Abstract
Purpose - This study takes a construct validation approach toward developing and testing a parsimonious, yet comprehensive, higher-order factor model of arbitrator acceptability that helps to identify what matters most in the arbitrator selection process. Design/methodology/approach - We used structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques to examine data from a sample of union advocates attending an arbitration conference to test a hypothesized model of arbitrator acceptability that includes procedural justice, experience, and education as first-order indicators of arbitrator acceptability. Three competing alternative models that add age, race/gender, and distributive justice, respectively, to the hypothesized model as an additional indicator of arbitrator acceptability were also examined. Findings - Results suggest that the hypothesized model is the best fitting of the four models tested. In addition, the path coefficients of the added paths in each of the alternative models were non-significant. Practical implications - Knowledge regarding the relative importance of the various factors involved in arbitrator acceptability will be of interest to future researchers in determining which variables to study in arbitrator selection research as well as to practitioners seeking to better understand and manage the complex arbitrator selection process. Originality/value - Our study makes an important contribution to the literature by being among the first to examine both arbitrator characteristics and organizational justice concepts simultaneously in a single model. Our study also takes an important step toward more clearly defining and validating the arbitrator acceptability construct. Finally, our study helps to provide an answer to the question of what matters most in the arbitrator selection process.
Purpose - This study takes a construct validation approach toward developing and testing a parsimonious, yet comprehensive, higher-order factor model of arbitrator acceptability that helps to identify what matters most in the arbitrator selection process. Design/methodology/approach - We used structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques to examine data from a sample of union advocates attending an arbitration conference to test a hypothesized model of arbitrator acceptability that includes procedural justice, experience, and education as first-order indicators of arbitrator acceptability. Three competing alternative models that add age, race/gender, and distributive justice, respectively, to the hypothesized model as an additional indicator of arbitrator acceptability were also examined. Findings - Results suggest that the hypothesized model is the best fitting of the four models tested. In addition, the path coefficients of the added paths in each of the alternative models were non-significant. Practical implications - Knowledge regarding the relative importance of the various factors involved in arbitrator acceptability will be of interest to future researchers in determining which variables to study in arbitrator selection research as well as to practitioners seeking to better understand and manage the complex arbitrator selection process. Originality/value - Our study makes an important contribution to the literature by being among the first to examine both arbitrator characteristics and organizational justice concepts simultaneously in a single model. Our study also takes an important step toward more clearly defining and validating the arbitrator acceptability construct. Finally, our study helps to provide an answer to the question of what matters most in the arbitrator selection process.