Hamilton's Discourse

A special research field in the mediation literature intends to shed light on the question, how influential the impact of mediator’s characteristics and motivations on the mediation process is. Concerning the state of research, the studies of this debate show a divergent picture. There are scientists who have queried the significance of mediator’s impartiality (Bercovitch/Houston 1996; Kydd 2003, Touval 1982; Zartmann/Touval 1996). Scholars like Saadia Touval have underpinned that mediators are often biased and can perform their tasks just as well if not better as impartial mediators. Additionally, Touval and Zartmann stated in their study that mediation is an exercise in power politics: “leverage is the ticket to mediation” (Touval/Zartmann 1989: 129). In 2003, Kydd finds that mediators use their leverage to one of the two conflicting parties and therefore constraint concessions. Thus, the mediator must be biased to be effective. This means that merely a mediator who is biased towards one side can credibility tell them that the opponent will not make peace without the concession. Carnevale and Arad (1996) also remarked the importance of bias. Nevertheless, they suggest that impartiality should not be underestimated and therefore be taken in to consideration.

Traditional approaches to mediation assume that a conflict’s parties and a mediator share one compelling reason for initiating mediation: a desire to reduce,abate,or resolve a conflict.To this end,both sides may invest personnel,time,and resources in the mediation.This shared humanititarian interest maybe the only genuine reason in a few instances of mediation,but normally even this interest intertwines with other, less altruistic,

“A mediator is a third party who assists interested parties in negotiating a conflict. A mediator controls the mediation process but does not have authority to decide the outcome for the parties” (Barsky, 2007). A mediator, in a given situation, helps to dissolve the conflict and looks to the best interest

Hamilton emphasizes the necessities for balancing the power among the branches by claiming the two points that are important to implement.

Fells (2016, p. 211) wrote “ just as a doctor works to bring a person back to health, so too a mediator works to bring a deadlocked negotiation back to a situation where the parties can reach agreement”. This essay discusses this statement with reference to contemporary research on dispute resolution. In order to comprehend how this is achieved, we must consider the essence of mediation, the different types of mediation and what mediators do. Negotiation and mediation are process used to resolve opposing preferences between parties. Negotiation is defined in Fells (2016, p. 3) as “a process by which two parties with differences that they need to resolve try to reach agreement through

Hamilton felt that instead of having a state government, the political power should all go to the national government. He believed that being one with union and not having any states at all would be best for the country. He wanted to get rid of state rights and the states itself but he knew would never happen due to the amount of people who would oppose to that. Hamilton stated that the best government system is monarchy and wanted to lean towards that with his statement. So, he wrote a proposal stating that most of the power should go to the national government but still allow the states to still obtain some of their rights. That’s why he thought that the new Constitution was needed.

Mediating and advocating for clients is an essential service provided by human service workers, but not everyone is cut out for the job; it takes encouraging, knowledgeable, and non-judgmental individuals to maintain the integrity of both the mediation and advocating processes. While an advocate is most likely found standing up for a specific group or a particular issue, a mediator helps assist two or more parties in resolving a conflict without expressing any favoritism. In order for a mediator to maintain unbiased and preserve the reliability of the mediation process, they must seek out an agency that provides services that correlate with their own belief system; otherwise they will have to check their own set of values and beliefs at the door which can be incredibly difficult, and in some cases – impossible.

David in his facilitative approach assisted the disputants explained the root of their interests and helped them progressed and selected their resolutions that responded to their interests. The mediator helped the parties to find created opportunities to educate and change themselves. David as facilitative broad mediator used following strategies in the Foster Fuel

“A power usually brings about a reduction of other parties’ options by limiting the moves they can make, eliminating a possible resolution to the conflict, or restricting their ability to employ countervailing power” (Folger, Poole, Stutman, 1997). Fredrik and Michael are both overly emotionally and mentally involved in the situation where it prevents them from having the ability to think objectively. As they become more aggressive and engaged, they tend to fall under the high-conflicting people category and emphasize on the person instead of the conflicting issue itself. This is when mediator and third party come into play. “Third parties enter a conflict relationship in which the disputants have different expectations, goals, coasts, and rewards, and where they experience pressures and stresses stemming from an uncertain situation” (Bercovitch; 1984). Instead of helping Fredrik and Michael resolve their conflict, this mediator helps facilitate and soothe the relationship by generating discussion for the two of them, in the hope of conciliating the conflict. Fredrik and Michael, in this case, may hire a lawyer or a mutual friend of theirs. “It is the triad for a third party to cause others to act differently” (Bercovitch; 1984). A mutual friend of Fredrik and Michael definitely does the job in serving as a neutral and unbiased position. According to Thompson and Nadler, they argue that cognitive biases and different levels of perception people have on a conflict often intervene with whether or not they can come up with a resolution. “Negotiators are often unaware of such biases, instead blaming blocked resolutions processes on party intransigence or self-interest” (Deutsch; 2000). Coming from a neutral and outsider perspective, this mutual friend of theirs is able to find a middle ground in simplifying the conflict situation as he sees the whole situation

Several of us, might already be using the different techniques that are mentioned throughout this paper when dealing with conflict or mediating or coaching others who are involved in conflict. Prior to this course, I thought there was only one way to facilitate the mediation process, and it was the mediator’s role to work that model until the mediation process had convened. Kenneth Cloke writes in several of his case studies from the book, The Crossroads of Conflict, that he would regularly work with clients and “coach” them through the dispute. This took place through multiple sessions with the clients. Conducting mediations through staggered meeting times allows for numerous opportunities for the mediator to work with the clients to develop their own confidence and competence to successfully involve themselves in the conflict in a constructive way. There is a common core and skill set used in between mediation and conflict coaching, but at the same time, conflict coaching requires a separate and distinct process combined with a separate theory of its’

It is also important to note the contribution of Bush & Folger (2005), that, “A Mediator is someone who intervenes to help when people are in the midst of conflict.” P. 15.

Despite having no mediation experience prior to this class, I immediately excelled in a few areas of mediation. Namely, I did well with the introduction, exuding confidence, and helping the disputants move toward a resolution. Each of these skills is extremely important for mediators as they help set the tone, maintain control of the conversation or accomplish the goal of mediation. Of course, I improved with I practice, but I performed admirably in each of these arenas from the outset.

A problem that may be associated with mediation is power imbalance. Unfortunately, the mediator is only a third party which is present to assist the disputants with their communication to ensure it does not break down and help them reach a decision; however “the parties are in ultimate control, the mediator should not intervene even if one party has more bargaining power than the other” . This can in some cases result in an unfair agreement. Another adverse side of mediation is that; “basically anyone can hang out a sign and practice mediation” - meaning that mediators do not need to undergo a long period of study to ensure their professionalism and knowledge of dispute resolution. This can be harmful to the system and may result in cases being handled by unprofessional personals.

Consider how an imbalance between 'high power' and 'low power' parties might shape a negotiation process. How might an experienced mediator deal with this problem? Provide practical examples where appropriate.

This paper will cover the difference in the negotiation process and the mediation process and explore some of the barriers that hinder the processes. There is a distinct difference between the negotiation process and the mediation process. Negotiation as defined in Essentials of Negotiation is a process by which two or more parties attempt to resolve their opposing interests (Lewicki, Saunders, and Barry, ) The Negotiation process happens when individuals disagree about a situation and there’s no mutual solution that can be attain by the two parties. The disagreement leads to a conflict which involves misinterpretation, miscommunication and hurt feelings. Because the parties cannot reach a mutual agreement on how to resolve their