THIRD-PARTY INTERVENTIONS

1. 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

2. Impasses Defined • When parties are unable to move further toward settlement, i.e. they’re 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

3. Level of Negotiator Control Over Outcome Control of ProcedureLowHigh Low Autocracy Mediation Fact-finding High Arbitration Negotiation What Kind of TPI Is Appropriate?

4. 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

5. 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 doesn’t care or understand

6. 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” ?)

7. 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 party’s 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

8. 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 arm’s length” • Later stages: Push concessions, compromises, gate-keeping, 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

9. 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

10. Mediator Strategy Choices • Mediator Perception • of “Common Ground” • Concern for LowHigh • Parties’ Desires • Low Pressure Inaction • High Compensation Problem solving

11. 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

12. 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 problem-solving 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

13. Process Consultation • Essentially, it’s 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 can’t 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

14. Informal Interventions -- Manager Styles • Styles of managerial intervention • Inquisitorial intervention • Adversarial intervention • Providing impetus • “Mediational” intervention? • Why don’t they mediate more often? • Managers are “control freaks”? • Training needed