MIT Sloan Management Review

Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations

 

How to Design a Conflict Management Procedure That Fits Your Dispute

By Danny Ertel

July 15, 1991

LITIGATION, ARBITRATION, mediation, mini-trial—choosing from the menu of dispute resolution processes can be difficult. Ertel argues that, instead of choosing from available options, managers should consider building their own. Each dispute has its own history and characteristics that will dictate the most appropriate resolution process and settlement. In this article, he elaborates a series of steps for developing this process. By thoroughly understanding the nature of the conflict, managers can prescribe remedies and lead their organizations toward a solution of mutual gain.

Buy article & permissions

IN ANCIENT GREECE, a tale was told of a roadside inn where a traveler might find lodging for the night, and although the traveler might be tall, short, fat, or thin, the inn’s bed fit all just the same. The innkeeper, of course, was Procrustes, a giant who tied travelers to the bedstead and either stretched them or chopped their legs to make them fit. Many business disputes seem to be approached this way today: no matter how diverse the parties, issues, or stakes, litigation is the answer. And even those managers or counsel who, unlike Procrustes’ guests, perceive a choice among several available “beds”—litigation, arbitration, or even mini-trials—rarely make further attempts to tailor the dispute resolution process to the conflict at hand. Instead they allow the parties to be realigned, the issues reframed, or the stakes redefined.

Managers must deal with a broad range of conflicts, many of which involve parties external to the organization: valuable business partners, threatening competitors, or inquisitive regulators. But scorched-earth litigation followed by an on-the-courthouse-steps settlement is clearly not the answer to every dispute. Dealing with a competitor turned potential alliance partner whose third-level subsidiary may be infringing on a patent calls for a different approach than does responding to a “professional plaintiff” who has filed a frivolous shareholder derivative suit. Both of these may be different still from... To read the complete article, login or sign-up using the form below.

 
 

In This Issue

 

Best Sellers