Putting the cart before the horse: the benefits of arbitrating before mediating.
The authors examined the impact of 2 hybrid dispute resolution procedures (mediation-arbitration [med-arb] and arbitration-mediation [arb-med]) and 3 disputant dyadic structures (individual vs. individual, individual vs. team, and team vs. team) on various dispute outcomes. Consistent with W. H. Ross and D. E. Conlon (2000), the authors found that disputants in the arb-med procedure (a) settled in the mediation phase of their procedure more frequently and (b) achieved settlements of higher joint benefit than did disputants in the med-arb procedure. These results suggest that arb-med may be a dispute resolution procedure with broader applicability than originally imagined.
Conlon
Donald E
DE
Department of Management, Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University, East Lansing 48824-1122, USA. conlon@msu.edu
Moon
Henry
H
Ng
K Yee
KY
D003220:Conflict, Psychological; D006801:Humans; D017008:Negotiating; D011897:Random Allocation