Any group or team that works together to achieve a common goal is bound to experience some form of conflict. In the context of a University of Phoenix learning team, settling these disputes in an efficient and quick manner allows the team to be more productive and thereby earn a higher grade. Having some form of resolution process in writing for the team to follow when a dispute does happen will then allow for a more effective learning team.
Some of the potential disputes that may arise in this setting include differences in opinion regarding the direction of the team or the direction of the project that the team is working on. Additionally, the team might find itself confronted with the problem of a team member not making the contributions he committed to. In this setting it is highly doubtful a team would file some form of lawsuit against the offending member. First, dealing with the costs of such an idea is prohibitive. Second, using a court to settle one of the above situations is just a bit on the extreme side! Not all disputes need to go to court! In fact, going to court would not even be an effective method strictly because of the time it would take to resolve in that manner. The team needs a quick solution to the problem that it faces.
Keeping speed, cost, and simplicity all in mind it is obvious that some form of alternative method is called for. Cheeseman (2010) provides several alternatives: Negotiation, Arbitration, Mediation, Conciliation, Mini-Trial, Fact-Finding, and a Judicial Referee. Seeing that ongoing relationships are involved, and a speedy resolution is required, I chose to use Mediation method for the Learning Team Alternative Dispute Resolution Clause.
Mediation requires a neutral and knowledgeable third party to meet with the parties involved, gather the pertinent facts and then help the parties reach a mutually agreed settlement (Cheeseman 2010). Further, Morel notes that Mediation successfully resolves disputes 90...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document