Improvisers, Incrementalists and Strategists: How and Why Organizations Adopt ADR Innovations
| Author | Denise Currie,William (Bill) Roche,Paul Teague,Tom Gormley |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12413 |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/bjir.12413
57:1 March 2019 0007–1080 pp. 3–32
Improvisers, Incrementalists and
Strategists: How and Why Organizations
Adopt ADR Innovations
William (Bill) Roche, Paul Teague ,
Tom Gormley and Denise Currie
Abstract
This article identifies three ways in which alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) innovations are adopted by organizations in Ireland: improvisation,
incrementalism and strategy, and examines how external and internal influences
shape dierent patterns of ADR innovation. The article contributes to the
literature in three ways. First, it highlights the limitations of typologies of
innovation based on simple dichotomies, such as reactive/proactive and of
prevailing understandings of how ADR may interact with strategy. Second,
the article develops an integrated framework for the analysis of influences
on patterns of innovation that distinguishes between the features of markets
and commercial strategies, organizations, stakeholders and champions and
institutions, laws and public policies. Third, the article questions the central
premise underlying the literature that a strategic approach to ADR equates with
the adoption of conflict management systems.
1. Introduction
Considerable uncertainty surroundsthe manner in which organizations adopt
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) innovations. An important strand of the
literature has identified a ‘historic transformation’ in large US corporations,
involving a shift from a ‘reactive’ to a ‘strategic’ approach to adopting ADR
practices and the growing prevalenceof ‘systems’ of innovations (Lipsky et al.
2003, 2012, 2014, 2016). It is recognized, however, that many organizations
continue to adopt ADR innovations in a more reactive, piecemeal or ad
hoc manner (Colvin 2003; Latreille 2011; Lipsky et al. 2003; Saundry
and Wibberley 2014, 2012; Teague et al. 2015). Other contributions reveal
William Roche and Tom Gormley are at University College Dublin (UCD). Paul Teague and
Denise Currie are at Queen’sUniversity Belfast (QUB).
C
2018 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.
4British Journal of Industrial Relations
a pattern of adoption in which, once in place, innovations are seen to
support wider organizational objectives than those animating their original
introduction (Avgar 2016; Latreille and Saundry 2016). This article seeks
to break new ground by examining empirically the dierent ways in which
organizations in Ireland have adopted ADR innovations and by identifying
influences on dierent patterns of innovation. Drawing on the literature
on ADR innovations, the article focuses on three main research questions.
First, what patterns of ADR innovation are evident in organizations in
Ireland? Second, what influences shape patterns of innovation in dierent
organizations? Third, drawing on a cross-case analysis, can distinctive sets
or configurations of influences be identified that distinguish why dierent
organizations followdierent innovation paths? The article contributes to the
literature in three ways. First, it highlights the limitations of typologies of
innovation based on simple dichotomies, such as reactive/proactive, and of
prevailing understandings of how ADR may interact with strategy. Second,
the article develops an integrated framework for the analysis of influences
on patterns of innovation that distinguishes between the features of markets
and commercial strategies, organizations, stakeholders and champions and
institutions, laws and public policies. Third, the article questions the central
premise underlying the literature that a strategic approach to ADR equates
with the adoption of conflict management systems (CMSs).
2. ADR practices
While definitions of ADR vary to some degree across countries and
contributors (compare, e.g., Acas 2005; Eurofound 2010 and Lipsky et al.
2003), the concept is commonly understood as encompassing practices and
procedural arrangements that provide alternatives to litigation in the courts,
or to resorting to administrative agencies (e.g. state conciliation agencies,
employment or equality/equal opportunities tribunals) or labourcourts where
employment grievances or disputes arise. ADR practices are also sometimes
understood as alternatives to conventional or long-established grievance or
dispute resolution procedures in unionized or non-union firms (Costantino
and Sickles-Merchant 1996; Lipsky et al. 2003; Roche et al. 2014; Roche and
Teague 2012; Ury et al. 1988).
Definitions of ADR practices for resolving grievances between individual
employees and their employers commonly include formal open-door policies
and speak-up practices, mediation, organizational ombudsmen and peer or
management review panels. Also, sometimes included is the training and
proactive involvement of line managers and supervisors in troubleshooting
and conflict resolution (Ewing 1990). ADR practices may also be adopted to
prevent or respond to collective bargaining disputes with unions. Commonly
included in this area are practices such as ‘assisted bargaining’, whereexternal
facilitators become involved at the outset or during the early phase of
negotiations,fact finding, interest-based bargaining and mediation arbitration
C
2018 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial