[MUSIC] Good morning. Before we go further in our discussion of mediation in the workplace, it's important to bear in mind the fact that most organizations have a variety of methods and processes of conflict resolution available to them. And that over time, a stable system of those processes will have become established. These may be quite informal, such as management open-door policy. Or on the contrary, strictly formalized, as in an established union management arbitration procedure. In arbitration, a third party listens to the parties in conflict, evaluates the arguments and evidence, and then gives an independent and authoritative judgment on the course of action to follow. The process is quite different to mediation. We should note that mediation may or may not become a part of an organization's dispute resolution system. In the following lectures, we need to consider carefully what are the strengths and weaknesses of mediation as one specific method within such a framework. However, first of all, we need to raise the question of the criteria or benchmarks for evaluating dispute resolution processes. Let's consider the framework for assessment developed by professors Budd and Colvin, which is comprehensive. They proposed three main criteria for evaluation. Efficiency, equity and voice. And show the different processes for conflict resolution, informal or formal, rate high or low on each of them. In doing so, they clarify the impacts of different processes. And also provide a guide for the choice of elements to be included in a dispute resolution system. An efficient procedure for Budd and Colvin is one that makes effective use of scarce resources. One which limits costs which are incurred, financial ones, but also others such as stress. It can be implemented and get the parties to a resolution relatively quickly. And finally, promotes productive employment by minimizing disruptions that can be damaging to work processes and activities. Further, a dispute resolution procedure is equitable when it promotes fairness, and involves unbiased and objective decision-making. Equity demands that the procedure provides effective remedies when rights are violated. Individuals in similar circumstances should get similar treatment and face similar but not necessarily identical resolutions. Individual participants should be treated with sensitivity, respect, and privacy. And there should be safeguards and transparency via rights to appeal decisions and third party neutrality. So that arbitrariness is combated and accountability high. Finally, equity requires that a dispute resolution procedure has wide coverage. And be available to both managers and employees, irrespective of gender, ethnic, national or personal factors. Voice is an aspect of a dispute process that refers to how much it is possible for individuals to participate actively in its operation and make it accountable to them. Being able to attend a formal hearing, presenting evidence for one's case, and being assisted by a lawyer and/or representative, are all crucial examples of the exercising of voice. Playing a role in the construction of the system itself is also pertinent here. As Budd and Colvin insist, equity and voice are distinct criteria, which each have their own separate importance. They should not be merged into one element. To understand this, we can imagine a system that generates fair decisions but lacks any involvement, and influence of participants in the process. For example, the management of employees through benevolent paternalism may treat workers quite well. But it monopolizes control over the processes and outcomes of complaints and disputes. No employee or union input and control leaves open the danger of manipulation and bias. The triangle diagram gives Budd and Colvin's comparison of certain procedures in terms of their three criteria. The two joint management union processes, referred to in the first column in blue, will have been negotiated by those parties. They usually involve procedures like the presentation of evidence and employee representation at fair hearings, which increase voice and accountability. Column two, in black, refers to procedures designed and piloted principally by HR or line managers in the firm. They may be rapid and cost effective but lack accountability to employees and representatives. The third column, in red, mentions judicial procedures, like those in tribunals. And while they do well in terms of equity and the defense of rights, they can be slow and costly. Their efficiency is relatively low. In the next videos, we will keep the three Budd and Colvin criteria in mind when we look at the role of mediation in dispute management. In addition, we will look at the specific challenges mediators can face when they tackle individual grievances on the one hand and collective inter-group conflicts on the other.
