1

FEDERAL WORKPLACE

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT DESK REFERENCE

A Compilation of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Processes, 

Partners, and Resources

October 2013

NOTE: This Guide applies to the internal management of the federal executive branch and is intended only to provide helpful 

advice. It is not intended to create any new right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law

or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.

It is intended to be relied upon as a source of constructive suggestions for the effective administration of agency workplace

ADR programs, but is not to be accorded “deference” as an “agency interpretation.” Questions regarding interpretations of the 

Guide should be brought to the Office of the General Counsel or Legal Counsel in each department or agency. In addition, 

federal employee mediators must look to agency rules, regulations, directives and policies to obtain guidance in conducting 

proceedings for their agency.

Regardless of employees’ temporary or full time service as mediators, they serve primarily as federal employees and are 

responsible for being aware of and complying with all statutory and regulatory requirements, including certain reporting 

requirements. Should employees have questions regarding any of these requirements and how they may relate to their 

obligations as mediators, it is incumbent on those employees to contact appropriate personnel within their respective agencies 

to resolve such questions.

Conflict Management Section of the Interagency Working Group includes:

Cindy Mazur 

ADR Director, Alternative Dispute Resolution Division, Federal Emergency Management Division

Victor Voloshin 

Chief Mediation Officer, RESOLVE Program Director, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Pamela Pontillo 

ADR Specialist, Office of Conflict Prevention and Resolution, U.S. Department of Energy
2

Contents

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Desk Reference Format .................................................................................................................................................................... 6

SECTION I: Processes and Approaches............................................................................................................................................. 7

 Alternative Discipline ................................................................................................................................................................... 8

 Appreciative Inquiry (AI)............................................................................................................................................................. 10

 Arbitration.................................................................................................................................................................................. 12

 Climate Assessment.....................................................................................................................................................................................14

 Community Of Practice (COP) .................................................................................................................................................. 16 

 Conflict Coaching........................................................................................................................................................................ 18

 Conciliation/Facilitation ............................................................................................................................................................. 20

 Creative Problem Solving (CPS).................................................................................................................................................. 22

 Dispute Panels/Peer Review ...................................................................................................................................................... 25

 Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) ................................................................................................................................................... 27

 Fact Finding ................................................................................................................................................................................ 29

 Group-Process Facilitation ......................................................................................................................................................... 31

 Interest-Based Problem Solving (IBPS)....................................................................................................................................... 33

 Mediation................................................................................................................................................................................... 35

 Open Door.................................................................................................................................................................................. 38

 Settlement Conferences............................................................................................................................................................. 40

 Team Building/Improving Communication ................................................................................................................................ 42

SECTION II: Potential Partners ....................................................................................................................................................... 45

 Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Office.............................................................................................................................. 45

 Affinity Groups/Special Emphasis Programs .............................................................................................................................. 46

 Employee Assistance Program (EAP)/Worklife Programs .......................................................................................................... 46

 Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Civil Rights Offices.................................................................................................. 47

 Human Resources (HR)/Employee Relations (ER) / Human Capital ........................................................................................... 47

 Information Technology (IT)....................................................................................................................................................... 48

 Labor Relations (LR) Office ......................................................................................................................................................... 48

 Office of General Counsel (OGC)................................................................................................................................................ 49

 Ombuds Office ........................................................................................................................................................................... 49

 Organizational Development (OD) ............................................................................................................................................. 49

 Strategic Planning/Program Design and Evaluation................................................................................................................... 50

 Training Office - Workforce Development Office....................................................................................................................... 50

 Union.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 51

 Workplace Violence Prevention (WVP) Coordinator or Security Office ..................................................................................... 51

SECTION III: Resources: Using Technology in Dispute Resolution.................................................................................................. 53

SECTION IV: Resources: Print and Web Resources ........................................................................................................................ 55

SECTION V: Common Problems and Helpful Processes ................................................................................................................. 64
3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This desk reference represents a collaborative effort undertaken by members of the InterAgency Alternative Dispute Resolution Workplace Conflict Management Section, program 

managers at Federal government agencies, and other professionals and academics involved in 

the field of alternative dispute resolution. Appreciation is extended to all of them. The 

following people are noted for their exceptional dedication and work on this multi-year effort. 

They are listed in alphabetical order.

NOTE THAT THEIR PARTICIPATION AND CONTRIBUTIONS DO NOT REFLECT ANY OFFICIAL 

POSITION OF AN AGENCY

LeAndrea Alsobrook

Rachel Barbour

Elisabeth Bissell

Dian E. Brooks

Jessica Bunce

Doris Campos-Infantino

Linda Cinciotta

Patrick Chapman

Judy Cohen

Andrew Colsky

John P. Conbere

Sylvia Covington

Stephanie Fell

Judy Finkelstein

Ross Fishbein

Howard Gadlin
4

Phyllis Hanfling

Kelly Hoecherl

Eric Liberman

Deborah Katz

Christine M. Kopocis

Cindy Mazur

Leah Meltzer

Jennifer Ortiz

Andrew Pizzi

Pamela Pontillo

Jerrilynne Purdy

Sarah Rudgers-Tysz

Rob Scott

Mariatu Tejan

Elizabeth Veit

Victor Voloshin

Karen Willis
5

INTRODUCTION

This desk reference reflects the collaborative effort of ADR professionals from a wide array of 

agencies throughout the Federal government. While it is not meant to be a scholarly 

publication, it does contain the collective wisdom of knowledgeable professionals with many 

years of Federal workplace experience. This publication provides a practical desk reference for 

ADR professionals, practitioners, and program managers, as well as supervisors and managers 

who are interested in enhancing their approach to addressing workplace conflict within the 

Federal government. It offers information for a flexible, collaborative approach to conflict 

resolution.

PURPOSE OF THIS DESK REFERENCE

The purpose of this desk reference is to provide Federal alternative dispute resolution staff, as 

well as others involved in workplace conflict, with a collection of current information to 

enhance their work and further develop their programs. New and seasoned practitioners and 

professionals will find the desk reference useful, as it combines the input from ADR program 

managers, practitioners, and professionals from a wide range of Federal agencies. Supervisors 

can use this information as a guide to the processes and resources they might choose to assist 

them in addressing workplace conflict. The information is presented in an easily useable and 

practical format. 

Specifically, this desk reference contains information about processes and approaches currently 

used in some Federal workplace conflict management and dispute resolution programs. The 

desk reference will give people working in this area a common understanding of the variety of 

processes and approaches. It also may broaden the context within which they are used. All of 

the processes and approaches may not be available in any one agency. In fact, most agencies 

may use only one or several or the approaches identified here. 

This desk reference includes a section on potential internal partners who may be consulted in 

order to encourage integration of Federal workplace ADR and related programs into the wider 

culture of an agency. Normalizing conflict and creating conditions where conflicts are 

acknowledged and addressed – preferably early in the process – allow an agency to avoid 

unnecessary distractions from its mission. Potential partnerships within the agency, such as 

with ADR professionals and those involved in workforce development, among others, enable 

ADR and related programs to prevent and address workplace conflict and resolve workplace 

disputes holistically and effectively. 
6

DESK REFERENCE FORMAT

We present conflict resolution processes in this desk reference in a simple, easily understood 

format. Each situation is unique and calls for a tailored and appropriate response. Of course, an 

essential hallmark of all these ADR processes is the voluntary consent of all parties to 

participate.

Section I outlines specific processes and approaches used to address conflict in the workplace. 

It provides examples of conflict situations utilizing these approaches. We describe seventeen 

processes distinct ADR processes. 

Section II lists potential partners. These are typically different offices within a Federal agency 

with whom another office or individual supervisor or manager may collaborate to effectively 

address conflict between individuals or within a group. This section describes the 

responsibilities of each office and identifies potential benefits of collaborating with the office. 

Section III describes some of the ways technology can enhance and support various processes 

and approaches and facilitate collaboration with partners. This section includes print and web 

resources for further reading.

Section IV sets forth a matrix of common workplace conflicts with corresponding processes and 

approaches to consider.
7

SECTION I: Processes and Approaches

The following processes and approaches offer proactive methods for an agency to consider in 

addressing workplace conflict and disputes. The information for each process or approach is 

organized as follows:

1. A definition for the process/approach

2. An explanation of how the process/approach works

3. The role of the individual (the practitioner) who facilitates the process/approach

4. A list of benefits of the process/approach

5. Other aspects to consider when using the process/approach

6. Possible concerns when using the process/approach

7. Complementary processes/approaches

8. Illustration of a workplace situation utilizing the process/approach 

This list (in alphabetical order) is an introduction to alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) as 

well as non-traditional tools for addressing conflicts and disputes. It is not exhaustive, nor is it 

exclusively applicable to conflicts in the Federal workplace.

1. Alternative Discipline

2. Appreciative Inquiry

3. Arbitration

4. Climate Assessment

5. Community of Practice 

6. Conflict Coaching

7. Conciliation/Facilitation

8. Creative Problem Solving

9. Dispute Panels/Peer Review Panels

10. Early Neutral Evaluation

11. Fact Finding

12. Group Process Facilitation

13. Interest-Based Problem Solving 

14. Mediation

15. Open Door

16. Settlement Conferences

17. Team Building/Improving Communication
8

ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINE

1. DEFINITION

Alternative discipline is a measure occasionally chosen by management to address 

inappropriate employee conduct or behavior where traditional discipline (e.g., reprimand, 

suspension, removal) might have been inappropriate.

2. HOW IT WORKS

• At any stage of the formal disciplinary process, management official with decisionmaking authority may offer alternative discipline to an employee slated to be disciplined

and an employee must voluntarily consent

• Management official and employee may successfully negotiate an appropriate 

alternative form of corrective action in lieu of penalties typically used by agencies

• May result in a written agreement including specific terms and conditions

• Alternative discipline may involve a panel review of any written agreement

• Generally, supervisor with disciplinary authority determines whether to offer alternative 

discipline to an employee

3. ROLE OF THE PRACTITIONER

• May be a designated official in the human capital/human resources office 

• Helps establish criteria to determine if alternative discipline is appropriate

• Advises participants of options available through alternative discipline

• Assists in writing the agreement

4. BENEFITS

• Employee remains on the job and should have better morale

• Collaborative process allows the employee and supervisor to negotiate together for a 

consensual form of corrective action in lieu of formal discipline

• Workplace relationships more likely to remain intact

• Remedial instead of punitive approach

• Flexible process that may be offered at any stage of the disciplinary process

• Saves time and resources

• May not require the assistance of a third-party neutral

5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• Most successful when an employee acknowledges responsibility for his/her behavior, 

expresses remorse, and agrees not to repeat the inappropriate behavior
9

• Purpose is to modify employee’s behavior, thus it should be used when it is reasonable 

to believe alternative discipline will be more effective than traditional discipline

• Successful resolution may impact an employee’s grievance or appeal rights and agencies 

must communicate this to the employee

6. CONCERNS

• Agency regulations and union contract may preclude the use of alternative discipline

• Upper management may perceive alternative discipline as inconsistent with disciplinary 

action policies

• Employees may view alternative discipline as a process used for “favorite” employees

• Illegal misconduct should be excluded, such as workplace violence, sexual harassment, 

and discrimination

• May need to consult with legal counsel to ensure any agreement reached is properly 

drafted

• May produce an expectation or standards that other infractions will be similarly treated 

7. COMPLEMENTARY PROCESS AND APPROACHES

Conflict Coaching, Mediation, and Creative Problem Solving

8. ILLUSTRATION

An employee was alleged to have misused a government travel credit card, an infraction 

which generally calls for at least a two-day suspension from duty, without pay. The 

employee was offered an alternative discipline and the agency and employee negotiated a 

consensual agreement with the following terms: the employee admitted to the alleged 

misconduct and agreed to make a minimum payment of $100 per month until the 

outstanding balance was paid in full. Additionally, the employee consented to counseling 

through the agency’s Employee Assistance Program and the agency waived filing a formal 

reprimand in the employee’s official personnel file. 
10

APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY (AI)

1. DEFINITION

AI is an approach in which participants consider what works well in their group or 

organization, identify their highest values, and envision the best future outcome. AI is an 

alternative to traditional problem solving or “fix-it” approaches. AI focuses on structuring 

an organization around what works rather than focusing on what does not work. AI is 

based on three assumptions: 

1) Inquiry creates change

2) Positive questions lead to positive change

3) Images inspire action

2. HOW IT WORKS

• The 4-D Model – Discovery, Dream, Design and Destiny1

o Discovery: participants recall times when they or the organization participated in 

a particularly successful project. This process identifies positive aspects of the 

organization or relationship that may work well in the future

focuses on

o Dream: participants look to the future and consider improvements they would 

like to see happen in the organization or relationship. The focus is on a future 

that is inspired, admirable, and creative, rather than on negative critiques

o Design: participants (all or a selected group) design the organization or 

relationship to reflect a future with heightened positive potential

o Destiny: implementation of the new strategy for the organization or parties

• AI is driven by provocative questions that focus on the best of what is and what could be

• AI is centered on telling personal and organizational stories to:

o Identify past success

o Build on past success

o Achieve future success

3. ROLE OF THE PRACTITIONER

• Provides practical theory application

• Takes participants through a series of thoughtful and/or provocative questions to 

capture success stories

• Uses past success stories to move forward with an exciting vision for the future

• Supports an anticipatory framework and maintains focus on positive language

• Develops an action plan to leverage participants’ success

 

1 Cooperrider, David, Diana Whitney, and Jacqueline Stavros. Appreciative Inquiry Handbook. Bedford Heights, OH:

Lakeshore, 2003. Print
11

4. BENEFITS

• Elicits conversations and stories that heighten individual or group aspirational goals

• Participants gain a sense of commitment, confidence, and affirmation

• Evokes participants’ capacity to articulate a real and vibrant vision and bring about 

change

• Helps people reflect on how management can support and sustain their best 

experiences at work

• Can be used by individuals knowledgeable about the process without the assistance of a 

professional

5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• Provides a process to change the dynamic in the organization by maximizing strengths

• Can be used for relationship building, such as between agency management and unions

6. CONCERNS

• People have a tendency to consistently focus on the “problem”

• Some perceive AI as too “touchy-feely”

7. COMPLEMENTARY PROCESS AND APPROACHES

Climate Assessment, Community of Practice, Conflict Coaching, Group-Process Facilitation, 

and Team Building

8. ILLUSTRATION

An organization experiencing conflict invited an agency ADR professional to conduct an 

intervention to improve communication and productivity. As part of a day-long custom 

designed training session, the leader tasked small groups to identify what they most 

appreciated about working for the organization at that location. The results of this exercise 

in the morning were built on during the subsequent modules. The results were used to 

bring a positive focus and reminder why individuals wanted to work on building better 

workplace communication.
12

ARBITRATION

1. DEFINITION

Arbitration is a process in which parties agree to present a dispute to an impartial individual 

who hears evidence and issues a decision regarding the dispute. Parties agree in advance as 

to whether the decision will be binding or not. If the parties agree to binding arbitration, 

the decision is final and enforceable, except in rare circumstances such as fraud. The 

Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 requires all binding arbitration programs to 

have Department of Justice concurrence unless there is alternative, statutory authorization 

for the program.2

 For example, collective bargaining agreements require a negotiated 

grievance procedure with binding arbitration.3

2. HOW IT WORKS

• Parties agree to arbitration or arbitration is invoked by a party to a contract containing

an arbitration clause

• Parties mutually select the arbitrator through a roster or as indicated in an arbitration 

clause

• Arbitrator’s scope of authority is limited according to the parties’ agreement 

• Parties may decide to limit the arbitrator’s authority to specific issues 

• Parties may present evidence and witnesses at the arbitral hearing depending upon 

rules dictated by the parties’ agreement or subject to the arbitrator’s discretion

• Parties may agree either pre-dispute or post-dispute to use a set of rules issued by one 

of the commercial entities (e.g., JAMS, American Arbitration Association [AAA], Conflict 

Prevention and Resolution [CPR])

• Arbitrator generally establishes procedural and evidentiary rules

• Arbitrator renders a decision only on the issues presented and an arbitrator’s decision 

does not have precedential value

3. ROLE OF THE PRACTITIONER

• Serves as an impartial decision maker, external to the parties

• May be chosen from a roster of professionals through a commercial entity such as AAA,

CPR, or JAMS with subject-matter expertise

4. BENEFITS

• Parties determine the issues to be decided

• Can be faster and less expensive than litigation

 2 5 U.S.C. § 575(c)(1996).

3 5 U.S.C. § 7121(a)(1)(1998).
13

5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• May be used for employee grievances or labor-management disputes requiring 

interpretation of law, rules, regulations, and/or terms of a collective bargaining 

agreement

• Often handled in the Labor Relations Office or Office of General Counsel

6. CONCERNS

• Can be adversarial

• Can be costly and time consuming compared with other ADR processes

• May not address the disputants’ underlying interests

7. COMPLEMENTARY PROCESS AND APPROACHES

Dispute Panels, Fact Finding, and Mediation

8. ILLUSTRATION

Union representatives were allowed to perform their representational duties away from the 

worksite, including at their home locations. Agency employees objected to management’s 

determination that management had no further obligation to provide space for the union 

president at his home. The employer terminated that practice and the union filed a 

grievance. The collective bargaining agreement required arbitration, and parties presented 

their respective sides to an arbitrator through briefs and oral arguments. The arbitrator 

interpreted the terms of the collective bargaining agreement and issued a binding decision 

holding that unilateral termination of this past practice violated the bargaining agreement.
14

CLIMATE ASSESSMENT

1. DEFINITION

A manager consults with a third-party neutral to obtain an accurate summary of his or her 

workforce. 

2. HOW IT WORKS

• At the request of the manager, the neutral listens to the manager’s impressions, 

concerns, and goals about a particular workplace situation or the overall environment

• Neutral addresses confidentiality with the manager and other individuals from whom 

information is sought

• They discuss the most appropriate information-gathering method for the group and 

establish parameters of the undertaking through the use of one or several of the 

following methods: 

o Individual questionnaires

o Individual interviews

o Small group meetings using group process techniques to maximize participation

o Facilitated discussion with a large group

• Neutral meets with individuals or groups with the permission of the manager requesting 

the assistance and the participants’ understanding about objectives

• Neutral conveys a summary to manager without individual attribution within a 

reasonable period of time after the climate assessment to help the manager determine 

next steps. Usually the manager decides to share this summary with staff

3. ROLE OF THE PRACTITIONER

• Gathers information about the issues involved and the sources of conflict

• Serves as liaison and conveyor of information

• Does not advocate for any side

• Conveys information constructively without individual attribution

• May recommend other agency resources or other processes and training to address 

concerns and interests raised

• May offer general impressions, observations, suggestions, and best practices

4. BENEFITS

• Useful and proactive way to invite candid feedback from colleagues or subordinates and 

minimize concerns about retaliation

• Gives group members a chance to express their concerns in a structured and safe 

environment with the help of a trained and experienced third-party neutral

• Helps identify patterns and entrenched views
15

• Moves parties beyond blame and encourages self-responsibility by inviting suggestions 

for creative ideas for going forward

5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• Clarify objectives as early as possible so the process is seen as credible, participants are 

not defensive, and expectations are reasonable

• Requires sufficient resources, including time and the appropriate number of third-party 

neutrals to complete the work

• Generally, experienced third-party neutrals with a variety of well-developed skills are 

best suited for this tool

• May be particularly effective in situations where a group is undergoing change

6. CONCERNS

• Parties may look to the third-party neutral to solve the problem rather than taking

responsibility to work together

• May require substantial logistical coordination and time on the parts of both 

participants and the neutral(s)

• May raise unrealistic expectations if there is no follow-up after the initial information 

gathering 

• Some of the issues may need to be addressed by other offices within the organization

7. COMPLEMENTARY PROCESSES AND APPROACHES

Appreciative Inquiry (AI), Conflict Coaching, Creative Problem Solving, and Team Building

8. ILLUSTRATION

A manager consulted with the agency’s ADR Office for help with a team conflict. The thirdparty neutral from the ADR office and the manager developed a method for information 

gathering that allowed for individual input through one-on-one interviews with each team 

member using a set of questions designed to surface worthwhile and constructive 

information. The third-party neutral also invited each participant to share any information 

at the end of each interview. Next, the third-party neutral compiled a composite picture of 

the team, summarized the emerging themes and suggestions, and suggested a specific 

mediation for two team members with a history of conflict. Other suggestions included 

team-building exercises, capacity building in working collaboratively, and a briefing from the 

Employee Relations Office to clarify specific policies and practices and to answer questions.

Six months later, the manager reported more productive and engaged team members and 

expressed a positive attitude about the changes that had taken place in the workplace 

environment.
16

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE (COP)

1. DEFINITION

CoP is the process of social learning that occurs when people with a common interest in a 

subject, goal, or program collaborate over an extended period to share ideas, find solutions, 

and build innovations. CoPs are fundamentally self-organizing systems that develop around 

meaningful issues and bring together people bound by a common goal or problem.

2. HOW IT WORKS

• Members join voluntarily based on a mutual interest or problem

• Members agree on structure and priorities for the CoP

• A CoP may operate under the umbrella of a sponsoring organization

• Members may naturally gravitate to one another or be identified based on a specific 

project or initiative

• May meet in person or communicate electronically to share information and ideas on a 

regular basis or as desired by members 

3. ROLE OF THE PRACTITIONER

• Does not carve out a role for a third-party neutral unless a member of the CoP 

informally facilitates the discussions

4. BENEFITS

• Gives people with mutual interests or goals an opportunity to learn from one other

• Creates a network of learning and mutual support in connection with a problem, 

interest, or objective

• Informal and inexpensive vehicle to provide peer learning, develop groups or 

organizations, and encourage innovation through the exchange of information, 

experiences, and ideas

5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• An umbrella agency sponsoring or involved with a CoP must strike a balance between 

the CoP’s need for information, resources, support, and structure and the agency’s need 

for the CoP to be independent and self-sustaining

• Important to clarify the mutual goals and interests of its members so that members 

understand the purpose

• Time and space needed for collaboration or technical support if collaboration will be 

virtual

• Members of a CoP should be prepared to dedicate the time and energy necessary to 

address common goals or problems
17

• Trust among members of the CoP is essential

6. CONCERNS

• An umbrella agency could inadvertently stifle the creativity and self-organization of the 

CoP 

• If the CoP lacks a defined focus, it may be less effective

• Focus could become too insular and miss information crucial to the purpose

• Bureaucracy of an umbrella agency may inhibit information exchange 

7. COMPLEMENTARY PROCESSES AND APPROACHES

Appreciative Inquiry (AI), Creative Problem Solving, Group-Process Facilitation, InterestBased Problem Solving, and Team Building

8. ILLUSTRATION

The ADR program managers of sub-agencies within a cabinet-level department meet 

regularly to discuss ADR and related issues. Agenda items for each meeting include 

substantive issues such as innovative techniques being used in any one of the sub-agencies, 

how to address change in leadership, or how to overcome a limited budget environment. 

During each meeting, participants take time to discuss what is happening in each of their 

offices. This network has met enthusiastically for over a decade to share lessons learned, 

collaborate on projects of joint interest, and share new ideas in the field.
18

CONFLICT COACHING

1. DEFINITION

Conflict coaching is used to assist an individual manager or employee with his/her reaction 

to conflict in the workplace. Conflict coaching often works in conjunction with other 

processes to create the behavior modification and skill development necessary for longterm conflict management or resolution.

2. HOW IT WORKS

• Coach may be formally certified as a conflict coach from an organization offering 

training and certification

• The coach works with the client to establish a coaching contract that outlines the 

coaching relationship, number and length of sessions, and the process for assessing the 

client’s coaching needs

• Coach may serve as client’s sponsor, appraiser, role model, and/or teacher in 

accordance with client’s interests 

• During a series of sessions, coach engages by listening, observing, analyzing, 

interviewing, and providing feedback

• Through a series of conversations and learning activities, coach serves as a catalyst for

exploration, learning, and resolution

3. ROLE OF THE PRACTITIONER

• Pays full attention to coaching client throughout each coaching meeting

• Serves as sounding board and “thinking partner,” helping the client see different 

perspectives, explore options, and learn through experience between sessions

• Uses an interactive dialogue technique

• Holds coaching client accountable for the actions he/she chooses to undertake

4. BENEFITS

• Provides support for behavior modification and builds skills regarding long-term conflict 

management or resolution

• Useful when an individual experiencing conflict wants to work one-on-one with a coach 

and prefers not to engage directly with the other party to the conflict

• Useful in preparing an individual prior to his or her participation in mediation

5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• Consistent with ethical standards, coaching multiple parties involved in the same conflict 

can provide the coach with a wide perspective and prove instrumental in helping parties 

identify sources of and options for effective conflict management or resolution
19

6. CONCERNS

• Distinguishing among different types of coaching can be difficult

• Receiving a commitment for ongoing engagement in a coaching relationship may be 

challenging 

• Conflict coaching can be costly if using an external third-party

• Confidentiality expectations should be fully discussed

7. COMPLEMENTARY PROCESSES AND APPROACHES

Appreciative Inquiry (AI), Climate Assessment, Creative Problem Solving, and Interest-Based 

Problem Solving

8. ILLUSTRATION

A conflict coach assisted an employee with a series of interpersonal conflicts in the office. 

The coaching client’s objective was to better understand the dynamics of the workplace 

conflict in which she was involved. Through conflict coaching, the coaching client became 

increasingly aware of her interactions and better able to consider her choices about what 

she might do to improve matters. With the coach’s help, the coaching client designed a 

time-based plan and explored and prepared for challenges. Soon after, the coaching client’s 

supervisor, who had encouraged her to participate in conflict coaching, commented to the 

coach about the noticeable change in the coaching client and team she worked with. 

Several weeks later, the coaching client confirmed that her coaching experience allowed her 

to identify and alter her problematic behavior in the workplace and make amends with coworkers. The coaching client admitted that without this improvement, she would have left 

the agency.
20

CONCILIATION/FACILITATION

1. DEFINITION

Conciliation is a process where a third party facilitates discussions with parties to reconcile 

differences, generally by seeking concessions. Although similar to mediation, it does not 

include a formal agreement to participate in the process, and may not include provisions 

such as confidentiality which are generally spelled out in a mediation agreement, and the 

third party neutral may not have had formal training in mediation.

2. HOW THE PROCESS WORKS

• Conciliation is a voluntary and informal process facilitated by a third-party neutral or an 

individual whom the parties trust

• Usually the conciliator meets for an initial in-depth discussion with each party regarding 

the issues and objectives for the conciliation

• Third party neutral serves as a “go between” and shuttles information, perspectives, and 

ideas between parties at their request

• If an agreement is reached, the agreement may be verbal or written

3. ROLE OF THE PRACTITIONER

• Assists parties with issue identification and prepares parties to move beyond the past

• Listens to and helps parties articulate their concerns to one another

• Works with parties on improving their relationship

• Allows the parties to make decisions as to how to move forward

4. BENEFITS

• Facilitates a dialogue between parties and helps to improve communication

• Resolves disputes quickly and informally

• Proactively addresses relational and other issues before conflict escalates

• Cost effective

5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• Basic skill often performed on an informal level

6. CONCERNS

• Parties may be reluctant to engage in conciliation due to a lack of trust
21

• Conciliation process may be too informal

• Conciliation agreement may be difficult to enforce

• Process may not have the same confidentiality protection under the law as the 

protection offered by mediation4

7. COMPLEMENTARY PROCESSES AND APPROACHES

Mediation and Open Door

8. ILLUSTRATION

A Unit Leader and staff person came to the ADR Office for assistance with a conflict with a 

Branch Director who had yelled at the staff person and threatened to have that person 

fired. They asked the ADR Advisor to speak with the Branch Director and convey their 

understanding of the situation and desire to make the situation better. The ADR Advisor 

met with the Branch Director, listened to his concerns, and discovered shared interests. 

The ADR Advisor presented information and suggestions from the Unit Leader and staff 

person, then collected the Branch Director’s suggestions. The ADR Advisor went back to the 

Unit Leader and staff person with the Branch Director’s suggestions and discussed a mutual 

plan for moving forward. The loop was closed with a final phone call to the Branch Director 

for his agreement.

 4 See Interagency ADR Working Group Steering Committee. “Protecting the Confidentiality of Dispute Resolution 

Proceedings – A Guide for Federal Workplace ADR Program Administrators.” ADR.gov. April 2006. Web. 16 August 

2013. See also The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, (signed by President H.W. Bush in 1990, reauthorized by 

President Clinton in 1996). 5 U.S.C. § 571-83 (1996).
22

CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING (CPS)

1. DEFINITION

CPS is the process of identifying new solutions and generally has two components: 

1) Generating original ideas or options, and 

2) Using those ideas to make a decision

2. HOW IT WORKS

• The decision-making component is sub-divided into 

o Analysis

o Evaluation

o Selection

• CPS is exploratory and operates outside the norm by considering different approaches 

to framing and addressing a problem

• CPS involves a number of generic strategies5

o Suspending judgment

including:

o Brainstorming

o Challenging assumptions

o Generating alternatives

o Reframing

o Visualizing

o Reverse thinking

o Using analogies, metaphors, and similes

o Welcoming random ideas6

• CPS may be used to frame the problem or issue, to develop an appropriate process to 

address the problem or issue, and/or to generate options for resolution

• Participants agree to reserve their assumptions about results and outcomes

• CPS requires commitment to work together to frame the problem in a mutually

acceptable way and to discuss what process to use to work through the problem

• Participants are encouraged to suspend judgment, ask any and all questions (e.g., 

‘‘What if money weren’t a consideration; what else would satisfy you?”), be patient, 

dedicate themselves to creativity and improvisation, and remain fully engaged in the 

moment

 5 de Bono, Edward. Lateral Thinking: Creativity Step by Step. New York: First Perennial Library, 1979. Print 6 Cooley, John. Creative Problem Solver’s Handbook for Negotiators and Mediators. Vol. 2. Chicago: American Bar 

Association, 2005. 10-17. Print.
23

3. ROLE OF THE PRACTITIONER

• Explains different creative problem solving strategies and guides the participants in 

employing them

• Assesses the situation and suggests potentially effective strategies

• Demonstrates curiosity and optimism and willingness to improvise and pay attention in 

the moment

• Guides session, suggests traditional and non-traditional approaches (e.g., random-word 

association), and captures all ideas in writing

4. BENEFITS

• Avoids formal dispute resolution process if used early

• Leads to creative and practical solutions to prevent future problems

• Can be used by individuals knowledgeable about the process without the assistance of a 

neutral

5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• Must be willing to commit to the process by allocating sufficient time for working 

together and remaining open to unknown possible outcomes

6. CONCERNS

• Participants may be unfamiliar with the concepts of vertical thinking (using information 

for its own sake in order to move forward to a solution) and lateral thinking (using 

information not for its own sake, but provocatively in order to bring about repatterning)7

• Participants may be reluctant to embrace new, problem-solving techniques and 

strategies

7. COMPLEMENTARY PROCESSES AND APPROACHES

Conflict Coaching, Group-Process Facilitation, and Team Building

8. ILLUSTRATION

A group of IT professionals routinely thought about projects as a linear series of tasks, 

causing them to fall behind schedule: they could not see how to address step nine before

completing step two. During a team-building session, a third-party neutral used lateral 

thinking puzzles to demonstrate creative ways of approaching a project. The neutral asked 

the group to build a ship in a bottle in a specified time. Although the group started to 

organize the tasks in a linear fashion, they soon realized they would not complete the 

 7 See de Bono at 44-5.
24

project on time if they continued this way. Instead, they began to pull the directions apart 

and identify tasks that could be done in parallel and saw how other tasks complemented one 

another. They succeeded in building a beautiful ship in a bottle, on time, using a non-linear 

project plan and were then prepared to integrate CPS techniques into their IT projects.
25

DISPUTE PANELS/PEER REVIEW PANELS

1. DEFINITION

Dispute panels are made up of impartial individuals (usually designated or pre-selected by 

the agency) who convene to hear the disputing parties and render a decision or opinion on 

the matter presented.

2. HOW IT WORKS

• A dispute panel (generally 3 people) may be part of a grievance process or stand-alone 

process for addressing workplace issues, e.g., disciplinary actions or performance 

evaluations

• The panel may consist of peers of the disputants or management officials, union 

officials, and persons jointly selected by management and the union

• Disputants are allocated a specific amount of time to present and argue their respective 

cases before the panel

• The panel receives written arguments and evidence from the disputants, considers the 

arguments and evidence, and submits recommendations to an appropriate deciding 

official

• The deciding official can accept, reject, or modify the recommendations

• The panel can make decisions or recommendations by consensus or majority vote

3. ROLE OF THE PRACTITIONER

• May be a member of the panel or serve as a facilitator for the panel

• Listens to arguments, considers evidence, and engages in decision making through 

collaboration with fellow dispute panel members

4. BENEFITS

• Provides parties with the opportunity to be heard and to present their case in an 

orderly, formalized setting

• Provides due process for parties

• Decision is rendered within a specified time frame

• May take less time and expense than lengthy grievance meetings

• Takes into consideration the importance of the parties’ relationship

5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• Can be used for labor-management disputes

• May need to educate agency personnel about the purpose of a dispute panel and the 

process for utilizing it in the context of the agency’s other dispute resolution processes

• Is well suited for a non-union environment
26

• Limitations may be necessary when a Dispute Panel/Peer Review Panel 

recommendation differs from the original disciplinary action 

6. CONCERNS

• Disputants may perceive the panel as biased

• Must manage expectations of disputants and avoid confusion between the hearing and 

a legal proceeding

• Some managers may perceive the dispute panel as undermining management decisions

• Takes time and resources to select panel members and administer the program; agency 

may not see enough benefit 

7. COMPLEMENTARY PROCESSES AND APPROACHES

Arbitration, Fact Finding, and Mediation

8. ILLUSTRATION

A Federal security office employee was written up and ultimately suspended for failure to 

perform proper security screening. The employee explained that extenuating 

circumstances diverted his attention. The employee appealed the three-day suspension 

without pay to the agency’s Peer Review Panel -- a type of dispute panel. The Peer Review 

Panel received evidence and heard from the employee. The panel considered the matter 

and concluded that the disciplinary action of a suspension without pay was too severe. The 

panel changed the action to a Letter of Reprimand. Additionally, the panel made 

recommendations to management to avoid similar problems in the future and management 

implemented those recommendations. 
27

EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION (ENE)

1. DEFINITION

ENE is a process where a third-party neutral (evaluator) with substantive knowledge and 

experience provides an early and honest assessment of the merits of a case to the parties.

2. HOW IT WORKS

• Parties agree on an evaluator (generally external to the organization)

• Parties make brief presentations and provide written submissions to the evaluator

• Evaluator considers parties’ presentations and submissions and researches relevant case 

law, regulations, and industry standards, as applicable

• Evaluator offers opinions in private sessions regarding:

oStrengths and weaknesses of each side’s case and potential outcomes

oPossible settlement value

• Evaluation is not binding on the parties

3. ROLE OF THE PRACTITIONER

• Possesses and uses subject-matter expertise

• Should be an attorney or judge when evaluation requires legal expertise

• Serves as an impartial evaluator of the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s side

• Offers opinions, not decisions 

4. BENEFITS

• Provides a candid assessment of strengths and weaknesses of each side’s case in private

• Helps identify and clarify central issues in dispute

• Provides objective expertise so parties may realistically analyze the merits of their case

• The evaluation may help parties assess the case and move towards settlement

5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• Best suited for disputes involving complex technical or factual issues requiring expert 

evaluation

• Useful when parties have strong positions and significant disagreement about the value

or merits of the case

• Voluntary process that does not eliminate other dispute resolution options

• Cost and time are important factors, especially if the evaluator is external
28

6. CONCERNS

• Parties may disregard the recommendation and opinion of the evaluator in favor of 

litigating

• Evaluator may not receive all relevant information and can only render a 

recommendation based on what has been presented

• Evaluator may need to refer parties to legal counsel when evaluation requires legal 

expertise

7. COMPLEMENTARY PROCESS AND APPROACHES

Fact Finding, Non-Binding Arbitration, Mediation, and Settlement Conferences

8. ILLUSTRATION

An employee, angry about perceived nepotism, asked the ADR Office for assistance 

regarding his boss’s alleged illegal hiring. The parties agreed to mediation and worked with 

a mediator with expertise in personnel law. The parties asked the mediator to take the role 

of an ENE. The mediator conferred privately with the employee and helped the employee 

grasp the legal definition of nepotism. The employee came to a clear understanding and 

withdrew his complaint. The manager asked if mediation could go forward nonetheless so 

that they could discuss the opportunities for advancement and residual feelings the 

employee had about favoritism in the office. The air was cleared and the employee became 

more engaged in his work. 
29

FACT FINDING

1. DEFINITION

Fact finding is a voluntary process where a third-party neutral (often referred to as a 

neutral, fact finder) studies the issues in dispute and reports factual conclusions to the 

disputing parties. Unlike early neutral evaluation, the neutral here may perform an 

investigation to determine the facts. The purpose of the neutral is to establish facts rather 

than to issue a final decision to resolve the dispute.

2. HOW IT WORKS

• Parties select the neutral fact finder

• Most fact finders are external to the organization

• The fact finder performs an investigation, conducts interviews, and gathers 

documentation about the issues in dispute

• Once the fact finder has collected information and analyzed the issues, he/she provides 

non-binding recommendations to the parties about how to resolve the dispute

• Parties agree to time frames for accepting or rejecting the recommendation and to the 

next steps if the recommendation is rejected

• If the parties reject the recommendation, the fact-finding report can be useful in further 

negotiation and formal adjudicatory procedures

3. ROLE OF THE PRACTITIONER

• Uses knowledge and expertise of relevant laws and issues 

• Gathers, analyzes, and organizes information, data, and facts 

• Prepares a well-written, fact-finding report

• Offers only recommendations and does not impose a decision upon the parties

4. BENEFITS

• Helps parties clarify issues and identify relevant information

• May be useful where one party lacks access to information or resources needed to 

resolve the dispute

• Mechanism for collecting and organizing information related to the dispute

• May foster joint problem solving among the parties once the facts are established

• Fact-finding recommendations encourage settlement and expand options

• Can be limited to a single issue in the dispute instead of the dispute as a whole
30

5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• Internal fact finders must be independent without any relationship to either party or 

personal interest in the outcome of the dispute

• Best used where specific facts are in dispute and resolution requires knowledge of laws, 

rules, and regulations, such as employment discrimination or expertise in technical 

scientific issues

6. CONCERNS

• Parties may see the fact finder as an advocate

• Fact finding requires access to people and information and is less effective if parties are 

not forthcoming and key officials in an agency are not involved in the process

• Fact finding requires sufficient time and flexibility for effective investigation

• Costs include fees, travel, research, and writing the report

• Process does not provide interaction between the parties that could lead to joint 

problem solving

7. COMPLEMENTARY PROCESS AND APPROACHES

Dispute Panels, Early Neutral Evaluation, and Settlement Conferences

8. ILLUSTRATION

An agency and a union used fact finding as part of the implementation of an EEO mediation 

program. Both sides agreed in principle that they wanted to develop the mediation 

program but could not agree on appropriate procedures. A neutral fact finder with 

expertise in EEO statutory requirements undertook a fact-finding investigation, interviewing

both sides and gathering agency information. After the investigation, the fact finder issued 

a report that:

• Recommended combining the grievance and EEO processes

• Determined the number of days a dispute could remain in mediation before 

arbitration timelines would commence

• Required managers to participate in mediation

The fact finder recommended timelines for filing the initial complaint and the number of 

steps in the process. The parties successfully implemented the program based on the fact 

finder’s determination of best practices.
31

GROUP-PROCESS FACILITATION

1. DEFINITION

Third-party neutral serves as facilitator and helps a group improve the way it identifies 

problems and makes decisions in order to increase the group’s effectiveness. Well-planned 

and facilitated meetings sustain participants’ energy and allow them to contribute their best 

thinking to the meeting.

2. HOW IT WORKS

• Facilitator contracts with the group prior to the meeting to identify objectives of the 

group session(s) and clarify the roles and responsibilities of the facilitator and 

participants 

• Facilitator collaborates with participants to develop an agenda and time allocation in 

advance of the session

• During the session, facilitator guides the conversation, uses different processes and 

techniques to enhance participation, keeps the group on time and on track, and helps 

meet stated objectives

3. ROLE OF THE PRACTITIONER

• Brings experience and expertise in process, group dynamics, interest-based problem

solving, collaboration, and consensus building

• Listens actively, asks open-ended questions to elicit information, summarizes where the 

group is, and reframes and rephrases issues, statements, and concerns

• Observes group dynamics, reflects observations, and suggests process behaviors to 

increase group effectiveness

• Displays flexibility and the ability to modify his/her behavior, the group’s focus, and the 

process as needed

• Facilitates the process only, does not have decision-making authority

4. BENEFITS OF THIS PROCESS

• Encourages candor and participation from all group members

• Participants focus on information exchange, full communication, collaboration, effective 

decision making, and positive outcomes

• Enables groups to resolve conflict
32

5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• Most effective in situations where the group is trying to resolve a particular problem or is 

aware of its ineffectiveness and wants to make a change

• Many Federal agencies have trained and experienced facilitators in their ranks

• If external, may be costly 

• Technology may be useful to maximize participation

6. CONCERNS

• Facilitator may be mistaken for a chairperson to whom comments are addressed

• If facilitator is knowledgeable on the subject matter, he/she may step out of the 

facilitation role and share opinions on substance or contribute ideas to content

• An internal facilitator may treat participants differently because of organizational culture

7. COMPLEMENTARY PROCESSES AND APPROACHES

Appreciative Inquiry, Community of Practice, Creative Problem Solving, Interest Based 

Problem Solving, and Team Building

8. ILLUSTRATION

An agency had a legislatively-created role as chair of an inter-agency group of individuals 

addressing an issue on the Federal and state levels. Quarterly meetings were held which 

involved representatives from a number of Federal agencies and several states and were 

conducted without a facilitator. The chair decided to invite a facilitator to enhance 

participants’ engagement and overall meeting effectiveness at the next quarterly two-day 

meeting. With the help of the chair and staff, the facilitator planned the agenda and 

discussed ways to assist in information sharing and problem solving. During the meeting, 

the facilitator designed individual, pair, and small group activities to cover the agenda items 

and recorded information on chart paper while the full group weighed in on different topics. 

At the meetings, a participant commented that she had never before seen so much 

communication and interaction within the group.
33

INTEREST-BASED PROBLEM SOLVING (IBPS)

1. DEFINITION

IBPS is a structured process where participants work to solve problems while simultaneously 

fulfilling their own interests and attempting to satisfy the interests of others. IBPS ensures 

that all participants contribute ideas to the group and that the group values their 

contributions. The principles of IBPS are to separate the people from the problem, focus on 

interests not positions, invent options for mutual gain, and reach an agreement based on 

objective standards or criteria.

8

2. HOW IT WORKS

The objective is to create a solution that is supported by 

and benefits each party. 

• With the assistance of a third-party neutral, participants identify issues that are 

important to them 

• Participants identify their underlying interests, e.g., needs, concerns, values, and fears,

by examining why each issue is important 

• Participants gain an understanding of shared and complementary interests 

• Participants prioritize interests, then generate options to meet their interests

• Participants select or develop criteria to evaluate options, run the options through the 

criteria, and prioritize/eliminate some options

• Participants may develop a written or oral agreement

3. ROLE OF THE PRACTITIONER

• Focuses on process (how) while participants focus on content (what)

• Allows participants to define the discussion based on their interests and desires

• May train participants about the IBPS approach in advance of the session

4. BENEFITS

• Encourages full participation by each member throughout the process

• Identifies problems and provides a structured process to work together towards 

solutions, unlike positional problem solving, which is essentially adversarial

• Solutions are creative and durable

• Can preserve and improve the long-term relationship between the parties

• Can be utilized by trained individuals without the assistance of a third-party neutral 

• Generates options to satisfy as many interests as possible

 8 Fisher, Roger and William Ury. Getting to Yes. 2nd ed. New York: Penguin Books, 1991. Print
34

5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• Participants must commit themselves to the process by allocating the necessary amount 

of time to resolve the problem 

• Participants must suspend judgment and remain open to outcomes not previously 

considered 

• Best to train participants jointly in the IBPS process

• Used with labor-management relations as an alternative to positional bargaining

6. CONCERNS

• Lack of trust could cause participants to remain entrenched in their respective positions

• IBPS takes time, especially at the beginning, and participants may be impatient

• Participants must discuss confidentiality

7. COMPLEMENTARY PROCESSES AND APPROACHES

Group-Process Facilitation, Mediation, Settlement Conference, and Team Building

8. ILLUSTRATION

Two mid-level managers regularly erupted into loud arguments with one another. Others in 

the office complained to the supervisor about the volatile disputes. The supervisor asked 

the two managers to work with a mediator and confided in the mediator that one of the 

managers would likely be released due to the problems. During mediation both participants

identified their interests similarly. They realized their employees were “forum shopping” 

between them -- running to the other manager whenever they were given a direction they 

didn’t like. Their lack of alignment was the cause of their conflict, difficulty with staff, and 

problems with their supervisor. They decided to resolve issues at their level so that their 

supervisor would not be involved. They agreed to meet their own interests by 1) telling 

staff to go to their direct supervisor and abide by his/her decision; 2) bringing 

disagreements to each other rather than “veto” the other’s instruction; and 3) allowing 

their supervisor to make the decision on policy matters.
35

MEDIATION

1. DEFINITION

Mediation is a process where a third-party neutral, who is not a decision maker, facilitates 

discussion between the parties to help them reach a mutually acceptable resolution.

2. HOW IT WORKS

• Mediation is voluntary unless mandated by a court, an adjudicative body, or a collective 

bargaining agreement

• The process is confidential, except for statutory exceptions, and the mediator does not 

discuss the proceedings with anyone not present during the mediation9

• Mediator may be assigned to a case with party approval or parties may agree on a 

particular mediator 

• Mediator may engage each party separately and/or jointly prior to mediation session to 

discuss process, rules of engagement, and roles

• During mediation session, each party has an opportunity to share his/her perspective 

without interruption

• Mediator facilitates discussion of the problem, meets individually with each party, and 

helps parties negotiate to reach a mutually-acceptable agreement

• If an agreement is reached, it may be oral or written and signed by the parties

• If no agreement is reached, the parties may reconvene or move into a formal process to 

address their dispute, without referencing discussions from the mediation

3. ROLE OF THE PRACTITIONER

• Uses the mediation model adopted by the particular agency

o Facilitative mediation seeks to help parties understand the issues and interests in 

the dispute and helps the parties develop their own mutually satisfactory options 

for resolution. The mediator does not provide an opinion about the outcome

o Evaluative mediation allows a mediator with subject matter expertise to point out 

weaknesses in a party’s position and provide predictions as to how the matter 

would be resolved in formal legal proceedings

o Transformative mediation focuses on the relationship of the parties and the 

opportunity for individuals to transform their interactions with each other. By 

improving their relations, the parties are better able to resolve their conflict

• Guides the process and determines when to meet with both parties in joint session or 

individually 

• Establishes a tone to help parties engage in meaningful dialogue

• Creates a safe environment

• Treats all parties equally

 9 5 U.S.C. § 574(a). 
36

• Has no decision-making authority

4. BENEFITS OF THIS PROCESS

• Facilitated dialogue improves communication and preserves relationships

• Brings parties together in a safe, confidential environment to discuss issues

• Participation in mediation provides an opportunity for parties to negotiate and may be 

helpful for the future resolution of the matter even if the matter is not resolved in 

mediation

5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• Most effective when parties need to engage in meaningful dialogue regarding their 

dispute or when non-facilitated dialogue has reached an impasse

• May last several hours or take more than one day

• A mediator with subject matter expertise may be helpful, but is not required

• Mediator may be external or internal to the agency; if external, the cost will be 

dependent on the source used

6. CONCERNS

• Parties may perceive a conflict of interest if the mediator is internal to the agency

• Parties may wrongfully perceive mediator as an advocate or as biased, especially when 

the mediator provides a reality check to one or both parties 

• Mediation may be inappropriate from the agency’s perspective under certain 

circumstances, e.g., agency would like a formal decision to establish a legal precedent10

• Parties may be unable to participate fully if their interest is to determine who is right or 

wrong, seek justification for their actions, or place blame

• Requires advance preparation by the participants for maximum efficiency and benefit 

7. COMPLEMENTARY PROCESSES AND APPROACHES

Alternative Discipline, Arbitration, Conciliation, Creative Problem Solving, Dispute Panels, 

Early Neutral Evaluation, Group-Process Facilitation, and Interest-Based Problem Solving

8. ILLUSTRATION

An employee believed she was being treated differently from co-workers and filed a 

complaint alleging discrimination based on race and gender. The basis for her complaint 

was that she and another employee were hired at the same time at the GS-12 level and one 

year later, the other employee was promoted to a GS-13 position while the complainant 

remained at the GS-12 level. The complainant was eligible to be promoted, but it was 

 10 5 U.S.C. § 572(b). 
37

unclear if the duties of her job supported a higher grade level. The complainant requested 

mediation to resolve her complaint. As a result of mediation, the parties agreed to an 

accretion of duties to reflect the complainant’s current position. The complainant withdrew 

her complaint and received a promotion to a GS-13. The session lasted four hours. The 

entire process took three months, including a desk audit.
38

OPEN DOOR

1. DEFINITION

An open door approach refers to a high level manager advertising that his/her door is 

always open and that any employee is invited to raise concerns directly with that manager

at any time. An open door policy invites direct input and feedback and, therefore, requires 

structure to manage expectations. 

2. HOW IT WORKS

• High-level manager announces an open door policy within the group or organization and 

defines what it means and how the process works

• Open Door managers maintain confidentiality of the source and information brought to 

them in that capacity

• Employees are encouraged to first consult their direct supervisor but may go to the Open 

Door manager in lieu of that person

3. ROLE OF THE PRACTITIONER

• Uses excellent listening skills

• Some senior-level managers with an open door policy have the authority to decide issues

4. BENEFITS

• Internal managers understand the culture of the organization and have insight that an 

outside neutral lacks

• Keeps the discussion informal 

• Managers gain insight into possible problems

• Useful if there is no ombudsman or similar function within the agency

5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• Officials must be carefully selected to ensure credibility with the staff

• The managers selected should understand the parameters of the role and scope of 

confidentiality

• To be effective, the policy should be publicized frequently

• Trust that the manager will maintain confidentiality is essential

6. CONCERNS

• Because the Open Door manager is internal, the employees could mistrust the program

• Managers could misunderstand the role and inadvertently or intentionally share 

information with other managers closer to the employee’s chain of command
39

• Confidentiality protections may be unclear

• Open Door manager may be overwhelmed with repeat clients

• Other managers may feel undermined by this “outside of chain of command” structure

• Perception among employees may be that Open Door manager caters only to direct 

concerns rather than issues surfaced through supervisory channels

7. COMPLEMENTARY PROCESSES AND APPROACHES

Conciliation, Conflict Coaching, Creative Problem Solving, and Interest-Based Problem 

Solving

8. ILLUSTRATION

The administrator of the department maintained an Open Door policy. Several mailroom 

employees were disgruntled about working conditions, salaries, and promotion potential. 

They were advised against approaching the administrator directly. It was also suggested 

that the employees file a union grievance. Despite the union’s advice, employees went to 

the administrator’s office. After speaking with the employees, the administrator told them 

he wanted to visit their office and speak with the group as a whole to see for himself some 

of the concerns. When the administrator came to the mailroom, the employees felt their 

concerns were acknowledged and validated. They spoke freely to him about their 

frustrations. The administrator listened, thanked them for bringing the issues to his 

attention, and saw for himself some of the concerns. The administrator agreed to work 

with the union and the HR Office to assure that conditions improved for these workers. He 

made a commitment to them that they appreciate to this day. 
40

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES

1. DEFINITION

In a Settlement Conference, disputing parties and a judge (generally not the judge assigned 

to the trial of the matter) hold a meeting designed to bring formal litigation to a satisfactory 

close. 

2. HOW THE PROCESS WORKS

• A settlement judge conducts pre-trial or pre-hearing meetings to encourage parties to 

settle the case

• Generally through legal counsel, parties provide specific substantive information and 

legal arguments for their respective positions

• A settlement judge questions and challenges parties in order to bring about a binding 

settlement agreement for all or some of the issues in dispute

• If parties do not reach a settlement agreement on all issues, dispute continues through 

adjudicatory process with a judge making a decision

3. ROLE OF THE PRACTITIONER

• Practitioner is a judge

• Discusses settlement options and ranges (if money is involved) for parties to consider

• Assists parties in reaching a mutually acceptable settlement

• Has no power to impose settlement or to coerce parties to accept settlement

4. BENEFITS OF THIS PROCESS

• Parties and representatives have the authority to settle the case

• Parties fully discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases

• Process may bring about a resolution of the entire case or narrow the issues in formal 

dispute

5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• Often used in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Federal Labor Relations 

Authority, and other adjudicatory, legal proceedings

• Agency attorneys participate as the process involves discussing legal precedents and 

applying law to the facts of the dispute

6. CONCERNS

• Parties may posture or be unprepared

• Parties may become very positional and reach a stalemate
41

7. COMPLEMENTARY PROCESSES AND APPROACHES

Early Neutral Evaluation, Fact Finding, and Interest-Based Problem Solving

8. ILLUSTRATION

In an administrative proceeding prior to a hearing, the settlement judge held a settlement 

conference when a request for information was denied. Representatives from the union 

wanted cost information from an agency in connection with a reorganization and relocation 

of agency personnel. The union wanted this information to determine why the agency did 

not provide certain features for new office space such as partitions, locks, and ergonomic 

chairs. Moreover, the union sought detailed information about the size of the offices and 

whether the union would be provided with an office. Representatives from the union 

stated that this information was essential to carrying out its representational functions. 

Representatives of management at the agency viewed the request as too burdensome and 

that, in some instances, the requested information was unavailable. The union, in turn,

alleged failure to bargain in good faith. The settlement judge helped the parties to agree on 

a strategy for sharing available information in ways that satisfied both parties and resolved 

the dispute.
42

TEAM BUILDING/IMPROVING COMMUNICATION

1. DEFINITION

Team Building is a process in which a third-party neutral assists a team or group of 

individuals with interrelated roles and responsibilities to work together more effectively. 

The third-party neutral collaborates with the team to design the process for identifying and 

surfacing issues and building relationships. The neutral facilitates the session(s). Team 

members operate within a set of norms and rules and define the goals and guidelines for 

working together effectively to achieve their goals. 

2. HOW THE PROCESS WORKS

• Team member selection depends upon the circumstances and objectives of the 

organization

• Team Building involves development of rules, norms, and goals

• The team evaluates goals and decides how to implement them 

3. ROLE OF THE PRACTITIONER

• Works with management and participants prior to the session to determine the needs of 

the team and prevailing dynamics, then briefs them on team-building processes

• Guides the process and helps organize information generated during the session

• Helps identify problems and state them in a neutral, nonjudgmental manner for 

consideration by the group

• Works with the group to generate and clarify ideas to address problems 

• Helps team develop implementation and evaluation plan for stated goals

• May work with a group over time and assign work to be done by individuals or subcommittees in between team-building sessions

4. BENEFITS OF THIS PROCESS

• Provides structure that allows each team member to contribute

• Hands-on participation improves morale and productivity

• Gives members the opportunity to devote time and energy to communicating, solving

problems, and learning from one another

• Can help counter cliques, turf battles, and personality clashes 

• Useful to assist with team formations, mergers, or organizational change

• Can provide much needed “big picture” for the individual’s and group’s role in the 

agency

5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• Time needed to meet with participants in advance of group session

• The team is the neutral’s client, not just team leaders or management
43

• Advantageous if sessions are held off-site or at a neutral location

• Practitioner may group participants randomly to encourage communication and team 

building

• Technology may be useful to make the process quicker and encourage maximum 

participation

6. CONCERNS

• Manager’s view of team’s real needs may be different from team’s view

• Past experience and relationships among team members may hinder the possibility of an 

improved situation

• People may be reluctant and skeptical about Team Building, terming it “touchy feely” 

• Team Building by itself may be insufficient if the organization is undergoing significant 

change 

• Team Building can be expensive if using an external practitioner

7. COMPLEMENTARY PROCESSES AND APPROACHES

Appreciative Inquiry, Community of Practice, Conflict Coaching, Creative Problem Solving, 

Group-Process Facilitation, and Interest-Based Problem Solving

8. ILLUSTRATION

A work team was experiencing conflict and sought the assistance of a neutral by talking with 

the ADR and HR Offices. The team-building practitioner assigned to work with the team 

structured several sessions with the team to build unity and raise morale. The practitioner 

began by interviewing the supervisor and the team members to get a sense of the prevailing 

dynamics. It was apparent that there was a clear rift between the newer employees and 

those employed at the agency for a long time. The practitioner designed a two-day teambuilding session to address the concerns expressed during the interviews. Exercises allowed 

the team to see each member as a person, rather than just a co-worker, and gave team 

members an opportunity to express themselves creatively. After working together, the 

group discussed the underlying reasons for the conflict and developed a coherent list of 

collective priorities to bring to their supervisor and upper management. The team 

members got to know one another and almost every member expressed a desire to support 

one another and the work of the team going forward. 
44

CONCLUSION

This concludes the first section of the Federal Workplace Conflict Management Desk 

Reference. For more information, please see the Bibliography at the end of this document. 

You will find helpful materials at www.adr.gov. 

You may contact the chair of the Workplace Conflict Management Section of the 

Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group Steering Committee, Cindy 

Mazur, Director of ADR at FEMA, 202-646-4094 or cindy.mazur@fema.dhs.gov.
45

SECTION II: Potential Partners

By reaching out to specialized providers, agencies build creative synergies and bring a valueadded dimension to effective conflict management. The goal is to form strong partnerships 

that work collaboratively to address conflict in the workplace by utilizing the strength and 

expertise of various offices, divisions, groups, and programs within a Federal agency. The 

information for each potential partner is organized as follows:

1. What each office does

2. Potential benefits of collaborating with that office 

The following is a list (in alphabetical order) of offices, divisions, groups, and programs found 

within the Federal government whose roles are critical in addressing conflict in the workplace. 

This non-exhaustive list is intended as a guide to explain:

1. Alternative Dispute Resolution Office

2. Affinity Groups/Special Emphasis Programs

3. Employee Assistance Programs (EAP)/Worklife Programs

4. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Civil Rights Offices

5. Human Resources (HR)/Employee Relations (ER)/Human Capital

6. Information Technology (IT)

7. Labor Relations (LR) Office

8. Office of General Counsel (OGC)

9. Ombuds Office

10. Organizational Development (OD)

11. Strategic Planning/Program Design and Evaluation

12. Training Office/Workforce Development Office

13. Union

14. Workplace Violence Prevention (WVP) Coordinator or Security Office

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) OFFICE

WHAT THIS IS:

This office is a source for a variety of dispute resolution methods that serve as alternatives to 

litigation and formal administrative procedures. It champions satisfying solutions, fair 

procedures, and constructive professional relationships. Legislative11 and executive branch12

 11 The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, (signed by President H.W. Bush in 1990, reauthorized by President 

Clinton in 1996). 5 U.S.C. § 571-83 (1996).

initiatives mandated ADR functions in all Federal agencies. This office promotes:

12 White House Memorandum on Designation of Interagency Committees to Facilitate and Encourage Agency use 

of Alternate Means of Dispute Resolution and Negotiated Rulemaking (May 1, 1998).
46

• Resolving issues quickly, at the lowest possible level, efficiently, and with little or no 

cost

• Analysis of the appropriateness of ADR in a particular case

• Procurement of neutrals , both internal and external, used in the types of techniques 

described in this Desk Reference

• Application of professional conflict resolution techniques, which can be particularly 

useful for specialized areas such as workplace disputes environmental issues, 

acquisitions, and regulation negotiations

BENEFITS OF PARTNERING WITH ADR:

• Extensive knowledge of conflict resolution skills and processes

• Good reference guide for locating external assistance 

• Relieves the burden of finding experienced conflict resolvers

• Partnering with the ADR Office is both cost effective and efficient

• Functions as an excellent resource for creative problem solving, training, group 

process facilitation, and team building

• Informal and easy to access

• Knowledge of agency history and culture

AFFINITY GROUPS/SPECIAL EMPHASIS PROGRAMS

WHAT THIS IS:

Some Federal agencies have sanctioned groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, national 

origin, sexual orientation, and disability. These groups/programs are responsible for: 

• Promoting diversity awareness

• Ensuring that group members’ interests are considered in agency decision making

• Promoting an understanding of the workplace with respect to race, ethnicity, gender,

national origin, sexual orientation, and disability

BENEFITS OF PARTNERING WITH AFFINITY GROUPS/SPECIAL EMPHASIS PROGRAMS:

• Possess useful knowledge and data regarding the workplace environment and what 

works well or needs improvement for the members

• Good source for understanding how to relate to and work with particular groups and 

to minimize escalating conflict

EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (EAP)/WORKLIFE PROGRAMS

WHAT THIS IS:

EAP is a voluntary program staffed by experienced counselors offering confidential, short-term 

counseling at no cost. The program offers:

• Experienced counselors to discuss problems, either personal or work-related, in a 

confidential manner 
47

• Assistance to employees in need of counseling, particularly when personal concerns 

and problems interfere with an employee’s ability to function at work. In addition, 

EAP counseling may offer referrals for specific assistance, e.g., legal, therapeutic, 

and financial. Employees are responsible for accessing these resources and 

following up 

• Counseling and referrals for family, work, and personal issues such as dependent 

care, alcohol abuse, stress management, caregiver support, and life event 

consultation13

BENEFITS OF PARTNERING WITH EAP:

• EAP counselors may work with individual managers and supervisors to help address 

the needs of employees as well as organizational challenges

• Employees in need of counseling can access this resource when personal concerns 

and problems interfere with their ability to function at work

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY (EEO) AND CIVIL RIGHTS OFFICES

WHAT THIS IS:

These offices promote diversity in employment and, a discrimination-free workplace, and 

ensure equal access and opportunity to all employees. There are a number of Federal laws, 

regulations, and Executive Orders that protect employees from discrimination based on the 

person’s race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, genetic 

information, or reprisal for actions including whistle-blowing. 

• ADR must be available for both pre-complaint and formal complaint processes

14

when an employee raises an issue of discrimination under one or more protected 

bases

BENEFITS OF PARTNERING WITH EEO:

• EEO hires mediators and investigators to work with EEO cases, and has the expertise 

to provide guidance on techniques for managing workplace conflict

• EEO has an Education and Outreach department that meets with employees and 

employers on a limited basis at no cost

HUMAN RESOURCES (HR)/EMPLOYEE RELATIONS (ER)/HUMAN 

CAPITAL

WHAT THIS IS:

In some agencies HR, ER, and Human Capital comprise a single office responsible for handling 

all of these functions. Their role is to:

 13 The extensive list of EAP services is available at www.FOH4you.com 14 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(b)(2) (1999).
48

• Address personnel issues such as hiring, training and development, and employee 

relations 

• Develop policies and carry out procedures, rules, and regulations in the area of 

Federal human resources management

BENEFITS OF PARTNERING WITH HR, ER, and HUMAN CAPITAL:

• Staff members have expertise in systems design to effectuate change in the 

workplace

• Staff have broad knowledge based on HR rules, benefits, and resources

• Staff are very committed to employee/agency well-being and mission focus

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT)

WHAT THIS IS:

Agency IT staff works with managers and employees to provide the best infrastructure and 

technology components to meet their needs. 

BENEFITS OF PARTNERING WITH IT:

• IT staff has expertise providing online data management tools that can be used to 

track conflict issues and processes in order to address conflict

• The IT office provides assistance in development and implementation of a conflict 

resolution program evaluation

• Provides equipment and expertise to facilitate virtual communication among 

practitioners and parties

LABOR RELATIONS (LR) OFFICE

WHAT THIS IS:

LR Office acts as a point of contact and liaison for an agency in dealing with unions to ensure 

that an agency fulfills its labor relations obligations. 

BENEFITS OF PARTNERING WITH LR:

• The LR Office has expertise in formal dispute resolution procedures, especially 

grievances, arbitration, adverse actions, and unfair labor practices

• The LR Office is a resource that ensures agreements are compliant with employment 

law, Federal employment rules, and Federal employment regulation, and the 

collective bargaining agreement

• They offer training and education

• They can assist with disciplinary actions
49

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)

WHAT THIS IS:

OGC ensures full and proper implementation of an agency’s statutory and regulatory 

responsibilities and provides legal counsel to the agency on internal and external legal matters. 

OGC matters include the legal aspects of general administrative issues such as contracts and 

personnel, litigation, and regulatory compliance, in addition to substantive compliance with 

authorizing legislation.

BENEFITS OF PARTNERING WITH OGC:

• The OGC keeps abreast of developments in the use of mediation, confidentiality, 

ethical standards for neutrals, and the relationship between ADR and Agency policies

• OGC can be very helpful in reviewing agreements for legal sufficiency to facilitate 

compliance

• OGC staff may be experienced in ADR processes and actively support conflict 

resolution efforts

OMBUDS OFFICE

WHAT THIS IS:

The workplace ombudsman serves as “a neutral member of the [organization] who provides 

confidential and informal assistance to employees in resolving work-related concerns and is 

outside the normal management control structure.”

15 The essential characteristics of ombuds 

are independence, impartiality, and confidentiality.

BENEFITS OF PARTNERING WITH OMBUDS OFFICE:

• Ombuds make recommendations for organizational change based on an analysis of 

complaint patterns and trends brought to the attention of the Ombuds Office

• They may have the authority to investigate and report findings

• Some Ombuds are authorized to participate in the resolution of bargaining-unit 

employee disputes

• They are intended to supplement and not replace formal procedures

ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (OD)

WHAT THIS IS:

The OD office works with managers and employees to improve relationships and processes for 

organizational effectiveness. 

 15 Robbins, Lee and William Deane. “The Corporate Ombuds: A New Approach to Conflict Management.”

Negotiation Journal 2 (1986): 195, 197. Print; see also Howard, Charles L. The Organizational Ombudsman: Origins, 

Roles, and Operations–A Legal Guide. Chicago: American Bar Association. 2010. Print. 
50

BENEFITS OF PARTNERING WITH OD:

• OD specialists have a keen understanding of organizational needs and internal culture 

and an ability to integrate the two in resolving conflict

• OD specialists have pre-existing channels of communication and methods of 

implementing change, which allows organizations to be pro-active in preventing and 

addressing challenges

• OD specialists may have expertise in conducting climate assessments and other ADR 

processes; they can be utilized as internal practitioners

STRATEGIC PLANNING/PROGRAM DESIGN AND EVALUATION

WHAT THIS IS:

Strategic planning initiatives involve the concerted effort of a number of offices within an 

agency such as HR, Human Capital, and program management offices that work together to 

define goals, assess resource availability, develop new policies, and devise specific plans to 

achieve these goals. 

BENEFITS OF PARTNERING WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING/PROGRAM DESIGN AND 

EVALUATION:

• Strategic planners in an agency have expertise in assessment, design, evaluation, and 

identification of staffing and funding sources for achieving outcomes

• These skills are transferable and applicable to resolving workplace conflict

• Planners can incorporate conflict resolution skills into an organization’s strategic plan

TRAINING OFFICE/WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE

WHAT THIS IS:

In some Federal agencies, training and workforce development are separate offices from HR. 

These offices provide continual learning opportunities and workplace improvement services.

BENEFITS OF PARTNERING WITH TRAINING OFFICE/WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE:

• Due to their interaction with multiple offices, they have a larger perspective of the 

challenges that contribute to workplace conflict

• They have expertise in online educational tools and change management

• They have expertise in technology to offer training at a national level
51

UNION

WHAT THIS IS:

In many Federal agencies employees are represented by unions.

16

• Representing employee needs and rights to management 

 Unions are responsible for:

• Serving as the intermediary between management and employees

BENEFITS OF PARTNERING WITH UNIONS:

• While other conflict management systems may supplement union statutory or 

bargaining processes, they cannot replace them

• Binding Arbitration or Negotiated Grievance Procedures may be required by a 

collective bargaining agreement

• Any change in managing workplace conflict may constitute a change in working 

conditions of bargaining unit employees and trigger bargaining obligations

• Ensure statutory obligations in ADR program development and implementation are 

met

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PREVENTION (WVP) COORDINATOR OR 

SECURITY OFFICE

WHAT THIS IS:

Most Federal agencies have violence in the workplace policies and an office to investigate and 

enforce policies as needed. The WVP Coordinator or Security Office: 

• Determines whether workplace incidents rise to the level of workplace violence 

• Determines the appropriate agency response 

BENEFITS OF PARTNERING WITH WVP:

• The WVP Coordinator offers a useful perspective on organizational issues that impact 

workplace conflict

• It provides training in awareness and prevention of workplace violence 

• It has the opportunity to address and refer out issues at the earliest observation to the 

appropriate partner

 16 5 U.S.C. § 7102
52

CONCLUSION

Conflict is inevitable and should be addressed with skill and professionalism. Awareness of the 

dispute resolution tools available in the Federal workplace and the appropriate office to contact 

to access them leads to an improved capacity to address workplace conflict as soon as practical. 

This desk reference serves as a portal to understanding the array of approaches available and 

the offices which can serve as partners to address conflict proactively and confidently, paving 

the way to a better workplace environment and greater productivity for the agency.
53

SECTION III: Resources: Using 

Technology in Dispute Resolution

1. DEFINITION

There is an increasing number of technology tools that can be used to facilitate and enhance 

dispute resolution. Online technologies are not a separate dispute resolution process but 

are instead a means parties choose for assistance in resolving their conflict or enhancing 

their collaborative decision making. The list of technologies included below is not exhaustive 

because the rate of technological change makes creating a comprehensive list impossible. 

Instead, this list may be used as a starting point to familiarize parties with commonly used 

options and to provide guidance as to how parties can choose and evaluate the technology 

appropriate for addressing their particular concern.

The adoption of a particular technology has a powerful impact on decision making and 

results. Parties should carefully consider this impact when choosing which technology to use 

or whether any technology would be helpful to augment ADR processes in the particular 

dispute.

2. HOW THE PROCESS WORKS

• Electronic Brainstorming

o Online brainstorming allows participants to work together to post questions 

and responses, participate in discussions, and generate potential resolutions 

o Ideas can be captured anonymously which may increase openness and 

creativity 

o Brainstorming can be synchronous, with everyone participating at the same 

time and even in the same physical space, or asynchronous, which allows 

participants to submit their ideas from different locations within a specified 

time as their time permits

• Web-Based Video Conferencing

o Web-based video conferencing brings people together from different 

locations to a live meeting enabling participants to see one another and

discuss anything that could be discussed in person, without the time and 

expense of travel 

o Many web-based programs are capable of sharing documents, which allows 

users to create and edit documents in real time together

• Surveys

o Evaluation is easy and efficient to conduct online

o Qualitative or quantitative surveys can be created

o Responses can be protected with anonymity if desired
54

o Once a survey is completed, the data can be analyzed in a variety of ways,

including processing by question or by category of respondent 

o Charts and graphs can be generated

• Online Workspaces

o Groupware describes collaborative software that allows people to work on a 

common task from separate locations

o Parties schedule discussions, exchange information, edit and sign

agreements, and store information

• Mind Mapping

o Mind mapping applications are designed to diagram or map a conversation

o Uses software to illustrate a main idea as a central image and the main 

themes that radiate from the central image as branches

o This is a creative and logical method of taking notes that literally "maps out" 

ideas

3. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• In-person versus Online

o Requires forethought regarding the working relationship established among 

the parties 

o If the working relationship is poor, the use of technology could be a useful 

buffer and could minimize the effect of negative cues, such as body language 

and facial expressions, that can potentially escalate conflict 

o In a well-established, positive working relationship, it may not matter if a 

process is conducted via technology. In some instances, the use of 

anonymous surveys helps broaden the conversation. In others, technology 

ensures that individual voices are heard electronically by capturing inputs 

verbatim.

• Time and Cost Management

o Technology eliminates the need for everyone to be physically present in the 

same space, resulting in significant gains in participant productivity and 

savings in travel expenditures 

o These benefits must be weighed against the cost of using technology, which 

ranges from free to expensive licenses and hardware

o An additional cost consideration is the expense and time of educating 

participants in the use of various processes, some of which are intuitive and 

require no specialized training, while others require a significant investment 

of participant time

• Security

o Examine whether the issue raises security concerns 

o Some technology processes create a record, which may not be desirable in 

some instances 
55

o Thought should also be given to confidentiality and the potential for 

breaches in the security of the technology and ensuing breaches of 

confidentiality
56

SECTION IV: Resources: Print and WEB 

Resources

The following suggested resources are listed alphabetically by author under the specific 

approach or process to which they apply.

GENERAL

Barrett, Jerome T., and Joseph Barrett. A History of Alternative Dispute Resolution: The Story of 

a Political, Social, and Cultural Movement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004. Print. 

Federal ADR Program Manager's Resource Manual. Web. 16 July 2013.

<http://www.adr.gov/manual/>.

Interagency ADR Working Group Steering Committee. Protecting the Confidentiality of Dispute 

Resolution Proceedings: A Guide for Federal Workplace ADR Program Administrators. 

2006. Web. 16 July 2013 <http://www.adr.gov/pdf/final_confid.pdf>.

Senger, Jeffrey M. Federal Dispute Resolution: Using ADR with the United States Government. 

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003. Print.

United States Office of Personnel Management. Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Resources 

Guide. Washington, D.C.: Office of Workforce Relations, 1999. Web. 16 July, 2013

<http://www.opm.gov/er/adrguide/toc.asp>.

ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINE

United States Merit Systems Protection Board. Alternative Discipline: Creative Solutions for 

Agencies to Effectively Address Employee Misconduct (A Report to the President and the 

Congress of the United States). Washington, DC: U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 

2008. Print.

APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY (AI)

Cooperrider, David L., Diana Whitney, and Jacqueline M. Stavros. Appreciative Inquiry 

Handbook: For Leaders of Change. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2008. Print.
57

Cooperrider, David L., Diana Whitney, and Jacqueline M. Stavros. Appreciative Inquiry 

Handbook: The First in a Series of AI Workbooks for Leaders of Change. Bedford Heights: 

Custom Crown Publishing, 2003. Print. 

Hammond, Sue Annis. The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry. 2nd ed. Plano: Thin Book Publishing 

Company, 1998. Print. 

Lewis, Sarah, Jonathan Passmore, and Stefan Cantore. Appreciative Inquiry for Change 

Management: Using AI to Facilitate Organizational Development. Philadelphia: Kogan 

Page, 2008. Print. 

Preskill, Hallie, and Tessie Tzavaras Catsambas. Reframing Evaluation Through Appreciative 

Inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. 2006. Print.

Watkins, Jane Magruder, and Bernard J. Mohr. Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the Speed of 

Imagination. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2011. Print. 

Whitney, Diana, and Amanda Trosten-Bloom. The Power of Appreciative Inquiry: A Practical 

Guide to Positive Change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2010. Print.

American Arbitration Association. AAA Handbook on Employment Arbitration and ADR. 2nd ed. 

Huntington: Juris. 2010. Print. 

ARBITRATION

Bennett Esq., Steven C. Arbitration: Essential Concepts. New York: ALM Publishing 2002. Print. 

Carbonneau, Thomas E. Arbitration in a Nutshell. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West, 2009. Print.

Federal Arbitration Act. 9 USC Sec. 1, 14. 1925. Print.

Goldberg, Stephen B., Frank E.A. Sander, Nancy H. Rogers, and Sarah Rudolph Cole. Dispute 

Resolution: Negotiation, Mediation, and Other Processes. 5th ed. Boston: Aspen Publisher. 

2007. Print. 

Hanfling, Phyllis, and Martha McClellan. Developing Guidance for Binding Arbitration: A 

Handbook for Federal Agencies. 1999. Web. 16 July 2013. 

<http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-08-16/html/00-20828.htm>.

Kheel, Theodore W., and William L. Lurie. Keys to Conflict Resolution: Proven Methods of 

Resolving Disputes Voluntarily. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1999. Print.
58

Presidio Trust. Guidance for the Use of Binding Arbitration under the Administrative Dispute 

Resolution Act of 1996. 2007 Web. 16 July 2013. 

<http://www.adr.gov/PRESIDIO%20TRUST.pdf>.

CLIMATE ASSESSMENT

De Dreu, Dr. Carsten K.W., and Evert Van de Vliert. Using Conflict in Organizations. Thousand 

Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 1997. Print.

Fisher, Ronald. “Third Party Consultation: A Method for the Study and Resolution of Conflict.” 

Journal of Conflict Resolution 16.1 (1972): 67-94. Print.

Keashly, L., R.J. Fisher, and P.R. Grant. “The Comparative Utility of Third Party Consultation and 

Mediation within a Complex Simulation of Intergroup Conflict.” Human Relations 46.3 

(1993): 371. Print.

Weil, Dr. Marie Overby., ed. The Handbook of Community Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage 

Publications Inc., 2004. Print.

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE (COP)

Wenger, Etienne. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.

Wenger, Etienne C., and William M. Snyder. “Communities of Practice: The Organizational

Frontier.” Harvard Business Review January-February (2000): 139 – 145. Print. 

Cottrell, David, Julie Baldwin, and Ilayne J. Geller. The Manager’s Conflict Resolution Handbook: 

A Practical Guide for Creating Positive Change. Dallas: CornerStone Leadership Institute, 

2008. Print.

CONFLICT COACHING

International Coach Federation. 2011. International Coach Federation. Web. 14 June 2011. 

<http://www.coachfederation.org/>.
59

Jones, Dr. Tricia S., and Ross Brinkert. Conflict Coaching: Conflict Management Strategies and 

Skills for the Individual. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 2007. Print.

Nobel, Cinnie. Conflict Management Coaching: The CinergyTM Model. Toronto: CinergyTM 

Coaching, 2012. Print.

Ursiny, Timothy. The Coach’s Handbook: Exercises for Resolving Conflict in the Workplace.

Wheaton: Advantage Coaching and Training, Inc., 1999. Print.

Chalmers, W. Ellison. “The Conciliation Process.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 1.3 

(1948): 337-350. Print.

CONCILIATION/FACILITATION

Ladd, Peter D. Mediation, Conciliation and Emotions: A Practitioner’s Guide for Understanding 

Emotions in Dispute Resolution. Lanham: University Press of America, 2005. Print.

Cooley, John W. Creative Problem Solver's Handbook for Negotiators and Mediators. 2 vols. 

Chicago: American Bar Association-Section of Dispute Resolution Publications Board, 

2005. Print.

CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING (CPS)

De Bono, Edward. Lateral Thinking: Creativity Step by Step. New York: Harper Colophon, 1973.

Print.

Patterson, Kerry, Joseph Grenner, David Maxfield, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler. Influencer: 

The Power to Change Anything. New York: McGraw Hill, 2008. Print.

Peelle, Henry. “Appreciative Inquiry and Creative Problem Solving in Cross Functional Teams.” 

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 42.4 (2006): 447-467. Print.

Schneider, Andrea Kupfer, and Christopher Honeyman. The Negotiator’s Fieldbook: The Desk 

Reference for the Experienced Negotiator. Chicago: American Bar Association-Section of 

Dispute Resolution Publications Board, 2006. Print.
60

EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION (ENE)

Brazil, Wayne D. Early Neutral Evaluation. Chicago, IL.: American Bar Association, Section of 

Dispute Resolution, 2012. Print.

Kakalik, James S. An Evaluation of Mediation and Early Neutral Evaluation Under the Civil Justice 

Reform Act. Santa Monica: Rand, 1996. Print.

Nolan-Haley, Jacqueline M. Alternative Dispute Resolution in a Nutshell 2nd ed. St. Paul: West

Group, 2001. Print.

FACT FINDING

Clark, R. Theodore. Coping with Mediation, Fact Finding, and Interest Arbitration. Chicago: 

International Personnel Management Association, 1974. Print.

DiFonzo, Nicholas, and Prashant Bordia. Rumor Psychology: Social and Organizational 

Approaches. Washington D.C.: American Psychology Association, 2006. Print.

Susskind, Lawrence, Sarah McKearnan, and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer. The Consensus Building 

Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Thousand Oaks: Sage 

Publications, Inc., 1999. Print.

GROUP-PROCESS FACILITATION

Auvine, B., et al. A Manual for Group Facilitators. Madison: Center for Conflict Resolution, 1978.

Print.

Bens, Ingrid. Facilitating with Ease! A Step-by-Step Guidebook with Customizable Worksheets on 

CD-Rom. New York: Jossey-Bass, 2000. Print.

Ghais, Suzanne. Extreme Facilitation Guiding Groups Through Controversy and Complexity. San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005. Print.

Hart, Lois. B. Faultless Facilitation: The New Complete Resource Guide for Group and Team 

Leaders. 2nd ed. Amherst: Human Resource Development Press, 1996. Print.

International Association of Facilitators, Web. 16 July 2013. <www.iaf-world.org>.
61

Schwarz, Roger M. Skilled Facilitator: Practical Wisdom for Developing Effective Groups. San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

Fisher, Roger, Bruce Patton, and William L. Ury. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreements 

Without Giving In. 2nd ed. New York: Penguin Books, 1991. Print.

INTEREST-BASED PROBLEM SOLVING (IBPS)

Ury, William, Jeanne M. Brett, and Stephen B. Goldberg. Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing 

Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988. Print.

A Guide for Federal Employee Mediators. May 9, 2006. American Bar Association, American 

Arbitration Association, and Association for Conflict Resolution. Web. 16 July 2013. 

<http://www.adr.gov/pdf/final_manual.pdf>.

MEDIATION

Baruch Bush, Robert A., and Joseph P. Folger. The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict 

Through Empowerment and Recognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1994. Print.

Kheel, Theodore W., and William L. Lurie. Keys to Conflict Resolution: Proven Methods of 

Resolving Disputes Voluntarily. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows. 1999. Print.

Lang, Michael D. and Alison Taylor. Making of a Mediator: Developing Artistry in Practice. San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2000. Print.

Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators. September 2005. American Bar Association, 

American Arbitration Association, and Association for Conflict Resolution. Web. 16 July 

2013. 

<http://www.abanet.org/dispute/documents/model_standards_conduct_april2007.pdf

>.

Moore, Christopher W. The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. 3rd ed. 

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2003. Print.

Phillips, Barbara Ashley. The Mediation Field Guide: Transcending Litigation and Resolving 

Conflicts in Your Business or Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2001. Print.
62

Schrock-Shenk, Carolyn, ed. Mediation and Facilitation Training Manual: Foundation and Skills 

for Constructive Conflict Transformation. 4th ed. Akron: Mennonite Conciliation Service. 

2003. Print.

Slaikeu, Karl A. When Push Comes to Shove: A Practical Guide to Mediating Disputes. San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1996. Print.

OMBUDS

Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen

Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen and Federal Interagency ADR Working Group Steering 

Committee, A Guide for Federal Employee Ombuds. 2006. Web. 16 July 2013. 

<http://Federalombuds.ed.gov/Federalombuds/pdfs/FederalOmbudsGuide.pdf>

. 5 Feb. 2010. Web. 14 June 2011.

<http://Federalombuds.ed.gov/Federalombuds/index.html>

Howard, Charles L. The Organizational Ombudsman: Origins, Roles, and Operations-A Legal 

Guide. Chicago: American Bar Association. 2010. Print.

International Ombudsman Association

Robbins, P. Lee, and William Deane. “The Corporate Ombuds: A New Approach to Conflict 

Management.” Negotiation Journal 2.2 (1986): 195-205. Print.

. Web. 16 July 2013. <www.ombudsassociation.org>

Liebmann, Marian. Arts Approaches to Conflict. Bristol: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 1996. Print.

OPEN DOOR

McDermott, E. Patrick with Arthur Eliot Berkley. Alternative Dispute Resolution in the 

Workplace. Concepts and Techniques for Human Resources Executives and Their 

Counsel. Westport: Quorum Books. 1996. Print.

Cloke, Kenneth and Joan Goldsmith. Resolving Personal and Organizational Conflict. San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2000. Print.

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
63

Costantino, Cathy A., and Christina Sickles Merchant. Designing Conflict Management Systems: 

A Guide to Creating Productive and Healthy Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

1995. Print.

Landau, Sy, Barbara Landau, and Daryl Landau. From Conflict to Creativity: How Resolving 

Workplace Disagreements Can Inspire Innovation and Productivity. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass. 2001. Print.

Stitt, Allan J. Alternative Dispute Resolution for Organizations: How to Design a System for 

Effective Conflict Resolution. Etobicoke: John Wiley & Sons. 1998. Print.

Bennett Esq., Steven C. Arbitration: Essential Concepts. New York: ALM Publications. 2002.

Print.

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES

McGillis, Daniel. Community Mediation Programs: Developments and Challenges. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 1997.

Print.

Ancona, Deborah, and Henrik Bresman. X-Teams: How to Build Teams that Lead, Innovate, and 

Succeed. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. 2007. Print.

TEAM BUILDING/IMPROVING COMMUNICATION

Brothers, W. Chalmers. Language and the Pursuit of Happiness: A New Foundation for 

Designing Your Life, Your Relationships & Your Results. Naples, FL: New Possibilities, 

2005. Print.

Kegan, Robert, and Lisa Lasklow Lahey. How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work: 

Seven Languages for Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001. Print.

Lencioni, Patrick. Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Field Guide for Leaders, 

Managers and Facilatators. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2005. Print.

Whitney, Diana, Amanda Trosten-Bloom, Jay Cherney, and Ron Fry. Appreciative Team Building: 

Positive Questions to Bring Out the Best of Your Team. New York: iUniverse, Inc. 2004.

Print.
64

SECTION V: Common Problems and 

Helpful Processes

Failure to follow rules and procedures

Alternative Discipline

Conflict Coaching

Mediation

Dispute Panels/Peer Review Panels

Grievance

Arbitration

Dispute Panels/Peer Review Panels

Fact Finding

Mediation

Early Neutral Evaluation

Settlement Conferences

Interpersonal workplace conflicts

Conflict Coaching

Alternative Discipline

Appreciative Inquiry

Creative Problem Solving

Group-Process Facilitation

Interest-Based Problem Solving

Mediation

Open Door

Team Building

Conciliation

Maximizing meetings

Group-Process Facilitation

Appreciative Inquiry

Community of Practice

Creative Problem Solving

Team Building

Process implementation

Fact Finding

Project management

Creative Problem Solving

Conflict Coaching

Group Process Facilitation

Team Building

Sharing lessons learned/ideas

Community of practice

Appreciative Inquiry

Group-process Facilitation

Team Building

Strengthening group dynamics

Appreciative Inquiry

Community of Practice

Conflict Coaching

Consultation

Group-Process Facilitation

Mediation

Team Building

Creative Problem Solving

Team Building/Improving Communication

Appreciative Inquiry

Community of Practice

Conflict Coaching

Consultation

Group-Process Facilitation

Mediation

Team Building

Creative Problem Solving