HRMT413 Week 7 Discussion

This week, we will discuss workplace conflict and conflict resolution strategies.

1. Explain the difference between mediation and arbitration. What are the pros and cons of each? Why might an employer pursue one strategy over another?

2. How do remote work arrangements alter the conflict landscape? What are some common conflicts that surface in a remote work environment? Why do you think these manifest more often in a remote work setting versus a typical face-to-face office environment?

1. Mediation is when an unbiased third party is asked to sit in on a disagreement between two parties and help them compromise and find a solution that is good for everyone. Mediation is normally between two groups who have a long standing relationship and are experiencing a minor disagreement because it ends up in a compromise instead of a one side winning and the other losing. Arbitration is just the opposite and always has a winner and a loser which is determined by the arbiter who is normally someone in a position of power over the two parties that are disagreeing. There are definitely pros and cons of both. Mediation would be a much better way to approach a disagreement with someone who you wanted to continue working with in the future and arbitration would be a bit aggressive and could ruin your working relationship with them. On the other hand, if the disagreement is serious enough, I don't think mediation is what you would want to go for because that means the person you have a serious disagreement with would still get part of what they want.

2. One of the major issues that I could see arising from the wave of remote work that came about during the pandemic is loss of productivity. Especially because there's no boss that's right there to tell you to kick it up a notch. In that instance, there can be many different reasons for the employees productivity going down and all of them could be legitimate. That's why I think mediation is the best move when it comes to remote work.