Dispute Resolution and

Crisis Management
Part II
Dispute resolution and crisis management is a study involving the
understanding analysis and applying best strategies in resolving disputes at
the entry stage. The restoration of interpersonal relations among the member
of the parties involved are its primordial end. It also covers those devoted to
trace back the origin of conflicted situations and how it can be measured and
prevented in such a way that promotion of a peaceful resolution is
emphasized. Moreover, the understanding and application of knowledge on
the Incident Command System as an approach in dealing with Crisis
Management were significantly featured.
 Dispute Resolution
Dispute :
By definition, a dispute refers to an argument or a
disagreement between two parties over an issue
(Barry and Leite 2015). In the project management
per perspective, disputes involve disagreements, or
arguments within the project team.
Dispute Resoution:
Refers to a technique of settling the conflicts
or claims between two parties, i.e. employer
and employees. The technique aims at
achieving fairness for both the groups and
arriving at an agreement between by
consensus, often initiated by a third party.
These disputes are caused by wage
demands, unfair labor practices, political
interferences, union rivalry, etc.
 Crisis Management :
Crisis :
Is any event or period that will lead, or may lead, to an unstable and
dangerous situation affecting an individual, group, or all of society. Crises
are negative changes in the human or environmental affairs, especially
when they occur abruptly, with little or no warning. More loosely, a crisis
is a testing time or an emergency. (ex. health crisis (covid19 pandemic)
global warming, and others).

A crisis can occur as a result of an unpredictable event or an

unforeseeable consequence of some event that had been considered as
a potential risk. In either case, crises almost invariably require that
decisions be made quickly to limit damage to the organization.
Crisis Management :
Is defined as the process undertaken by any
organization to prevent, prepare for, and
respond to events that threaten to harm people
or property, seriously interrupt operations,
damage reputation, or impact the bottom line

Crisis management is the application of

strategies designed to help an organization deal
with a sudden and significant negative event.
 Crisis Management Goals
Crisis management seeks to minimize the
damage a crisis causes. However, this does not
mean crisis management is the same thing as
crisis response. Instead, crisis even happens.
Crisis management practices are engaged
before, during and after a crisis.
 Stages of a Crisis
1. Warning and risk assessment. As
important as it may be to identify risks and plan
for ways to minimize those risks and their
effects, it is equally important to establish
monitoring systems that can provide early
warning signals of any foreseeable crisis. These
early warning systems can take a variety of
forms and differ widely based on the identified
risks.
 Stages of a Crisis
2. Crisis response and management. When a crisis occurs, the
crisis manager is responsible for directing the organization's response in
accordance to its established crisis management plan. The crisis manager
is usually also the person who is tasked with communicating to the public.

If a crisis affects public health or safety, then the crisis manager

should make a public statement as quickly as possible. In a public crisis,
the media will inevitably seek out employees for comment. It is important
for the organization's employees to know ahead of time who is and is not
authorized to speak to the media. Employees who are allowed to speak to
the media must do so in a manner consistent with what the crisis manager
is saying.
 Stages of a Crisis
3. Post-crisis and resolution. After a crisis subsides and business begins to return
to normal, the crisis manager should continue to meet with members of the crisis
management team, especially those from the legal and finance departments, to evaluate
the progression of the recovery efforts. At the same time, the crisis manager will need to
provide the latest information to key stakeholders to keep them aware of the current
situation.

Following a crisis, it is also important for the crisis management team to revisit the
organization's crisis management plan with the goal of evaluating how well the plan
worked and what aspects of the plan need to be revised based on what was learned
during the crisis.

All good crisis management efforts go through three core stages -- Pre-Crisis
(preparedness and prevention), Crisis Response (actually managing the crisis), and Post-
Crisis (recovery and analysis, integrating lessons learned).
 Why do we need a crisis management
plan?
Crisis management plans are like this umbrella
protecting someone from a storm. being prepared
saves money. saves time, saves reputation, and can
even save lives. Planning means less opportunity for
negative situations to ever become true crises With
crisis-specific planning and protocols in place you
have the tools to handle sudden negative issues in a
way that will at least reduce, and sometimes
completely avoid, their impact.
 What’s in a good plan?
There are a few keys components that should be included in every crisis management
plan:

• Crisis response procedures. Step-by-step procedures for crisis

response for any category of situation for which an organization wishes to
be prepared.
• Crisis management-related policies. For example, who is an authorized
spokes person? What is required in terms of Information security? What
are employees allowed to share on social media?
• Notification and response protocols for the Crisis Response Team.
Who does what in a crisis, and when should they be informed/brought in?
• Emergency notification procedures. How will we talk to our
stakeholders, both internal and external, during a crisis?
 What’s in a good plan?
There are a few keys components that should be included in every crisis management
plan:

• Spokesperson resources. What should spokespeople be doing from minute

one of a crisis event?
• Key messaging for internal and external audiences. A framework and fill-in-
the-blank messaging to allow almost-instant response to breaking issues.
• Company-specific scenario planning. Special considerations for your
business having operations that are split by city-owned roads presents unique
challenges others may not face.
• Additional crisis-response support tools. Helpful checklists and other time-
saving resources that are built to help in the midst of the panic that often arises
when crises emerge.
 Who manages the crisis?
In order to survive crisis situation you need a specific team that is responsible for
not only keeping the organization running, but also communicating with important
audiences such as employees, customers, shareholders, and the press in order to
mitigate the potential for reputation damage that comes with any disruption. This
is why you have a Crisis Management Team (CMT). The CMT is typically
composed of a crisis manager (most often an outside consultant though some large
corporations do maintain in-house experts), high-level representatives from
departments such as operations, legal, human resources, and public relations,
along with key executives who have the power to make major decisions and the
ability to act as spokespersons if needed. In addition, ad-hoc members are often
brought in to provide support for specific issues. Some of the most common ad-
hoc members might be IT specialists, finance experts, security pros, or scientific
advisors like epidemiologists.
 The Core Crisis Management Team is responsible
for:
 Ensuring their organization has proper planning and training in place.
 Monitoring for potential crises before they create lasting damage.
 Overall organization and execution of crisis response.
 Protecting the safety of all employees.
 Protecting the reputation of the company and its leadership.
 Assisting legal counsel in litigation prevention measures.
 Alternative Dispute Resolution
Definition
Any method of resolving disputes without litigation. Abbreviated as ADR.
Public courts may be asked to review the validity of ADR methods, but they
will rarely overturn ADR decisions and awards if the disputing parties formed a
valid contract to abide by them.

Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") refers to any means of settling

disputes outside of the courtroom. ADR typically includes early neutral
evaluation, negotiation conciliation, mediation, and arbitration. As burgeoning
court queues, rising costs of litigation, and time delays continue to plague
litigants, more states have begun experimenting with ADR programs. Some of
these programs are voluntary; others are mandatory
 Commonly User ADR Methods
The commonly used ADR methods are arbitration, mediation and conciliation. These
three are primarily resorted to by parties as an expedient and cost-effective ways of
settling disputes.

Mediation is also an informal alternative to litigation. Mediators are individual

strained in negotiations, who bring opposing parties together and attempt to work
out a settlement or agreement that both parties accept or reject. Mediation is not
binding.
 Commonly User ADR Methods
The commonly used ADR methods are arbitration, mediation and conciliation. These
three are primarily resorted to by parties as an expedient and cost-effective ways of
settling disputes.

Arbitration has been defined under the ADR Act as a voluntary dispute resolution process in which one or more
arbitrators appointed in accordance with the agreement of the arties resolve a dispute by rendering an award. t is a non-
adversarial settlement where in the parties are free to choose the arbitrators that will compose the tribunal, the procedure to be
followed in the proceedings, the venue of arbitration, and the substantive law that will govern the proceedings.

Arbitration is more formal than Mediation and resembles a simplified version of atrial involving limited discovery and
simplified rules of evidence (ex. hearsay is usually admissible in arbitration). Prior to the dispute occurring, parties usually enter
into a binding arbitration agreement or any other form of agreement with an arbitration clause that allows them to lay out major
terms for the arbitration process (number of arbitrators arbitration forum; arbitration rules; fees etc.). If parties still have disputes
about certain terms before entering into an arbitration they can petition to a court to resolve a dispute.
Beyond the basic types of alternative dispute resolutions there are other different forms
of ADR:

• Case evaluation: a non-binding process in which parties present the facts and the issues to a neutral case
evaluator who advises the parties on the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions, and
assesses how the dispute is likely to be decided by a jury or other adjudicator.
• Early neutral evaluation: a process that takes place soon after a case has been filed in court. The case is
referred to an expert who is asked to provide a balanced and neutral evaluation of the dispute. The
evaluation of the expert can assist the parties in assessing their case and may influence them towards a
settlement.
• Family group conference: a meeting between members of a family and members of their extended
related group. At this meeting (or often a series of meetings)the family becomes involved in learning
skills for interaction and in making a plan to stop the abuse or other ill-treatment between its members.
Beyond the basic types of alternative dispute resolutions there are other different forms
of ADR:

• Neutral fact-finding : a process where a neutral third party, selected either by the disputing parties or by
the court, investigates an issue and reports or testifies in court. The neutral fact-finding process is
particularly useful for resolving complex scientific and factual disputes
• Expert determination: a procedure where a dispute or a difference between the parties is submitted, by
mutual agreement of the parties, to one or more experts who make a determination on the matter referred
to them. The determination is binding, unless the parties agreed otherwise and is a confidential procedure
• Ombuds: third party selected by an institution - for example a university, hospital, corporation or
government agency - to deal with complaints by employees, clients or constituents.
 Advantage and disadvantages of ADR
• Suitable for multi-party disputes
• Lower costs, in many cases it's free when involving consumers
• Likelihood and speed of settlements
• Flexibility of process
• Parties' control of process
• Parties' choice of forum
• Practical solutions
• Wider range of issues can be considered
 Advantage and disadvantages of ADR
• Shared future interests may be protected
• Confidentiality
• Risk management
• Generally no need for lawyers
• Can be a less confrontational alternative to the court system
However, ADR is less suitable than litigation when there is:

• A need for precedent

• A need for court orders
• A need for interim orders
• A need for evidential rules
• A need for enforcement
• Power imbalance between parties
• Quasi-criminal allegations
• Complexity in the case
• The need for live evidence or analysis of complex evidence
• The need for expert evidence
 Orgin: Ancient Greek Society (6th
Century B.C.)
Modern era
Traditional people's mediation has always involved the parties remaining in contact for most or all of the
mediation session. The innovation of separating the parties after (or sometimes before) a joint session and
conducting the rest of the process without the parties in the same area was a major innovation and one that
dramatically improved mediation's success rate.

Traditional arbitration involved heads of trade guilds or other dominant authorities settling disputes. The
modern innovation was to have commercial vendors of arbitrators often ones with little or no social or political
dominance over the parties. The advantage was that such persons are much more readily available. The
disadvantage is that it does not involve the community of the parties. When wool contract arbitration was
conducted by senior guild officials, the arbitrator combined a seasoned expert on the subject matter with a
socially dominant individual whose patronage, goodwill and opinion were important.

Private judges and summary jury trials are cost- and time-saving processes that have had limited penetration
due to the alternatives becoming more robust and accepted.