Workplace mediations in cyberspace - Essay Example

? Workplace Mediations in Cyberspace Cyberspace appears to be well suited to allow disputing parties without having to use formal laws or legal mechanism. Internet allows the disputing parties to have direct links when communicating to resolve conflicts. This is a privilege that is available to anyone. Bandwidth and connectivity speeds have been increasing. Parties in disputes are using technology to bypass the legal mechanisms or institutions (Armbrust 2000). The virtual platform is not only private but decentralized. This has enabled organizations develop a decentralized environment in the quest to develop dispute resolution mechanisms using cyberspace (Barrett and Barrett 2012). The participants of the cyberspace mediation are expected to develop a decision without involving the judges. The representation of multiparty disputes and other parties is not affected. Internet offers a platform for glass root information and development of information from the pluralistic nature of its architecture (Wang 2010). The applications within cyberspace make it possible to use enormous information from a variety of sources during the mediation process. The dispute resolution professionals are optimistic about the cyberspace mediation and the potential thereof (Hawk, Rieder, and Oviedo 2008). The development of a virtual dispute resolution mechanism is perceived to be the modern organizations’ highest aspirations (Barrett and Barrett 2004). The virtual architecture is expected to prove that mediators can use technology to resolve organizational issues within a short period (Armbrust 2000). This cyberspace mediation saves time and space. Research shows that virtual mediation shall cause organizations to invest in enhanced technology. This shall benefit other aspects about the operations of an organization (Breslow and Mousoutzanis 2012). Virtual negotiations eliminate travel costs and save money for the parties (Barrett and Barrett 2004). The mediators are said to be more effective in the digital platform given that the temperatures of the disputes appear to be low because of the geographical barriers. Numerous mediators argue that cyberspace mediations pose straightforward challenges (Doherty and Guyler 2008). However, the challenges are be overcome as a growing number of internet users get acquainted to online settings (Barrett and Barrett 2004). Critics argue that online communication and dispute resolutions cannot be a substitute to solving challenges while physically present (Breslow and Mousoutzanis 2012). This is linked to the values and attributes of communication during mediation. Many mediators argue that the fact that disputants are incapable of speaking is the reason for mediation (Armbrust 2000). The choice of using a digital platform which is perceived as slow and prone to breakdown is questionable (Hawk, Rieder, and Oviedo 2008). However, a growing number of organizations are targeting the global market and opening branches across the world (Gonc?alves 2008). The process of dispute resolution between to international branches or employees working in different continents has necessitated the use of technology (Barrett and Barrett 2004). The process of online mediation is said to ensure organizations or multinational operate as units despite the geographical barriers (Breslow and Mousoutzanis 2012). Online mediation offers better safeguards for caution and sensitivity compared to the conventional mediation (Breslow and Mousoutzanis 2012). The online mediums of mediation are lessening as a growing number of organizational or workplace activities become founded on technology (Armbrust 2000). The demands of the online platforms and the mediation process have advanced to the place of accepting online communications for exclusive transactions (Barrett and Barrett 2004). Technology has developed to an extent of replicating face-to-face interactions in comprehensive and inexpensive ways (Hartley 2007). Majority of participants in the online understand the dynamics and usability of technological architecture (Breslow and Mousoutzanis 2012). Disputants are able to engage and push for justice without having to have direct interpersonal meeting (Hawk, Rieder, and Oviedo 2008). Although the cyberspace mediations are not expected to become the mirror image of the real world, it has help in achieving phenomenal results (Gonc?alves 2008). Electronic communication has created a foundation for progressive mediation that culminates in physical meeting (Doherty and Guyler 2008). Technology has allowed a virtual space where participants can convert their offices into a session for mediation while still accessing other information (Doherty and Guyler 2008). The pluralism of the virtual space has empowered employees to participate in negotiation while ensuring workplace fundamentals and profitability is not affected (Brown 2000). Cyberspace communication through video conferencing entails the use of expression of feelings orally (Hawk, Rieder, and Oviedo 2008). It also creates a face-to-face setting. The participants have access to chat rooms where they can type information if need be or access shared documents through specialized applications (Barrett and Barrett 2004). Online tools of mediation are increasingly becoming effective in aiding negotiations and mediation (Armbrust 2000). Employees within an organization or parties to a contract can result to the mediations at their convenience. Critics argue that the use of online platform is not formal and therefore is not known as an authoritative avenue for legal organizational matters like conflict resolution (Doherty and Guyler 2008). Technology has enabled multiple participants in the mediation process to conduct structured dialogue within the cyberspace environment. The effectiveness of cyberspace mediation depends on the ease of use among the participants (Breslow and Mousoutzanis 2012). The process of documenting proceedings of a digital mediation is easy (Armbrust 2000). The mediator is able to facilitate such talks and conduct further consultations at a click of a button (Doherty and Guyler 2008). Real time discussions about things that matter to workers or employees have promoted the use of technology into other productive uses (Barrett and Barrett 2004). Online mediation is known to give instant results given its ability to reassure disputants during the times of conflict (Brown 2000). Conducting multiparty disputes can be facilitated through video calls (Hartley 2002). The online dispute resolution mechanisms have been successfully used for the last few years (Armbrust 2000). Research shows that technology does not influence the results of the outcome. The standards of the communication are professional and the mediator facilitates substantive values needed by the disputants (Hawk, Rieder, and Oviedo 2008). Majority of the disputants consider cyberspace mediations as private (Barrett and Barrett 2004). This causes many of them to endorse it (Brown 2000). Through the information superhighway, online mediation has effectively become a practical alternative in the disputes resolution. The process of developing online mediation skills demands training and ability to interpret information communicated by the participants or generated by the computers (Armbrust 2000). The cyberspace dispute resolution is less effective in developing countries where electrification and internet speed is still limited (Barrett and Barrett 2004). Online mediators are expected to listen and aggregate information from the disputants (Breslow and Mousoutzanis 2012). This calls for understanding both the verbal and nonverbal communication from the concerned parties. The cyberspace mediator must have the competence to allow others pass their message without allowing the meaning to be diluted through the virtual environment (Barrett and Barrett 2004). Cyberspace mediation demands that the facilitator anticipate the oncoming statements from parties to the dispute (Brown 2000). The digital environment causes the mediator to do more or to be unusually keen (Armbrust 2000). The mediators are expected to make indirect judgments from the private conversation (Hartley 2002). Technology becomes a tool that facilities the process and makes mediation effective in a given context (Doherty and Guyler 2008). The latest technology has eliminated the limitations of previous technology. Cyberspace mediation had shifted the advantage to only those have access to computers (Saco 2002). Online dispute resolution mechanisms are increasingly becoming popular in mediation and arbitration in workplaces (Hawk, Rieder, and Oviedo 2008). The information society perceives internet and cyber space and an alternative dispute resolution mechanism (Armbrust 2000). This is referred to online dispute resolution (ODR). The inspiration behind the use of internet as an alternative dispute resolution is propelled by the need to have increased cooperation when resolving workplace disputes (Hawk, Rieder, and Oviedo 2008). The online platform creates an atmosphere of cooperation rather than contention (Barrett and Barrett 2004). Online mediation uses the influence of a non partisan with third party who is not expected to impose any solution to the warring parties (Breslow and Mousoutzanis 2012). Ease of use, search- ability and other attributes has made increased the preference for the online mediation platform (Brown 2000). Entrepreneurs are opting to establish electronic dispute resolutions in order to capture the disputants businesses (Barrett and Barrett 2004). Conventional systems are becoming overwhelming while dealing with workplace conflicts (Armbrust 2000). Physical space does not permit most of the conventional mediation efforts as the world becomes congested while the workload increases (Gonc?alves 2008). In conclusion, the online dispute mechanism is increasingly gaining ground as organizations continue to respond to the wave of globalization. Technology is a vital organizational competence that has is playing the central role in organizational performance (Armbrust 2000). Electronic alternative dispute resolution mechanism has been boosted through development of the specialized software like Cyber-Settle. A growing number of technological companies are developing applications that serve at different capacities within a workplace (Hawk, Rieder, and Oviedo 2008). This includes developing consortium websites. Online tools have proved to be an effective tool in workplace mediation. References Armbrust, W. 2000. Mass mediations: New approaches to popular culture in the Middle East and beyond. Berkeley: University of California Press. Barrett, J. T., & Barrett, J. P. 2004. A history of alternative dispute resolution: The story of a political, cultural, and social movement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Breslow, H., & Mousoutzanis, A. 2012. Cybercultures: Mediations of community, culture, politics. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Brown, D. G. 2000. Interactive learning: Vignettes from America's most wired campuses. Bolton, MA: Anker Pub. Co. Doherty, N., & Guyler, M. 2008. The essential guide to workplace mediation & conflict resolution: Rebuilding working relationships. London: Kogan Page. Gonc?alves, M. 2008. Conflict resolution: Concepts and practice. New York: ASME Press. Hartley, R. E. 2002. Alternative dispute resolution in civil justice systems. New York: LFB Scholarly Pub. Hawk, B., Rieder, D. M., & Oviedo, O. O. 2008. Small tech: The culture of digital tools. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Saco, D. 2002. Cybering democracy: Public space and the Internet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Wang, F. F. 2010. Internet jurisdiction and choice of law: Legal practices in the EU, US and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More