Organizational Communication

11D I S P U T E R E S O L U T I O N J O U R N A L

ADRnews

S ince the rise of alternative dis-pute resolution (ADR) over thelast four decades, there has been another significant development, namely, an approach to dispute reso- lution called conflict management.1 Although practitioners and scholars define “conflict management” in vari- ous ways, in the workplace setting, the term usually refers to the adop- tion of a proactive approach to han- dling conflict by managers, supervi- sors and union representatives (in unionized settings). In organizations that adopt a conflict management ap- proach, members do not simply wait for workplace disputes to occur and then decide, case-by-case, what tech- nique or dispute resolution method to use to resolve it. Instead, these orga- nizations develop policies and proce- dures designed to assist in addressing conflict in a manner that is consistent with their broader goals and objec- tives: for example, recruiting and re- taining top talent, and encouraging innovation and creativity. The most sophisticated programs of this type are called “integrated conflict man- agement systems.”2

The emergence of conflict manage- ment systems and associated practices, however, has not been uncontrover- sial. The dramatic reconfiguration of how organizations approach work- place conflict has generated fierce debate. Interestingly, the controver- sies surrounding conflict management have generally not been directly acknowledged in scholarly writings on

the topic. Conflict management has drawn fire from diverse organizational perspectives based on very different underlying objections. Specifically, there are two main “camps” opposed to conflict management systems. One has a progressive view of conflict and the other has a traditional view. Those

in the progressive camp, which includes some unions, civil rights groups, and plaintiff’s lawyers, oppose attempts by management to control the workplace and the workforce without taking account of the interest of other stakeholders. Those in the traditional camp, which includes some managers and business leaders, believe that conflict management systems help legitimize workplace conflict and inevitably lead to higher levels of

employee participation in decision making than is desirable.

In this article we look at the tradi- tional approach to workplace conflict, the evolution of conflict manage- ment, criticism of this process by pro- gressive and traditional critics, and then consider whether they can be reconciled by taking what we call a strategic view of conflict management in the workplace.3 This view calls for an alignment between the goals of the conflict management system and the overarching nature of the organiza- tion in which that system is imple- mented. The management of conflict, according to this approach, should complement the organization’s strate- gic posture and existing structures. We maintain that the level of fit be- tween an organization’s conflict man- agement philosophy and its strategic goals and objectives dictates whether the conflict management system will enhance or hinder key stakeholder outcomes.

Traditional Approach to Work- place Conflict

Dealing with conflicts in organiza- tions has traditionally been the re- sponsibility of managers and adminis- trators who took an authoritarian view of conflict and how to deal with it. Organizations that address con- flicts and disputes in this manner often fail to recognize that conflict is inherent in organizational life and has both potential benefits and costs.4

The Conflict Over Conflict Management

David B. Lipsky is the Anne Evans Estabrook Professor of Dispute Resolution and director of the Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution at the ILR School at Cornell University.

Ariel C. Avgar is an assistant professor at the School of Labor and Employment Relations at the University of Illinois at Champaign, Illinois,

and the assistant director for research at the Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution. The authors would like to thank Abhishek Gupta and Missy

Harrington for their able assistance in the preparation of this paper.

CORNELL CORNER

SPOTLIGHT ON WORKPLACE

ADR

BY DAVID B. LIPSKY AND ARIEL C. AVGAR

(Continued on page 38)

There are two main “camps”

opposed to con- flict management systems. One has a progressive view of conflict and the other has a tradi-

tional view.

38 M A Y / O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0

They believe that conflict is an aberration that needs to be suppressed, and, if possi- ble, eliminated. In other words, conflict should be managed by means of man- agerial authority. This gen- e r a l l y m e a n s t h a t s o m e

form of discipline is im- posed to suppress conflict. In an effort to minimize conflict, these organizations

used hiring techniques to weed out applicants they thought might become the source of work- place conflict.5 Paradoxically, perhaps, under the authoritarian view, every-day conflicts on the shop floor were not actually managed until they rose to the level of formal dis- putes. Top managers delegated responsibility for handling these conflicts to first-line supervisors, even though they were rarely, if ever, trained to deal with workplace disputes. Moreover, supervisors typical- ly had more pressing demands on their time, inasmuch as they needed to focus on the production process and on the technical requirements of their jobs. Our research has revealed that most organizations em- ploying a traditional conflict resolution approach do not use performance appraisals to eval- uate the dispute resolution skills of first-line supervisors or reward them for doing a good job of resolving conflicts on the shop floor. This view of conflict is not just historical. In our research, we have continued to encounter managers who view workplace conflict entirely in negative terms, or even deny that it exists in their own organiza- tions. When pressed, they may acknowledge that disagreements and differences of opinion exist- but deny the existence of conflict. We have con- cluded that many people tend to associate the word “conflict” only with disagreements that result in violence or the use of force. It took decades before a growing number of organiza- tions began to recognize that disagreements and frictions on the shop floor could escalate into major conflicts that could disrupt the entire orga- nization.6

Transformation of the Workplace and the Implications for Conflict Management

Over the last two or three decades, many, if not most, organizations in the United States have undergone a dramatic transformation in the scope of corporate goals, employee rights, and the way in which work is organized. A brief list of the most important factors would include globali- zation and an increasingly competitive business environment, the restructuring of the American economy (particularly the decline of manufactur- ing and the growth of the service sector), techno- logical change and the near-universal use of the Internet, the deregulation of many sectors of the American economy, and the passage of new fed- eral statutes in the 1960s and 1970s that strength-

ened individual rights in the workplace.7

Commentators agree that a hallmark of the transformation of employment relations has been the decline in the impor- tance of hierarchy and the rise of team-based work. At its most highly developed, the so- called “high performance work system”8 usually operates with less supervision (often referred to as “delayering”), and fewer job classifications (sometimes only two or three-a practice known as “broad banding”). It delegates a broad range of re- sponsibilities to the work team (including, in some cases, the authority to hire, discipline,

and make job assignments), and even provides for them to change their job assignments periodically (job rotation). It also uses a flexible and contin- gent system of compensation (either “pay for knowledge” or “pay for performance”) and pro- vides ongoing training and opportunities for upgrading skills.

Organizations that have adopted advanced workplace practices are also more likely to adopt more advanced methods of conflict management. Research by Lipsky and colleagues demonstrates that progressive organizations that have stepped away from the authoritarian view of handling conflict and adopted a conflict management ap- proach have done so because they hoped it would save the company time and money, not because top management wanted to provide employees

The Conflict Over Conflict Management (Continued from page 11)

Organizations that have adopted

advanced work- place practices are also more likely to adopt more advanced methods of con-

flict management.

L A B O R A N D E M P L O Y M E N T

SPOTLIGHT ON WORKPLACE

ADR

CORNELL CORNER

39D I S P U T E R E S O L U T I O N J O U R N A L

with a fair and equitable means of resolving their complaints.9 They recognized that the unilateral exercise of managerial authority was insufficient to effectively manage workplace conflict and often resulted in unnecessary and costly litiga- tion. As a result, top management in a growing number of companies came to believe that con- flict should be proactively managed in the same fashion as sales, marketing, and other business functions.

We have estimated that about 20% of the Fortune 1000 companies, among them Prudential, Raytheon, General Electric, Nestle, Johnson & Johnson, and PECO Energy, have an integrated conflict management system. In addition, a large majority of Fortune 1000 companies have a dis- pute resolution policy that includes some charac- teristics of an integrated conflict management sys- tem, such as multiple options and multiple access points.10 Moreover, a growing number of smaller companies are adopting some elements of a con- flict management system.11

Characteristics of a Conflict Management System

Research into integrated conflict management systems has revealed five essential characteristics:

(1) Broad Scope: The system should provide options for all people in the workplace, including employees, supervisors, professionals, and man- agers, to have all types of problems considered.

(2) A Culture of Toleration and Early Resolution: It should welcome or at least tolerate dissent and encourage early resolution of conflicts through direct negotiation.

(3) Multiple Access Points: Employees should be able to identify the individual, department or entity within the organization that has authority, knowledge, and experience from which they can obtain advice about the system and how to man- age the problem in question.

(4) Multiple Options: The system should have rights-based and interest-based options for em- ployees to consider.

(5) Support Structures: Strong support struc- tures should coordinate and manage the multiple access points and multiple options. Essentially, these structures should bring conflict manage- ment “into the organization’s daily operations.”12

In spite of the trend toward using conflict man- agement techniques, many managers remained opposed to that approach, and in some cases, opposed the use of any form of ADR.13 They prefer to retain authority to address workplace conflict. Others fear that, despite the rhetoric, conflict management systems do not weaken

managerial authority. Rather, they are another tool through which they can exert it. In what fol- lows, we discuss both arguments against the rise of organizational conflict management.

Progressive Critics of Conflict Management The trend toward using integrated conflict

management systems in business organizations has given rise to substantial debate. In a classic work on industrial relations, John Dunlop noted that in every workplace a “web of rules” governs the relationship between employers and employ- ees. Rules exist for every aspect of the workplace; for example, how much employees should be paid; when they should begin the workday and when they should end it; what constitutes an ade- quate level of performance; the criteria governing promotions and demotions; and scores of other matters. In Dunlop’s view, the critical questions in every workplace are: who writes the workplace rules and who enforces them?14

The same questions could be asked about the rules governing the management and resolution of workplace conflicts: who writes those rules, and who enforces them? These questions are central to the debate over conflict management systems. In the majority of organizations that have adopted some form of conflict management system, it appears that the rules and procedures have been promulgated solely by top manage- ment, with little or no participation by employ- ees, unions, or other stakeholders. Our consult- ing assignments and field research confirm this. We have been constantly surprised to discover how infrequently top managers made an effort to take into account their employees’ views and interests in the design of a conflict management system.

For example, a federal agency with 70,000 employees that had formed a committee of man- agement representatives from headquarters and regional bureaus to design a conflict management system did not name a single union official to the committee, even though the vast majority of agency employees were represented by a federal- sector union. When we raised this issue with the agency’s key administrators and suggested that union representation on the committee might be desirable, they conceded that perhaps the em- ployees’ views should be heard on the committee. At the next meeting of the committee, the agency had added a local union president to the commit- tee.

Progressive critics of conflict management sys- tems are not necessarily worried that shifting to a conflict management approach will lead to any real change in managerial power. What concerns

40 M A Y / O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0

L A B O R A N D E M P L O Y M E N T

them is the failure to include stakeholders in the process of designing and implementing conflict management systems. Indeed, these critics are skeptical of all policies that management develops without the participation of individuals whose welfare is likely to be directly affected by those policies. Nonparticipation of employees is espe- cially troubling in nonunion organizations where the employment at-will doctrine applies because employees have no means to express their dis- pleasure with policies imposed on them by man- agement.

One reason why conflict man- a g e m e n t p r a c t i c e s h a v e b e e n developed from the top-down, even in unionized settings, is that it is usually management that presses for a conflict manage- ment system. This leaves the union in the position of needing t o d e f e n d t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l approach to managing day-to- day conflict under collective bar- gaining, namely, the grievance procedure.

In general, unions have viewed conflict management systems with skepticism. Beyond doubt, some nonunion organizations have instituted such systems as a means of avoiding unionization. Indeed, the director of the con- flict management system at a major defense contractor rou- tinely acknowledged in public arenas that his corporation estab- l i s h e d a n i n t e g r a t e d c o n f l i c t management system for precisely this reason—to forestall unionization efforts at its nonunion plants. As a result, employees and unions often have legitimate reasons to mistrust management’s motives in creating a conflict management system despite the fact that such programs have the potential to benefit them.

A few years ago, the New York State Office of Court Administration (OCA) asked the Schein- man Institute to help design a conflict manage- ment system for employees of the State’s Unified Court System. A joint union-OCA design com- mittee was formed. From the outset, the unions representing court employees were full partners in the design committee. However, for much of that time, the unions balked at moving away from the traditional grievance procedure. It took near- ly two years to produce a plan that could be im- plemented. Although it was piloted in Nassau County and Western New York, funds were

never allocated to implement the plan statewide. Nevertheless, the design process taught us les- sons about labor’s reluctance to adopt a new approach to conflict management. It took many meetings and much debate before the union rep- resentatives on the committee were prepared to consider an alternative to the grievance proce- dure for managing workplace disputes. In the end, two factors persuaded the union to join with the OCA’s administrators in supporting the pro- posed plan.

First, the design committee agreed that the scope of the new conflict management system should be broadened to include interpersonal conflicts between employees, which were not with- in the scope of the grievance p r o c e d u r e . 15 S e c o n d , a n d o f greater importance, the design c o m m i t t e e a g r e e d t h a t j o i n t labor-management committees should be established at the local level to administer the new sys- tem. Moreover, these commit- tees would have authority over both union and nonunion court employees. The union represen- tatives on the design committee s o o n r e a l i z e d t h a t s h a r i n g authority with OCA administra- tors in the administration of the new system would represent a significant de facto expansion of their power.

Civil rights organizations, plaintiffs’ attorneys, and other stakeholders are also critics of

contemporary conflict management.16 As a result of our conversations with individuals in various “progressive” groups, we have come to under- stand that many of them believe that manage- ment’s professed belief in the value of teamwork and employee participation in decision making is a charade designed to put an appealing public face on management’s age-old quest to control the workplace. In effect, the progressive critics of contemporary conflict management do not sub- scribe to the view that in the vast majority of organizations a transformation of the workplace has actually occurred.

Even when management professes to believe in the value of teamwork and employee participa- tion in decision making, progressive-minded crit- ics of conflict management systems tend to think that is just rhetoric. Despite globalization, tech- nological and other forces of change, they believe

In spite of the trend toward using conflict management techniques,

many managers remained op- posed to that approach, and in some cases, opposed the use of any

form of ADR.

41D I S P U T E R E S O L U T I O N J O U R N A L

an iron fist continues to reside inside manage- ment’s velvet glove. They think managers only pay lip service to the supposed end of hierarchy because in most organizations hierarchical rela- tionships are the norm.

Traditional Critics of Conflict Management In previous research, we noted that an organiza-

tion’s policies on conflict management hinge to a large extent on top-management’s attitudes toward conflict. Traditional managers often view the resolution of conflict as a zero sum game. They believe the resolution of conflict usually pro- duces a winner and a loser. They differ from vari- able sum managers who are able to see in most conflicts a possibility of both parties’ winning.17 Zero sum managers believe that conflicts should be prevented if possible, but if conflicts occur, managing them means prevailing. Zero sum man- agers attach great value to “victory” and dislike compromise. In this regard they are unlike vari- able sum managers for whom winning or losing a dispute is not as important as achieving a solution that serves the organization’s best interests. Zero sum managers also tend to disapprove of newer conflict management techniques, which is why they are considered “traditional” in outlook.

In our work, we have encountered many tradi- tional managers who distrust mediation and arbi- tration. They regard third-party neutrals as out- siders who undercut their authority, and they have little regard for the expertise or judgment of ADR neutrals. It appears that many corporate attorneys may hold the same views as traditional managers. A survey of general counsels of the Fortune 1000 revealed that nearly half of respon- dents lacked confidence in arbitrators and nearly 30% lacked confidence in mediators.18 When asked why they did not use arbitration, 54% said it was because arbitration awards were “difficult to appeal” and 49% percent said it was because they thought the arbitration process was “not confined to legal rules.”19 In addition, some ex- pressed the belief that neutrals lacked the special- ized expertise these attorneys were seeking.20 Some traditional managers also believe that the benefits of adopting a more contemporary approach to conflict management do not out- weigh the costs. They are not willing to make the investment of financial and human resources to install a conflict management system in the face of uncertain benefits.21

In sum, managers with a traditional view of conflict are critical of conflict management sys- tems, seeing them as part of a broader movement to undermine managerial authority and preroga- tives. They prefer management to retain control

of conflict resolution. There is a nostalgic ele- ment to this view: it reflects a yearning for a bygone era—when a compliant workforce readily accepted management’s authority. Unlike the progressive critics who do not believe that a con- flict management shift will lead to any real change in managerial power, the traditionalists fear that it will.

Proposing a Strategic Viewpoint Traditional and progressive critics of conflict

management are united in their view that a pro- active conflict management approach is, on bal- ance, a negative organizational phenomenon. Traditional critics see it as wholly negative, while progressive critics see the usual mode of adoption as negative.

We maintain that whether conflict manage- ment systems and associated practices are benefi- cial or detrimental to a given organization and its stakeholders is primarily a function of how they are integrated alongside the organization’s domi- nant culture and strategic objectives. Conflict management practices, according to this view, must be adopted and implemented to be compat- ible with the organization’s fundamental “DNA.” We view a strategic approach to conflict manage- ment as one that provides for the deployment of specific practices in a manner that assists in the attainment of established organizational goals and objectives.22 Thus, the potential of a given conflict management system to add value to the organization can only be realized where it is aligned with the organization’s existing strategy and culture.23 We believe that this view can bring both traditional and progressive critics together. They both are critical of organizations whose goals and objectives for the conflict management system are not aligned with goals and objectives of the organization. In the absence of this funda- mental fit, conflict management systems can a p p e a r t o u n d e r c u t t r a d i t i o n a l m a n a g e r i a l authority (the key concern of traditional critics), or mask underlying authoritarian organizational motives and intentions of management (the con- cern of progressive critics).

In order to take a strategic approach to conflict management, management must shift from a best practice approach to a “configurational” ap- proach that emphasizes the best fit.24 How can organizations implement conflict management systems to meet this “best fit” criterion? As sug- gested above, it is by aligning the goals and objectives of the system with the goals and objec- tives of the organization. A first step would be to identify the different objectives of the contem- plated conflict management system. Building on

42 M A Y / O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0

L A B O R A N D E M P L O Y M E N T

our previous research in a variety of settings, we have come to view conflict management systems as serving three possible types of objectives.25

One objective is to deal with micro-level con- flicts between individuals once they arise, and/or head off potential formal disputes when they are at a more manageable stage. This objective can be achieved using a simple one-step ADR proce- dure, for example mediation or arbitration. Micro-level conflict resolution is a core conflict management outcome. A conflict management system that focuses on micro-level conflict reso- lution aligns conflict management practices with the overarching strategy of many organizations.26

A second possible objective of conflict manage- ment systems is to provide members of the organi- zation with voice—that is, a mechanism through

which to raise individual and collective concerns and suggestions.27 This mechanism allows for bot- tom-up input. This objective of a conflict manage- ment system could be a core goal of high perfor- mance organizations that wish to provide employ- ees with opportunities to participate in certain pol- icy-making decisions. However, not all organiza- tions have the structures and corporate culture to metabolize workplace voice. When that happens, providing voice through the conflict management system is unlikely to lead to meaningful discussion and potential change. Instead of aligning the out- comes delivered by the conflict management sys- tem with the organization’s goals and culture, the result will be a misalignment. It is precisely this type of misalignment that can fuel the traditional- ist and progressive critiques of emerging conflict management practices.

The third possible objective of a conflict man- agement system could be to improve internal communication and organizational coordination. We discovered that for some organizations man- agers and supervisors leveraged the conflict man- agement system to identify weak coordination and communication linkages within and across depart- ments and units. Sophisticated conflict manage- ment systems include designated offices that go beyond individual disputes and conflict and pro- vide stakeholders with input regarding organiza- tional challenges and dominant patterns and

trends. These systems provide a unique mecha- nism through which coordination and communi- cation can be facilitated. Our research has shown that in organizations characterized by frequent change and restructuring, conflict management systems can serve an especially important coordi- nation role.28 For example, organizations that adopt an ombuds office or a designated executive serving as the central hub for the conflict manage- ment system are also creating an organizational institution that has the potential to assist with both horizontal (peer to peer or unit to unit) and hierarchical (management to front-line and vice versa) information sharing and coordination.29 Here, too, alignment of the coordination goal with the organization’s more general strategy and structures is crucial to success of the system.

Conclusion We believe the design of conflict management

systems needs to move away from a “one size fits all” approach. Organizations differ dramatically in their structure and culture, as well as in their objectives. Therefore, they have very different conflict management needs. Addressing these needs requires managers to devise conflict man- agement practices that are compatible with the organization’s objectives, existing culture and organization structure.30

The scholarly shift toward a strategic approach to conflict management is still in its infancy. We see a need for research examining how different conflict management configurations actually play out in different organizations with distinct strate- gies and cultures. More importantly, there is a need for greater strategic focus on the part of organizations adopting conflict management sys- tems. Managers who routinely do strategic think- ing with regards to areas such as finance, human resource management, product development and marketing should apply similar principles when dealing with organizational conflict and its man- agement. We strongly believe that designing and implementing conflict management systems in a strategically aligned manner will provide organi- zations with a competitive advantage and cause many of the criticisms of such systems to lose their appeal. n

The potential of a given conflict management system to add value to the organization can only

be realized where it is aligned with the organization’s existing strategy and culture.

43D I S P U T E R E S O L U T I O N J O U R N A L

1 Conflict management has been the subject of a considerable amount of scholarship. For example, the Interna- tional Association for Conflict Manage- ment (IACM) and the Organizational Conflict Management Section of the Association for Conflict Resolution study the practice with the intention of improv- ing it. Academic journals, such as the International Journal of Conflict Man- agement and Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, publish research on the topic. A growing number of col- leges and universities offer courses on conflict management, including our uni- versities (Cornell and the University of Illinois). Some universities have conflict management programs that offer degrees on the topic For example, the University of Maryland has a Center for Interna- tional Development and Conflict Man- agement. Both Kennesaw State Univer- sity and Lipscomb University have pro- grams and offer M.S. degrees in conflict management.

2 Several years ago, the senior author of this article was a member of a task force sponsored by the Association for Conflict Resolution that was charged with investigating and writing a report dealing with the emergence and charac- teristics of integrated conflict manage- ment systems. The task force was chaired by two prominent arbitrators, Ann Gosline and Lamont Stallworth. See Ann Gosline, et al., Designing Integrated Conflict Management Systems: Guidelines for Practitioners and Decision Makers in Organizations. (Inst. on Conflict Resol- ution, Cornell U. 2001).

3 For a theoretical discussion of these alternative approaches to conflict man- agement, see David B. Lipsky & Ariel C. Avgar, “Toward a Strategic Theory of Workplace Conflict Management,” 24(1) Ohio St. J. Disp. Resol. 143-90 (2008).

4 An excellent source on the nature and roots of conflict in organizations is M. Afzalur Rahim, Managing Conflict in Organizations (3d ed. Quorum Books 2001). A standard reference on the topic is Lewis M. Pondy, “Organizational Con- flict: Concepts and Models,” 17 Admin. Sci. Q., 296-320 (1967).

5 David B. Lipsky, Ronald L. Seeber, & Richard D. Fincher, Emerging Systems for Managing Workplace Conflict 35-40 (Jossey-Bass 2003).

6 For a further discussion, see id. at 29-73. Social contract theory is used in this work to describe the evolution of conflict management in the U.S.

7 Id. at 54-58. 8 See, e.g., Eileen Applebaum et al.,

Manufacturing Advantage: Why High Performance Work Systems Pay Off (ILR Press 2000).

9 Lipsky, Seeber, & Fincher, supra n. 5, at 101-5.

10 For a review of the research, see David B. Lipsky & Ronald L. Seeber, “Managing Organizational Conflicts,” in The Sage Handbook of Conflict Communi- cation: Integrating Theory, Research, and Practice 359-390 (John G. Oetzel & Stella Ting-Toomey, eds. Sage Publications 2006).

11 American Arbitration Association, “Dispute-Wise Management: Improving Economic and Non-Economic Out- comes in Managing Business Conflicts” (American Arbitration Association 2006), available at www.adr.org/searchRes.asp? dl_s=dispute-wise+management&opt =V2.

12 Lipsky, Seeber, & Fincher, supra n. 5, at 13. The five characteristics of an integrated conflict management system were initially identified in Gosline, et al., supra n. 2, at 35-36.

13 For a discussion of the dispute res- olution policies of some of these compa- nies, see id. at 138-41.

14 John Dunlop, Industrial Relations Systems (Holt 1958). See also, Clark Kerr et al., Industrialism and Industrial Man (Harvard U. Press 1960).

15 The expanded scope of the new system covered a range of so-called “quality of work life” disputes. For example, court employees were often dissatisfied with the resources they were given to perform their work; they often lacked office supplies, and even the staff responsible for record keeping often worked without computers. The new approach to conflict management would have allowed employees to complain about these matters.

16 For a discussion of the potential civil rights challenges associated with conflict management systems that in- clude mandatory arbitration see Lewis Maltby, “Paradise Lost: How the Gilmer Court Lost the Opportunity for Alterna- tive Dispute Resolution to Improve Civil Rights” 12(1) N.Y.L. Sch. J. Hum. Rts. 1-29 (1994).

17 Lipsky, Seeber, & Fincher, supra n. 5, at 119-21. We interviewed the chief administrative officer of a multibillion dollar corporation who had very rigid traditional views. He opposed any form of ADR, let alone a conflict manage- ment system. His views seemed to em- body the traditional belief that conflict is dysfunctional and needs to be sup- pressed.

18 David B. Lipsky & Ronald L. See- ber, The Appropriate Resolution of Cor- porate Disputes: A Report on the Growing Use of ADR by U.S. Corporations 28-29 (Inst. on Conflict Resol. Cornell U. 1998).

19 Id. at 25-27. As of this writing, Lipsky and Avgar, along with Thomas J. Stipanowich, director of the Straus Instit- ute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University, and Sally Klingel, are con- ducting a new survey of the use of ADR by the Fortune 1000. The survey is spon- sored by the Scheinman Institute, the Straus Institute, and the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR). The new survey will allow us to discover whether top lawyers at major firms continue to have these views about neutrals.

20 Lipsky & Seeber, supra n. 18, at 29.

21 Lipsky, Seeber, & Fincher, supra n. 5, at 307-9.

22 For a similar argument see Lipsky & Avgar, supra n. 3 at 173.

23 See the discussion in Lipsky, See- ber, & Fincher, supra n. 5, at 321-31.

24 Lipsky & Avgar, supra n. 3, at 179- 86. For a similar argument also see Corinne Bendersky, “Complementarities in Organizational Dispute Resolution Systems: How System Characteristics Affect Individuals,’’ 60(4) Indus. & Lab. Rel. Rev. 204-24 (2007); C. Bendersky, “Organizational Dispute Resolution Systems: A Complementarities Model,” 28(4) Acad. Mgmt. Rev. 643-56 (2003).

25 For a detailed discussion of these categories of outcomes see Lipsky & Avgar, supra n. 3, at 172-79.

26 Id. at 175-76. 27 See, e.g., Julie B. Olson-Buchanan

& Wendy R. Boswell, “Organizational Dispute Resolution Systems,” in The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Manage- ment in Organizations 321-52 (Carsten K.W. DeDreu & Michele J. Gelfand, eds. Taylor & Francis Group 2008).

28 Ariel C. Avgar, Treating Conflict: The Adoption of a Conflict Management System in a Hospital Setting (2010) (working paper, available from author on request).

29 Id. In organizations where coordi- nation is primarily a top-down function and employees and mangers are given relatively little discretion to make work- place decisions, this conflict manage- ment outcome category is less likely to deliver gains for the organization.

30 Lipsky, Seeber & Fincher, supra n. 5, at 117-152.

ENDNOTES

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.