We are here with you hands in hands to facilitate your learning & don't appreciate the idea of copying or replicating solutions. Read More>>

Looking For Something at vustudents.ning.com? Click Here to Search


+ Link For Assignments, GDBs & Online Quizzes Solution


+ Link For Past Papers, Solved MCQs, Short Notes & More

Dear Students! Share your Assignments / GDBs / Quizzes files as you receive in your LMS, So it can be discussed/solved timely. Add Discussion

How to Add New Discussion in Study Group ? Step By Step Guide Click Here.


please any one, solve it for all. I hope to hear soon from you.

The top management of a large fertilizer manufacturing company recently faced a sudden crisis as its
HR manager resigned because of the increasing number of conflicts within the organization. The
organization urgently hired a new HR manager who had ten years of professional experience of HR
matters in the same sector. The newly hired HR manager was initially given a task of departmental
restructuring for reducing the number of departmental conflicts and for clarifying the departmental
goals – for which a new performance management system was also developed by him.
Recent performance appraisal reports in the organization have shown that there have been increasing
numbers of departmental conflicts, especially among the managers and employees, mainly because of
the differences on performance matters. Moreover, last year’s turnover ratio has been significantly
high, which is a real concern for the top management. Now this newly hired HR manager has been
give the task to explore the actual reasons behind these issues and to settle the matter as soon as
The new HR manager thinks that he needs to establish mutually acceptable goals in the first phase –
along with the preparation of individual job descriptions by the HR department for all the employees.
For this, top management has approved his HR plan for the current year. HR manager informed all the
departments about these actions and had the separate meetings with their managers. These newly
designed actions of HR manager gave him a greater role of departmental monitoring and control.
Managers of all the departments accepted this new plan and thought it to be a good for introducing a
mechanism of procedural justice which will minimize the number of possible conflicts in the
organization. But the manager of “Operations Department” thought that he should manage all the
activities of his department including HR issues of his department by himself without any interference
of HR manager. “Operations Manager” thought that he needs to have an increased control over his
department and argues that his department has always achieved the targets; and he is least bothered
about the number of conflicts in his department until he is achieving his goals. He also says that his
department does not need any specific job descriptions from HR department and that he will allocate
and monitor different tasks to his employees by himself from time to time. But on the other side, HR
manager is more concerned about reducing the number of conflicts in all the departments by
personally remaining in contact will all the employees; so that their professional and psychological
development could be done on continuous basis.
Now this new situation of an apparent dispute of HR Manager with the Operations Manager is a new
issue for the top management. Top management would never want to lose another valuable manager
once again and nor does the organization allow turnover on such minor issues. Top management wants
HR manager to resolve this issue on urgent basis. Top management also wants HR manager not to
disclose this conflict to other managers.
Considering the above situation, answer the following questions on the basis of your knowledge that
you have acquired so far from this course.
1. Do you think that a mixed-motive situation exists in this dispute? If no then why; if yes then
give two suggestions for the HR manager to enhance promotive interdependence with his
disputant? (Marks: 10)
2. Do you think that this dispute can be resolved through “Alternate Dispute Resolution” (ADR)?
If yes then which would be the best ADR method to resolve the dispute in this situation on
long term basis? (Marks: 5)

+ How to Follow the New Added Discussions at Your Mail Address?

+ How to Join Subject Study Groups & Get Helping Material?

+ How to become Top Reputation, Angels, Intellectual, Featured Members & Moderators?

+ VU Students Reserves The Right to Delete Your Profile, If?

See Your Saved Posts Timeline

Views: 491


+ http://bit.ly/vucodes (Link for Assignments, GDBs & Online Quizzes Solution)

+ http://bit.ly/papersvu (Link for Past Papers, Solved MCQs, Short Notes & More)

+ Click Here to Search (Looking For something at vustudents.ning.com?)

+ Click Here To Join (Our facebook study Group)

Replies to This Discussion

today is Grace day please help us all

 plz dear post answers of both questions. plz

plz dear post answers of both questions. plz

contact/email sc110200013 for solution

yahin bta do plzzzz

enhance promotive interdependence. pls discuss

No one listen us ? please help us to solve it

plz any one give us solution.................

Is there any one who help me in this assignment..................

plse share the solution 

Solution Question # 1

Yes its Mixed Motive situation because there is a dispute between the Hr Manager and the Operation

Manager. (For more detail check the page # 6 of handouts)

About Mixed Motive:-

Mixed motive is a concept used in employment law to prove illegal discrimination against an employee.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against

any individual "because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." The mixed

motive theory generally applies when the employer has legitimate as well as discriminatory reasons for

the employment decision. The plaintiff must provide sufficiently strong circumstantial evidence of

discrimination that might lead a jury to find that the employment decision was motivated, at least in

part, by discrimination. The "mixed motive" instruction requires a jury to find in favor of a plaintiff if the

jury determines that a protected characteristic was a motivator in an employer's treatment of the

employee, even if the jury concludes that an employer was also motivated by lawful considerations.


Hr manager should act as

Ombud are individuals who rely on a number of techniques to resolve disputes. These techniques

include counseling, mediating, conciliating, and fact finding. Usually, when an ombud receives a

complaint, s/he interviews the parties, reviews files, and makes recommendations to the disputants.

The ombud do not impose solutions. Data copied from vrshcdot com, the power of the ombud lies in

his/her ability to persuade the parties to accept his/her recommendations. An individual not accepting

the proposed solution of the ombud is free to pursue a remedy in other forums for dispute resolution.

Solution # 2:-

ADR Techniques or Methods (In my opinion check the Green highlighted)

Binding arbitration involves the presentation of a dispute to an impartial or neutral individual

(arbitrator) or panel (arbitration panel) for issuance of a binding decision. Unless arranged

otherwise, the parties usually have the ability to decide who the individuals are that serve as

arbitrators. In some cases, the parties may retain a particular arbitrator (often from a list of

arbitrators) to decide a number of cases or to serve the parties for a specified length of time (this

is common when a panel is involved). Parties often select a different arbitrator for each new

dispute. A common understanding by the parties in all cases, however, is that they will be bound

by the opinion of the decision maker rather than simply be obligated to "consider" an opinion or

recommendation. Under this method, the third party's decision generally has the force of law but

does not set a legal precedent. It is usually not reviewable by the courts.

Binding arbitration is a statutorily-mandated feature of Federal labor management agreements.

Consistent with statute, the parties to such agreements are free to negotiate the terms and

Donot try to copy paste this material this only for idea making purpose.

conditions under which arbitrators are used to resolve disputes, including the procedures for their

selection. Some agreements may provide for "permanent" arbitrators and some may provide for

arbitration panels.

Conciliation involves building a positive relationship between the parties to a dispute. A third

party or conciliator (who may or may not be totally neutral to the interests of the parties) may be

used by the parties to help build such relationships.

A conciliator may assist parties by helping to establish communication, clarifying

misperceptions, dealing with strong emotions, and building the trust necessary for cooperative

problem-solving. Some of the techniques used by conciliators include providing for a neutral

meeting place, carrying initial messages between/among the parties, reality testing regarding

perceptions or misperceptions, and affirming the parties' abilities to work together. Since a

general objective of conciliation is often to promote openness by the parties (to take the risk to

begin negotiations), this method allows parties to begin dialogues, get to know each other better,

build positive perceptions, and enhance trust. The conciliation method is often used in

conjunction with other methods such as facilitation or mediation.

Cooperative problem-solving is one of the most basic methods of dispute resolution. This

informal process usually does not use the services of a third party and typically takes place when

the concerned parties agree to resolve a question or issue of mutual concern. It is a positive effort

by the parties to collaborate rather than compete to resolve a dispute.

Cooperative problem-solving may be the procedure of first resort when the parties recognize that

a problem or dispute exists and that they may be affected negatively if the matter is not resolved.

It is most commonly used when a conflict is not highly polarized and prior to the parties forming

"hard line" positions. This method is a key element of labor-management cooperation programs.

Dispute panels use one or more neutral or impartial individuals who are available to the parties

as a means to clarify misperceptions, fill in information gaps, or resolve differences over data or

facts. The panel reviews conflicting data or facts and suggests ways for the parties to reconcile

their differences. These recommendations may be procedural in nature or they may involve

specific substantive recommendations, depending on the authority of the panel and the needs or

desires of the parties. Information analyses and suggestions made by the panel may be used by

the parties in other processes such as negotiations.

This method is generally an informal process and the parties have considerable latitude about

how the panel is used. It is particularly useful in those organizations where the panel is non-

threatening and has established a reputation for helping parties work through and resolve their

own disputes short of using some formal dispute resolution process.

Early neutral evaluation uses a neutral or impartial third party to provide a non-binding

evaluation, sometimes in writing, which gives the parties to a dispute an objective perspective on

the strengths and weaknesses of their cases. Under this method, the parties will usually make

informal presentations to the neutral to highlight the parties' cases or positions. The process is

used in a number of courts across the country, including U.S. District Courts.

Donot try to copy paste this material this only for idea making purpose.

Early neutral evaluation is appropriate when the dispute involves technical or factual issues that

lend themselves to expert evaluation. It is also used when the parties disagree significantly about

the value of their cases and when the top decision makers of one or more of the parties could be

better informed about the real strengths and weaknesses of their cases. Finally, it is used when

the parties are seeking an alternative to the expensive and time-consuming process of following

discovery procedures.

Facilitation involves the use of techniques to improve the flow of information in a meeting

between parties to a dispute. The techniques may also be applied to decision-making meetings

where a specific outcome is desired (e.g., resolution of a conflict or dispute). The term

"facilitator" is often used interchangeably with the term "mediator," but a facilitator does not

typically become as involved in the substantive issues as does a mediator. The facilitator focuses

more on the process involved in resolving a matter.

The facilitator generally works with all of the meeting's participants at once and provides

procedural directions as to how the group can move efficiently through the problem-solving

steps of the meeting and arrive at the jointly agreed upon goal. The facilitator may be a member

of one of the parties to the dispute or may be an external consultant. Facilitators focus on

procedural assistance and remain impartial to the topics or issues under discussion.

The method of facilitating is most appropriate when: (1) the intensity of the parties' emotions

about the issues in dispute are low to moderate; (2) the parties or issues are not extremely

polarized; (3) the parties have enough trust in each other that they can work together to develop a

mutually acceptable solution; or (4) the parties are in a common predicament and they need or

will benefit from a jointly-acceptable outcome.

Factfinding is the use of an impartial expert (or group) selected by the parties, an agency, or by

an individual with the authority to appoint a factfinder in order to determine what the "facts" are

in a dispute. The rationale behind the efficacy of factfinding is the expectation that the opinion of

a trusted and impartial neutral will carry weight with the parties. Factfinding was originally used

in the attempt to resolve labor disputes, but variations of the procedure have been applied to a

wide variety of problems in other areas as well.

Factfinders generally are not permitted to resolve or decide policy issues. The factfinder may be

authorized only to investigate or evaluate the matter presented and file a report establishing the

facts in the matter. In some cases, he or she may be authorized to issue either a situation

assessment or a specific non-binding procedural or substantive recommendation as to how a

dispute might be resolved. In cases where such recommendations are not accepted, the data (or

facts) will have been collected and organized in a fashion that will facilitate further negotiations

or be available for use in later adversarial procedures.

Interest-based problem-solving is a technique that creates effective solutions while improving

the relationship between the parties. The process separates the person from the problem, explores

all interests to define issues clearly, brainstorms possibilities and opportunities, and uses some

mutually agreed upon standard to reach a solution. Trust in the process is a common theme in

successful interest-based problem-solving.

Donot try to copy paste this material this only for idea making purpose.

Interest-based problem-solving is often used in collective bargaining between labor and

management in place of traditional, position-based bargaining. However, as a technique, it can

be effectively applied in many contexts where two or more parties are seeking to reach


Mediated arbitration, commonly known as "med-arb," is a variation of the arbitration

procedure in which an impartial or neutral third party is authorized by the disputing parties to

mediate their dispute until such time as they reach an impasse. As part of the process, when

impasse is reached, the third party is authorized by the parties to issue a binding opinion on the

cause of the impasse or the remaining issue(s) in dispute.

In some cases, med-arb utilizes two outside parties--one to mediate the dispute and another to

arbitrate any remaining issues after the mediation process is completed. This is done to address

some parties' concerns that the process, if handled by one third party, mixes and confuses

procedural assistance (a characteristic of mediation) with binding decision making (a

characteristic of arbitration). The concern is that parties might be less likely to disclose necessary

information for a settlement or are more likely to present extreme arguments during the

mediation stage if they know that the same third party will ultimately make a decision on the


Mediated arbitration is useful in narrowing issues more quickly than under arbitration alone and

helps parties focus their resources on the truly difficult issues involved in a dispute in a more

efficient and effective manner.

Mediation is the intervention into a dispute or negotiation of an acceptable, impartial and neutral

third party who has no decision-making authority. The objective of this intervention is to assist

the parties in voluntarily reaching an acceptable resolution of issues in dispute. Mediation is

useful in highly-polarized disputes where the parties have either been unable to initiate a

productive dialogue, or where the parties have been talking and have reached a seemingly

insurmountable impasse.

A mediator, like a facilitator, makes primarily procedural suggestions regarding how parties can

reach agreement. Occasionally, a mediator maysuggest some substantive options as a means of

encouraging the parties to expand the range of possible resolutions under consideration. A

mediator often works with the parties individually, in caucuses, to explore acceptable resolution

options or to develop proposals that might move the parties closer to resolution.

Mediators differ in their degree of directiveness or control while assisting disputing parties.

Some mediators set the stage for bargaining, make minimal procedural suggestions, and

intervene in the negotiations only to avoid or overcome a deadlock. Other mediators are much

more involved in forging the details of a resolution. Regardless of how directive the mediator is,

the mediator performs the role of catalyst that enables the parties to initiate progress toward their

own resolution of issues in dispute.

Minitrials involve a structured settlement process in which each side to a dispute presents

abbreviated summaries of its cases before the major decision makers for the parties who have

Donot try to copy paste this material this only for idea making purpose.

authority to settle the dispute. The summaries contain explicit data about the legal basis and the

merits of a case. The rationale behind a minitrial is that if the decision makers are fully informed

as to the merits of their cases and that of the opposing parties, they will be better prepared to

successfully engage in settlement discussions. The process generally follows more relaxed rules

for discovery and case presentation than might be found in the court or other proceeding and

usually the parties agree on specific limited periods of time for presentations and arguments.

A third party who is often a former judge or individual versed in the relevant law is the

individual who oversees a minitrial. That individual is responsible for explaining and

maintaining an orderly process of case presentation and usually makes an advisory ruling

regarding a settlement range, rather than offering a specific solution for the parties to consider.

The parties can use such an advisory opinion to narrow the range of their discussions and to

focus in on acceptable settlement options--settlement being the ultimate objective of a minitrial.

The minitrial method is a particularly efficient and cost effective means for settling contract

disputes and can be used in other cases where some or all of the following characteristics are

present: (1) it is important to get facts and positions before high-level decision makers; (2) the

parties are looking for a substantial level of control over the resolution of the dispute; (3) some

or all of the issues are of a technical nature; and (4) a trial on the merits of the case would be

very long and/or complex.

Negotiated rulemaking, commonly known as "reg-neg," brings together representatives of

various interest groups and a Federal agency to negotiate the text of a proposed rule. The method

is used before a proposed rule is published in the Federal Register under the Administrative

Procedures Act (APA). The first step is to set up a well-balanced group representing the

regulated public, public interest groups, and state and local governments, and join them with a

representative of the Federal agency in a Federally chartered advisory committee to negotiate the

text of the rule. If the committee reaches consensus on the rule, then the Federal agency can use

this consensus as a basis for its proposed rule.

While reg-neg may result in agreement on composition of a particular rule an agency may wish

to propose, when the rule is proposed it is still subject to public review under the APA. This is

the last step in the process. Federal agency experience is that the process shortens considerably

the amount of time and reduces the resources needed to promulgate sensitive, complex, and far-

reaching regulations--often regulations mandated by statute.

Settlement conferences involve a pre-trial conference conducted by a settlement judge or

referee and attended by representatives for the opposing parties (and sometimes attended by the

parties themselves) in order to reach a mutually acceptable settlement of the matter in dispute.

The method is used in the judicial system and is a common practice in some jurisdictions. Courts

that use this method may mandate settlement conferences in certain circumstances.

The role of a settlement judge is similar to that of a mediator in that he or she assists the parties

procedurally in negotiating an agreement. Such judges play much stronger authoritative roles

than mediators, since they also provide the parties with specific substantive and legal information

Donot try to copy paste this material this only for idea making purpose.

about what the disposition of the case might be if it were to go to court. They also provide the

parties with possible settlement ranges that could be considered.

Non-binding arbitration involves presenting a dispute to an impartial or neutral individual

(arbitrator) or panel (arbitration panel) for issuance of an advisory or non-binding decision. This

method is generally one of the most common quasi-judicial means for resolving disputes and has

been used for a long period of time to resolve labor/management and commercial disputes.

Under the process, the parties have input into the selection process, giving them the ability to

select an individual or panel with some expertise and knowledge of the disputed issues, although

this is not a prerequisite for an individual to function as an arbitrator. Generally, the individuals

chosen are those known to be impartial, objective, fair, and to have the ability to evaluate and

make judgments about data or facts. The opinions issued by the third party in such cases are non-

binding; however, parties do have the flexibility to determine, by mutual agreement, that an

opinion will be binding in a particular case.

Non-binding arbitration is appropriate for use when some or all of the following characteristics

are present in a dispute: (1) the parties are looking for a quick resolution to the dispute; (2) the

parties prefer a third party decision maker, but want to ensure they have a role in selecting the

decision maker; and (3) the parties would like more control over the decision making process

than might be possible under more formal adjudication of the dispute.

Partnering is used to improve a variety of working relationships, primarily between the Federal

Government and contractors, by seeking to prevent disputes before they occur. The method relies

on an agreement in principle to share the risks involved in completing a project and to establish

and promote a nurturing environment. This is done through the use of team-building activities to

help define common goals, improve communication, and foster a problem-solving attitude

among the group of individuals who must work together throughout a contract's term.

Partnering in the contract setting typically involves an initial partnering workshop after the

contract award and before the work begins. This is a facilitated workshop involving the key

stakeholders in the project. The purpose of the workshop is to develop a team approach to the

project. This generally results in a partnership agreement that includes dispute prevention and

resolution procedures.

Peer review is a problem-solving process where an employee takes a dispute to a group or panel

of fellow employees and managers for a decision. The decision may or may not be binding on

the employee and/or the employer, depending on the conditions of the particular process. If it is

not binding on the employee, he or she would be able to seek relief in traditional forums for

dispute resolution if dissatisfied with the decision under peer review. The principle objective of

the method is to resolve disputes early before they become formal complaints or grievances.

Typically, the panel is made up of employees and managers who volunteer for this duty and who

are trained in listening, questioning, and problem-solving skills as well as the specific policies

and guidelines of the panel. Peer review panels may be standing groups of individuals who are

available to address whatever disputes employees might bring to the panel at any given time.





Latest Activity

© 2020   Created by + M.Tariq Malik.   Powered by

Promote Us  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service