Being the manager to a big cooperation comes with its challenges. The truth of the matter is that not everything is business is smooth, even if you have everything planned out just right. This brings us to the issue of dispute among shareholders which is actually a pretty normal thing to happen. If you happen to experience such, the best thing to do is not make any decisions out of emotions. You have to be calm and think things through. Sometimes the shareholders can claim that you’re the reason for the dispute. In any case, business requires you to make appropriate choices strictly out of reasoning and evaluation. Try to see the best way you can contain the situation without making the situation worse. After all, the best way to solve a dispute is to look for a solution as fast as possible. This is why I’ve lined up a few pointers that you can use to help deal with the dispute.
There’s no doubt that disputes can be strenuous in the sense that they take a lot of energy and involve a lot of deep emotions between the parties involved. This is why you may require a third party to come in between and help settle the dispute. A mediator is basically an external professional that’s selected to establish an environment conducive enough for discussions and ultimately help the involved parties to come to a conclusion. Involving a mediator is important because he/she can be able to lead the negotiations as well as facilitate better understanding throughout the process. Despite the fact that mediation is meant to help resolve the dispute, you need to bear in mind that the process may involve tension and strong opinions from both parties. As a result, the process can take even longer than expected. Alternatively, you can always choose Boss Lawyers to act as mediators during the conflict. In order for the process to be a success, the mediator ought to hear both sides of the story from the quarreling parties.
This is a process that doesn’t involve any external interpretation of the conflict. This process is considered to be very simple and straightforward since it only requires direct communication and compromise between the two parties. Ideally, it’s not always an effective method since some disputes can get heated up pretty quick, but it’s easier if you want to save time and money. However, this process is only suitable for parties that are willing to come to a mutual agreement sooner rather than later. If one or both groups aren’t willing to sit down and talk maybe out of bitterness, this method may not be as effective as it should be.
A settlement conference basically involves an elected judge that is allowed to sit down with the parties in dispute and make a final verdict after hearing the appeal from both ends. This is an effective method of resolving conflict since an esteemed judge is highly likely to be heard with respect, making the process easier to complete. Nevertheless, this method may not entirely depend on the judge since the final verdict can still be ruled out if need be. Therefore, this method may require more than enough time and financial resources than most settlement resolve methods, especially if the talks keep dragging.
Unlike most conflict resolve methods, natural evaluation typically includes an outside individual that’s allowed to assess and listen to the points of conflict from both parties. After that, the individual comes up with an unbiased resolution. The good thing about this approach is that the external individual is able to bring in new ideas that may not even have been considered at first. Despite the fact that the neutral evaluator may give out important remarks, this doesn’t mean that the final decision is entirely based on them. It can still be disregarded.
Informal Dispute Resolution
This is almost similar to the natural evaluation since it involves a hearing officer that gives out recommendations based on facts. However, it’s important to keep in mind that the final decision made by the officer is a non-binding one and neither sides are necessarily required to follow the suggested course of action. The process basically involves the submission of written statements giving details on the facts of both sides. After reading both statements and considering both arguments, the officer makes a final verdict.
Conditionally Binding Arbitration
This mostly involves an arbitrator that is presented with evidence that makes up the case. The arbitrator then decides on a legally binding verdict. Kindly note that if one or both sides feel unsatisfied with the verdict, it’s allowed for further action to be taken to a court of law or any other legal action. This method tends to be quite fast and effective.
This process is almost the same as a conditionally binding arbitration where cases are presented; and a final verdict is given based on the evaluation. The only difference is that the arbitrator’s verdict is considered to be the ultimate final, and there’s no opportunity to take the matter to court.
Resolving a dispute among shareholders requires both critical and creative reasoning so as to make the process successful. In any case, coming to a solution fast is vital since this will allow the company to resume normal operations and focus on its main objectives.