THIRD-PARTY INTERVENTIONS

Prior focus on the parties, and what they can do themselves Here, focus shifts to TPI (Third Party Intervention) Why is TPI used? Why not? Advantages Disadvantages When is TPI used? A: Mainly at impasse, or when potential for impasse is high

Impasses Defined
When parties are unable to move further toward settlement, i.e. theyre stuck; neither side is willing to make a concession Two possibilities
Non-overlapping (negative) settlement range Poor communication

What can be done?

Parties can apply negotiation skills to resolve They can call in a third party for help

What Kind of TPI Is Appropriate? Level of Negotiator Control Over Outcome

Control of

Procedure
Low High

Low
Autocracy

High
Mediation Fact-finding Negotiation

Arbitration

Common Third Party Interventions

Fact-finding
Without recommendations With recommendations

Arbitration
Conventional arbitration -- arbitrator has great freedom to fashion a remedy within confines of an arbitration agreement Final Offer Selection (FOS, a.k.a. sudden death)

Mediation Other forms -- some details on these later

Fact Finding
Objectives:
Discover parties positions; clarify them Possibly publicize them Possibly make recommendations

Theories:
Parties may not be communicating clearly -disagreement may be simply a misunderstanding Publicity may shame the unreasonable to change Report or recommendations may guide others

Reality: Not used much. Disagreements are real, public often doesnt care or understand

Arbitration
Makes a decision for the parties Generally used where basic principles are not at stake; a decision may be as, or more important, than what the decision is Some problems with arbitration
Decision-acceptance: Parties lack commitment Biasing: Partiality endangers acceptability Half-life: Decisions almost inevitably anger losers Narcotic or dependence: Excess reliance Chilling: Discourages negotiation (FOS ?)

FOS Arbitration: Final Offer Selection (a.k.a. Sudden Death)

Expressly designed to counter chilling effect Theory:
Conventional arbitrators may adopt split the difference approach; parties expect this, and adjust Parties response: Take extreme positions This lessens chances for reaching agreement FOS arbitrator must select one partys position Creates new incentive for parties: Try to be a tad more reasonable (arbitrator-acceptable) than the other side Parties may find they are not too far apart, and reach agreement on their own Also, parties have shaped the agreement more directly, at least with no modifications option (purest form of FOS) Should reduce decision-acceptance problems

Mediation
Growing popularity in lots of substantive areas -note recent 1st-ever FSU Mediation Day Three-stage view
Early stages: Gain trust and understanding Middle stages: Managing interaction at arms length Later stages: Push concessions, compromises, gatekeeping, own proposals, help parties save face

Key elements of success

Sense of timing: knowing when, and when not to intervene Developing and maintaining acceptance and trust

Mediation,

continued

Mediator assists parties in reaching agreement Who? Can be anybody the parties choose (stress on acceptability); Scout qualities are desirable; Also emphasis on sense of timing, as noted earlier Important in caucuses, not just at negotiating table Styles vary, e.g., with parties experience level Illustrative range of mediator behaviors:
Low intervention High intervention

Schedule meetings

Facilitate discussion

Procedural suggestions

Messenger

Gatekeeper

Substantive proposals

Mediator Strategy Choices

Mediator Perception of Common Ground Concern for Low High Parties Desires
Low
High
Pressure Inaction
Compensation Problem solving

Mediation Effectiveness
In situations of moderate conflict and high potential for agreement (e.g., not principles, resources avail., parties motivated, committed to mediation, intervention threat) Mediator behaviors: Identifying issues, finding interests, setting agendas, packaging, sequencing, prioritizing, suggesting settlements Most effective: When assisting via face-saving, resolving internal conflicts, helping with constituents, applying positive and negative incentives Particularly effective behaviors: Agenda creation and control, helping set priorities, maintaining calm, friendly, but firm control over the mediation process

Mediation Effectiveness
Behavior-situation interaction
High hostility situations respond better to more forceful mediation Low hostility situations respond better to more facilitative, less active approach But, if parties in first situation show high problemsolving behavior, more facilitative approach is best; Encourage them to solve it

Mediation problems:
Lack of power to ensure agreement, resolve dispute Possible escalation, or extension to new areas

Process Consultation
Essentially, its low-intervention mediation
Focus on procedure for defusing emotional aspects of conflict and improving communications For situations where the parties are worn out from battle and cant get re-oriented by themselves

Process consultation behaviors

1. Separate meetings (diagnostic phase) 2. Meetings with both parties (treatment phase), applying skills of mediation/arbitration noted earlier

Limited success when dispute is really substantive

Informal Interventions -Manager Styles

Styles of managerial intervention
Inquisitorial intervention Adversarial intervention Providing impetus Mediational intervention?

Why dont they mediate more often?

Managers are control freaks? Training needed