Disputants' perspectives on the differences between mediation and arbitration

Conclusion Our study of grievance mediation in the coal industry expands existing knowledge about mediation in three important respects. First, we have shown that mediation can be as successful in resolving disputes when it is involuntary as when it is voluntary. Second, disputants with experience in both mediation and arbitration substantially prefer mediation to arbitration. Third, by combining the second conclusion with the results of other studies that show mediation is preferred over court adjudication, we suggest that mediation is generally preferred to adjudication, regardless of the particular type of adjudication—arbitration or court. Stephen B. Goldberg is Professor of Law at Northwestern University Law School, 357 East Chicago Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60610.Jeanne M. Brett is DeWitt W. Buchanan, Jr. Professor of Dispute Resolution and Organizations at the J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill. 60208.This article is based in part upon research reported in Brett and Goldberg, 1983.     

Employee concerns regarding self-managing work teams: A multidimensional justice perspective

The increase in the use of self-managing work teams in organizations has been accompanied by growing employee resistance and concern about what such dramatic changes mean to workers. Using an organizational justice perspective, this chapter identifies and examines employee concerns about the move to self-managing work teams in two Fortune 500 organizations. Employee fairness concerns regarding three types of justice—distributive, procedural, and interactional—are highlighted. Findings suggest that to address employee fairness concerns regarding the move to self-managing work teams, managers should act distributively, procedurally, and interactionally justly.[Self-managing work teams are] the right way and the only way to be productive.—Self-managing work team member in a Fortune 500 company     

Organized interests and administrative rulemaking: the state of Wisconsin's lobbyists and coalitions

This study examines interest groups undertaking lobbying activity focused on administrative rulemaking. The analysis utilizes a dataset composed of observations made during the 2009–2010 Wisconsin Legislative Session, including the entire population of groups lobbying during this time period. This research examines the participants, efforts, and coalitions utilized when groups engaged in lobbying activity related to rulemaking. Although scholars have examined interest group activity focused on rulemaking at the federal level, little work has focused on this behavior in the states. This study aims to further the understanding of this activity. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.