Legal and Dispute Studies for Social Media- myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theLegal and Dispute Studies for Social Media. Answer: Introduction In the given set of circumstances we see that Anne is a single mother who works in social media and marketing. She is a dedicated employee and often works late hours to ensure the smooth functioning of things. The Chief Executive Officer of the same company, Carl, also works late hours and it may be inferred that he stumbles upon Anne often during these hours. Through a series of unfortunate events, Anne has been lead to believe, that Carl (who is married and has children) has been behaving inappropriately with her. This had even culminated to an encounter where Carl had approached Anne but had been respectfully refused. Subsequently, the atmosphere at work at significantly worsened and Anne considered pursuing the incidents in court. The following paragraphs will analyze the best alternatives available to both parties in order to reach an amicable solution. Discussion Carl is the CEO of the company and rightly must be worried about his reputation. Carl had been inappropriately forward in his professional relationship with Anne this may be identified as the source and origin of the problem (Wheeler 2013). In light of the current dispute at hand, Carl can be assumed to have a higher bargaining position within the organizational structure. Carl, however, would face a serious blow to his reputation if rumors relating to the incidents circulated around the office. He needs to maintain control over his employees in order to function efficiently as the CEO. He also needs to ensure his family life is unaffected from the official dispute. These maybe identified as his interests in the dispute (Chege 2015). Annes interests in the dispute may be identified as access to a healthy work environment free from sexual harassment. Anne also has an interest in protecting her reputation as a dedicated and valuable employee of the company. Anne also has an interest in claiming damages for the incidents faced by her. Her late work hours have also been subject to criticism which tarnish her reputation. Before an independent negotiator the best possible alternatives in this predicament would have to be one that meets the common interests of all the involved parties (Goldberg et al. 2014). The first possible option is that Carl apologizes for any inappropriate behavior and convinces Anne to not pursue the matter further. This would ideally be in the best interests of both parties as it touches upon all the concerns each side had (Rubin and Brown 2013). Anne receives a healthy work environment and reconciliation for the past incidents and Carl retains his position of power without his reputation being harmed. The second alternative is if Anne pursues legal proceedings, this would be a tedious and expensive process for Anne and the final decision of the court cannot be predicted. Carl would also face public humiliation and thus his interests would also not be met. Thus, proceeding legally would not be the ideal solution. The third alternative is if Carl dismisses Anne. Here Carl would ideally have his interests protected while Anne would be facing monumental injustice. Anne may later pursue Carl for unjust dismissal which would also be financially taxing and a tedious process. Thus, Annes dismissal would not be an amicable solution. A negotiated agreement between the two embodying the first alternative is the most beneficial solution. It would protect the interests of both parties and would be the most economically logical alternative (Pruitt 2013). This would also be the most beneficial for the organization as the CEO would continue to function efficiently and all employees would have a healthy work environment. This alternative would also cater to the family related interests Carl has in the dispute. This would also ideally act as a deterrent for future incidents of a similar nature. Agreements dont always lead to successful solutions especially when the agreements fail to cover all the interests of the parties. In such a case it is always prudent to formulate plans that consider the failure of amicable solutions this may be defined as the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) (Sebenius 2017). These plans that are based upon the failure of negotiated agreements are a useful tool in managing situations where the interests of both parties are such that it is difficult to reach common ground (Reynolds 2014). In light of the situation at hand however there are common areas of interest among the parties such as an interest to continue working in the company in a stable healthy environment. The above discussed alternatives bring out that the options of pursuing a court case based on the incidents would be financially unreasonable and does not guarantee a favourable result. It also does not in any protect Carls interests in the negotiations however if a neg otiated agreement does not effectively resolve the issue this may be best recourse for Anne. In case of Carl on the other hand the best and most inexpensive recourse available is to cease any activities that might be regarded as inappropriate. This would immediately meet a majority of Annes interests. This can also be recognized as the common ground on which an amicable solution can be built despite negotiated agreements ending in failure. Negotiation is based on common sense and thus requires the basic application of the minds of the parties involved to identify the easiest agreeable solution (Fisher et al. 2008). It is through such measures that complicated disputes maybe resolved with solutions that cater to both parties. Conclusion To conclude, Carls omission of respecting the rights of his employees developed a situation that demanded mediation through an external agent. This being the source of the dispute it would be in the best interests of both parties if Carl refrained from engaging in such activities. This is also in his best interests as the apex person in the organizational structure which is a stature he wishes to maintain. Since the matter has been referred to a negotiator resolving the matter as a negotiated agreement would immediately resolve the same. Reference list: Chege, N., 2015. Whats in it for me?: Negotiations of asymmetries, concerns and interests between the researcher and research subjects.Ethnography,16(4), pp.463-481. Fisher, R., Ury, W., Patton, B. and Fisher, R. 2008.Getting to yes. Bensenville, IL: Learning Communications. Goldberg, S.B., Sander, F.E., Rogers, N.H. and Cole, S.R., 2014.Dispute resolution: Negotiation, mediation and other processes. Wolters Kluwer Law Business. Pruitt, D.G., 2013.Negotiation behavior. Academic Press. Reynolds, J.W., 2014. Breaking BATNAs: Negotiation Lessons from Walter White.NML Rev.,45, p.611. Rubin, J.Z. and Brown, B.R., 2013.The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. Elsevier. Sebenius, J.K., 2017. BATNAs in Negotiation: Common Errors and Three Kinds of No.Negotiation Journal,33(2), pp.89-99. Wheeler, M., 2013. The art of negotiation.