Individual Assignment Ben Waters : Question Questions

Negotiation is a fundamental form of dispute resolution involving two or more parties (Michelle, M.2003). Negotiations can also take place in order to avoid any future disputes. It can be either an interpersonal or inter-group process. Negotiations can occur at international or corporate level and also at a personal level. Negotiations often involve give and take acknowledging that there is interdependence between the disputants to some extent to achieve the goal. This means that negotiations only arise when the goals cannot be achieved independently (Lewicki and Saunders et al., 1997). Interdependence means the both parties can influence the outcome for the other party and vice versa. The negotiations can be win-lose or win-win in nature.

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,

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

According to the National Law Journal, 88% of lawyers prefer mediation as a way of resolving disputes. Mediation is a popular process to resolve conflicts between businesses (Jennings, 2006).

Autry, C. T., Reid, G. C., & Hall, R. F. (2005, Fall). Mediation: Effective Resolution of Contract Disputes. Management Quarterly, 46(3), p10-25.

Hamilton says “ There is a million things I have not done, but just you wait”( Hamilton Broadway,2015). Here, Hamilton is displaying confidence that he is going to the million things, but he needs time. In the same way that Hamilton’s confidence helped him being successful, mediators’ confidence can help to ensure a successful process. Mediators could develop their skill of confidence by believing that they are competent to gain parties trust. When Parties come to mediation with a frustrated feeling about their dispute, they need someone who can assure them that they are capable of helping them. Thus, mediators should have a high level of confidence to show the parties that he/she is

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’

There are three major conflict interventions: mediation, arbitration, and negotiation. Each of these interventions have pros and cons. Mediation is the one intervention that incorporates creativity in the resolution process so it benefits all disputants involved. Mediation also promotes collaboration and cooperation more so than arbitration and negotiation do. It is also a more cost efficient for the disputants and is more likely to resolve conflicts quicker. Mediators help defuse anger, improve communication, and specifically work on trust building. Mediation ensures that the matter can be handled privately without risk of public reprimand. On the other hand, mediation does not always result in a settlement like arbitration does. Mediation

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.

Whether or not disputants reach an agreement, the mediation approach offers a safe place where no one need feel embarrassed” (Griffin, 2009).

Throughout the years there has been many definitions of mediation. Nevertheless one the most acceptable definition of mediation refers to this procedure as a “…process in which the participants, with the support of a mediator, identify issues, develop options, consider alternatives and make decisions about future actions…” . They also described mediators as the third party assisting the participants in reaching their decision. This process should form a part of the pre-trial civil litigation process as its advantages on the legal system and the community outweigh its disadvantages. The distinguishing models of mediation make it a suitable approach for all or most civil cases.

I sought out the mediation context of public policy. More specifically, I was interested in the purpose of international relations. This sort of large-scale mediation can literally affect the world as a whole, and may prove to be a key for continued survival of the human race. In researching mediation from an international context, I ran across a number of interesting articles detailing various viewpoints, advances in the field, shortcomings, and examples of successful mediation. The articles and authors I used in the creation of this mediation case are as follows:

The nature of the mediation will be relevant to states, including enforcement, confidentiality, and who should serve as a mediator. Parties can enforce mediation through a couple different methods. First, parties currently in litigation can enforce mediation with a stipulated settlement approved by the Supreme Court. For example, in the Republican River mediation, the Supreme Court approved the mediated settlement between the parties, making it binding law. Second, mediation can lead to a memorandum of understanding between the parties. In the Lake Michigan mediation, the states agreed to a memorandum and agreed to seek enforcement by the Supreme Court if needed. Finally, states can agree to a new

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