision of a third party acting as an arbitrator. It involves
independent expert determinations. It is a process where by the parties to a dispute agree to be
bound by the decision of a third party that has expert knowledge of the subject matter in dispute.
Therefore, the arbitrators decisions are final and binding upon both the parties but he has low
control over the processes of interaction between the disputing partners unlike mediation.
Executives engage in this strategy by following previously agreed upon rules of due process,
listening to arguments from the disputing employees and making a binding decision. Unionized
employees apply arbitrations as a final stage of grievances, but it is also becoming a more
common in non union conflicts. The vast majority of unsettled customer disputes are resolved
through arbitration. The use of arbitration means alternative dispute resolution is generally
viewed as an efficient manner of resolving the dispute before an imperial panel of arbitrators. As
an alternative to the courts, arbitration has been considered preferable as quicker and less
expensive means of resolving problems. Since arbitration has less formal rules on procedures and
evidence, it is designed to avoid getting bogged down in procedural of technical problems so as
to be able to
focus on the facts
and issues in
dispute.

Arbitration is preferred if the parties to a dispute cannot reach an agreement with mediation
process, or if the mediator determines it is not useful to continue, mediation is terminated and the
parties to arbitration. The disputing parties have to select an arbitrator from among the available
members of disputing resolution committee. If they fail to make a selection then an arbitrator is
appointed. During arbitration, a single arbitrator hears arguments, issues and awards, which she
or he consider just and reasonable. The award of an arbitrator is final and binding, subject only
limited rights of appeal of review as prescribed by applicable law.

The basic features of arbitration process ae as follows:

1. Selection/appointment of an arbitrator.
2. Both parties to submit in written copies of documents, list of documents, list of witness,
anticipatory evidences, etc.
3. Analysis of the facts.
4. Fixing of date, location and time of hearing by arbitrator.
5. Hearing held and arbitrator deliberates.
6. Award written and served.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) :

ADR is a third-party dispute resolution process that includes a number of processes like
negotiation and mediation followed by arbitration. The common denominator of all ADR
methods is that they are faster, less formalistic, cheaper and often less adversarial than a court
trial. ADR typically begins with a meeting between the employee and employer to clarify and
negotiates their differences. If this fails, a mediator is brought in to help the parties reach a
mutually agreeable solution. ADR is used in cases where conflicts seem to become ready for
resolution. ADR is generally faster and less expensive. Its outcome gives more satisfaction to the
people concerned as well as their compliance. ADR processes are based on an integrative
approach.
Managerial Dispute Resolution:
Dispute resolution constitutes an important managerial being of the organization. Managers often
serve as third parties to a conflict resolution process. The process involves intervening in
disputes between their subordinates and groups or departments for which they are responsible.
Disputes can arise between subordinates concerning job performance, property and personal
rights, usurpation of responsibility, company policy and discrimination.
Managers use different types of intervention strategies to solve the disputes. The strategies can
be described in terms of the degree of outcome control and the degree of process control wielded
by the third party. The manager can intervene as judges, inquisitors, mediators, avoiders,
delegators or providers of impetus. It can be inquisitorial intervention, providing impetus and
adversarial intervention, acting as advisor, investigator and restructurer, and procedural marshal.
Manager as judge exerts high degree of control over the outcome of the conflict but not the
process by which it is resolved. He can allow both sides to present whatever facts, evidence or
arguments they desire and then decide the outcome of the conflict. He has the power to enforce
that decision on the disputants. Manager as inquisitor exerts high degrees of control over the
process as well as on the outcome of conflict resolution. He directs the presentation of evidence,
asks questions, acts as referees, and calls for evidence not willingly offered. Manager as mediator
exerts high degrees of control over the process of conflict resolution, but not its outcome. A
mediator may separate the parties, interview them and bring them back together. As mediator, the
manager may separate the parties and ferry proposals back and forth between them to help them
forget their own solution. In other words, they act as avoiders, delegators and the providers of
impetus tactic. As avoiders they prefer to find ways to ignore the conflict or minimize its
importance. As delegators they recognize that the conflict exists, but try to return responsibility
for its solution to the disputants or get someone else to accept it. By providing impetus tactic he
delegates the conflict back to the parties with a threat either you resolve this or the manager will
resolve the problem. This is a solution that obviously nobody will like.
The intervention strategy options range from a very limited intervention to a completely
controlled intervention. It is critical for managers to select suitable intervention strategy for
solving the conflicts. If managed properly, it can enhance organizational performance by
challenging status quo, fostering creativity and innovative problem-solving, promoting periodic
evaluations of units goals and activities, and leading to improved organizational policies and
operations.
Most of the time the managers try to use strategies that controlled outcomes when there seems
too much pressures, the disputants were not likely to work together in the future, and settlement
had board implications for the resolution of other disputes. While resolving disputes of third
party, managers use certain criteria. They include ensuring fairness towards disputants, getting at
the facts, maximizing the probability of a similar conflict arising in the future, and speeding up
the resolution etc. Sometimes they attach greater importance to certain criteria based on their
background e.g. professional training and experience.
While selecting the intervention strategy, the objective of intervention should be on efficiency,
effectiveness, satisfaction, and fairness. If the focus is on quick solution then managers should
use inquisitorial style: in the case of optimal solution, the managerial style choice is between
inquisitor and judge. However, if the solution is determined on the issues, then the manager has
little concern with controlling the conflict-resolving process, then the strategic choice should
probably be to act like a judge.
Selection of intervention strategy depends on how the managers interpret and understand the
dispute. In this context, it is important to understand the role of various cognitive biases and
heuristics, e.g. framing effects, availability biases and scripts and schemas in managerial third-
party intervention in disputes between subordinates.

Effects Due to Availability

Individuals often assess the frequency of a class or the probability of an event by ease with
which the event or occurrence can be brought to mind, i.e. the availability of the event in their
cognition. This is one of the various biases and heuristics that affect judgment under uncertainty.
Reliance on availability, in turn, leads to biases stemming from the retrievability of events, the
ability to imagine events or contingencies, and illusory correlation when making decisions under
uncertainty. Retrievability of events refers to the ease with which events or occurrences can be
remembered and recalled from memory. When the events are readily available in the memory
they can be easily retrieved and used. When the managerial third they can be easily retrieved and
used. When the managerial third party is familiar with a certain intervention strategy (e.g.
mediation) he or she is more likely to use that strategy when intervening in the dispute. For
example, a manager who has just witnessed or read about the successful mediation of a dispute
in the media is more likely to use the same or a similar strategy when he/she has to intervene in a
dispute. The second factor that would affect strategy selection in managerial third-party
intervention is illusory correlation. Illusory correlation refers to the tendency to overestimate the
frequency of co-occurrence of two events or the strength of relationship between them based on
the ease with which the two events can be readily associated with each other. This tendency and
the belief in the association exist even when there is no scientific evidence or findings to
associate the two events. If a manager has been exposed to or had used a certain intervention
strategy in the past to intervene in a dispute, and the intervention was successful, then he/she
might assume a correlation between the intervention strategy and success of the intervention. The
probability of an intervention strategy being selected by a managerial third party will be directly
related to the past degree of success associated with its use.
Scripts and schemas

Individuals often hold implicit theories of events, persons and causality that partially govern their
daily decisions and actions. These implicit theories, labelled scripts (event schemas) and person
schemas, govern information processing especially in familiar situations by setting in motion the
appropriate behaviors. Once the individual has decided, based on his/ her perception of the
stimuli from the situation, which script or schema to activate, the need for conscious processing
of information. Although the use of these implicit theories. Facilities and quickens information.
Processing of new or conflicting information since such information is largely ignored while
following the script or schema. If the intervening manager has a certain script for handling
disputes, them this script would be activated and the intervention strategy stored in the script
would be used. It is possible that the manager has more than one dispute handling script in which
case the selection of an intervention strategy would depend on which script thus depends on the
stimuli perceived by the intervening manager. Research findings by Sheppard and his
assassinates reveal that third parties tend to adopt certain frames (e.g. right wrong frame) to
make sense of disputants, which might prompt certain intervention strategy to be used. For
example, a manager who perceived his subordinates as fitting the immature prototype might
use an autocratic intervention strategy (high on outcome and process control). Depending on
which schema is activated, the manager might use an autocratic intervention strategy (High on
outcome and process control). Depending on which schema is activated, the manager might
choose a certain intervention strategy to deal with the dispute. A managers attribution of the
underlying causes of a dispute, would also influence how he/she intervenes in the dispute. This is
known as implicit theory of causality. For example, a manager who always perceives the dispute
to be caused by structural problems (external to the disputants) might decide that the best way to
resolve the dispute would be to fix the structural problem play the restructurers role, and
unilaterally decide on the outcome by implementing a change in the system (high outcome-
control intervention). On the other hand, if he attributes the dispute to the interaction problems
between the disputants then the manager may try to improve the relationship between the two
people by acting as a mediator and letting the two disputants resolve the dispute on their own
high on process control but low on outcome control). So, in effect the theories of attribution held
by the manager will significantly influence the section of an intervention strategy. The
probability of an intervention strategy being selected by a managerial third party will be directly
related to the activation of his scripts, schemas and attributions relevant to that strategy.

Theses biases and heuristics do not act in isolation; there are different individual and situation-
related varieties that influence strategy selection and settlement decisions. For example, the
importance of the dispute and time pressure and supervisory experience would influence
selection of an intervention strategy. It is perhaps more accurate to contend that these cognitives.
Biases and heuristics interact with other key variables do affect managerial third-party
intervention.