Third-party negotiation is very common. Actually, in my experience, in any dispute, local or international, it’s the third party who actually makes sense to the disputants for reaching a settlement.
The most recent international example will be the Syria and Myanmar situation and Kofi Annan.
It is not always the case that direct negotiations of individuals or groups will agree on a stalemate and resolve all their differences.
In such cases, they may turn to a third party who will be in no way affiliated with them to help them find a solution.
Not always that they succeed and not always that they are credited and remembered for their contribution. But their failure is most times received with huge criticism but we forget that all they can do is act as a link and persuade the disputants.
In the business world, we see that third-party negotiation is very common. Labor disputes and patent and trademark violations are common examples. There are 4 basic third-party roles that a third party could play in a conflict negotiation.
In this post, we will see what kind of roles the third party plays in a negotiation process.
Mediator in Third Party in Negotiation
The mediator is a neutral third party whose job is to facilitate a negotiated solution by reasoning and persuasion, suggesting alternatives to the involved parties.
Mediators are common in labor-management conflicts and in civil court disputes.
4 Roles Played by Third Party in Negotiation
Arbitrator in Third Party in Negotiation
The arbitrator is a third party who has the authority to dictate an agreement between the parties.
Arbitration in a negotiation can be requested by the parties or can be compulsorily enforced on the parties by court or contract.
The big advantage of arbitration over mediation is that it always results in a settlement.
Whether or not there is a negative side depends on how “heavy-handed” the arbitrator appears.
If one party is left feeling overwhelmingly defeated, that party is certain to be dissatisfied and unlikely to cordially accept the arbitrator’s decision.
For that reason, the conflict may re-materialize at a later time. The authority of the arbitrator varies according to the rules set by the negotiators or the court law.
Conciliator in Third Party in Negotiation
A conciliator is a trusted third party whose job is to establish an informal communication link between the negotiator and the opponent. Conciliation is used widely in international, labor, family, and community disputes.
In practice, conciliators usually act as more than mere communication conduits.
They also engage in fact-finding, interpreting messages, and persuading disputants to reach an agreement.
Comparing its effectiveness to mediation has proven difficult because the two overlap a great deal.
Consultant in Third Party in Negotiation
A consultant is a skilled and impartial third party who attempts to facilitate problem-solving through communication and analysis. A consultant is most likely to have much knowledge of conflict management.
The consultant’s role is not only to settle the issues but also to improve relations between the conflicting parties so that they can reach a settlement themselves.
Instead of putting forward specific solutions, the consultant tries to encourage the parties to learn, understand, and work with each other.
And so, this approach has a longer-term focus by building new and positive perceptions and attitudes between the conflicting parties.
Philanthropic Views’ about Third Party Mediation in Managing Conflict
Third-party mediation process is not constrained by procedural hazards; it is fast and cost-effective. It is informal, flexible, confidential, and consensual rather than confrontational; it leads to a win-win situation, not a win-lose situation.
Positive Social Impact of Mediation
Mediation settlement leaves the conflicting parties in harmony and amity with a good social impact, while the court’s verdict may leave them in discord, breeding further antagonism, protracted proceedings, and delayed judgment if the court fails to pay even the winning party of the litigation, for its costs in terms of money, time, energy, and human emotions are too high.
Mahatma Gandhi’s Advocacy for Mediation
It is really heartening to know Mahatma Gandhi’s choice for mediation as against adversarial litigation procedure in India.
He wrote about a case in his autobiography, “The lawyer’s fees were so rapidly mounting up that they were enough to devour all the resources of the clients, big merchants as they were. The case occupied so much of their time that they had no time left for any other work. In the meantime, mutual ill will was steadily increasing. I became disgusted with the profession.”
After the successful mediation of the case, Gandhi rejoiced, “My joy was boundless. I had learned the true practice of law. I had learned to find out the better side of human nature and to enter men’s hearts. I realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder. The lesson was so indelibly burnt into me that a large part of my time during the twenty years of my practice as a lawyer was occupied with bringing about private compromises of hundreds of cases. I lost nothing thereby – not even money; certainly not my soul.” (National Plan for Mediation in India, Paragraph 1.3).
Lord Chancellor’s Statement on Mediation
Regarding the benefits of mediation, the Lord Chancellor’s statement in a television interview is also remarkable. He mentioned that, “mediation and other methods of resolving conflicts earlier, without going to court, produce satisfactory results to both sides and are, I think, very much to be encouraged” (as cited in Acland, 1996).
Nelson Mandela’s Ubuntu Approach to Mediation
Recently, Nelson Mandela’s opinion, popularly known as the Ubuntu Approach, is more popular in mediation to manage conflict. In this approach, he mentioned two dimensions: (1) Open and free dialogue among the disputants; (2) Reconciliation for consensus building among the disputants to reach a solution accepted by both parties.
Global Flourishing of Mediation
Today, mediation is flourishing throughout the world because it has proven itself, in multiple ways, to be a better way to manage conflicts (Gerami, 2009; Hoagland, 2000; Kamal, 2006).
