Faster? Cheaper? Better? Using ADR to Resolve Federal Sector EEO Complaints

Tina Nabatchi, Anya Stanger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article examines the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Management Directive 110, which requires all federal agencies to offer alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to employees with equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints. Specifically, the article examines federal sector EEO complaint processing before and after the passage of Management Directive 110 and compares the traditional EEO procedure with the use of ADR on several indicators of case processing and case outcomes. Findings are reported in three sections: an overall analysis, an analysis of the informal stage of the process, and an analysis of the formal stage of the process. The article concludes with a discussion and directions for future research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)50-61
Number of pages12
JournalPublic Administration Review
Volume73
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2013

Fingerprint

employment opportunity
complaint
management
employee
Alternative dispute resolution
Equal employment opportunity
Complaints

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Public Administration
  • Marketing

Cite this

Faster? Cheaper? Better? Using ADR to Resolve Federal Sector EEO Complaints. / Nabatchi, Tina; Stanger, Anya.

In: Public Administration Review, Vol. 73, No. 1, 01.2013, p. 50-61.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1f60be58bfee49448d512608ee09c644,
title = "Faster? Cheaper? Better? Using ADR to Resolve Federal Sector EEO Complaints",
abstract = "This article examines the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Management Directive 110, which requires all federal agencies to offer alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to employees with equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints. Specifically, the article examines federal sector EEO complaint processing before and after the passage of Management Directive 110 and compares the traditional EEO procedure with the use of ADR on several indicators of case processing and case outcomes. Findings are reported in three sections: an overall analysis, an analysis of the informal stage of the process, and an analysis of the formal stage of the process. The article concludes with a discussion and directions for future research.",
author = "Tina Nabatchi and Anya Stanger",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02601.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "73",
pages = "50--61",
journal = "Public Administration Review",
issn = "0033-3352",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Faster? Cheaper? Better? Using ADR to Resolve Federal Sector EEO Complaints

AU - Nabatchi, Tina

AU - Stanger, Anya

PY - 2013/1

Y1 - 2013/1

N2 - This article examines the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Management Directive 110, which requires all federal agencies to offer alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to employees with equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints. Specifically, the article examines federal sector EEO complaint processing before and after the passage of Management Directive 110 and compares the traditional EEO procedure with the use of ADR on several indicators of case processing and case outcomes. Findings are reported in three sections: an overall analysis, an analysis of the informal stage of the process, and an analysis of the formal stage of the process. The article concludes with a discussion and directions for future research.

AB - This article examines the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Management Directive 110, which requires all federal agencies to offer alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to employees with equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints. Specifically, the article examines federal sector EEO complaint processing before and after the passage of Management Directive 110 and compares the traditional EEO procedure with the use of ADR on several indicators of case processing and case outcomes. Findings are reported in three sections: an overall analysis, an analysis of the informal stage of the process, and an analysis of the formal stage of the process. The article concludes with a discussion and directions for future research.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84872571077&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84872571077&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02601.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02601.x

M3 - Article

VL - 73

SP - 50

EP - 61

JO - Public Administration Review

JF - Public Administration Review

SN - 0033-3352

IS - 1

ER -