Mock ADR Arbitration – Case A (S)
Part I. Arbitration Analysis Report
- Type of conflict: Case A is an example of active conflict. All the parties knew the issue of contention was the use of the Arabic language in public space where there are non-Arabic speakers.
- Source of conflict: The source of conflict in case A is directive to have an English-only city. The parties do not agree that the English-only rule serves common interest. The issue is that using a language that another section hinders the organizational communication process. Besides, the conflict is a matter of values or principles in which one group feel threatened when people use a foreign language around.
- Diagrams of conflict parties. After describing the issues in the conflict, it is essential to map the elements to understand the relationship. Walton (2018, p. 200) states that diagram representation of conflicts explains the interests and roles of each party and the contribution of stakeholders. From this perspective, the arbitrators can understand complaints and difficulties in getting to an appropriate solution.
- Interest analysis of each disputant. For the first complainant, their position is that the use of the Arabic language in public prevents them from understanding the message and also makes them uncomfortable. However, the second complainant claims that the use of Arabic does not threaten other people, and the new law curtails the rights of bilingual speakers. Assessing the interest of disputing parties is relevant when several issues overlap (Väyrynen, 2018, p. 4). In this case, understand how each team perceives the law is fundamental in making a decision.
Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
- The conflict management style of each disputant. The conflict management style must consider personal and other people’s needs. When both variables are high, the parties must cooperate, but when they compete, they have to compromise (Ayub et al., 2017, p. 672). In this case, all groups must be willing to forgo some interest for the sake of the entire group.
- Recommended conflict management style: The bilingual speakers should compromise in this conflict to meet the concerns of their colleagues. On the other hand, the complainant should cooperate as they have a deeper concern for themselves and others.
- The stimulus that has caused conflict. The stimuli for this conflict is the perception created by unknown language. Morís et al. (2017, p. 5693) claim that brains create an illusion when exposed to new syllables resulting in psychological stress. The people against the use of Arabic base the argument on not knowing what is at stake even though there is no present danger.
- Perceptual distortion of the conflict. This conflict depends on the perception of the effects of using Arabic in public. Jodoin & Ayers (2017, p. 140) claim that a distorted perception is an impediment to conflict resolution in an organization. When making a decision, the arbitrator must clear negative opinions to make a logical conclusion.
- Is the conflict destructive or obstructive? The case is a destructive conflict as one either party believes that a win from the opponent is dangerous.
- Levels of trust between disputants: This case is an example of a knowledge-based trust. According to Jamal (2016, p. 222), knowledge-based trust exists where the opposing teams know each other. Both parties are aware of language usage and have a reason to object to the opponent’s suggestion.
- Obstacles to conflict resolution: A solution to the matter demands a comprehensive assessment of impediments of the process. Some of the challenges in conflict resolution include lack of trust, need for revenge, varying perceptions, sabotage, over-commitment, and holding of information (Boonyawongwiwat, 2018, p. 3). Addressing the challenges is crucial in ensuring the solution comes from adequately explored scenarios.
- Sources of power present in the conflict. The solution to the conflict depends on personal preference, relationship, and environmental sources of power. The decision will affect the work environment and how people relate. Besides, if the decision is inclined to one side, it will only meet the interests of one group.
Part II. Arbitration Reflection
Reflection #1
The assessment of other disputant position was correct as it reflected on the arguments presented by each party. The other disputant position was that restraining them to English was against their heritage and culture. The interest was that the law limited their association with fellow Arabic speakers. Their concern was that so long as they are passing their message, they should not be limited to a language choice.
As an arbitrator, the approach to resolving the conflict worked because of considering all the variables in the conflict. I managed to identify the type of conflict, sources, and develop strategies to get to a solution. Furthermore, utilizing perception, levels of trust, obstacles, and sources of power help in understanding a problem. This comprehensive approach offered the parties with many options for decision making.
The areas worth changing include the limitations and exceptions of the decision. The should not apply where the use of either language has no adverse effect on others. Besides, providing the bilingual with spaces to freely express themselves in their language, such as Arabic radio stations, to protect every culture.
The outcome of the arbitration was satisfactory. The arbitrator took long to address various elements in the case before concluding the matter. Moreover, every party was ready to compromise and cooperate to ensure the decision was mutual.
This experience will help me in solving workplace disputes. The analysis has taught me some of the essential elements in the assessment of disputes. Moreover, I have known the value of giving each team a chance to express their concerns and position. Thought arbitration, it is possible to maintain a cohesive workplace where everyone is satisfied.
Reflection #2
The assessment of the other disputant position was not correct. I was mistaken to consider they were taking a selfish position, and they had no basis of argument. My opinion was that they had no business knowing what we are saying as long as it does not concern them. The truth was that locking other people out of a conversation hurts a healthy work environment.
As an arbitrator, I failed to resolve the dispute as I inclined my argument to one side. I was more concerned about the effect on the general public than what the language meant to the people. In the next arbitration, there is a need to consider both teams equally. Allow them to explain the advantages and disadvantages and side with the argument of more significant concern.
As a disputant, next time, I will pay attention to others’ opinions from an objective perspective. Subjective judgment limited my ability to see the logic in the opponent’s argument, and that slowed the decision-making process. As the arbitrator, I will need to give every group an equal chance to express their concern and make a judgment by comparing the points. I had prejudged the case, and that limited me from making a decision that satisfies all groups.
I was not satisfied with the outcome of the judgment as it was biased. The arbitrator did not give equal chances, and the decision relied on the points from one group. Besides, the opposing parties were not willing to compromise their position to accommodate the interest of other groups. The whole process relied on subjective opinions.
This experience will be valuable in solving future disputes as it highlighted possible mistakes in arbitration. I will be able to conclude future matters in a manner appreciated by everyone.
Reflection #3
My assessment of the disputant position was correct, as I considered their cultural argument. We both agreed that Arabic was an integral part of their heritage, and they had the freedom to preserve their identity. I was able to convince them that as they protect their interest, it is also vital to maintain the relationship with other groups. Finally, they agreed to compromise their positions only to use the Arabic language when it does not tamper with work relation or the interest of others.
My tactic as an arbitrator worked as all the groups agreed to the solution. I did not only look at the elements of the case but also the effects of both decisions. Moreover, each side had a chance to convince the other on the right decision. From the argument, everyone agreed on what they could compromise and areas to cooperate. This approach convinced everyone that the decision was for the benefit of everyone in the city.
This arbitration was the most straightforward conflict resolution, and there is nothing worth changing. In any case, it should be a model for others to emulate. The teams cooperated, and everyone was ready to listen more than speak. Furthermore, the arbitrator took a neutral position, which was crucial in making a decision. The process made it easy for the disputants to agree on a cooperation deal that suits everyone.
The decision was satisfactory as the members could quickly agree on the contentious issue. Moreover, there was no evidence of bias from the arbitrator, and that made it easy for all groups to accept the decision.
This experience is necessary for future leadership and solving conflicts in my community. There are several disputes on shared resources. This knowledge will assist in getting the community to share the resources sustainably. Besides, I can use this experience to teach other people on conflict management in their organizations.
References
Ayub, N., AlQurashi, S. M., Al-Yafi, W. A., & Jehn, K. (2017). Personality traits and conflict management styles in predicting job performance and conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management. (28) 5: 671-694. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-12-2016-0105
Boonyawongwiwat, T. (2018). Obstacles to Conflict Transformation in Myanmar: A Case Study of the Ta’ang National Liberation Army. Journal of Mekong Societies, 14(3), 1-18. https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/mekongjournal/article/view/164001
Jamal, A. (2016). Trust, Ethics, and Intentionality in Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation. In The Role of Trust in Conflict Resolution (pp. 215-239). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43355-4_12
Jodoin, E. C., & Ayers, D. F. (2017). Communication conflict styles, perception of ethical environment, and job satisfaction among college and university counselors. Journal of College Counseling, 20(2), 139-153. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocc.12066
Morís F, L., Macaluso, E., & Soto‐Faraco, S. (2017). Audiovisual integration as conflict resolution: The conflict of the McGurk illusion. Human brain mapping, 38(11), 5691-5705. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23758
Väyrynen, T. (2018). Culture and international conflict resolution: A critical analysis of the work of John Burton. https://www.manchesterhive.com/view/9781526130990/9781526130990.xml.
Walton, D. (2018). Conflict diagrams for cross-examination dialogues. Argumentation and Advocacy, 54(3), 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2018.1442977