In order to discuss objective criteria with the other party, the application of following points is necessary: 1. There should be a shared interest between parties and hence a shared objective standard 2. It is important to be open to other persons during negotiation. Also, reasons behind one’s objective standard must be justified. In short, not only should one’s own position be considered during the negotiation process, but the opposing party’s position must also be taken in to account.
Both forms of ADR have several common characteristics. However, one must consider that a neutral side in both procedures fulfils distinct from one another duties. Mediators do not have the objective to make decision, whereas arbitrators determine an outcome of the case. Upon the termination of the procedure, an arbiter renders a binding award that cannot be later avoided by disputants. During mediation, parties are not contingent upon the third side and enjoy freedom of actions needed for dispute resolution.
“If an agreement is reached, it is usually spelled out in writing and becomes a contract that can be enforced in court. The courts have a policy of enforcing negotiated settlements.” Negotiation process can at time be disadvantageous as parties might stall the negotiation process as the parties are not compelled to continue negotiations. In negotiation lack of neutrality may reduce the chance of reaching an agreement, particularly in complex disputes or those disputes involving multiple parties. Disclosure of information and truthfulness of information depends of the good faith of parties, there’s no compelling authority to compel good faith. “One problem is that negotiation is typically not a public process.
Countries require parties to undergo ADR, mediation, before trial, ‘in these cases, courts proceedings are stayed to await the outcome of mediation. If it’s unsuccessful, then the parties will resume their court action’. Mediation is essentially an alternative form of negotiation; additionally the mediator plays a more active role in comparison to the neutral third parties in the negotiation process. Mediation is a voluntary, and its informal and private and non-binding process. In some cases though mediation can have binding effect, for example, if the parties agree that if they cannot resolve the dispute, the mediator can make a legally binding decision on the issue.
"Mediation is a method of conflict resolution that is designed to help disagreeing parties resolve a dispute without going to court", our text states (Fallon & McConnell, 2007). The goal of a mediator is to find a compromise that is fair and acceptable to both parties. The agreement is not legally binding and does not always result in a settlement. Mediation is a flexible, voluntary, and confidential form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in which a neutral third party mediator assists parties to work towards a negotiated settlement. "The mediation process is not binding on the parties, and the mediator does not hear evidence" (Murray,
William James once said, “Whenever you’re in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude.” Mediation is a process that can help parties resolve conflict. Even though mediators are not supposed to change the attitudes of parties they can show them the situation in a different light, thus causing the parties’ attitudes to change and the conflict to be resolved. Mediators need to understand there is a lot that goes into conflict and by understanding these concepts and theories they can mediate the dispute in a more thorough and proper way. Some parties might be trying to save face and that is why they are not being honest or telling the truth.
This progression occurs when the people in the conflict become stuck and unable to move forward or even sometimes are unable to begin negotiations with one another. Once at an impasse, both parties can choose to bring in a third party of their choosing to mediate their conflict. This third party, a mediator, would have no connection to the people in the conflict with no opinion or desire as to which way the conflict is resolved. As mediators, they should be unbiased and neutral. A mediator cannot make judgments or binding decisions; only the parties can decide what happens.
Collaborative or constructive negotiation, on the other hand, is a process where parties try to educate each other about their needs and solve their problems in ways that the interests and fears of both or all parties are met. The process is collaborative in principle and the emphasis is on mutual understanding and feeling, all aimed at building a sustainable relationship. Negotiation seems to have universal application as a principle of conflict management based on dialogue (Chikwe, 2011; Balogun,
He says that: The problems that governments face are too complicated to be solved by legislation. To solve them by legislation ... ... middle of paper ... ...ose” means is complex? However, it seems clear that Finer’s seemingly mechanistic sense of carrying out orders excludes choice. Thus, those compliant with Finer’s standard are not only NOT responsible, they are incapable of responsibility. The concept is irrelevant to what they are doing.
But, it might take considerable effort and time to attain an applicable solution. Conflict management experts support collaboration as the most practical approach to resolving a conflict over crucial issues. The hypothesis is that cooperation and teamwork help all participants to accomplish their goals at the same time upholding the relationships (Katz, & Flynn, 2013). The practice of working through disputes will result in