Alternative Dispute Resolution

A. Please define in your own words:

1. Mediation
2. Arbitration
3. Alternative Dispute Resolution

In your own words, please answer the following:

a. Who controls the outcome and what degree of control would you have in each of these three methods?
b. What is the cost/expense consideration in each of these three methods?
c. If you involved in a dispute, which would you prefer and why?

B. What insights would one gain from reading this text (see below - Interpersonal Communication) that relate to the work environment? Please provide an example in your own words.

Impersonal Communications

One particular area that now operates at unprecedented speed is that of certain types of communication. E-mails go at 3000 miles a second and, for the most part, people expect a prompt reply. Alongside this a range of "new" communications methods now carry a significant proportion of business communications; such include: mobile phones, answer phones and voicemail, videoconferencing and teleconferencing, text messages, multi-media communications etc.
Much negotiating is, of course, face to face. Indeed much of it is best conducted face to face, but other methods are necessary, if only as a single part of the overall transaction. Consider face to face communications for a moment. Much of the information that moves to and fro is enhanced (and sometimes diluted) by visual signals. Messages can easily be reinforced by checking, repetition, clarification and discussion; by all the to and fro interaction of people dealing directly with each other.

Other forms of communication, whether sending a written proposal or an e-mail, are not like this. They are certainly fast, but they are less personal, they prohibit visual signals and may lack "quality." As an illustration of this last point consider the difference between a letter and an e-mail. One looks good (provided you have a well designed letterhead). It gives the impression that some trouble has been taken and projects a fuller image of the writer. The e-mail does not look good, may follow a much less formal style and not give anything like the same impression of quality. Like many people I am sure, I find that many very brief e-mails that I receive are not precisely clear. Further communications must sometimes go to and fro maybe several times before both parties are clear. With many things this matters little (though it can be annoying and time consuming); with negotiation such lack of immediate precision may matter a great deal.
So, with this in mind consider the following.

? Plan communications carefully, taking time as necessary to get them right.
? Select the communication method carefully and in light of all the elements that make one method different from another.
? Recognize any limitations, especially of a lack of visual clues.
? Check that the right message has got across, especially when you have to use the fast route.

We have more options for communications now than at any time in the past. We can set up conference calls, we can make them video conference calls, we can sit at our computer and see on screen something that someone wants to explain to us as they do so, and we can respond faster than ever to messages that come to us in a plethora of different ways. However, the responsibility for getting a message right, for making the communication work, remains with the communicator. You have to make the right communications choice, plan and execute it to achieve a precision of understanding and not be seduced into thinking that because a few lines on the e-mail is easiest it is also always best.
Remember one characteristic of the e-mail-it can be deleted in a split second with one click of the mouse.