Date of Conferral
2022
Degree
Ph.D.
School
Management
Advisor
Thomas Butkiewicz
Abstract
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has been an area of study among scholars since the 1970s. Critics have questioned protections, gaps in the literature, and inconsistencies in the law. The current study was essential for organizational leaders and EEOC facilitators to understand why the ADR process does not protect U.S. Federal government organizational leaders from unjustified or unreasonable claims and retaliation. The overarching research question addressed how the ADR process protected U.S. Federal government organizational leaders in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia from unjustified or unreasonable claims and retaliation. The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study and purposeful sampling was to produce a detailed description of 15 participants who worked at least 6 months as full-time or part-time as an organizational leader, 18 years or older, and experienced or observed retaliation. The data analysis included examining and interpreting data collection instruments such as reading interview transcripts and field notes and listening to audio recordings from transcription. Seven themes emerged, and the data showed that 10 participants felt protected, mediation was not enough, and proving false claims discouraged employees from filing complaints. The study contained recommendations for the EEOC and federal agencies to update policies and procedures and Title VII law to address deviant behavior in the workplace. Applying this study’s findings may help scholars, practitioners, government organizational leaders of the EEOC, and federal agencies restore the social norms and promote positive social change.
Recommended Citation
Washington, Andrew, "Leadership Strategies to Mitigate Alternative Dispute Resolution Grievances, Retaliation, and Revenge" (2022). Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies. 13880.
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/13880
