Reference no: EM133389433

Imagine you are part of a start-up business that is developing a strategy to deal with workplace conflicts. You are one of the organization's three leaders and are helping to set up HR policies. One of your colleagues, Pat, says that they would like to make mediation a formal part of any workplace conflict or complaint because of the high success rate of mediation. Pat also suggests that workers sign a contract saying they will enter into mediation before suing anyone in the company, even after they leave the business.

Your other colleague, Taylor, argues against requiring mediation for all types of complaints, noting that power differentials can make it easy for bosses to intimidate employees in these situations and also points out that there are just some conflicts-such as those that involve allegations of sexual harassment or discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender-that are inappropriate for mediation. In addition, Taylor points out the potential frustration and anxiety that could be felt by someone who experienced a major "conflict," like a physical or sexual assault, having to be in a room with their attacker for mediation.

Your colleagues are at an impasse. Your goal for this lab is to wrote a business letter that helps to solve this problem by making an argument for one of the two positions (mandatory, contractual mediation for all conflicts or mediation for certain kinds of conflicts only) or by presenting a third, distinct position (rejecting mediation completely, for example). You do not need to formally cite academic research for your letter, but your argument will be stronger if you can provide links to some authorities on the subject, so include some way of citing sources for your arguments.