Third Party Conflict Resolution

Third Party Conflict Resolution

How many times has it been said “if only everyone would just agree on one thing”? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Disagreement and conflict are just a part of life. What makes the difference is how those disagreements and conflicts are dealt with. In the business world, it is imperative to deal with disagreement and conflict in a manner that is cost-efficient and productive for both parties. Often a situation arises that requires careful handling as to not make matters worse and ultimately come to a solution that is agreeable to both parties. This paper will discuss the situation of The Seatcor Manufacturing Company and analyze three possible intervention strategies. This paper will also discuss which strategy is best for the situation and develop a contingency plan.

The Situation

Team C is senior vice president of operations and chief operating officer of Seatcor Manufacturing Company. Team C is currently trying to figure out the best way to approach a situation involving a subordinate, Joe Gibbons. Joe is the vice president and general manager of the largest assembly plant. In 38 years of working at Seatcor, Joe worked his way through the ranks and has “successfully operated his division for five years with a marginally competent staff” (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2007). Joe’s only setback, as Team C observed, is that Joe purposely surrounds himself with minimally competent people as though he feels threaten by those who are talented. A year ago, Team C convinced Joe to hire Charles Stewart as assistant vice president and second in command. Charles has done a good job and is an aspirant replacement for when Joe retires in two years. However, Team C has learned over lunch with Charles that Joe and Charles’ working relationship is strenuous. Also, it is alarming that Joe is in the process of completing a five-year plan for his plant and has not involved Charles. Team C feels that Joe should include Charles in the planning as it would benefit both the future success of the plant and Charles’ growth his current and/or future position. Team C is in a predicament as the intent is to not offend Joe since he has done such a great job and has a good judgment.

Possible Intervention Strategies

Team C must act a third-party intervention and resolve this conflict between Joe and Charles. There are three types of intervention strategies that Team C can utilize which are Arbitration, Mediation, and Process Consultants.

Arbitration. According to (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2006), “arbitration allows negotiators to have considerable control over the process but they have little to nonexistent control over outcomes.” Arbitration is most recognized and often used when the parties involved cannot come to an agreement. In this form of intervention, a neutral third-party,