Escalation­Limiting Language By
Jennifer Akin
A wrong word or misconceived message during a
conflict is like gasoline on a fire. Inflammatory
language is one of the most common causes of
conflict escalation. Avoiding the escalation of
arguments requires awareness and self-control. An
immense amount of embarrassment and pain could
Additional insights into escalation limiting probably be avoided if everyone paused before
language speaking, heeding the advice to "think before we
http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/audio/10396
speak." However, in reality, people are not always
calm, rational, or careful. We are emotional
creatures and, despite better judgment, our style of communication reflects this. Learning certain
principles and techniques of communication can counter this tendency: conflicts already charged
with emotion can be kept from escalating and even be defused.
General Principles Listening is the hero of good communication. Communication requires at least two parties: one
to speak and one to listen; 'good' communication demands that both parties take turns speaking
and listening. Many conflicts drag on because one side will not stop until they feel heard and
understood -- sometimes that is all they want. Once they feel they have been understood, the
conflict dissipates. At other times, a conflict arises because one side didn't hear what the other
said, and replied inappropriately in word or action, or didn't respond at all. If one is going to do
only one thing to avoid escalation, it should be to listen carefully and make sure the other party
knows they are listened to.
Defining one's terms is helpful even when one is not in a state of conflict. In America, for
example, it may anger people to be called "Oriental" instead of "Asian." The term "Oriental"
recalls old prejudices and insults. In another example, what "reasonable spending" means to one
spouse may mean something entirely different to the other. If this term is not clearly defined,
conflict over whether an expensive purchase is "reasonable" or not is likely. It may seem
awkward at first, but a useful first step in a disagreement is to determine each side's relationship
to certain words or phrases. For example, what does a word mean to each person? Does it have
negative connotations, and if so, why? Does one party have a strong emotional reaction to a
particular word? Often, it is taken for granted that the meanings of words are concrete, but many
words have slightly different meanings and varying levels of emotional impact to different
people. For example, fundamental phrases such as security and respect need to be investigated.
What would it take for one party to feel secure? For another to feel respected? One side may
think they are according the other respect, when the latter still feels disrespected. If these
differences are not uncovered early in an argument each side becomes convinced that the other
side is not making sense or not listening or not caring, and any attempts to unravel or deescalate
the conflict become increasingly frustrated
How a message is received, however, depends on much more than semantics. The spoken word
is heavily influenced by expression, intonation, or body language. Intonation, or tone of voice, is
critical. A single word can carry multiple meanings depending on intonation. Think how many
ways one can reply to, "How are you?" with just the word "fine." Depending on one's tone of
voice, "fine" can mean both "good" and "bad," as well as, "I'm angry," "Why are you asking?"
"I'm tired," or "I'm busy," to name just a few possibilities. As Suzette Elgin says, "English is a
language in which hostilities and abuse are carried primarily by the melodies that go with the
words, rather than by the words themselves."[1]
Another important nonverbal communication channel is the stress pattern of a sentence. In
English, most sentences have one heavy stress. Two or more heavy stresses in English nearly
always indicate a hidden meaning.[2] Compare "What are you DOing?" with "WHAT are you
DOing?" The listener might not be aware that they have heard an abnormal stress pattern, but
they will be on alert as to the speaker's actual meaning.
Other nonverbal signals fall under the category of body language, and include expression,
posture, and gestures. Slouching conveys a different message than standing upright; pointing at
one's audience is different than scratching one's head. The challenge with all nonverbal behavior
is to interpret it accurately. Often it is not possible for the "receiver" to know if a yawn signals
boredom or lack of sleep. Therefore it is up to the "transmitter" to be aware of all of their
communication and to clarify if necessary. Another potential problem is that body language
varies by culture. For example in many Asian countries it is a sign of respect not to look
someone in the eye, while in American culture that is taken to be a sign of dishonesty or
disinterest.
Finally (and obviously), during any disagreement it is important to exercise common civility. For
example, do not insult the other party; do not call them derogatory names or belittle their
position; avoid exaggeration and sarcasm; be respectful of those you are dealing with and of their
opinions. The harder these practices seem to be in a given situation, the more important they are.
If either side has become too emotional to be civil then it is better to wait and continue the
discussion when they have had time to calm down.
Specific Techniques Besides these broad principles, there are a number of specific techniques that can be employed.
One of the most often cited is the use of? "I-statements" in place of "you-statements." Istatements, also called "three-part messages" or "I-messages," are a way of communicating a
problem to another person without accusing them of being the cause of the problem.[3] The
formula for these messages takes this form: "I feel (emotion/s) when (circumstance/s)." One can
also include the effect that the event has on you.[4],[5] For example, "I feel scared when you
one's own perspective eliminates much of the reason for the other party to get defensive and also
gives them space to acknowledge their own role in the conflict. For the message to be effective
the feeling has to be an actual feeling and not what one thinks the other side did wrong. An Imessage becomes a disguised you-message with the addition of the words "you," "that," or
"like." For example, the statement "I feel like you have no regard for my feelings," is still
blaming the other person for the situation, and they are likely to still react defensively.
Another technique is the use of disarming statements. A disarming statement is a conciliatory
statement that one's opponent would never have believed possible. If the seriousness of the
statement can be demonstrated, it may become possible to establish a de-escalating spiral in
which two parties compete to prove that their peaceful intentions are as strong as the other's.[6]
If two groups have been refusing to meet together, an example of a disarming statement would
be for one side to invite the other to discussions.
Sometimes a small change of words can make a big difference in a statement's reception. In
Getting Past No, Bill Ury points out that the word "but" highlights differences. It almost always
precedes negative news, and has the effect of canceling out whatever came before it, as in, "You
did a great job, but..." or negating what the other person has said, as in, "I agree with what you
said, but..." Ury suggests substituting the word "and" for "but" as much as possible. For example,
after listening to a student complaining about their grade, "Yes, it does sound like you did a lot of
work for this paper, and the reason that I did not give you an A is...." "... [T]he key," Ury says,
"is to present your views as an addition to, rather than a direct contradiction of, your opponent's
point of view."[7]
An interesting technique taught by Suzette Elgin involves listening for and responding to cues of
the speaker's preferred "sensory mode." The main sensory modes are sight, sound, and touch.
This concept is based on the idea that most people learn more easily through a particular sense,
such as sight or hearing. Some people, for example, prefer to read a textbook and study its
diagrams, while others learn more from listening to a lecture. This preference is reflected in one's
language through phrases such as, "I see what you mean," "I hear what you're saying," and "I'm
getting a feel for it." Elgin believes that if one echoes the sensory mode of one's conversation
partner he or she will be more at ease. Thus, if one is speaking with someone who uses sound
references, such as, "How does it sound to you?" one should reply with hearing references.
Likewise, if one was asked, "How does the situation look to you?" the best response would
incorporate sight, such as, "I see it as a good opportunity," or "I'm still looking into it." If one
cannot easily match the sensory mode being used, Elgin suggests not using sensory language at
all. In that case, one could answer the question above with, "I think it's a good opportunity" or "I
am still researching it." The most important thing to remember with this technique is never to use
a sensory mode different from that of the other speaker. A troublesome response to the question
above would be, "I feel it's a good opportunity," (touch) or "It sounds fine to me," (hearing) or "It
stinks," (smell). While people no doubt differ in their sensitivity to sensory mode language, this
technique is useful because if they are sensitive it can help let them know they are being heard
and understood.
[1] Suzette H. Elgin, The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense at Work (New Jersey: Prentice Hall,
2000).
[2] Elgin, 112
[3] "'I' Statements Not 'You' Statements." [article on-line] (Boulder, Colorado: International
Online Training Program On Intractable Conflict, 1998, accessed 28 January 2003); available at
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/istate.htm; Internet.
[4] Clayton Tucker-Ladd, 'I' Messages [book on-line] (Mental Health Net, accessed 30 January
2003); available from http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap13/chap13g.htm.
[5] Hope E. Morrow. Constructing I-Statements. (Hope Morrow's Trauma Central, 1998,
accessed 30 January 2003); available at http://home.earthlink.net/~hopefull/i-statem.htm.
[6] De-escalatory Language (Boulder, Colorado: Internaitonal Online Training Program On
Intractable Conflict, 1998); available at
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/desclang.htm.
[7] William Ury, Getting Past No (New York: Bantam Books, 1991), 51.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Tucker‐Ladd, Clayton. ""I" Messages." http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap13/chap13g.htm. This section from chapter 13 of Clayton E. Tucker‐Ladd's, Psychological Self‐Help, explains how "'I' statements do not judge, blame, threaten, put down or try to control others; they simply report how you feel, which is rarely challengeable by anyone else." "I" Statements Not "You" Statements. Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/istate.htm. Simply changing the way in which complaints are phrased can limit escalation pressures. For example accusatory phrases, "you did this," are often more likely to contribute to escalation than less accusatory phrases such as "I am having trouble because of this." Inflammatory Statements. Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/inflame.htm. Sometimes communication can make matters worse rather than better. When communication is threatening, hostile, or inflammatory it can do more to escalate a conflict than it can to defuse it. Suzette Haden Elgin's World Verbal Self‐Defense League Home Page. Available at: http://adrr.com/aa/. This site gives an overview of Elgin's "Gentle Art of Verbal Self‐Defense," as well as excerpts from her books, FAQs, and a "Real World Linguistics Course." Offline (Print) Sources Borisoff, Deborah and David A. Victor. Conflict Management: A Communication Skills Approach. Allyn and Bacon, October 14, 1997. Conflict Management presents a communication skills approach toward managing conflicts. It analyses the role communication plays in exacerbating conflicts, and offers communication strategies which promote productive conflict management. Click here for more info. Ury, William L. Getting Past No: Negotiating With Difficult People. New York: Bantam Books, January 1, 1993. This book provides step by step approaches to defusing confrontation and developing creative solutions toward resolving conflicts through negotiation. In particular, it focuses on developing communication skills that facilitate cooperation. Click here for more info. Tannen, Deborah. That's Not What I Meant! How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Relationships. New York: Ballantine, January 1, 1991. This book focuses on conversational style as the most important means of steering an argument or discussion toward a constructive end. Elgin, Suzette Haden. The Gentle Art of Verbal Self‐Defense at Work 2nd Edition. Prentice‐Hall, January 1, 2000. This book serves as a self‐help guide to negotiation skills and is directed at a lay audience. Horn, Sam. Tongue‐Fu!. New York: St. Martin's, January 1, 1996. This is a book of strategies for dealing constructively with verbal conflict. It is written as a "how‐to" guide and so is easy to read and contains lots of examples. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Glaser, Tanya. "Public Conversations Project ‐‐ Summary." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium, 1900. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/articlesummary/10446/. This page is a summary of a selection, Public Conversations Project, from Moral Conflict by W. Barnett Pearce and Stephen W. Littlejohn. Pearce and Littlejohn discuss the Public Conversations Projects (PCP) which was founded by a group of family therapists who thought that family therapy methods might be useful in creating more productive moral discussions. The PCP approach seeks to avoid old, unproductive patterns of interaction. It facilitates dialogue rather than debate, by encouraging the sharing of personal experiences, listening to others, sincere curiosity, and admitting doubts. Verbal Abuse. Available at: http://www.verbalabuse.com/. A site dedicated to recognition and prevention of verbal abuse in all areas of life. The site has descriptions of what verbal abuse is in different context and links to available resources. Preventing Interpersonal Violence By
Michelle Maiese
Introduction
One of the greatest challenges facing humanity is learning how to prevent interpersonal conflicts
from turning violent. In Brazil, the death toll from interpersonal and gang violence has reached
the level of 50,000 deaths per year. [1] But what sorts of mechanisms exist for preventing
violence, and how might these mechanisms be strengthened? In most cases, it is not community
leaders, educators, or police officers that play a primary role in violence prevention. Rather, it is
the individuals faced with interpersonal conflict who must choose whether to simply walk away
from the dispute, resort to violence, or solve their differences cooperatively. They are the ones
who must recognize interpersonal conflict need not always lead to violence and abuse.
However, in order to nonviolently resolve intense conflict, individuals often need help. For
example, many communities, schools, police departments, and corporations have local mediation
services that offer conflict resolution training and help people to settle disputes. The mechanisms
capable of effectively preventing and controlling violence are most often based on the active
intervention of people within the community itself, what William Ury calls the "third
side."[2]This potential third side consists of friends, relatives, neighbors, bystanders, and other
members of the surrounding community. All of these parties can play a constructive role in
preventing violent conflict. They are the people who help disputants to find some common
ground that can serve as the basis for agreement. In many cases, the third side is the community
itself taking responsibility for its own conflicts. [3] Oftentimes it is the people who are closest to
conflict that can play the most significant role in preventing violence.
Community Initiatives
Many attempts at violence prevention turn out to be community-based approaches with a
complex division of labor among many different actors. Such actors include ministers, police,
probation officers, businesses, schools, and parents. All of these parties have a different role to
play in reducing latent tensions, addressing people's needs, and preventing violent conflict within
their community. [4]
Violence prevention within communities is grounded in at least three important roles: the
provider, the teacher, and the bridge-builder. [5] First is the provider. This is someone who
attempts to fulfill the frustrated needs that often create conflict in the first place. To help prevent
violence, community members should try to address important social issues, such as
unemployment, economic problems, road repair, sanitation, and social unease. For example, it is
typically helpful to acknowledge any racial or religious tensions that plague that community and
to address any issues that tend to contribute to such conflict.
Second is the teacher. This individual helps to teach people how to resolve conflicts in ways
more productive than violence. The way in which individuals learn to deal with anger and
aggression begins in the home and continues at school. There therefore needs to be greater
emphasis on teaching children how to resolve conflict rather than escalate it. Community-wide
education campaigns can encourage families to take advantage of parenting skills classes, family
therapy, and anger management programs. [6] The hope is that these sorts of education
campaigns might mobilize individuals to learn about ways to prevent violence in their
community.
In addition, many theorists recommend instituting a violence prevention curriculum in public
schools. The capacity to see another's point of view and to learn alternatives to violence as a
means of resolving conflicts is crucial. Schools can help prevent interpersonal violence by
teaching children how to manage conflict through listening and talking, rather than using
physical force. Teaching children how to function in a social setting without behaving violently
towards those who stand in their way is the first step toward decreasing rates of physical assault.
[7] Because education is thought to be an integral part of violence prevention, a whole section
devoted to this subject is provided below.
The third role is that of the bridge builder. Violence prevention is largely a matter of trying to
find ways to strengthen and mobilize the community. This requires finding ways to strengthen
families, neighborhoods, schools, churches, and local politics. The bridge builder tries to
organize joint projects that can create ties among community members and build relationships
that cut across group differences. [8] Specific projects that can help bring community members
together and give them the opportunity to discuss concerns include community-wide dialogues,
forums, rallies, and celebrations. [9]
There are also various things that law enforcement officers can
do to help prevent community violence. For example, police
officers can conduct community outreach initiatives and
collaborate with community leaders to discuss problems,
concerns, and tensions affecting that community. A broad crosssection of these community leaders, working alongside police,
can form a task force that reaches out to community members in
a proactive manner.
This requires the maintenance of direct lines of communication
between police officers and community leaders. Officers should
explain and clarify police procedures and requirements to
community leaders and enlist their help in maintaining order.
Working together, officers and leaders can stress the importance
of respecting the rights of others and keeping the peace. [10]
In the 1980s and 1990s, various efforts were made to reduce the amount of youth and gang violence in the Boston area. Such efforts included after‐
school and alternative‐
sentencing programs run by churches; cooperation among police officers and ministers to discourage youth from gang banging; ministers' collaboration with police, probation officers, and prosecutors to devise suitable punishments for gang activity; community policing; and the strengthening of schools, churches, and local politics. In the United States, the Community Relations Service (CRS)
[11] has devised guidelines to help communities implement
mechanisms and procedures that will enable them to resolve
conflict before they escalate into major disturbances. In
particular, the CRS focuses on preventing and resolving
[From: Christopher Winship, interracial confrontation and hate violence. The organization
"Reducing Youth Violence in recognizes that complaints or disagreements should be dealt with Boston: Lessons from the 1990s," immediately at the local government level, before they reach the in Must We Fight?, ed. William point of violence. One way to reduce racial tensions is to enact
Ury, (San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass ordinances to insure equal opportunity and encourage
Publishing, 2002), 59‐61.] compliance with these equal opportunity statutes. A municipality
might also implement a comprehensive management system for
the enforcement and protection of civil rights, as well as adopt a general ordinance outlining its
commitment to positive race relations. [12]
Finally, insofar as individual behavior is shaped by psychological factors that have to do with
one's family and upbringing, violence is a problem that oftentimes begins at home. After all, one
of the most violent manifestations of interpersonal conflict is spousal abuse.
When physical violence, emotional abuse, or sexual abuse takes place in the household within
which an individual grows up, that individual becomes more likely to perpetrate violence
him/herself. Unfortunately, family life sometimes teaches people that violence is the only away
to handle interpersonal conflict.
Community-wide campaigns aimed at challenging social norms that ignore or support violence
should be developed. An important part of youth violence prevention is the development of
community-based programs to prevent child abuse and domestic violence and thereby take
violence out of the home. These programs should challenge the belief that family violence is a
private and not a public concern, and encourage friends, neighbors, and relatives to reach out to
at-risk families in order to break the terrible isolation that keeps them from getting help. [13]
Education
As previously noted, one central component of violence prevention at the interpersonal and
community level is education. Children and adolescents need to learn how to manage anger and
aggression non-violently and to interact with others without resorting to force. [14] Some
theorists have pointed out that whether they know it or not, schools are in the business of conflict
resolution. The question is not whether approaches to conflict are being taught, but rather what
methods are being taught. When conflict arises at school, common responses include physical
aggression, insult, and appeal to an authority figure such as a parent or teacher. In other
instances, students may simply ignore the conflict, refuse to listen, or even give in to a bully.
While each of these responses is appropriate under some circumstances, a collaborative approach
to conflict is often the best and only way to obtain satisfactory, long-term results. [15]
Some theorists point out that learning itself is a vital form of conflict prevention. The skills
children learn in English, social studies, and math can help them to reason their way through
stressful and dangerous situations and increase the likelihood that they use words rather than
force to persuade. Their education may also enable them to better understand others' point of
view and to think beyond the prevailing assumption that one has no choice but to fight. [16] In
short, schools can prevent violence by insuring that all children are well served academically and
by teaching children to manage conflict and anger.
Theorists also maintain that conflict resolution skills should be a fundamental part of schools'
curriculum, discipline approach, and management style. In conflict resolution education, students
have the opportunity to learn mediation skills such as active listening, anger management,
conflict de-escalation, perspective taking, brainstorming, and distinguishing between interests
and positions. [17] For example, many high schools have developed peer mediation and
negotiation education programs to deal with bullying behavior. These programs aim to teach
students about problem solving, enhance their capacity for tolerance, and train them to mediate
among their peers. [18] Holding school mediations can sometimes help to enhance awareness of
diverse communication styles, increase dialogue, and develop new solutions.
The YM‐YWCA of Winnipeg, Canada, and the Junior League of Winnipeg, an organisation of women committed to education, advocacy and There are also a variety of anti-bias projects for youth, teachers,
and caregivers that are in place at schools and organizations
throughout the nation. [19] A growing number of educators are
committed to teaching people how to overcome prejudices and to
manage anger constructively. These projects aim to train youth,
teachers, and caregivers how to control their public expression of
biases and constructively resolve conflict. Some of this training
concentrates on helping people to understand why certain groups
of people are targeted and dispel myths about these groups.
Programs also emphasize anger management and provide
trainees with the skills they need to diffuse and/or avoid violent
confrontations. In many cases, they aim to change people's
attitudes towards weapons and the use of violence to solve
interpersonal disputes. [20] Many of the exercises involved rely
upon role-plays and group discussion and emphasize the idea that
people living in a diverse society need to learn how to live
together peacefully.
community action, have developed the Acting Peace project to identify and promote solutions to youth violence in Canadian high schools. Acting Peace is a Youth Violence Prevention Educational Resource and Tool Kit that challenges an individual's tolerance for and sensitivity to the presence of violence around them, increases their empathy and understanding of others, and helps develop constructive life management skills. It is comprised of a Other Educational initiatives that work to create safe schools and Resource Guide, artwork and communities include after school and enriched preschool
graphics, a videotape, and a programs, mentoring and employment programs, drug education variety of exercises, activities and prevention programs, and family counseling. [21]
and peer‐led initiatives. Since the project's inception, over Initial studies suggest that in schools where children learn
negotiation and mediation skills, the rate of violence goes down 250 youth, volunteers, professionals, 10 Winnipeg and overall school morale goes up. [22] The more conflict
resolution techniques permeate a school's atmosphere, the greater High Schools, and 21 students' social and emotional development and the lower the
Community Groups have homicide and assault rates.
contributed to the development and refinement of the core concepts and educational resources. The package has been re‐worked and will serve as an educational [1] William Ury, "Containing, Resolving, and Preventing Violent resource that allows educators and administrators freedom to Conflict: Activating the Third Side in Urban Communities" in
Must We Fight? From the Battlefied to the Schoolyard: A New
deliver the material in a regular Perspective on Violent Conflict and its Prevention, ed. William curriculum unit. ‐From "Acting Ury. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishing, 2002), 55.
Peace: Violence Prevention Education for High Schools," [2] For more about the "third side," see William Ury, The Third
Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop, (New York:
Penguin Publishing, 2000).
[3] Ury, 2002, 78.
[4] ibid., 81.
[5] ibid., 84.
[6] Janet Carter, "Domestic Abuse, Child Abuse, and Youth Violence: Strategies for Prevention
and Early Intervention," Family Violence Prevention Fund, Available at:
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/link/fvpf2.htm [7] Deborah Prothrow-Stith and Michaele
Weissman, Deadly Consequences: How Violence is Destroying Our Teenage Population and a
Plan to Begin Solving the Problem, (New York: HarperPerennial, 1991), 145.
[8] Ury, 2002, 84.
[9] "Twenty Plus Things Law Enforcement Officers can Do to Prevent or Respond to Hate
Incidents," Community Relations Service, U.S. Department of Justice, Available at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crs/twentyplus.htm
[10] ibid.
[11] The Community Relations Service is the U.S. Department of Justice's "peacemaker" for
community conflicts and tensions associated with differences in race and national origin. Created
by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRS is dedicated to assisting state and community groups, both
public and private, with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic conflict. It assists
communities in developing local mechanisms that can prevent or reduce violent conflict.
[12] "Avoiding Racial Conflict: A Guide for Municipalities," Community Relations Service, The
U.S. Department of Justice, Available at:
http://www.awcnet.org/documents/tools_avoidconflict.pdf [13] Carter,
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/link/fvpf2.htm [14] Prothrow-Stith and Weissman, 1991, 145.
[15] Jeanne Asherman,"Decreasing Violence Through Conflict Resolution Education in
Schools," Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/asherman.cfm [16] Prothrow-Stith and
Weissman, 1991, 162.
[17] Asherman, http://www.mediate.com/articles/asherman.cfm [18] Ury, 2002, 104-5.
[19] Wendy Schwartz, "Anti-Bias and Conflict Resolution Curricula: Theory and Practice,"
ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Available at:
http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed377255.html [20] ibid.
[21] Carter, http://www.mincava.umn.edu/link/fvpf2.htm [22] Ury, 2002, 100.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Addressing Community Gang Problems: A Model for Problem Solving. U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance. Available at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/156059.pdf. This model can assist local communities in addressing gang problems by focusing on a comprehensive strategy for preventing and controlling street‐gang drug trafficking and related violent crime with components ranging form prevention to suppression. Schwartz, Wendy. Anti‐Bias and Conflict Resolution Curricula: Theory and Practice. Available at: http://www.ericdigests.org/1995‐2/bias.htm. "The ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education recently conducted a survey to identify anti‐bias projects providing services nationally to schools and organizations, and those with programs easily replicable by local educators. The result is A Directory of Anti‐Bias Education Resources and Services, comprised of profiles of 52 such projects. This digest, based on the information provided for the directory describes the different programmatic approaches to bias reduction and violence prevention. " Author Avoiding Racial Conflict: A Guide for Municipalities. Available at: http://www.awcnet.org/documents/tools_avoidconflict.pdf. This guide presents guidelines that can help communities implement mechanisms and procedures that will enable them to resolve racial conflicts before they escalate into major disturbances. Craft, Carole A., Timothy N. Thornton and Linda L. Dahlberg. Best Practices of Youth Violence Prevention: A Sourcebook for Community Action. Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention, 1900. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/bestpractices.htm. This online book looks at the effectiveness of specific violence prevention practices in four key areas: parents and families; home visiting; social and conflict resolution skills; and mentoring. Communities Against Violence Network (CAVNET). Available at: http://www.cavnet2.org/. Communities Against Violence Network (CAVNET) is a resource, and information sharing network on the prevention of violence against women, children, persons with disabilities, gays and lesbians, between gay and lesbian partners, and other types of violence and abuses. Schwartz, Wendy. "Community Guide to Youth Anti‐Bias and Conflict Resolution Programs." , 1994 Available at: http://iume.tc.columbia.edu/eric_archive/parent/01.pdf. This guide describes the many ways to teach bias reduction and violence prevention in order to help schools, community and religious leaders, and parents decide which project is best for their children. Asherman, Jeanne. "Decreasing Violence Through Conflict Resolution Education In Schools." , 1900 Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/asherman.cfm. "In an effort to address the fear of parents, 'Zero Tolerance Policies' are being applied in schools in such a way as to penalize minor conflicts. Research has consistently shown conflict resolution training to be a far more effective means of decreasing violence. This article concludes that schools can not avoid being involved in teaching children methods of conflict resolution and have a responsibility to consciously insure that appropriate methods are being taught." (Mediate.com) Carter, Janet. "Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, and Youth Violence: Strategies for Prevention and Early Intervention." , 1900 Available at: http://www.mincava.umn.edu/link/documents/fvpf2/fvpf2.shtml. A growing body of clinical experience and research reveals that domestic violence and child abuse occur in the same families and are highly associated with similar social and economic risk factors. Data also show that children growing up in violent families are more likely to engage in youth violence. Furthermore, the social and economic risk factors for youth violence correspond to the risk factors for domestic violence and child abuse. Given these findings, an effective strategy to combat child abuse, domestic violence and youth violence would be a collaborative, community‐based prevention/early intervention effort that aims to reduce the social and economic risk factors for at‐risk families. This paper outlines proposed components of such a program and presents a strong argument for the development of national and local collaborative prevention efforts between the three fields. ‐ Abstract Offline (Print) Sources Cohen, Larry and Rachel Davis. "Conflict Resolution and Violence Prevention: From Misunderstanding to Understanding." August 1, 1998. Ury, William L., ed. Must We Fight?: From The Battlefield to the Schoolyard ‐ A New Perspective on Violent Conflict and Its Prevention. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass, December 1, 2001. In this book, the authors provide new research and insights into human behavior and human nature, which show that we are not, in fact, doomed to violent conflict. The book also outlines a brilliant program for personal and community empowerment called The Third Side. This new paradigm shows how we can intervene to support healthy conflict while preventing destructive confrontation. Minor, Marianne. Preventing Workplace Violence: Positive Management Strategies. Crisp Publications, 1995. Suggests ways to identify potential workplace violence and how to prevent it. Henderson, Errol and Russell J. Leng. "Reducing Inter‐Gang Violence: Norms from the Interstate System." Peace and Change 24:4, October 1, 1999. "We maintain that the norms guiding interstate behavior offer a point of departure for the reduction of violence among territorial urban youth gangs. Gangs have been a part of the American urban landscape far too long to assume that they can be eradicated simply by arresting and incarcerating more youths (although this function remains important) without addressing the larger issues that compel individuals to join gangs. Since the relations that exist among territorial urban gangs bear some important structural similarities to the decentralized interstate system, we contend that the expansion of the norms that already appear in both systems, such as respect for spheres of influence, reciprocity in cooperative exchanges, and the observance of treaties, can serve as the basis for moderating inter‐gang conflict. We suggest intervention and mediation strategies that seek to institutionalize the conflict‐dampening norms within the inter‐gang system." ‐‐Blackwell Publishers Sheppard, D. "Strategies to Reduce Gun Violence." OJJDP Fact Sheet, no 93, U.S. Department of Justice, February 1, 1999. Burton, John W. Violence Explained: The Sources of Conflict, Violence and Crime and Their Prevention. New York: Manchester University Press, July 1997. John Burton argues that one of the main sources of conflict and violence is the denial of human needs. He examines the adversarial institutions of society leadership, legislatures, the work place, the legal system and the international relations system, and considers what each would be like if it was designed to solve basic human needs problems. "Violence Prevention: General Packet." National Association for Mediation in Education, Amherst, 1900. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Kusche, C., M.T. Greenberg and S.F. Mihalic. "Promoting Alternative ThinkingStrategies (PATHS)." , 1998 Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/model/programs/PATHS.html. This site offers information about the Curriculum of PATHS (Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies). PATHS is a comprehensive program for promoting emotional and social competencies and reducing aggression and behavior problems in elementary school‐aged children while simultaneously enhancing the educational process in the classroom. This innovative curriculum is designed to be used by educators and counselors in a multi‐year, universal prevention model. Although primarily focused on the school and classroom settings, information and activities are also included for use with parents. Offline (Print) Sources Clark, Ella. "Acting Peace: Violence Prevention Education for High Schools." Peacebuilder 2:1, 1999. Unit VIII
Negotiation
Negotiation might be considered the "core" or "baseline" dispute resolution strategy. Often done
without much thought in day-to-day situations (such as when we discuss what to have for dinner
or what movie to see), it can also become very complex and long-lasting, as unions negotiate
labor contracts, or businesses negotiate permits with government agencies. These essays discuss
the "nuts and bolts" of negotiation.
Negotiation
Negotiation is bargaining — it is the process of discussion and give-and-take between
two or more disputants, who seek to find a solution to a common problem. This overview
essay discusses basic strategies and tactics of negotiation.
Interests, Positions, Needs and Values
Understanding the differences between these four concepts is essential to effective
negotiation.
Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)
BATNA is a term invented by Roger Fisher and William Ury which stands for "best
alternative to a negotiated agreement." Any negotiator should determine his or her
BATNA before agreeing to any negotiated settlement.
Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA)
The ZOPA is the common ground between two disputing parties. The ZOPA is critical to
the successful outcome of negotiation, but it may take some time to determine whether a
ZOPA exists.
Win-Win / Win-Lose / Lose-Lose Situations
The terms, "Win-Win," "Win-Lose," and "Lose-Lose" are basic concepts in dispute
resolution. They are game theory terms that refer to the possible outcomes of a game or
dispute involving two sides, and more importantly, what the implications of those
outcomes are.
Competitive and Cooperative Approaches to Conflict
This set of materials explores these two different approaches to conflict and the results of
pursuing one or the other.
Compromise
A compromise is a solution to a mutual problem that meets some, but not all, of each of
the parties' interests. While compromise is good for repairing damaged relationships, it
can also leave both parties unsatisfied, prolonging conflict.
Ripeness
A conflict is said to be ripe once both parties realize they cannot win, and the conflict is
costing them too much to continue. This tends to be a good time to open negotiations.
Ripeness-promoting strategies
If a conflict is not yet ripe, that does not mean one should abandon efforts at management
or resolution. Rather, steps can be taken to coax the parties to move toward de-escalation.
Most of the negotiation literature focuses on two strategies, although they are called by various
names. One strategy is interest-based (or integrative or cooperative) bargaining, while the other
is positional (or distributive or competitive) bargaining. Lax and Sebenius were among the first
to argue that actually all negotiations are combinations of both approaches: First, negotiators try
to "create value" by "enlarging the pie" as much as they can. (This is the approach advocated by
interest-based negotiation.) But inevitably, the pie will then need to be divided up, which calls
for distributive negotiation. So, they claim that all negotiation is a combination of creating and
claiming value, not one or the other as other theorists suggest. The last two essays discuss the
theory of "ripeness," explaining when it is and is not time to negotiate and what can be done to
make an "unripe" dispute or conflict "ripe" for negotiation.
Integrative or Interest-Based Bargaining
In integrative bargaining, the parties attempt to "enlarge the pie" or allocate resources in
such a way that everyone gets what they want.
Distributive Bargaining
In distributive bargaining, the parties assume that there is not enough to go around. Thus,
the more one side gets, the less the other side gets.
Positional Bargaining
This type of bargaining negotiates from positions, rather than interests. It is more typical
in situations where there is a "fixed pie" to be divided up, or where both sides cannot
possibly win, and hence an integrative approach is not possible.
Creating and Claiming Value
In any negotiation, the parties decide whether to be competitive or cooperative. However,
some theorists argue that this is a false dichotomy — that all negotiations involve both.
Unit VIII Assignment:
Describe a negotiation. You can use one that you were actually involved in or know about, or
you can use an instance from a television show or a movie. (The recently-released Thank You
For Smoking is a good one, I am told, as are many of the ones on the aforementioned CDR list).
You can even use the same movie you used before, but you might need to watch it again. In 2-4
pages, describe: What are the parties' positions? Interests? BATNAs? Negotiation strategies? Did
they use interest-based or distributive bargaining? Did they negotiate effectively — or might
they have done better? If so, how?
Negotiation By
Michelle Maiese
What is Negotiation? In simplest terms, negotiation is a discussion
between two or more disputants who are trying
to work out a solution to their problem.[1] This
interpersonal or inter-group process can occur
at a personal level, as well as at a corporate or
international (diplomatic) level. Negotiations
typically take place because the parties wish to
create something new that neither could do on
his or her own, or to resolve a problem or
NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (third
dispute between them.[2] The parties
from right) and High Representative for Common Foreign
acknowledge that there is some conflict of
and Security Policy, Dr. Javier Solana (far left) meet on
interest between them and think they can use
March 10, 2004. This is an official NATO photograph,
obtained from
some form of influence to get a better deal,
http://www.nato.int/multi/photos/2004/m040310a.htm.
rather than simply taking what the other side
will voluntarily give them.[3] They prefer to
search for agreement rather than fight openly, give in, or break off contact.[4]
When parties negotiate, they usually expect give and take. While they have interlocking goals
that they cannot accomplish independently, they usually do not want or need exactly the same
thing.[5] This interdependence can be either win-lose or win-win in nature, and the type of
negotiation that is appropriate will vary accordingly. The disputants will either attempt to force
the other side to comply with their demands, to modify the opposing position and move toward
compromise, or to invent a solution that meets the objectives of all sides. The nature of their
interdependence will have a major impact on the nature of their relationship, the way
negotiations are conducted, and the outcomes of these negotiations.[6]
Mutual adjustment is one of the key causes of the changes that occur during a negotiation. Both
parties know that they can influence the other's outcomes and that the other side can influence
theirs. The effective negotiator attempts to understand how people will adjust and readjust their
positions during negotiations, based on what the other party does and is expected to do.[7] The
parties have to exchange information and make an effort to influence each other. As negotiations
evolve, each side proposes changes to the other party's position and makes changes to its own.
This process of give-and-take and making concessions is necessary if a settlement is to be
reached. If one party makes several proposals that are rejected, and the other party makes no
alternate proposal, the first party may break off negotiations.[8] Parties typically will not want to
concede too much if they do not sense that those with whom they are negotiating are willing to
compromise.
The parties must work toward a solution that takes into account each person's requirements and
hopefully optimizes the outcomes for both. As they try to find their way toward agreement, the
parties focus on interests, issues, and positions, and use cooperative and/or competitive processes
to come to an agreement.
Approaches to Negotiation Negotiation theorists make several overlapping
distinctions about approaches to negotiation.
Fisher, Ury, and Patton distinguish between
positional bargaining, which is competitive, and
interest-based bargaining or principled negotiation,
which is primarily cooperative. But they also make
Additional insights into negotiation the distinction between soft, hard, and principled
http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/audio/10765
negotiation, the latter of which is neither soft, nor
hard, but based on cooperative principles which
look out for oneself as well as one's opponent.[9]
Morton Deutsch also makes the distinction between competitive and cooperative approaches.[10]
According to Deutsch, the most important factors that determine whether an individual will
approach a conflict cooperatively or competitively are the nature of the dispute and the goals
each side seeks to achieve. Often the two sides' goals are linked together, or interdependent. The
parties' interaction will be shaped by whether this interdependence is positive or negative,
according to Deutsch:
•
•
Goals with positive interdependence are tied together in such a way that the chance of one side attaining its' goal is increased by the other side's attaining its goal.[11] Positively interdependent goals normally result in cooperative approaches to negotiation, because any participant can "attain his goal if, and only if, the others with whom he is linked can attain their goals."[12] On the other hand, negative interdependence means the chance of one side attaining its goal is decreased by the other's success.[13] Negatively interdependent goals force competitive situations, because the only way for one side to achieve its goals and "win" is for the other side to "lose." Although Fisher, Ury, and Patton argue that almost any dispute can be resolved with interestbased bargaining (i.e., a cooperative approach), other theorists believe the two approaches should
be used together. Lax and Sebenius, for example, argue that negotiations typically involve
"creating" and "claiming" value. First, the negotiators work cooperatively to create value (that is,
"enlarge the pie,") but then they must use competitive processes to claim value (that is, "divide
up the pie").[14]
However, a tension exists between creating and claiming value. This is because the competitive
strategies used to claim value tend to undermine cooperation, while a cooperative approach
makes one vulnerable to competitive bargaining tactics.[15] The tension that exists between
cooperation and competition in negotiation is known as "The Negotiator's Dilemma:"[16]
•
•
•
•
•
If both sides cooperate, they will both have good outcomes. If one cooperates and the other competes, the cooperator will get a terrible outcome and the competitor will get a great outcome. If both compete, they will both have mediocre outcomes. In the face of uncertainty about what strategy the other side will adopt, each side's best choice is to compete. However, if they both compete, both sides end up worse off.[17] In real life, parties can communicate and commit themselves to a cooperative approach. They
can also adopt norms of fair and cooperative behavior and focus on their future relationship. This
fosters a cooperative approach between both parties and helps them to find joint gains.
Planning for Negotiations
Effective planning is crucial to meeting negotiation objectives. If the parties are to reach a stable
agreement, specific events must take place before the parties ever come to the table.
1. Parties must frame the problem, and recognize that they have a common problem that they share an interest in solving. Frames are the conceptions that parties have of the situation and its risks. They allow the parties to begin to develop a shared definition of the issues involved, and the process needed to resolve them.[18] When the frames of both parties match, they are more likely to focus on common issues and have a common definition of the situation. However, when the frames do not match, communication between the parties is likely to be more difficult. Unless the different outlooks on the problem begin to overlap, it is unlikely that negotiations will be successful.[19] If negotiators understand what frame they are operating from and what frame the other is operating from, they may be able to shift the conversation and develop common definitions. The way in which parties define the problem can shape the rest of the planning process. 2. In the early stages of framing, negotiators must also determine their goals, anticipate what they want to achieve, and prepare for the negotiation process. They must define the issues to be discussed and analyze the conflict situation. In many cases, negotiators can appeal to research or consult with experts to help them develop a complete list of the issues at stake. Next, parties should assemble all the issues that have been defined into a comprehensive list. The combined list of issues and priorities from each side determines the negotiation agenda. 3. Negotiators often exchange and negotiate the list of issues to be discussed in advance. Consultation between negotiators prior to actual negotiation allows them to agree on the agenda of issues to be discussed, as well as the location of the negotiations, the time and duration of the sessions, the parties to be involved in the negotiations, and techniques to pursue if negotiation fails. Negotiators should also agree on principles that will guide the drafting of a settlement, the procedures to be used in negotiations, and the formula by which a general agreement is to be reached.[20] Discussions about these procedural issues are often crucial for the success of substantive negotiations. If parties cannot agree on negotiation procedures and proposed items for the agenda, they may very well decide to abandon the negotiations altogether. 4. After assembling issues on an agenda, the negotiators must prioritize their goals and evaluate the possible tradeoffs among them.[21] Negotiators must be aware of their goals and positions and must identify the concerns, desires, and fears that underlie their substantive goals. They must determine which issues are most important, as well as whether the various issues are linked or separate. In addition, negotiators should be aware of the underlying interests and goals of the other side. Because the linkages between parties' goals often define the issue to be settled, these goals must be determined carefully. If one party wants more than the other party is capable or willing to give, the disputants must either change their goals or end the negotiation. 5. Once they have determined the relative importance of the issues, parties need to decide the order in which issues should be discussed. Many sequencing options are possible: going from 6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
easy to hard, hard to easy, or tackling everything together. Different situations suggest different answers to that question, and different negotiators and mediators prefer one approach over the others. Negotiators that are operating on behalf of a constituency should consult with their constituents as well as with the other side to ensure that the constituents' needs and priorities are included in the negotiations.[22] The next step is for negotiators to define specific targets with respect to the key issues on the agenda. Parties should try to figure out the best resolution they can expect, what counts as a fair and reasonable deal, and what is a minimally acceptable deal.[23] They should also be aware of the strongest points in their position and recognize the strongest points in the other side's position. This enables parties to become aware of the range of possible outcomes (see ZOPA) and to be flexible in what they will accept. It also improves the likelihood that they will arrive at a mutually satisfactory outcome. Because negotiations typically involve more than one issue, it is helpful for negotiators to anticipate different ways of packaging issues. They can balance the issues they regard as most important by being more flexible about items they deem less important.[24] They should also decide which items they can abandon and use as leverage to get what they really want with respect to the most important issues. Planning for negotiation also involves the development of supporting arguments. Negotiators must be able to present supporting facts and arguments, anticipate how the other side will respond to these arguments, and respond to the other party's claims with counter‐arguments. This includes locating facts to support one's point of view, determining what sorts of arguments have been given in similar negotiations in the past, anticipating the arguments the other side is likely to make, and presenting facts in the most convincing way possible.[25] Finally, planning involves assessing the other party's priorities and interests and trying to get a better idea of what that party is likely to want. Negotiators should gather background information about the other party's current needs, resources, and interests. This can be done through preliminary interviews or consultations with those who have done business with the other party in the past. In addition, negotiators need to understand the other party's objectives. Professional negotiators will often exchange information about targets or initial proposals before negotiations begin. Third, negotiators should be aware of the other party's negotiation style, reputation, and the strategy and tactics they commonly use. They should investigate that party's past behavior in related settings, determine his or her organizational position, and find out whom he or she admires and whose advice carries weight.[26] An individual's past negotiation behavior is a good indication of how he or she will behave in the future. Fourth, negotiators should understand the other party's alternatives. If the other negotiator has strong alternatives, he or she will probably be willing to set high objectives and be willing to push hard for these objectives during negotiation. Sources of Power in Negotiation Negotiation is a process of communication in which the parties aim to "send a message" to the
other side and influence each other.[27] Thus, power in negotiation lies in the ability to favorably
affect someone else's decision. Some assume that because threats of physical force exert
influence, the ability to make such threats is the essence of negotiating power. But making
threats is a costly and dangerous way of trying to exert influence.
There is also a widespread belief that the best way to start a negotiation is with an extreme
position. The idea is that negotiators should let others know they are in charge by taking a hard
line, and should then soften their position later if appropriate.[28] However, this may not be the
most effective tactic. The more extreme the opening positions are, and the smaller the
concessions, the more time and effort it often takes to move toward agreement.[29] And as each
side tries to use force to make the other change its position, anger and resentment result, putting
a heavy strain on the relationship between the parties. Thus, it is a mistake to try to use force or
threats before one has exhausted the other elements of negotiating power. Threatening to impose
harsh consequences without having first made a firm and clear offer is actually likely to reduce a
negotiator's level of power.[30]
The ability to exert influence depends upon the combined total of a variety of factors. First,
having a good alternative to negotiation contributes substantially to a negotiator's power. A
negotiator with very strong alternatives does not need the negotiation in order to achieve at least
a satisfactory outcome.[31] In their 1981 bestseller, Getting to Yes,[32] Roger Fisher and
William Ury coined the term "BATNA" (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) to refer to
this type of negotiating power. When parties have many options other than negotiation, they have
more leverage in making demands. Therefore, parties should develop a strong understanding of
their alternatives before participating in negotiations. Making one's BATNA as strong as
possible, and then making that BATNA known to one's opponent, can strengthen one's
negotiating position.
Second, a skilled negotiator who knows about the people and interests involved as well as the
relevant facts is better able to influence the decisions of others.[33] The abilities to listen, to
empathize, and to communicate clearly and effectively are crucial in negotiating effective
agreements. Likewise, an awareness of various negotiating styles and cultural differences can be
a huge asset. A good working relationship also increases a negotiator's level of power. Such
relationships are characterized by trust and the ability to communicate effectively and easily. If a
negotiator establishes a reputation for candor and honesty, his or her capacity to exert influence
is enhanced. A negotiator who understands the point of view from which the other party is
operating is more likely to communicate persuasively, with minimal misunderstanding.[34]
In addition, while facts and ideas are important in changing another person's opinions and
perceptions, the effectiveness of persuasion depends on how these facts and ideas are selected
and presented. To be persuasive, negotiators must consider the content of the message, the
structure of the message, and the delivery style. First, negotiators must make the offer attractive
to the other party and emphasize those features of the offer that the other party is likely to find
appealing.[35] Negotiators should also try to formulate a proposal, however minor, to which the
other party can agree. This will put the other negotiator into the mindset of saying "yes" and will
increase the likelihood that he or she will agree with a second, more significant proposal or
statement. These "yesable" propositions can also help to reduce tension and hostility and create
minor points of agreement.[36]
In addition, negotiators should try to make their messages consistent with their opponent's
values. Thus negotiators can enhance their chances of success by jointly developing objective
criteria and standards of legitimacy, and then shaping proposed solutions so that they meet these
joint standards,[37] which may include appeals to principles of fairness and expert opinions.
Negotiators should try to demonstrate by following the suggested course of action, that the other
party will be acting in accordance with his own values or some higher code of conduct.
Agreements about general principles can be an important first step in the negotiation process.
One final way to influence the other side is to invent a good solution to the problem. This
typically involves devising an ingenious solution that addresses the interests of both sides.
Brainstorming can be used to help generate such solutions in advance and increase a negotiator's
chances of affecting the outcome in a favorable way.[38] Introducing new opportunities for joint
gain may also help to create a situation that is ripe for settlement. Each side recognizes that it has
much to gain through collaboration, and that if both sides work together, they can reap rewards.
Rather than seeking "power over" the other side, negotiators in this way exercise "power with"
one another.[39]
Obstacles to Negotiation
In difficult conflicts, removing the obstacles to negotiation is the critical first step in moving
toward negotiated agreements. Sometimes people fail to negotiate because they do not recognize
that they are in a bargaining position. They may fail to identify a good opportunity for
negotiation, and may use other options that do not allow them to manage their problems as
effectively.[40] Or, they may recognize the need for bargaining but may bargain poorly because
they do not fully understand the process and lack good negotiating skills.
In cases of intractable conflict, parties often will not recognize each other, talk with each other,
or commit themselves to the process of negotiation.[41] They may even feel committed, as a
matter of principle, to not negotiate with an adversary. In such cases, getting parties to participate
in negotiations is a very challenging process. In addition, both parties must be ready to negotiate
if the process is to succeed. If efforts to negotiate are initiated too early, before both sides are
ready, they are likely to fail. Then the conflict may not be open to negotiation again for a long
time.
Before they will negotiate, parties must be aware of their alternatives to a negotiated settlement
(their BATNA). They must believe that a negotiated solution would be preferable to continuing
the current situation, that a fair settlement can be reached, and that the balance of forces permits
such an agreement.[42] William Zartman refers to this as the belief that there is a "Way
Out."[43] Weaker parties must feel assured that they will not be overpowered in a negotiation,
and parties must trust that their needs and interests will be fairly considered in the negotiation
process.
In many cases, conflicts become "ripe" for negotiation when both sides realize that they cannot
get what they want through a power struggle and that they have reached a hurting stalemate.[44]
If the parties believe that their ideal solution is not available and that foreseeable settlement is
better than the other available alternatives, the parties have a "Zone of Possible Agreement"
(ZOPA). This means that a potential agreement exists that would benefit both sides more than
their alternatives do.
However, it may take some time to determine whether a ZOPA exists. The parties must first
explore their various interests, options, and alternatives. If the disputants can identify their
ZOPA, there is a good chance that they will come to an agreement. But if they cannot,
negotiation is very unlikely to succeed. In addition, each side must believe that the other side is
willing to compromise. If the parties regard each other with suspicion and mistrust, they may
conclude that the other side is not committed to the negotiation process and may withdraw.[45]
When there is little trust between the negotiators, making concessions is not easy. First, there is
the dilemma of honesty.[46] On one hand, telling the other party everything about your situation
may give that person an opportunity to take advantage of you. However, not telling the other
person anything may lead to a stalemate. The dilemma of trust concerns how much you should
believe of what the other party tells you. If you believe everything this person says, then he or
she could take advantage of you. But if you believe nothing this other person says, then reaching
an agreement will be very difficult. The search for an optimal solution is greatly aided if parties
trust each other and believe that they are being treated honestly and fairly.[47]
In many cases, the negotiators' relationship becomes entangled with the substantive issues under
discussion.[48] Any misunderstanding that arises between them will reinforce their prejudices
and arouse their emotions. When conflict escalates, negotiations may take on an atmosphere of
anger, frustration, distrust, and hostility. If parties believe that the fulfillment of their basic needs
is threatened, they may begin to blame each other and may break off communication. As the
issue becomes more personalized, perceived differences are magnified and cooperation becomes
unlikely. If each side gets locked into its initial position and attempts to force the other side to
comply with various demands, this hostility may prevent negotiators from reaching agreement or
making headway toward a settlement.[49] In addition, parties may maintain their commitment to
a course of action even when that commitment constitutes irrational behavior on their part (see
entrapment). Once they have adopted a confrontational approach, negotiators may seek
confirming evidence for that choice and ignore contradictory evidence.[50] In an effort to save
face, they may refuse to go back on previous commitments or to revise their position.
To combat perceptual bias and hostility, negotiators should attempt to gain a better
understanding of the other party's perspective and try to see the situation as the other side sees
it.[51] In some cases, parties can discuss each other's perceptions, making a point to refrain from
blaming the other. In addition, they can look for opportunities to act in a manner that is
inconsistent with the other side's perceptions. Such de-escalating gestures can help to combat the
negative stereotypes that may interfere with fruitful negotiations. In ideal circumstances,
negotiators also establish personal relationships that facilitate effective communication. This
helps negotiators to focus on commonalities and find points of common interest.
Finally, if the "right" people are not involved in negotiations, the process is not likely to succeed.
First, all of the interested and affected parties must be represented. Second, negotiators must
truly represent and have the trust of those they are representing. If a party is left out of the
process, they may become angry and argue that their interests have not been taken into account.
Agreements can be successfully implemented only if the relevant parties and interests have been
represented in the negotiations,[52] in part because parties who participate in the negotiation
process have a greater stake in the outcome. Similarly, if constituents do not recognize a
negotiator as their legitimate representative, they may try to block implementation of the
agreement. Negotiators must therefore be sure to consult with their constituents and to ensure
that they adequately deal with constituents' concerns.
These concerns are related to what Guy and Heidi Burgess call the "scale-up" problem of getting
constituency groups to embrace the agreements that negotiators create. In many cases,
participation in the negotiation process helps negotiators to recognize the legitimacy of the other
side's interests, positions, and needs. This transformative experience may lead negotiators to
develop a sense of respect for the adversary, which their constituents do not share. As a result,
negotiators may make concessions that their constituents do not approve of, and they may be
unable to get the constituents to agree to the final settlement. This can lead to last-minute
breakdown of negotiated agreements.
[1] "Negotiation," International Online Training Program on Intractable Conflict, Conflict
Research Consortium, University of Colorado, [available at:
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/negotn.htm]
[2] Roy J. Lewicki, David M. Saunders and John W. Minton, Negotiation, 3rd Edition (San
Francisco: Irwin McGraw-Hill, 1999), 5.
[3] Ibid., 7.
[4] E. Wertheim, "Negotiations and Resolving Conflicts: An Overview," College of Business
Administration, Northeastern University, [available at:
http://web.cba.neu.edu/~ewertheim/interper/negot3.htm]
[5] Lewicki, Saunders, and Minton, 8.
[6] Ibid., 9.
[7] Ibid., 10-11.
[8] Ibid., 13.
[9] Roger Fisher, William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, 2nd
edition, ed. Bruce Patton, (New York: Penguin Books, 1991).
[10] Morton Deutsch, "Cooperation and Competition," in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution:
Theory and Practice, eds. Morton Deutsch and Peter Coleman (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 200), 22.
[11] Morton Deutsch, "Cooperation and Competition," in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution:
Theory and Practice, eds. Morton Deutsch and Peter Coleman (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 200), 22.
[12] Morton Deutsch, The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), 20.
This section of Deutsch's earlier work on constructive and destructive conflict resolution
processes is closely paralleled by the later chapter in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution:
Theory and Practice, which offers a summarized version of his older work.
[13] Morton Deutsch, "Cooperation and Competition," in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution:
Theory and Practice, eds. Morton Deutsch and Peter Coleman (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 2000), 22.
[14] David A. Lax and K. Sebenius, "Interests: The Measure of Negotiation," pp. 161-180 in
Negotiation Theory and Practice, eds. J. William Breslin and Jeffrey Z. Rubin, (Cambridge:
Program on Negotiation Books, 1991), 161.
[15] Ibid.
[16] David Lax and James K. Sebenius, The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for
Cooperation and Competitive Gain (New York: The Free Press, 1986), 29.
[17] This is the "payoff structure" of the prisoner's dilemma game, which is used to investigate
how people choose between cooperating and competing in different situations.
[18] Lewicki, Saunders, and Minton, 29-30.
[19] Harold S. Saunders, "We Need a Larger Theory of Negotiation: The Importance of PreNegotiating Phases," pp. 57-70 in Negotiation Theory and Practice, eds. J. William Breslin and
Jeffrey Z. Rubin, (Cambridge: Program on Negotiation Books, 1991), 64.
[20] Saunders, 68.
[21] Lewicki, Saunders, and Minton, 41.
[22] Lewicki, Saunders, and Minton, 56.
[23] Wertheim, [available at: http://web.cba.neu.edu/~ewertheim/interper/negot3.htm]
[24] Lewicki, Saunders, and Minton, 61.
[25] Ibid., 62.
[26] Lax and Sebenius, 77.
[27] Roger Fisher, "Negotiating Power: Getting and Using Influence," pp. 127-140 in
Negotiation Theory and Practice, eds. J. William Breslin and Jeffrey Z. Rubin, (Cambridge:
Program on Negotiation Books, 1991), 128.
[28] Ibid., 129.
[29] Fisher and Ury, 6.
[30] Fisher, 138.
[31] Lewicki, Saunders, and Minton, 46.
[32] The original book was published in 1981. In 1991, Fisher and Ury published a 2nd Edition of
Getting to Yes. The updated edition was edited by Bruce Patton, and incorporates Fisher and
Ury's responses to criticisms of the first edition.
[33] Fisher, 130.
[34] Ibid., 131.
[35] Lewicki, Saunders, and Minton, 189.
[36] Wertheim, [available at: http://web.cba.neu.edu/~ewertheim/interper/negot3.htm]
[37] Fisher, 133.
[38] Ibid.
[39] See essay on Power.
[40] Lewicki, Saunders, and Minton, 5.
[41] Saunders, 59.
[42] Ibid., 65.
[43] This is explained further in William Zartman's essay on Promoting Ripeness in this system.
[44] Rubin, 10.
[45] Saunders, 67.
[46] Lewicki, Saunders, and Minton, 12.
[47] Ibid., 13.
[48] Fisher and Ury, 20.
[49] Wertheim, [available at: http://web.cba.neu.edu/~ewertheim/interper/negot3.htm]
[50] Lewicki, Saunders, and Minton, 157.
[51] Fisher and Ury, 23.
[52] Rubin, 8.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Spangler, Brad. "Breakthrough International Negotiation: How Great Negotiators Transformed the World's Toughest Post‐Cold War Conflicts ‐‐ Summary." 2000. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10070/. This is a summary and review of Breakthrough International Negotiation: How Great Negotiators Transformed the World's Toughest Post‐Cold War Conflicts, by Michael Watkins and Susan Rosegrant, published in 2001 by Jossey Bass. Glaser, Tanya. "Creating and Claiming Value‐‐Summary." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/articlesummary/10350/. This page is a summary of D. Lax's and J. Sebenius's article, The Manager as Negotiator: The Negotiator's Dilemma: Creating and Claiming Value. Lax and Sebenius argue that negotiation necessarily includes both cooperative and competitive elements, and that these elements exist in tension. Negotiators face a dilemma in deciding whether to pursue a cooperative or a competitive strategy. The authors suggest strategies to resolve this dilemma, and ways to encourage cooperative approaches to creating mutually beneficial outcomes. Identifying Ripe Times for Negotiation. Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/idripe.htm. The possibility of successfully negotiating an agreement can be greatly increased when the parties understand how to determine when the time is "ripe" for negotiated settlement and how to encourage the "ripening" process. Hammond, D. P. Interest‐Based Bargaining. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Available at: http://www.afscme.org/wrkplace/cbr495_1.htm. This article explains what interest based bargaining is, how it works, and who should be interested in it.
Moore, Christopher W. and Peter Woodrow. "Mapping Cultures: Strategies for Effective Intercultural Negotiations." Track Two, Vol.8, No.1 , April 1, 1998 Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/cdr1.cfm. This article gives the reader an understanding of cultural differences and explains how to incorporate these differences into positive negotiation practices. Kersten, Gregory. "Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations: Review and Revised Characterization ." , Available at: http://interneg.concordia.ca/interneg/research/papers/2000/02.pdf. This paper examines and critiques the assumed contradictions between integrative and distributive negotiations, in light of evidence from new negotiation support software. "Negotiations and Resolving Conflicts: An Overview." , Available at: http://web.cba.neu.edu/~ewertheim/interper/negot3.htm. This web page offers a well‐organized and fairly comprehensive overview of two primary negotiation strategies, integrated and distributive. It covers the key aspects of both approaches, provides information about creating and claiming value, and gives general advice about how to proceed in negotiation situations. "Principled Negotiation‐‐Summary." , Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/pricneg.htm. This page outlines some of the main points of principled negotiation and suggests further readings on the topic. Principled negotiation, described by Fisher and Ury in Getting to Yes, is a four‐step negotiation strategy based on interests. In cases where there are reasonable prospects for an agreement which benefits all parties, and the parties have a relationship which allows them to explore such opportunities, principled negotiation can be an extremely effective conflict resolution approach. ple Glaser, Tanya. "Rethinking the Culture‐Negotiation Link ‐‐ Summary." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium, 1900. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10296/. This page is a summary of Robert Janosik's article, Rethinking the Culture‐Negotiation Link. Janosik argues that the term "culture" is understood differently by different authors. These different notions of culture yield different understandings of the culture‐negotiation link. Having surveyed the literature Janosik finds four distinct approaches to understanding the impact of culture on negotiation. Helms, Wesley S. "Rubbing Your Nose Off At The Grindstone." , February 2003 Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/helmsW.cfm?nl=18. This article explores positional bargaining. The author argues, "positional bargaining only works in the short term, during times of crisis, and when it meets the needs of the bargainers constituency. Hard positional bargaining beyond the system's perceived crisis timeframe damages relationships and alienates the bargainer." Conflict Research Consortium Staff and CR Staff. "The Negotiation Process: Theories and Applications ‐
Book Summary." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium, 1900. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10633/. This is a summary of The Negotiation Process, edited by I. William Zartman. The essays included in this book present various theoretic models of the negotiation process, and apply those models to particular case studies. Conflict Research Consortium Staff. "The Practical Negotiator ‐ Book Summary." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10634/. This is a summary of The Practical Negotiator, by I. William Zartman and Maureen Berman. The book draws upon both theory and practice to present a model of the negotiation process. This text focuses primarily upon international negotiations. Offline (Print) Sources The Negotiation Process: Theories and Applications. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, August 1978. The Negotiation Process explores different approaches to negotiation theory. The essays present various theoretic models of the negotiation process, and apply those models to particular case studies Click here for more info. Kramer, Henry S. Game, Set, Match: Winning the Negotiations Game. New York: Alm Publishing , 2001. "Professionals in the business of collective bargaining and arbitration who aspire to improve their negotiating skills will appreciate Henry S. Kramer's well‐conceived, clearly presented and in‐depth book, Game, Set, Match: Winning the Negotiations Game. Kramer, professor at Cornell's New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, lays bare the delicate intricacies of negotiating, illustrating each point with an anecdote and highlighting important tips throughout the book. While Kramer's book could help readers buy a house or secure a raise, its real value is for people whose business it is to schmooze, finagle and, ultimately, come out winners." ‐ Publishers Weekly Fisher, Roger, William L. Ury and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, 2nd Edition . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., April 1992. This is an updated version of Roger Fisher's and William Ury's classic 1981 text, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. In this bestseller, Fisher, Ury, and Patton describe what they call "principled negotiation", which is basically interest‐based bargaining with a few extra twists. Key ideas include: 1) separate the people from the problem; 2) negotiate interests, not positions; 3) look for mutually beneficial options; and 4) use objective criteria. This work is considered essential foundational reading for anyone interested in negotiation. Lax, David and James Sebenius. "Interests: The Measure of Negotiation." Negoitation Theory and Practice , January 1, 1991. This essay discusses how the interests of negotiators themselves play into the negotiation process. The authors also make an effort to clearly distinguish various types of interests from one another as well as distinguish interests from issues and positions. They note that in some instances, commitment to a position is the most effective way to claim value in a dispute. Watkins, Michael. "Negotiating in a Complex World." 15:3, 1999. The author argues that negotiations are innately complex and many of the current models are overly simple and therefore inadequate and unhelpful to practitioners. He goes on to propose ten key elements that describe how to effectively deal with the complexity of negotiation. Druckman, Daniel. "Negotiating in the International Context." In Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques. Edited by Zartman, I. William and J. Lewis Rasmussen, eds. Herndon, VA: USIP Press, 1997. This chapter examines various perspectives on international negotiation, including; negotiation as puzzle solving, as a bargaining game, as organizational management, and negotiation as diplomatic politics. In addition to considering these perspectives on negotiation, the author explores general patterns that characterize many types of negotiations. This task is pursued through a survey of the literature on negotiating in the international context. Fisher, Roger. "Negotiating Power: Getting and Using Influence." In Negotiation Theory and Practice. Edited by Rubin, Jeffrey Z. and J. William Breslin, eds. Cambridge: Program on Negotiation Books, 1991. Negotiation refers to a process of communication in which the parties aim to influence each other's decisions. A negotiator's ability to exert influence depends upon the combined total of a variety of factors. These include knowledge about the people and interests involved, a good working relationship, and having a good alternative to a negotiated settlement. Negotiation Theory and Practice. Cambridge, MA: Program on Negotiation Books, January 1, 1991. This collection of essays is a resource text for students of negotiation, either professional or lay. It will be of interest to those who seek a better understanding of the theory and practice of negotiation. This work is divided into nine topic sections. Each section addresses its topic via a set of edited articles from notable authors in the field. Lewicki, Roy J., David Saunders and John Minton. Negotiation, 3rd Edition. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin‐
McGraw Hill, 1999. This is a comprehensive textbook on the conflict resolution process of negotiation. It covers a multitude of aspects of negotiation including fundamentals such as negotiation's different forms and the associated tactics. It discusses various subprocesses of negotiation and different contexts in which negotiation may occur. Lastly, it includes a chapter on how to deal with particularly difficult negotiations. Hall, Lavinia, ed. Negotiation: Strategies for Mutual Gain. London: Sage Publications, 1993. Negotiation: Strategies for Mutual Gain is a collection of essays which present key concepts and strategies intended to promote effective negotiation and mutually beneficial dispute resolution. Janosik, Robert J. "Rethinking the Culture‐Negotiation Link." In Negotiation Theory and Practice. Edited by Rubin, Jeffrey Z. and J. William Breslin, eds. Cambridge: Program on Negotiation Books, 1991. The author explores the way in which culture may affect the way in which parties approach negotiations. He identifies four distinct ways of making sense of the connection between culture and behavior: culture as learned behavior, culture as shared value, culture as dialectic, and culture‐in‐
context. Pruitt, Dean G. "Strategic Choice in Negotiation." In Negotiation Theory and Practice. Edited by Rubin, Jeffrey Z. and J. William Breslin, eds. Cambridge: The Program on Negotiation at Harvard, 1991. Pruitt discusses four basic negotiation strategies, factors which affect the choice of strategy, and how the choice of strategy affects the negotiation's outcome. He distinguishes between joint problem solving and positional bargaining in particular. Saunders, Harold. "We Need a Larger Theory of Negotiation: The Importance of Pre‐negotiating Phases." In Negotiation Theory and Practice. Edited by Rubin, Jeffrey Z. and J. William Breslin, eds. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Program on Negotiation Books, 1991. In many cases, persuading parties to commit to the process of negotiation is even more difficult than reaching agreement once negotiations have begun. This chapter discusses the importance of the pre‐
negotiation phase, in which parties define the problem to be solved and plan for negotiations. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Lewer, Nick and Joe William. "Sri Lanka: Finding a Negotiated End to Twenty‐Five Years of Violence." , 2002 This article examines the attempted peace processes in Sri Lanka, which aimed to bring an end to violence between the state and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Benjamin, Robert D. "Terry Waite: A Study in Authenticity." , November 2002 Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/benjamin7.cfm. This article features Terry Waite, a hostage negotiator of international fame who knows both sides; after gaining the release of hostages in Libya, he himself was held hostage by a militant group in the Middle East for five years. The personal resolve and bearing that saw him through both situations offer important lessons worthy of note by all negotiators. Offline (Print) Sources Watkins, Michael, Susan Rosegrant and Shimon Peres. Breakthrough International Negotiation: How Great Negotiators Transformed the World's Toughest Post‐Cold War Conflicts. San Francisco: Jossey‐
Bass Publishers, 2001. This work offers step‐by‐step descriptions of the key negotiations that led to the resolution of some of the most serious conflicts since the Cold War. The authors provide stories about negotiations in the Middle East, Bosnia, and North Korea. Discussion of relevant negotiation theory is combined with the first‐hand accounts of individuals that played important roles in the negotiations described. McCreary, Scott T. "Facilitated Negotiated Agreements to Restore the Environmental Quality of the San Francisco Estuary." In Democratic Design in the Pacific Rim: Japan, Taiwan and the U.S.. Edited by Haagen, Paul H. and Corrina Kweskin, eds. A commentary on the negotiation process that resulted in successfully producing a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for the San Francisco estuary. Audiovisual Materials on this Topic:
Offline (Print) Sources Final Offer . Directed and/or Produced by: Gunnarsson, Sturla. California Newsreel. 1985. This film takes a frank look at collective bargaining as it focuses on negotiations that took place between Canadian auto workers and General Motors. The Deadline. Directed and/or Produced by: Jammy, David. First Run Icarus Films. 1996. Filmed in the closing stages of the writing of South Africa's new constitution, The Deadline provides a unique and intimate look at the realpolitik of South Africa's negotiated settlement. The Road to Peace: Israelis and Palestinians. Directed and/or Produced by: Fernea, Elizabeth and Yaron Shemer. First Run Icarus Films. 1995. This three part film documents the negotiation process that lead to the Cairo Peace Accord, and the subsequent reactions of both Israelis and Palestinians. War and Peace in Ireland . Directed and/or Produced by: MacCaig, Arthur. First Run Icarus Films. 1998. This film follows the conflict in Northern Ireland through its different stages. It gives a picture of how violence escalated during the 1960s, how negotiations helped ease the violence in the 1980s, and how cease fires in the 1990s brought with them the prospect of peace. Interests, Positions, Needs, and Values By
Michelle Maiese
What are Interests? Interests are the desires, concerns, and fears that underlie people's positions. In many cases,
interests link up to tangible items that people say they want, such as land, money, or jobs.
Negotiations that focus primarily on interests are called interest-based negotiations. Parties
attempt to trade off issues of lesser concern for those of greater concern in an effort to devise a
mutually-beneficial resolution. For example, if a couple is arguing about household chores, they
could argue forever about who is right and wrong or lazy or irresponsible. But if they discuss
their interests, say that one wants to come home to a neat house, while the other wants more free
time, they might be able to devise a solution that satisfies them both.
Focusing on interests can help parties to uncover hidden problems and allow them to identify
which issues are of most concern to them. In Getting Disputes Resolved, William Ury, Jeanne
Brett, and Stephen Goldberg maintain that focusing on interests can resolve the problems
underlying a dispute more effectively than focusing on rights or power. [1] This is because
reconciling interests tends to generate a higher level of mutual satisfaction, better relationships,
and lower transaction costs than resorting to rights or power contests.
Interests v. Positions, Needs, and Values Many theorists contrast interests with positions. In their best-selling book, Getting to Yes, Roger
Fisher and William Ury assert that almost all conflicts have negotiable interests. [2] But when
people define their dispute in terms of positions, conflicts often appear to be highly intractable,
since one side wants something that the other completely opposes. Therefore, rather than
describing a conflict in terms of parties' positions about what they want, it is often helpful to
redefine the situation in terms of the reasons that underlie these positions. By focusing on
underlying interests rather than overt positions, apparently resolution-resistant conflicts often
become solvable. This is because, in many cases, interests are compatible even when positions
are not. Focusing on interests enables the parties to identify win-win solutions to problems that
might not have been evident when the issues were described in terms of positions.
For example, a minority group might take the position that it wants complete independence from
its current home country, while the reason that it wants independence may not actually be
independence for its own sake, but rather a desire for increased political control and improved
social and economic status. If those "interests" can be provided without granting independence,
then a mutually agreeable solution might be found.
However, parties are not always able to resolve their dispute by reconciling interests. In cases
where conflicts are distributive in nature, the available resources have to be divided among two
or more people or groups. The more one gets, the less the others get, and there may be no way to
"enlarge the pie." In such cases, attending to interests will not allow parties to generate win-win
solutions.
Interests and Human Needs Other theorists discuss the relationship between interests, human needs, and values. Some
suggest that human needs can be thought of as very powerful interests. But while these theorists
blend together the concepts of interests and needs, human needs theorists maintain that there is
an important distinction between the two. Although both interests and needs can be thought of as
underlying desires, human needs theorists argue that needs are more fundamental than interests.
In addition, while interests are tangible things that can be traded or compromised, needs such as
identity, security, and recognition are not for trading.
If the issues in contention are non-negotiable, any attempts to reconcile interests are likely to fail
and may even make the conflict more entrenched and difficult to resolve. Thus, human needs
theorists argue, disputes rooted in human needs or fundamental value differences should not be
handled in the same way as disputes rooted in parties' conflicting interests. [3]
Interests and Values Likewise, it is important to distinguish between interests and fundamental values. There are
instances in which conflict results from a clash between differing world-views. If individuals or
groups have radically different ideas about the best way to live, they are likely to stress the
importance of very different things and to have vastly different or incompatible goals. Like
needs, values tend to be quite stable and non-negotiable. If the basic substantive issues of the
conflict are deeply embedded in the participants' moral views, these issues are likely to be
intractable. Any attempts to resolve such conflicts solely by addressing interests are likely to
prove ineffective. Thus, human needs theorists argue, interest-based bargaining is excellent for
interest-based disputes, but it should not be applied to disputes involving human needs or deeprooted value differences.
[1] William Ury, Jeanne Brett, and Stephen Goldberg, Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing
Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1988), 13.
[2] Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without
Giving In, 2nd edition. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1992).
[3] For further discussion on human needs, see John Burton, Conflict: Resolution and
Provention, (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990).
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Conflict Research Consortium. Confusing Interests (What You Really Want) with Positions (What You Say You Want). Univeristy of Colorado. Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/intpos‐p.htm. This article disucesses the differences between interests and positions. It also talks about reframing an issue to make it seem less like a win‐lose situation. Conflict Research Consortium. Confusing Material Interests with Fundamental Human Needs. University of Colorado. Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/intnds‐p.htm. This article talks about the differences between material interests and human needs. Material needs tend to be tangible things, while human needs are more conceptual and contribute to more of a state of mind. Cohen, Steven P. Focusing On Interests Rather Than Positions ‐‐ Conflict Resolution Key. Mediate.com. Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/tnsc.cfm. This article lists six suggestions that if followed can reduce conflict and turn it into cooperation: separate the people from the problem; distinguish between interests and positions; consider your BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement); silence is golden; pursue fairness; and only one person can get angry at a time. Conflict Research Consortium. Interest‐Based Framing. University of Colorado. Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/intframe.htm. This essay talks about reframing an issue to based on the interests the parties have. Currie, Cris M. "When Interest‐Based Bargaining Is Not Enough." , Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/currie3.cfm. The author examines two recent works, one readily available and the other relatively inaccessible, that attempt to shed some light on the complex subject of seemingly intractable human conflict, Moral Conflict: When Social Worlds Collide by W. Barnett Pearce and Stephen W. Littlejohn (Sage Publications, 1997), and When the Parties Bring Their Gods to the Table: Learning Lessons from Waco, a 1998 doctoral dissertation for George Mason University by Jayne S. Docherty. Offline (Print) Sources Ury, William L., Jeanne M. Brett and Stephen B. Goldberg. Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the Cost of Conflict. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass, November 1988. This book explains how to diagnose and correct problems in an existing dispute‐resolution system as well as create and implement a new system where one does not exist. The three approaches to resolving disputes are interests, rights and power. While reconciling interests is the least costly of these options, this is not always possible. Some issues are of extreme public importance and some concerns should not be compromised. Fisher, Roger, William Ury and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books, January 1, 1981. The 2nd edition to this famous book goes over the authors' method (separate the people from the problem; focus on interests, not positions; invent options for mutual gain; insist on using objective criteria; BATNA; hardball) and then adds updated material at the end of the book on dealing with cultural differences, fairness issues, amoral people, tactics and power imbalances. Fisher, Roger, William L. Ury and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, 2nd Edition . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., April 1992. This is an updated version of Roger Fisher's and William Ury's classic 1981 text, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. In this bestseller, Fisher, Ury, and Patton describe what they call "principled negotiation", which is basically interest‐based bargaining with a few extra twists. Key ideas include: 1) separate the people from the problem; 2) negotiate interests, not positions; 3) look for mutually beneficial options; and 4) use objective criteria. This work is considered essential foundational reading for anyone interested in negotiation. Lax, David and James Sebenius. "Interests: The Measure of Negotiation." Negoitation Theory and Practice , January 1, 1991. This essay discusses how the interests of negotiators themselves play into the negotiation process. The authors also make an effort to clearly distinguish various types of interests from one another as well as distinguish interests from issues and positions. They note that in some instances, commitment to a position is the most effective way to claim value in a dispute. Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) By
Brad Spangler
What BATNAs Are BATNA is a term coined by Roger Fisher and William Ury in
their 1981 bestseller, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Without Giving
In.[1] It stands for "best alternative to a negotiated agreement."
BATNAs are critical to negotiation because you cannot make a
wise decision about whether to accept a negotiated agreement
unless you know what your alternatives are. Your BATNA "is
the only standard which can protect you both from accepting
terms that are too unfavorable and from rejecting terms it would
be in your interest to accept."[2] In the simplest terms, if the
proposed agreement is better than your BATNA, then you should
accept it. If the agreement is not better than your BATNA, then
you should reopen negotiations. If you cannot improve the
agreement, then you should at least consider withdrawing from
the negotiations and pursuing your alternative (though the costs
of doing that must be considered as well).
"The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating. What are those results? What is that alternative? What is your BATNA ‐‐ your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement? That is the standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured." ‐
‐ Roger Fisher and William Ury
Having a good BATNA increases your negotiating power. Therefore, it is important to improve
your BATNA whenever possible. Good negotiators know when their opponent is desperate for
an agreement. When that occurs, they will demand much more, knowing their opponent will
have to give in. If the opponent apparently has many options outside of negotiation, however,
they are likely to get many more concessions, in an effort to keep them at the negotiating table.
Thus making your BATNA as strong as possible before negotiating, and then making that
BATNA known to your opponent will strengthen your negotiating position.
Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess have adapted the concept of BATNA slightly to emphasize what
they call "EATNAs" estimated alternatives to a negotiated agreement" instead of "best
alternatives." Even when disputants do not have good options outside of negotiations, they often
think they do. (For example, both sides may think that they can prevail in a military struggle,
even when one side is clearly weaker, or when the relative strengths are so balanced that the
outcome is very uncertain.) Yet, perceptions are all that matter when it comes to deciding
whether or not to accept an agreement. If a disputant thinks that he or she has a better option, she
will, very often, pursue that option, even if it is not as good as she thinks it is.
BATNA and EATNAs also affect what William Zartman and may others have called "ripeness,"
the time at which a dispute is ready or "ripe" for settlement.[3] When parties have similar ideas
or "congruent images" about what BATNAs exist, then the negotiation is ripe for reaching
agreement. Having congruent BATNA images means that both parties have similar views of how
a dispute will turn out if they do not agree, but rather pursue their other rights-based or powerbased options. In this situation, it is often smarter for them to negotiate an agreement without
continuing the disputing process, thus saving the transaction costs. This is what happens when
disputing parties who are involved in a lawsuit settle out of court, (which happens in the U.S.
about 90 percent of the time). The reason the parties settle is that their lawyers have come to an
understanding of the strength of each sides' case and how likely each is to prevail in court. They
then can "cut to the chase," and get to the same result much more easily and more quickly
through negotiation.
On the other hand, disputants may hold "dissimilar images" about what BATNAs exist, which
can lead to a stalemate or even to intractability. For example, both sides may think they can win
a dispute if they decide to pursue it in court or through force. If both sides' BATNAs tell them
they can pursue the conflict and win, the likely result is a power contest. If one side's BATNA is
indeed much better than the other's, the side with the better BATNA is likely to prevail. If the
BATNAs are about equal, however, the parties may reach a stalemate. If the conflict is costly
enough, eventually the parties may come to realize that their BATNAs were not as good as they
thought they were. Then the dispute will again be "ripe" for negotiation.
The allure of the EATNA often leads to last-minute breakdowns in negotiations. Disputants can
negotiate for months or even years, finally developing an agreement that they think is acceptable
to all. But then at the end, all the parties must take a hard look at the final outcome and decide,
"is this better than all of my alternatives?" Only if all the parties say "yes," can the agreement be
finalized. If just one party changes his or her mind, the agreement may well break down. Thus,
knowing one's own and one's opponent's BATNAs and EATNAs is critical to successful
negotiation
Determining Your BATNA BATNAs are not always readily apparent. Fisher and Ury outline a simple process for
determining your BATNA:
1. develop a list of actions you might conceivably take if no agreement is reached; 2. improve some of the more promising ideas and convert them into practical options; and 3. select, tentatively, the one option that seems best.[4] BATNAs may be determined for any negotiation situation, whether it be a relatively simple task
such as finding a job or a complex problem such as a heated environmental conflict or a
protracted ethnic conflict.
Fisher and Ury offer a job search as a basic example of how to determine a BATNA. If you do
not receive an attractive job offer by the end of the month from Company X, what will you do?
Inventing options is the first step to determining your BATNA. Should you take a different job?
Look in another city? Go back to school? If the offer you are waiting for is in New York, but you
had also considered Denver, then try to turn that other interest into a job offer there, too. With a
job offer on the table in Denver, you will be better equipped to assess the New York offer when
it is made. Lastly, you must choose your best alternative option in case you do not reach an
agreement with the New York company. Which of your realistic options would you really want
to pursue if you do not get the job offer in New York?
More complex situations require the consideration of a broader range of factors and possibilities.
For example, a community discovers that its water is being polluted by the discharges of a
nearby factory. Community leaders first attempt to negotiate a cleanup plan with the company,
but the business refuses to voluntarily agree on a plan of action that the community is satisfied
with. In such a case, what are the community's options for trying to resolve this situation?
•
•
•
•
They could possibly sue the business based on stipulations of the Clean Water Act. They could contact the Environmental Protection Agency and see what sort of authority that agency has over such a situation. They could lobby the state legislature to develop and implement more stringent regulations on polluting factories. The community could wage a public education campaign and inform citizens of the problem. Such education could lead voters to support more environmentally minded candidates in the future who would support new laws to correct problems like this one. In weighing these various alternatives to see which is "best," the community members must
consider a variety of factors.
•
•
•
Which is most affordable and feasible? Which will have the most impact in the shortest amount of time? If they succeed in closing down the plant, how many people will lose their jobs? These types of questions must be answered for each alternative before a BATNA can be
determined in a complex environmental dispute such as this one.
BATNAs and the Other Side At the same time you are determining your BATNA, you should also consider the alternatives
available to the other side. Sometimes they may be overly optimistic about what their options
are. The more you can learn about their options, the better prepared you will be for negotiation.
You will be able to develop a more realistic view of what the outcomes may be and what offers
are reasonable.
There are also a few things to keep in mind about revealing your BATNA to your adversary.
Although Fisher and Ury do not advise secrecy in their discussions of BATNAs, according to
McCarthy, "one should not reveal one's BATNA unless it is better than the other side thinks it
is."[5] But since you may not know what the other side thinks, you could reveal more than you
should. If your BATNA turns out to be worse than the opponent thinks it is, then revealing it will
weaken your stance.
BATNAs and the Role of Third Parties Third parties can help disputants accurately assess their BATNAs through reality testing and
costing. In reality testing, the third party helps clarify and ground each disputing party's
alternatives to agreement. S/he may do this by asking hard questions about the asserted BATNA:
"How could you do that? What would the outcome be? What would the other side do? How do
you know?" Or the third party may simply insert new information into the
discussion...illustrating that one side's assessment of its BATNA is likely incorrect. Costing is a
more general approach to the same process...it is a systematic effort to determine the costs and
done together and the parties agree on the assessment, this provides a strong basis upon which to
come up with a negotiated solution that is better than both sides' alternatives. But if the sides
cannot come to such an agreement, then negotiations will break down, and both parties will
pursue their BATNA instead of negotiation.
[1] In 1992, Fisher and Ury published a 2nd Edition of Getting to Yes. The updated edition was
edited by Bruce Patton and incorporates Fisher and Ury's responses to criticisms of their original
1981 book.
[2] Roger Fisher and William Ury. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.
(New York: Penguin Books, 1981), 104.
[3] I William Zartman, Ripe for Resolution, (New York: Oxford, 1985/1989)
[4] Roger Fisher and William Ury. Op.cit, 108.
[5] William McCarthy, "The Role of Power and Principle in Getting to Yes," in Negotiation
Theory and Practice, Eds. J. William Breslin and Jeffery Z. Rubin. (Cambridge: The Program on
Negotiation at Harvard Law School, 1991), 115-122.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Why Is BATNA Important?. The Negotiation Skills Company. Available at: http://www.negotiationskills.com/qaprocess12.html. This page explains what BATNA is and how it is useful in negotiating. "Dealing With Impasse." , Available at: http://www.adr.af.mil/compendium/dealing.html. This article discusses two tools mediators can use to get past impasse, reality testing and BATNA. "Limits to Agreement: Better Alternatives." , Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/batna.htm. In order to know whether or not to accept a proposed settlement obtained through negotiation, you must know whether or not you can get a better outcome in some other way. This site looks at the concepts of "BATNA", which stands for Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, and "EATNA's", estimated alternatives to a negotiated agreement. Reality Testing. Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/realtest.htm. In deciding which conflict management strategy is most promising, parties must make assumptions about their own power, their opponent's power, and the likely outcomes of different options. It is easy to make inaccurate assessments of any of these factors, however. Often an outside party can help review the accuracy of these assumptions and help parties revise them appropriately when they are invalid. This site explains how reality testing helps parties assess their BATNA's (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). It also has links to examples of reality testing and related ADR processes. The Art of Getting the Best Deal. Financial Times. This article outlines some of the basic steps of a business negotiation, including determining BATNAs and identifying a zone of possible agreement. Offline (Print) Sources McCarthy, William. "Bargaining Power and BATNAs." Negotiation Theory , January 1, 1991. This piece offers a critique of some of Fisher and Ury's main principles as outlined in Getting to Yes. The article mostly supports the ideas put forth in that foundational work, however, McCarthy disagrees with the limited treatment of the role of power in negotiation. He argues that the role of power is not thoroughly examined and that simple notions regarding the power of BATNAs are substituted for true analysis. Watkins, Michael, Susan Rosegrant and Shimon Peres. "BATNAs and ZOPA." In Breakthrough International Negotiation: How Great Negotiators Transformed the World's Toughest Post‐Cold War Conflicts. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, 2001. Pages: 26‐35. This excerpt discusses the development of alternatives and options for settlement in negotiation. The advice provided here revolves around setting oneself up to reach the best possible outcome of a negotiation, whether it is reaching a mutually acceptable agreement or walking away all together. The authors talk about building up one's own BATNA as well as how to identify a zone of possible agreement. They explain that the nature of the ZOPA is dependent on whether the negotiation is about claiming or creating value. Burgess, Heidi and Guy M. Burgess. "Definition of BATNA." In Encyclopedia of Conflict Resolution. ABC‐Clio, November 1997. Pages: 33‐34. This section of the Encyclopedia of Conflict Resolution provides a nice, brief overview of what BATNA means and how it applies to negotiation situations. Fisher, Roger, William L. Ury and Bruce Patton. "Original Explanation of BATNA." In Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, 2nd Edition . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., April 1992. Pages: 101‐111. Getting to Yes is the work in which the concept of BATNA was first introduced. Chapter Six of this edition focuses entirely on the concept of BATNAs, explaining why negotiating with a bottom line is less effective and beneficial than developing a solid BATNA. The authors explain why a good BATNA gives you power in negotiation, how to develop your BATNA, and to consider the other side's BATNA. Lax, David and James Sebenius. "Power of Alternatives." In Negotiation Theory and Practice. Edited by Breslin, J. William and Jeffrey Z. Rubin, eds. Cambridge: The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, January 1, 1991. While not using the actual term "BATNA", this chapter does examine how alternatives to potential negotiated agreements shape which outcome parties will settle on. The authors understand negotiation as an interactive process by which two or more parties seek to do better together, than they could do individually. Based on that definition, they argue that the measure of any negotiated agreement is whether it offers a better outcome than the course a party could take on its own. The main idea is that all potential agreements should be evaluated as competitors with other possible agreements that could help a side reach its goals. Susskind, Lawrence and Jeffrey Cruikshank. "Unassisted Negotiation." In Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. New York: Basic Books, January 1, 1987. Pages: 80‐136. Breaking the Impasse offers a guide to consensus building strategies for resolving public disputes. The authors describe possible obstacles to agreement and techniques for getting past those obstacles. The first few pages of the chapter entitled, "Unassisted Negotiation" present a helpful section on BATNAs and why people tend to underestimate others' BATNAs and overestimate their own. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Mussweiler, Thomas, Adam Galinsky and Victoria Husted Medvec. Disconnecting Outcomes and Evaluations: The Role of Negotiator Reference Points. Social Science Research Network. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=304969. Two experiments explored the role of reference points in disconnecting objective and subjective utility in negotiations. Negotiators who focused on their target prices, the ideal outcome they could obtain, achieved objectively superior outcomes compared to negotiators who focused on a minimum goal, their best alternatives to the negotiation (BATNAs). Kray, Laura. Gender Stereotype Activation and Power in Mixed‐Gender Negotiations. Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc.. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=305011. We hypothesized that the distribution of resources in a mixed‐gender negotiation would depend on the relative power advantage of men versus women, as well as the manner in which gender stereotypes were activated in the minds of negotiators. More specifically, we expected negotiators who had a strong alternative to the current negotiation (BATNA) to reap more resources than negotiators who had a weak alternative. We predicted that the effect of power (possessing a strong BATNA) would be especially important when gender stereotypes were explicitly activated compared to when they were implicitly activated because the explicit activation of gender stereotypes was expected to marshal cognitions that relate to power. Offline (Print) Sources Ury, William L. Getting Past No: Negotiating With Difficult People. New York: Bantam Books, January 1, 1993. This book provides step by step approaches to defusing confrontation and developing creative solutions toward resolving conflicts through negotiation. In particular, it focuses on developing communication skills that facilitate cooperation. Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA) By
Brad Spangler
What is a ZOPA and Why Does it Matter? A "Zone of Possible Agreement" (ZOPA) exists if there is a potential agreement that would
benefit both sides more than their alternative options do. For example, if Fred wants to buy a
used car for $5,000 or less, and Mary wants to sell one for $4,500, those two have a ZOPA. But
if Mary will not go below $7,000 and Fred will not go above $5,000, they do not have a zone of
possible agreement.
The ZOPA is critical to the successful outcome of negotiation, but it may take some time to
determine whether a ZOPA exists. It may only become known once the parties explore their
various interests and options. If the disputants can identify the ZOPA, there is a good chance that
they will come to an agreement.
Foundations of ZOPA: BATNAs
In order for disputing parties to identify the ZOPA, they must first know their alternatives, and
thus their "bottom line" or "walk away position."
•
Alternatives: Parties must determine what alternatives they have to any agreement. Roger Fisher and William Ury introduced the concept of "BATNA" (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement). This is the best course of action that a party can pursue if no agreement is reached.[1] For example, Mary might have two potential buyers. Georgio is willing to pay $6,950. Mary is
now negotiating with Fred. If he will pay more than Georgio (Mary's BATNA), she'll sell to him.
If he won't pay that much, she'll sell to Georgio. Likewise, if Fred has found another car he likes
for $5,500, then he won't pay more for Mary's car than that...maybe even a bit less. Fred's
BATNA is $5,500.
•
Bottom Lines or Walk‐Away Positions: BATNAs determine each side's bottom lines. If you have an alternative car available for $5,000, $5,000 is your bottom line. If you can sell your car for $7,000, that is your bottom line. If you don't do better than that in the negotiation, you'll walk away. So, a zone of possible agreement exists if there is an overlap between these walk away positions.
If there is not, negotiation is very unlikely to succeed. In fact, it will only succeed if one party
either realizes that his or her BATNA is not as good as he or she thought, or she decides for
some other reason to accept the agreement, even though an alternative option might have yielded
better results. (This often happens when parties do not explore or understand their BATNAs well
enough.)
Identifying the ZOPA If both sides know their BATNAs and walk away positions, the parties should be able to
communicate, assess proposed agreements, and eventually identify the ZOPA. However, parties
often do not know their own BATNAs, and are even less likely to know the other side's BATNA.
Often parties may pretend they have a better alternative than they really do, as good alternatives
usually translate into more power in the negotiations. This is explained more in the essay on
BATNAs. The result of such deception, however, might be the apparent absence of a ZOPA,
when one actually did exist. Shared uncertainties may also affect the parties' abilities to assess
potential agreements because the parties may be unrealistically optimistic or pessimistic about
the possibility of agreement or the value of alternative options.[2]
ZOPAs in Distributive and Integrative Negotiations The nature of the ZOPA depends on the type of negotiation.[3] In a distributive negotiation, in
which the participants are trying to divide a "fixed pie," it is more difficult to find mutually
acceptable solutions as both sides want to claim as much of the pie as possible. Distributive
negotiations over a single issue tend to be zero-sum -- there is a winner and a loser. There is no
overlap of interests between the parties; therefore, no mutually beneficial agreement is possible.
For example, two people may be competing for one job. In the simplest case, there is no ZOPA
because both people want the full-time job and are not willing to divide the job responsibilities
and salary. One person must "win" and the other must "lose."
On the other hand, integrative negotiations involve creating value or "enlarging the pie." This is
possible when parties have shared interests or are dealing with multiple issues. In an integrative
negotiation, the parties can combine their interests to create joint value. To achieve integration,
negotiators can deal with multiple issues at the same time and make trades between them. This
is so that I might get more of something that I value while you get more of something that you
value. That way both parties can "win," even though neither gets all that they originally thought
they wanted. In the example above, if rewriting the job description could create an additional job
then the distributive negotiation would change into an integrative negotiation between the
employer and the two potential employees. If both applicants are qualified, now they may both
get jobs. The ZOPA, in this case, exists when two jobs are created and each applicant prefers a
different one of the two.
[1] Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes (New York: Penguin Books, 1983).
[2] Michael Watkins and Susan Rosegrant, Breakthrough International Negotiation: How Great
Negotiators Transformed the World's Toughest Post-Cold War Conflicts (San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers, 2001), 26-28.
[3] Ibid, 29.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources The Art of Getting the Best Deal. Financial Times. This article outlines some of the basic steps of a business negotiation, including determining BATNAs and identifying a zone of possible agreement. Offline (Print) Sources Watkins, Michael and Samuel Passow. "Analyzing Linked Systems of Negotiations." Negotiation Journal 12:4, January 1, 1996. This article accepts the notion that ZOPA is a useful way to analyze negotiations, but questions where ZOPAs actually come from. How are alternatives to agreement defined? How are interests shaped? How are attitudes of negotiators toward one another formed? Watkins and Passow believe the answers to these questions lie in examining the broader context in which any particular negotiation is embedded. The authors argue that linkages between different negotiations play a significant role in shaping ZOPAs. The idea is that any negotiation is linked with other negotiations, which in turn affect the negoitators' alternatives, attitudes, and preferences. This article represents an attempt at developing an analytical framework for understanding complex internegotiation relationships. Moore, Christopher W. "Assessing Options for Settlement." In The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict, 2nd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, 1996. Pages: 269‐
279. This chapter of The Mediation Process outlines a rather technical procedure for assessing or costing settlement options generated during the course of mediation. The procedure is designed to help parties determine the costs and benefits of the potential outcomes of various options. The author's use of the term "settlement range" in this discussion is essentially the same as "Zone of Possible Agreement". Watkins, Michael, Susan Rosegrant and Shimon Peres. "BATNAs and ZOPA." In Breakthrough International Negotiation: How Great Negotiators Transformed the World's Toughest Post‐Cold War Conflicts. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, 2001. Pages: 26‐35. This excerpt discusses the development of alternatives and options for settlement in negotiation. The advice provided here revolves around setting oneself up to reach the best possible outcome of a negotiation, whether it is reaching a mutually acceptable agreement or walking away all together. The authors talk about building up one's own BATNA as well as how to identify a zone of possible agreement. They explain that the nature of the ZOPA is dependent on whether the negotiation is about claiming or creating value. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Kaufman, Gordon and Mahdi Mattar. Private Risk. Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc.. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=416211. We extend the traditional decision analytic approach to calculation of the buying (selling) price of a lottery by allowing a risk averse (risk prone) decision maker to rebalance his financial portfolio in the course of determination of these prices. Building on the classical portfolio allocation problem in complete markets, we generalize the standard treatment to include both traded and non‐traded unique risks. Our principal focus is on private risks‐risks that are not tradable or traded in financial markets. We show that allowing portfolio rebalancing in a distributive bargaining setting with risk averse negotiators expands the zone of possible agreement [ZOPA] relative to the ZOPA yielded when rebalancing is not allowed. Offline (Print) Sources Lewicki, Roy J., David Saunders and John Minton. "Zone of Potential Agreement." In Negotiation, 3rd Edition. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin‐McGraw Hill, 1999. Pages: 71‐74. This excerpt of Negotiation provides an example of a distributrive bargaining situation. The concrete example is complemented by conceptual narration describing what each aspect of the example represents in theoretical terms, including the aspects of the negotiation that constitute the zone of potential agreement. Win­Win, Win­Lose, and Lose­Lose Situations By
Brad Spangler
The Basics Win-win, win-lose, and lose-lose are game theory
terms that refer to the possible outcomes of a game
or dispute involving two sides, and more
importantly, how each side perceives their outcome
relative to their standing before the game. For
example, a "win" results when the outcome of a
Morton Deutsch continues his discussion of what negotiation is better than expected, a "loss" when
makes people be competitive or cooperative, the outcome is worse than expected. Two people
http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/audio/10328
may receive the same outcome in measurable
terms, say $10, but for one side that may be a loss,
while for the other it is a win. In other words, expectations determine one's perception of any
given result.
Win-win outcomes occur when each side of a dispute feels they have won. Since both sides
benefit from such a scenario, any resolutions to the conflict are likely to be accepted voluntarily.
The process of integrative bargaining aims to achieve, through cooperation, win-win outcomes.
Win-lose situations result when only one side perceives the outcome as positive. Thus, win-lose
outcomes are less likely to be accepted voluntarily. Distributive bargaining processes, based on a
principle of competition between participants, tend to end in win-lose outcomes.
Lose-lose means that all parties end up being worse off. An example of this would be a budgetcutting negotiation in which all parties lose money. In some lose-lose situations, all parties
understand that losses are unavoidable and that they will be evenly distributed. In such situations,
lose-lose outcomes can be preferable to win-lose outcomes because the distribution is at least
considered to be fair.[1]
In other situations, though, lose-lose outcomes
occur when win-win outcomes might have been
possible. The classic example of this is called the
prisoner's dilemma in which two prisoners must
decide whether to confess to a crime. Neither
prisoner knows what the other will do. The best
Jay Rothman , President of the ARIA Group, Inc., outcome for prisoner A occurs if he/she confesses, describes the use of action evaluation to find non‐
while prisoner B keeps quiet. In this case, the
litigious ways, i.e. win‐win, of dealing with racial prisoner who confesses and implicates the other is
profiling problems in Cincinnati. rewarded by being set free, and the other (who
http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/audio/10826
stayed quiet) receives the maximum sentence, as
s/he didn't cooperate with the police, yet they have
enough evidence to convict. (This is a win-lose outcome.) The same goes for prisoner B. But if
both prisoners confess (trying to take advantage of their partner), they each serve the maximum
sentence (a lose-lose outcome). If neither confesses, they both serve a reduced sentence (a winwin outcome, although the win is not as big as the one they would have received in the win-lose
scenario).
This situation occurs fairly often, as win-win outcomes can only be identified through
cooperative (or integrative) bargaining, and are likely to be overlooked if negotiations take a
competitive distributive) stance.
The key thing to remember is that any negotiation may be reframed (placed in a new context) so
that expectations are lowered. In the prisoner's dilemma, for example, if both prisoners are able
to perceive the reduced sentence as a win rather than a loss, then the outcome is a win-win
situation. Thus, with lowered expectations, it may be possible for negotiators to craft win-win
solutions out of a potentially lose-lose situation. However, this requires that the parties sacrifice
their original demands for lesser ones.
[1] The above definitions were drawn from: Heidi Burgess and Guy Burgess, Encyclopedia of
Conflict Resolution (Denver: ABC-CLIO, 1997), 306-307, 309-310.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Glaser, Tanya. "Dealing with an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach to Resolving Disputes‐‐
Summary." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium, 1998. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10563/. This page offers a summary of the book, Dealing with an Angry Public, by Lawrence Susskind and Patrick Field. Susskind and Field warn that an angry, suspicious public will undermine American competitiveness in the global marketplace, and will undermine confidence in basic social institutions. The authors develop a mutual‐gains approach to dealing with the public, which views public relations as a kind of multiparty, multi‐issue negotiation, and so follows the basic principles for effective negotiations. Offline (Print) Sources Susskind, Lawrence and Patrick Field. Dealing With An Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach To Resolving Disputes. New York: Free Press, January 1, 1996. This practical book by Lawrence Susskind and Patrick Field analyzes scores of both private and public‐
sector cases, as well as crisis scenarios such as the Alaskan oil spill, the silicone breast implant controversy, and nuclear plant malfunction at Three Mile Island. All of these cases affected large groups of people who were extremely upset with the problems. The authors show how to manage the anger of the public sector and overcome resistance to both public and private initiatives through a mutual gains (integrative) approach, involving face‐to‐face negotiation. Burgess, Heidi and Guy M. Burgess. "Definition of Win‐win, Win‐lose, All‐lose ." In Encyclopedia of Conflict Resolution. ABC‐Clio, November 1997. Pages: 306‐307. This section of the Encyclopedia of Conflict Resolution offers a discussion of the distinctions between win‐win, win‐lose, and all lose scenarios. Fisher, Roger, William L. Ury and Bruce Patton. "Invent Options for Mutual Gain." In Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, 2nd Edition . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., April 1992. Pages: 58‐83. One of the key principles of Getting to Yes is that parties work together to create settlement options that satisfy both parties ‐‐ to create win‐win options. Chapter Four, "Invent Options for Mutual Gain," outlines how parties may go about developing win‐win solutions to their dispute. Audiovisual Materials on this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources "Consensus Rule Processes." , Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/consenpr.htm. This article discusses the pros and cons of the consensus rule process. It explains that by using this process all parties must come to a common agreement. Unless parties have irreconcilable differences the parties generally express greater satisfaction with the outcome, however this process usually takes longer than a simple majority rule vote. Competitive and Cooperative Approaches to Conflict By
Brad Spangler
"In a cooperative situation the goals are so linked that everybody When individuals or parties enter into a negotiation process to
'sinks or swims' together, while in resolve conflict, they will bring a certain orientation to the table the competitive situation if one in their effort to settle the conflict. The two most basic
swims, the other must sink." ‐‐ orientations people adhere to when entering into negotiations are Morton Deutsch, The Resolution of cooperative or competitive. A cooperative approach aligns with Conflict: Constructive and the process of interest-based or integrative bargaining, which
Destructive Processes, 20. Cooperative vs. Competitive Conflict Styles leads parties to seek win-win solutions. Disputants that work
cooperatively to negotiate a solution are more likely to develop a
relationship of trust and come up with mutually beneficial options for settlement. The mutual
gains approach is considered a constructive resolution process.
Options for a negotiated settlement are limited in some cases by a fixed pie (a set amount of
rewards) that must be divided one way or the other. Such situations leave no alternative for
mutual gains and therefore parties must utilize competitive negotiation tactics to pursue their
goal(s). Competitive approaches align with the process of distributive bargaining, which result in
win-lose outcomes. A competitive approach to conflict tends to increase animosity and distrust
between parties and is generally considered destructive.
The Negotiator's Dilemma At its core, negotiation involves a fundamental tension between whether parties feel they need to
cooperate or compete in order to achieve their goals. It is important to remember though, that
negotiating an acceptable agreement always includes common and conflicting goals. Therefore
both cooperation and competition are necessary to some extent in order to reach resolution. In
other words, "[n]egotiators must learn, in part from each other, what is jointly possible and
desirable. To do so requires some degree of cooperation. But, at the same time, they seek to
advance their individual interests. This involves some degree of competition."[1] Finding a
balance between these two approaches is the key to successful negotiation. This basic tension
between cooperation and competition in negotiation is known as, "The Negotiator's
Dilemma."[2]
Goals, Interdependence, and Process How a party approaches resolving a conflict
depends on many factors. Scholars in the field of
social psychology, particularly Morton Deutsch,
have developed theories about factors that
influence whether a person approaches a conflict
cooperatively or competitively. The most important
Additional insights into competitive or factors are the nature of the dispute and the goals
cooperative approaches to conflict each side seeks to achieve as a result of it.
http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/audio/10262
Deutsch's theory centers on the relationship
between the two sides' goals, which he calls
interdependence. According to his theory, the type of interdependence existing between
negotiating parties will largely guide how they interact.
Deutsch identifies two basic types of goal interdependence -- positive and negative. Positive
interdependence means that each side's goals are tied together in such a way that the chance of
one side attaining its goal is increased by the probability of the other side successfully attaining
its goal.[3] Positively interdependent goals normally result in cooperative situations because any
participant can "attain his goal if, and only if, the others with whom he is linked can attain their
goals."[4] On the other hand, negative interdependence means that each side's goals are tied
together in such a way that the probability of one side attaining its goal is decreased by the
probability of the other side successfully attaining its goal.[5] Negatively interdependent goals
force competitive situations because the only way for one side to achieve its goals is for the other
side not to.
Personality and Conflict Style The approach or conflict style a negotiator chooses to take when entering negotiations may be
based on rational criteria, such as selecting the style that will most likely lead to the desired
goals. However, the personalities of the people involved may also play a significant role in
which conflict styles are brought to the negotiating table. Thus, it is also possible that some
so."[6]
Deutsch distinguishes between two key dimensions of personality: assertiveness in the pursuit of
one's own goals, and cooperativeness in pursuit of mutual goals.[7] Researchers have identified
five major conflict management styles based on a continuum from assertive (competitive) to
cooperative:
•
•
•
•
•
A competing style ‐‐ high on assertiveness and low on cooperativeness. An accommodating style ‐‐ low on assertiveness and high on cooperativeness. An avoiding style ‐‐ low on both assertiveness and cooperativeness. A collaborating style ‐‐ high on both assertiveness and cooperativeness. A compromising style ‐‐ moderate on both assertiveness and cooperativeness.[8] Effects of Cooperative and Competitive Approaches Morton Deutsch's theory of cooperation and competition includes predictions about what sort of
interactions will occur between negotiating parties as a result of their disputing style.
Cooperative styles are characterized by:
1. "Effective communication" where ideas are verbalized, group members pay attention to one another and accept their ideas and are influenced by them. These groups have less problems communicating with and understanding others. 2. "Friendliness, helpfulness, and less obstructiveness" is expressed in conversations. Members tend to be generally more satisfied with the group and its solutions as well as being impressed by the contributions of other group members. 3. "Coordination of effort, division of labor, orientation to task achievement, orderliness in discussion, and high productivity" tend to exist in cooperative groups. 4. "Feeling of agreement with the ideas of others and a sense of basic similarity in beliefs and values, as well as confidence in one's own ideas and in the value that other members attach to those ideas, are obtained in cooperative groups." 5. "Willingness to enhance the other's power" to achieve the other's goals increases. As other's capabilities are strengthened in a cooperative relationship, you are strengthened and vice versa. 6. "Defining conflicting interests as a mutual problem to be solved by collaborative effort facilitates recognizing the legitimacy of each other's interests and the necessity to search for a solution responsive to the needs of all." This tends to limit the scope of conflicting interests and keep attempts to influence each other to decent forms of persuasion.[9] A competitive process will most likely have the opposite effects on the parties:
1. Communication is obstructed as the conflicting parties try to gain advantage by misleading each other through false promises and misinformation. Communication is ultimately reduced as the parties realize they cannot trust one another's communications as honest and informative. 2. "Obstructiveness and lack of helpfulness lead to mutual negative attitudes and suspicion of one another's intentions. One's perceptions of the other tend to focus on the person's negative qualities and ignore the positives." 3. The parties are unable to effectively divide their work and end up duplicating efforts. When they do divide it, they continuously feel the need to check each other's work. 4. Ongoing disagreement and critical rejection of ideas reduces participants' self‐confidence as well as confidence in the other parties. 5. The conflicting parties seek to increase their own power and therefore see any increase in the other side's power as a threat. 6. The competitive process fosters the notion that the solution of the conflict can only be imposed by one side on the other. This orientation also encourages the use of coercive tactics such as psychological or physical threats and/or violence. This process tends to expand the range of contested issues and turns the conflict into a power struggle, with each side seeking to win outright. This sort of escalation raises the motivational significance of the conflict for the participants and makes them more likely to accept a mutual disaster rather than a partial defeat or compromise. [10] Despite the very negative picture painted by Deutsch, other theorists emphasize that competition,
in some circumstances, can be constructive. Competition in sports, for example, encourages each
side to strive for excellence. Although most sporting events are structured in a win-lose sort of
way, good sportsmanship norms ensure that the games are played fairly, and in many instances,
the loser gets to come back and play again on equal ground.
[1] David Lax and James K. Sebenius, The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation
and Competitive Gain (New York: The Free Press, 1986), 29.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Morton Deutsch, "Cooperation and Competition," in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution:
Theory and Practice, eds. Morton Deutsch and Peter Coleman (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 200), 22.
[4] Morton Deutsch, The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), 20. This section of Deutsch's earlier work on constructive
and destructive conflict resolution processes is closely paralleled by the later chapter in The
Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, which offers a summarized version of
his older work.
[5] Morton Deutsch, "Cooperation and Competition," in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution:
Theory and Practice, eds. Morton Deutsch and Peter Coleman (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 2000), 22.
[6] Roy J. Lewicki, David M. Saunders and John W. Minton, Negotiation, 3rd Edition (San
Francisco: Irwin McGraw-Hill, 1999), 358. The other ideas comprising this section were also
drawn from this work, pp. 358-361.
[7] Ibid, 359.
[8] The following bullet points come from Roy J. Lewicki, David M. Saunders and John W.
Minton, Negotiation, 3rd Edition (San Francisco: Irwin McGraw-Hill, 1999), 359.
[9] The following bullet points were pulled and paraphrased from Morton Deutsch, "Cooperation
and Competition," in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, eds. Morton
Deutsch and Peter Coleman (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 200), 25.
[10] Ibid, 25-26.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Bunker, Barbara Benedict. "Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice‐‐Abstract." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium, 2000. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10082/. Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice contains a collection of essays inspired by the work of Morton Deutsch, professor of psychology at Columbia University, director of the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, and preeminent authority on the dynamics of conflict, cooperation, and justice. Overly Competitive Approaches to a Conflict. Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/compete.htm. People often approach disputes in a very competitive, win‐lose way. They assume that the only way they can win is if the other side loses. Consequently, they behave very competitively, seeking the best possible outcome for themselves, without considering how this will affect people on the other side. The Roots of Peace. 2003. Available at: http://www.aworldofpossibilities.com/details.cfm?id=122. An interview by Jeffrey Dumas, Riane Eisler, Brian Ferguson, and William Ury. There's a new story to tell: our ancestors lived peaceably, war was rare, security came not from weapons but from cooperation, research shows we are not innately warlike or violent. This is the story of the roots of peace with author Riane Eisler, anthropologist Brian Ferguson and political economist Lloyd Jeffrey Dumas. Offline (Print) Sources Hocker, Joyce and William Wilmot. "Conflict Tactics." In Interpersonal Conflict. Edited by Hocker, Joyce and William W. Wilmot, eds. The authors discuss some of the strategic choices available to conflicting parties. Parties are more likely to strategize, that is, plan, in the face of difficult conflicts. Parties may strategize in advance of a conflict. They may revise their strategy during the course of the conflict. And they may engage in retrospective strategizing as they review a past conflict. Deutsch, Morton. "Cooperation and Competition." The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice , April 15, 2000. Deutsch outlines the differences between cooperative and competitive approaches to conflict resolution and the typical effects of these approaches. While competitive orientations can escalate a conflict and have destructive effects, cooperative approaches tend to allow parties to work together towards a mutually‐beneficial solution. He argues that a cooperative orientation is in this way more conducive to constructive resolution, and sets out the norms and values that underlie this approach. Johnson, David W. and Roger T. Johnson. Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, Minnesota: Interaction, 1989. "This book focuses on different aspects of social interdependence, the basic elements of cooperative learning, and motivational processes" (St. Edward's University). It is essentially a textbook and covers aspects of competition and cooperation relevant to many different social contexts, including conflict situations. The theoretical framework is explcitly based on the work of Morton Deutsch. This work, however, greatly elaborates on Deutsch's foundational theory. Rubin, Jeffrey Z. and Bert R. Brown. "Interdependence." In The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation. New York: Academic Press, 1975. Pages: 197‐258. This chapter focuses on interdependence and outlines how goal interdependence influences parties "motivational orientation" (competitive, cooperative, or individualistic) as they enter into a negotiation. Moore, Christopher W. "Selecting a Strategy to Guide Mediation." In The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict, 2nd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, 1996. Pages: 98‐
113. This chapter includes discussion of competitive versus interest‐based or cooperative approaches to mediation. The author's discussion is based on methods that mediators use to assess potential dispute outcomes. How one believes a dispute resolution process will turn out has a large effect on the strategy one approaches the resolution process with. Lax, David and James Sebenius. "The Negotiator's Dilemma: Creating and Claiming Value." In The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain. New York, NY: Free Press, January 1, 1986. Pages: 29‐45. This chapter focuses specifically on the tension between cooperation and competition in negotiation. In order to achieve anything the parties must be somewhat cooperative, but to advance their own interests they must also behave competitively. Finding a balance between these two approaches is the key to successful negotiation. Deutsch, Morton. The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973. This work provides a set of theoretical essays and research papers that deal with the nature of conflict and discuss various strategies for resolving conflict. Coming from the point of view of social psychology, the author focuses heavily on the concepts of cooperation, competition, and trust in explicating constructive and destructive conflict resolution processes. Ury, William L. The Third Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop. New York: Penguin Books, September 2000. In this book, William Ury explains that it takes two sides to fight and a third to stop it. Based on years of experience as a conflict resolution practitioner, Ury describes ten practical roles that people can play to prevent destructive conflict. He argues that fighting is not inevitable human behavior and that we can transform battles into constructive conflict and cooperation by turning to what he calls, "the third side".
Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Krivis, Jeffrey. Dealing With A Competitive Approach In Mediation. Pepperdine Law School, Straus Institute of Dispute Resolution. Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/krivis8.cfm. This article discusses strategies that mediators may employ in order to deal with competitive adversaries. Offline (Print) Sources Johnson, David W., Dean Tjosvold and Kwok Leung. "Cooperative and Competitive Conflict in China." In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. Edited by Coleman, Peter T. and Morton Deutsch, eds. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, 2000. The research in this chapter tests Morton Deutsch's theory of cooperative and competitive approaches to conflict, by applying it to the Chinese approach to managing conflict. Audiovisual Materials on this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources California's Central Valley. Available at: http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/nov/central_valley/. This web page offers access to three different parts of a radio show about an environmental conflict between farmers and residents of the valley. There is an ongoing dispute over farming practices, particularly the use of pesticides in the valley. The three parts detail the history and issues involved in the conflict, as well as the level of cooperation demonstrated by farmers. Compromise By
Brad Spangler
What is Compromise? Compromise is a basic negotiation process in which both parties give up something that they
want in order to get something else they want more. Compromises usually occur in win-lose
situations -- when there is a fixed pie to be divided up, and whatever one side gets, the other side
loses. In compromise situations, neither side gets all of what they really want, but they each
make concessions in order to reach an agreement that is acceptable to both.
There are two principal ways to negotiate a compromise. The first is for the parties to go back
and forth with offers and concessions until they meet somewhere in the middle. This usually
takes place around a single issue, such as the price of an item. For example, Juan and Antonia
want to buy a house that is on the market for $200,000. However, they do not want to pay that
much, so they make an offer of $160,000. Bob, the seller, does not want to go that low, but does
want to sell the house soon, so he offers to sell for $180,000. Juan and Antonia accept the deal
and the house is sold. In this case, Juan and Antonia paid $20,000 more than they wanted to and
Bob sold for $20,000 less, but the house was exchanged, which was the main goal of both
parties.
When there are multiple issues to be negotiated, then parties may make additional concessions.
The basic idea is that each party gives up something that the other party values but that they
themselves do not care about. For example, Juan and Antonia want to move into the new house
in one month, but Bob was planning to stay for three months. Moving in sooner means a lot to
Juan and Antonia because they are currently staying in a motel suite that is too small and is
costing a lot of money. Leaving the house sooner is not really a problem for Bob, but would
force him to work hard to get out faster. For that he wants to be compensated. The agreed price
of the house is $180,000, but Juan and Antonia offer $185,000 if they can move in eight weeks
earlier. Moving in faster is of value to them but not to Bob. By offering to pay $5,000 more than
the agreed price of the home, Juan and Antonia create an incentive for Bob to move out quickly,
because doing so is now a valuable proposition for him. This is an example of trading value in a
compromise situation.
Some Things Cannot Be Compromised In the case of Antonia and Juan buying their house,
the compromise between them and Bob was limited
to money and timing, both of which are interests
which could be negotiated. Although $5,000 is a
considerable amount of money, these types of
interests are relatively superficial and can be
Additional insights into compromise balanced through negotiation. However, some
http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/audio/10264
things cannot be compromised because they cut to
the core of an individual's or group's identity or
survival. Two things that usually are not compromised are values, and fundamental human
needs.
The issue of abortion provides a classic example of non-negotiable values. If a person believes
that abortion is murder, he or she will never agree that abortion should remain legal in the United
States. Moreover, this person will never be willing to compromise on any issue that eases current
legal restrictions on abortion. These hard-line positions stem from a deeply held personal value
and will not be compromised.
Human needs are the material and nonmaterial necessities of life: food, shelter, water, a sense of
security, identity, belonging, and independence. When it comes to disputes over any of these
necessities, people usually will not compromise either. For example, a person or identity group
needs to feel they have some control over their future. Thus, people will be highly unlikely to
make compromises that diminish their control over their own lives. Native American groups in
the United States provide a good example: They have fought for and have been granted
sovereignty (legal control) over their own reservations and possess their own laws independent
of the U.S. and state governments. They are likely to be very reluctant to relinquish this control,
even if the reward for doing so would be substantial. This example also relates to the importance
of identity. Many Native Americans have resisted assimilation into mainstream U.S. society.
They have valued their tribal identities very highly and have maintained a lifestyle consistent
with that identity, even when that has required giving up material gains. This is because control
and identity are both fundamental human needs, and are seldom compromised, even when doing
so might yield material benefits.
Perceptions of Compromise Critics of the compromise approach to conflict solution believe that people should not have to
make concessions as much as they do when they engage in negotiation. Proponents of integrative
or interest-based bargaining argue that if people are open about their real wants and needs, then a
win-win solution can often be found that provides what both sides want without compromise.
Compromises still tend to be made in interest-based bargaining, but they are usually more
creative than simply "splitting the difference." The example of trading off money for time in the
house-buying scenario is one example of compromises of interests that yielded a win-win
solution.
Lastly, compromise is perceived differently in different cultures. In the United States,
compromising is sometimes seen as bad, as it is seen as losing something or giving in. That is
precisely why some American critics believe it is a bad approach. On the other hand, some
traditional societies, such as the traditional Hawaiian culture, see compromise as a healthy way
to end conflict. In the Hawaiian tradition, compromise focuses on restoring relationships
damaged by conflict, which is generally considered more important than how much of a fixed pie
each side will get. The primacy of relationships over substance is common in many societies,
which may encourage compromise when core values or needs are not at stake.[1]
[1] Merry, Sally Eagle. "Cultural Aspects of Disputing." PCR Paper Series: 1987-2. Program on
Conflict Resolution. (Manoa: University of Hawaii, 1987) 1-20.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources "Does Mediation Mean Compromise?." Mediation Works , Available at: http://www.medi8works.com/articles.htm. This article discusses the differences between the concepts of mediation and compromise. Price, J.D. Marty. "Mediated Civil Compromise ‐ A Tool for Restorative Justice." , 1900 Available at: http://www.vorp.com/articles/civil.html. This article describes the benefits of criminal mediation programs, especially restitution versus retribution programs. Offline (Print) Sources Illsley, Elizabeth Robin. "Community Standards: A Hands‐on Approach to their Implementation in Residence Halls." DAI 61:06A, 2000. Community standards are agreements made by college students living on each floor of a residence hall identifying how they will relate to and treat each other. It is a process by which individuals begin forming a community‐based mechanism for dialogue, compromise, and commitment. This dissertation details a study that designed, implemented, assessed, and evaluated a Community Standard model in Seton Hill College's residence halls. Wandberg, Robert. Conflict Resolution: Communication, Cooperation, Compromise. Lifematters, July 1, 2000. This book examines the use of communication, cooperation, and compromise to resolve conflicts involving teenagers. Burgess, Heidi and Guy M. Burgess. "Definition of Compromise." In Encyclopedia of Conflict Resolution. ABC‐Clio, November 1997. Pages: 72‐73 . This section of the Encyclopedia of Conflict Resolution offers a discussion of compromise. Leitch, Laurie M. "The Politics of Compromise: A Feminist Perspective on Mediation." Mediation Quarterly 14/15, 1900. This article applies a feminist view to the process of mediation. It focuses on the technique of compromise and examines on how and when it is used in mediation cases. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources King, Martin Luther. "Beyond Vietnam," Address delivered to the Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam, at Riverside Church. Stanford University: Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project. Available at: http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/speeches/pub/Beyond_Vietnam.pdf. This speech focuses on Vietnam, but addresses the larger issue of war. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. states that conflicts can not be resolved without some kind of compromise from both sides. Come Together: From Confrontation to Conversation. 2004. Available at: http://www.aworldofpossibilities.com/details.cfm?id=162. An interview with Ivan Eland, Robert Reich, and Russell Train. Opposites may attract in love and physics but seldom in politics. Yet, some political opposites are indeed coming together. Driven by the notion that leadership has gone haywire, progressives and conservatives are finding common ground in what they oppose and what they propose. Join us for a journey beyond left and right. "Politics of Compromise: The Tajikistan Peace Process." Accord, Vol. 10 , March 2001 Available at: http://www.c‐r.org/accord/tajik/accord10/index.shtml. This issue of the journal Accord focuses on the Tajik conflict. It examines the underlying issues of the inter‐ethnic conflict, the fast paced escalation of the conflict, the negotiation stage that resulted in a settlement, and the peacebuilding phase. This issue also highlights the parties associated with the conflict, as well as the compromises they made in order to reach a successful agreement. Regan, Anthony. "Resolving Two Dimensions of Conflict: The Dynamics of Consent, Consensus and Compromise." , September 30, 2002 Available at: http://www.c‐r.org/accord/boug/accord12/resolving.shtml. This essay is one of an entire online issue of Accord, which focuses on the peace process between the national government of Papua New Guinea and Bougainville. The people of Bouganville were fighting for independence. The particular article outlines the concessions made in order to reach an acceptable compromise between the parties. Auer, Martin. The Strange War Stories for a Culture of Peace. Martin Auers Lyrikmaschine, 1900. Available at: http://www.martinauer.net/KINDER/krieg‐us/index.htm. This is an online book that contains a set of stories, originally written for children, that teach that people must pursue their own interests, but at the same time must be cognizant of their effect on others and must learn to compromise and collaborate for peace. Offline (Print) Sources Merry, Sally Engle. "Compromise and Cultural Difference." In Cultural Aspects of Disputing . Edited by Merry, Sally E, ed. Manoa: University of Hawaii Program on Conflict Resolution, 1987. This paper is part of an occasional paper series published by the University of Hawaii Program on Conflict Resolution. It discusses how conflict resolution techniques are perceived differently in different cultures. The paper primarily compares U.S. perceptions with those of Asian‐Pacific societies. Ripeness By
I. William Zartman
August 2003
While most studies on the peaceful settlement of disputes focus on the substance of the negotiations, the timing of the negations
is also key. Parties resolve their conflict only when they are
ready to do so -- when alternative, usually unilateral, means of
achieving a satisfactory result are blocked and the parties feel
that they are in an uncomfortable and costly predicament. At that
"ripe" moment, they seek or are amenable to proposals that offer
a way out.
The idea of a ripe moment lies at the fingertips of diplomats. As
long ago as 1974, Henry Kissinger recognized that "stalemate is
the most propitious condition for settlement." Conversely,
practitioners often are heard to say that certain mediation
initiatives are not advisable because the conflict just is not yet "ripe."
The concept of a ripe moment centers on the parties' perception of a Mutually Hurting Stalemate
(MHS) -- a situation in which neither side can win, yet continuing the conflict will be very
harmful to each (although not necessarily in equal degree nor for the same reasons). Also
contributing to "ripeness" is an impending, past, or recently-avoided catastrophe.[1] This further
encourages the parties to seek an alternative policy or "way out," since, the catastrophe provides
a deadline or a lesson indicating that pain might be sharply increased if something is not done
about it soon.
The mutually hurting stalemate is grounded in cost-benefit analysis. It is fully consistent with
public-choice notions of rationality[2] and public-choice studies of negotiation.[3] These theories
assume that a party will pick the alternative which is best for itself, and that a decision to change
is induced by increasing pain associated with the present course of conflict, thereby making the
change the rational choice from a cost-benefit point of view. It is also consistent with which
hypothesizes that people seek to avoid a loss of a certain amount more than they seek a gain of
the same amount. In other words, they are "loss-averse." In terms of game theory, a mutually
hurting stalemate changes the situation from a prisoners' dilemma game into a game of chicken.
(These terms and games are described in detail in the game theory essay.) Put in other terms, a
conflict becomes ripe for resolution when the parties realize that the status quo -- no negotiation - is a negative sum (or lose-lose) situation, not a zero-sum (win-lose) situation. Thus to avoid the
mutual loss, they must consider negotiation in an attempt to reach a positive sum (or win-win)
outcome.
Ripeness is a matter of perception, and as with any
subjective perception, there are likely to be objective facts
to be perceived. These can be highlighted by a mediator
or an opposing party when they are not immediately
recognized by the party itself, and resisted so long as the
conflicting party refuses to recognize the "facts" as
legitimate or accurate. Thus it is the perception of the
objective condition, not the condition itself, that makes
for a mutually hurting stalemate. If the parties do not
recognize "clear evidence" (in someone else's view) that
they are at an impasse, a mutually hurting stalemate has
not (yet) occurred, and if they do perceive themselves to
be in such a situation, no matter how flimsy the
"evidence," the mutually hurting stalemate is present.
The other element necessary for a ripe moment is less
complex and also perceptional: a Way Out. Parties do not
have to be able to identify a specific solution; they must
only have a sense that a negotiated solution is possible
and that the other party shares that sense and the willingness to search for a solution too. Without
a sense of a Way Out, the push associated with the mutually hurting stalemate would leave the
parties with nowhere to go. Spokespersons often indicate whether they do or do not feel that a
deal can be made with the other side. They think concessions will be reciprocated, not just
banked particularly when there is a change in that judgment.[4]
Ripeness is only a condition, necessary but not sufficient for the initiation of negotiations. It is
not self-fulfilling or self-implementing. It must be seized, either directly by the parties or, if not,
through the persuasion of a mediator. Thus, it is not identical to its results, which are not part of
its definition. It is therefore not tautological, although some scholars have claimed such, arguing
that it cannot be measured except by the success of negotiations, after which one can observe
that "the time was ripe." Not all ripe moments are seized and turned into negotiations, hence the
importance of specifying the meaning and evidence of ripeness so as to indicate when conflicting
or third parties can fruitfully initiate negotiations.
Finding a ripe moment requires research to identify the objective and subjective elements of a
conflict situation. Subjective expressions of pain, impasse, and inability to bear the cost of
further escalation are important, as are objective evidence of stalemate and data on actual costs.
Also important is a sense of a Way Out--the sense that a solution is possible and an indication
from one or both parties that they might be ready to seek a solution. On the contrary, if one or
both sides believe that negotiation is bound to fail, or they still believe they can escalate out of
the current impasse to achieve a decisive victory, then the conflict is not yet "ripe." Perhaps a
greater understanding of the indicators of ripeness could lead to its more frequent recognition
among disputing parties, and more successfully seized negotiation opportunities.
[1] I William Zartman and Maureen Berman, The Practical Negotiator (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1982), 66-78; I William Zartman, "The Strategy of Preventive Diplomacy in
Third World Conflicts," in Managing US-Soviet Rivalry, ed. Alexander George (Westview,
1983); Saadia Touval & I William Zartman, eds., International Mediation in Theory and
Practice (Westview, 1985), ll, 258-60; I William Zartman, Ripe for Resolution (New York:
Oxford, 1985/1989)
[2] Sen l970, Arrow l963, Olson l965
[3] Brams l990, l994; Wright l965
[4] Zartman & Aurik l99l
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Identifying Ripe Times for Negotiation. Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/idripe.htm. The possibility of successfully negotiating an agreement can be greatly increased when the parties understand how to determine when the time is "ripe" for negotiated settlement and how to encourage the "ripening" process. Krueger, Cosima. "The Timing of Ripeness and the Ripeness of Timing‐‐Article Summary." University of Colorado Conflict Research Consortium. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/articlesummary/10506/. This page is a summary of the article, The Timing of Ripeness and the Ripeness of Timing, by Jeffery Rubin. Rubin argues that although the concepts of "timing" and "ripeness" are crucial to the successful de‐escalation of international conflicts, these concepts are sometimes dismissed by social scientists because of their highly subjective nature. He defines timing as the importance of doing things in one sequence or at one time rather than another. He defines ripeness as "the right time" (to do something).
Offline (Print) Sources Greig, J. M. "Moments of Opportunity: Recognizing Conditions of Ripeness for International Mediation between Enduring Rivals." Journal of Conflict Resolution 45:6, December 1, 2001. This article examines the factors that influence both short term and long term mediation success. Aggestam, Karin. "Ripeness in International Mediation." Paradigms: The Kent Journal of International Relations 9:2, 1995. Kleiboer, Marieke. "Ripeness of Conflict: A Fruitful Notion?." Journal of Peace Research 31:1, February 1994. Abstract: The theories of Zartman, Haass and Stedman focus on the notion of ripeness of conflict. In their view, conflict resolution depends above all on the identification of a ripe moment in the course of a conflict. This is the only time a third party has any chance to succeed. This essay seeks to provide an answer to the question whether the idea of ripeness is a fruitful notion in the discussion of third‐party intervention. In doing so, the empirical usefulness and theoretical foundation of the idea of ripeness in the three studies are examined and compared. The analysis has five parts: (1) it discusses the concept of ripeness as developed by the three authors; (2) it looks at the role of a third party in relation to such ripe moments; (3) it compares the methodological basis on which the idea of ripeness has come about and how it has been used in the three books; (4) and it assesses the analytical value of ripeness as an explanatory and prescriptive tool. In the conclusion (5) the author provides three arguments why the notion of ripeness in the way it has been approached so far is problematic. The idea of willingness is proposed as a useful alternative. Zartman, I. William. "Ripeness: The Hurting Stalemate and Beyond." In International Conflict Resolution after the Cold War. Edited by Stern, Paul C. and Daniel Druckman, eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, September 2000. Zartman lays out his basic concept of ripeness and the hurting stalemate in this book chapter. Zartman, I. William. "Ripening Conflict, Ripe Moment, Formula and Mediation." In Perspectives on Negotiation. Edited by BenDahmane, Diane, ed. Government Printing Office, January 1, 1986. Arrow, Kenneth. Social Choice and Individual Values. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, January 1, 1963. This is the classic essay in the logic of choice by collective entities based upon the preferences of the individual members of the collectivity. It therefore provides a basis for a critical evaluation of democratic theory in general as well as of the theory of economic policy and welfare economics in particular. First, several apparently reasonable conditions for the process of social choice are laid down; these require essentially that social choice be responsive to the desires of individuals and that, among any given set of possible alternatives, social choice depend only on the preferences of the individuals among the members of that set. It is then shown that this set of conditions is in fact logically inconsistent. That is, there is no democratic constitution which can always be sure of producing a method of social choice that satisfies certain ordinary properties of coherence. Some possible ways out of this dilemma are than explored. Rubin, Jeffrey Z. "The Timing of Ripeness and the Ripeness of Timing." In Timing the De‐Escalation of International Conflicts. Edited by Thorson, Stuart J., ed. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1991. The author says that although the concepts of "timing" and "ripeness" are crucial to the successful de‐
escalation of international conflicts, these concepts are sometimes dismissed by social scientists because of their highly subjective nature. He defines timing as the importance of doing things in one sequence or at one time rather than another. He defines ripeness as "the right time" (to do something). [online abstract] Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Offline (Print) Sources Norlen, Tova. A Study of the Ripe Moment for Conflict Resolution and its Applicability to Two Periods in the Israeli‐Palestinian Conflict. Uppsala University Conflict Resolution Program, January 1, 1995. Tova Norlen is a graduate student at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. "Conflict 'Ripeness' Revisited: The South Africa and Israel/Palestine Cases." Negotiation Journal 15:1, January 1, 1999. "This article seeks to develop such generalizations and to refine the ripeness concept by analyzing the factors that led to negotiated agreements between the National Party (NP) and the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa in 1990 and between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1993. Highlighted in each case will be the influence of internal politics, which, I conclude, is overlooked by ripeness propositions, along with the role of perceptual shifts regarding the possibility and the necessity of negotiation." Sambanis, Nicholas. "Conflict Resolution Ripeness and Spoiler Problems in Cyprus." Journal of Peace Research , January 2000. Salla, Michael E. "Creating the 'Ripe Moment' in the East Timor Conflict." Journal of Peace Research 34:4, November 1, 1997. This paper presents an anlysis of the East Timor conflict that is grounded in William Zartman's notion of 'ripeness' and John Burton's 'basic human needs' theory. This paper argues that a means of breaking out of the present impasse in negotiations concerning the East Timor conflict is to create what Zartman calls the 'ripe moment'. Zartman, I. William. Ripe for Resolution: Conflict and Intervention in Africa (Updated Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, January 1, 1989. This study examines the causes and nature of African conflict and addresses the issue of how foreign powers can contribute productively to the management and resolution of such conflicts without resorting to the use of military force. The book focuses on four case studies of local conflict and external response (Western Sahara, the Horn of Africa, the Shaba province in Zaire, and Namibia) to assess various approaches to conflict management, and offers guidelines for identifying the ripe moment for effective external response. Pruitt, Dean G. "Ripeness Theory and the Oslo Talks." International Negotiation 2:2, 1997. Grounded in ripeness theory, this article discusses the circumstances that motivated the convening of the Middle Eastern Oslo negotiations. Baker, James and Thomas de Frank. The Politics of Diplomacy: Revolution, War, and Peace, 1989‐1992 . New York, NY: Putnam, September 1995. "Baker, who served in senior government positions under Presidents Ford, Reagan, and Bush, offers an inside account of his years as Secretary of State during a time period that saw the collapse of communism and the Soviet Union, the reunification of Germany, repression in China's Tiananmen Square, freedom in South Africa, the Gulf War, and Arab and Israeli peace talks. He provides intimate portraits of world leaders and insights on the art and politics of diplomacy." ‐From Book News, Inc. Timing the De‐escalation of International Conflicts. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, July 1991. Timing the De‐Escalation of International Conflicts is a collection of essays which explore the context, policies and strategies of effective conflict de‐escalation. Audiovisual Materials on this Topic:
Offline (Print) Sources The Strange Demise of Jim Crow . Directed and/or Produced by: Berman, David. California Newsreel. 1998. This film highlights how civil rights activists usefully created situations of non‐violent conflict as a way to engage the opposing side, and to create an atmosphere ripe for negotiation. Ripeness­Promoting Strategies By
I. William Zartman
The parties' perception of a mutually hurting stalemate is a necessary condition for the opening
of negotiations to end a conflict. Once all sides realize they cannot win with further escalation,
and the status quo is unacceptably damaging (this is a hurting stalemate), the conflict is said to be
"ripe" for resolution. While that perception may be insufficient in and of itself, the absence of
ripeness does not mean we should walk away and do nothing. Too often, the absence of ripeness
is cited as an excuse for total disengagement. However, that is when efforts are needed more than
ever to move the conflict to the point where it is susceptible to mediation or negotiation. If a
conflict is not ripe, it can be ripened, and if an interested party cannot ripen it, it can position
itself for later involvement. Indeed, if ripeness is not present, its components can serve as a target
that helps identify obstacles and suggests ways of handling them and managing the problem until
resolution becomes possible. Even when a conflict is ripe for negotiation, practitioners need to
employ all their skills and apply all the concepts of negotiation and mediation to take advantage
of that necessary but insufficient condition in order to turn it into a successful dispute resolution
process.
Since ripeness theory indicates that ripeness is a subjective perception that results from objective
indicators plus persuasion, these are the two elements that require attention in ripening. The
parties need to feel that they are in a mutually hurting stalemate and that there is a way out only
through negotiation, mediation or a related non-coercive process. If some objective elements are
present, persuasion is needed to bring out the perception of both the stalemate and the pain. For
example, two factions in a church congregation may be at loggerheads over the appointment of a
particular pastor. If both sides think they can prevail, they may need a third party to step in to
demonstrate 1) why neither side can "win," and 2) what the costs are of continuing the conflict.
The other element critical to persuasion is the perception of a way out, a realization -- necessarily
bilateral -- that the other party is willing to join in the search for a negotiated solution and that
such a solution does exist in principle. The perception of a way out need not identify a specific
agreement, but rather merely the belief that an agreement can be found. It is as much a
perception of the other party's willingness to bargain as it is of a bargaining range. In its absence,
a third party or internal faction is needed to encourage that perception, but also to encourage
thinking about possible solutions. Third parties may also need to be involved much more
directly, serving as a go-between to carry each party's perception of a possible agreement to the
other.
If there is no objective indicator to which to refer, ripening may involve an even more active
engagement of the mediator, altering that role from communication and formulation to
manipulation.[3] For example, some of the things a mediator can do are:
•
•
•
•
•
Give the parties some fresh ideas to shake them up; Keep new ideas loose and flexible and avoid getting bogged down early in details; Establish basic principles to form building blocks of a settlement; Become an indispensable channel for negotiation; and Establish an acceptable mechanism for negotiation and an appropriate format for registering an agreement. Other strategies include items identified with pre-negotiations:[5]
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identify the issues to be resolved, and separate out issues not resolvable in the conflict; Air alternatives to the current conflict course; Establish bridges between the parties; Clarify costs and risks involved in seeking settlement; Establish reciprocity, the sense that each party will reciprocate the other's concessions; and Build support for any proposed settlement. None of these things is easy to do, of course, nor are they done quickly. But working toward
these goals, even when the conflict is not "ripe," is likely to create a ripe moment much more
quickly than letting the conflict simply follow its normal course.
[1] Matti Golan, The Secret Conversations of Henry Kissinger (Bantam, 1976), 52.
[2] Chester A, Crocker, High Noon in Southern Africa (Norton, 1992), 381-82 ia.
[3] I William Zartman & Saadia Touval, "International Mediation in the Post-Cold War Era," in
eds. Chester Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson, & Pamela Aall, Managing Global Chaos
(Washington: United States Institute of Peace, 1997); Touval, Saadia, "Mediators' Leverage,"
(National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Conflict Resolution, 1999); Donald Rothchild,
Managing Ethnic Conflict in Africa (Washington: Brookings, 1997).
[4] Crocker, 471-72; see also Richard Haass, Conflicts Unending (Yale University Press, 1990);
Marrack Goulding, Enhancing the United Nations' Effectiveness in Peace and Security (United
Nations: Report to the Secretary General, June 30, 1997).
[5] Stein, et al. l994.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Mitchell, Christopher R. "Cutting Losses: Reflections On Appropriate Timing." , January 1, 1996 Available at: http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/mic01/. This paper contributes to the debate about the circumstances likely to result in a restoration of realistic costing and a movement from antagonistic to conciliatory behavior. The author provides a detailed analysis of Zartman's and others' pioneering work in this area and evaluates the Hurting Stalemate, Imminent Mutual Catastrophe, and Entrapment models as inducements to negotiated problem solving. He counterposes an Enticing Opportunity model to these "exhaustion" models and suggests that positive inducements to change may be as effective or more effective than anticipated costs as a motivator in changing violent behavior. Fisher, Ronald J. "Methods of Third‐Party Intervention." http://www.berghof‐handbook.net/articles/fisher_hb.pdf. This article lays out the different forms of third‐party intervention in a taxonomy of six methods, and proposes a contingency model which matches each type of intervention to the appropriate stage of conflict escalation. Interventions are sequenced, in order to assist the parties in de‐escalating and resolving the conflict. The article also discusses several issues around the practice of intervention. Krueger, Cosima. "The Timing of Ripeness and the Ripeness of Timing‐‐Article Summary." University of Colorado Conflict Research Consortium. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/articlesummary/10506/. This page is a summary of the article, The Timing of Ripeness and the Ripeness of Timing, by Jeffery Rubin. Rubin argues that although the concepts of "timing" and "ripeness" are crucial to the successful de‐escalation of international conflicts, these concepts are sometimes dismissed by social scientists because of their highly subjective nature. He defines timing as the importance of doing things in one sequence or at one time rather than another. He defines ripeness as "the right time" (to do something).
Offline (Print) Sources Burgess, Heidi. "Constructive Confrontation: A Transformative Approach to Intractable Conflicts." Mediation Quarterly 13:4, 1996. This article describes the conflict strategy of constructive confrontation. This strategy may be used to approach intractable conflicts that are not yet ripe for resolution. Developed in the context of large‐
scale public policy and international conflicts, this approach parallels transformative mediation in several ways. Most important is an emphasis on empowerment and recognition (though constructive confrontation uses different terms) and a focus on constructive processes rather than resolution as the primary goal. The article highlights the similarities and differences between constructive confrontation and transformative mediation. Zartman, I. William and Saadia Touval. "International Mediation in the Post‐Cold War Era." In Turbulent Peace: The Challenges of Managing International Conflict. Edited by Crocker, Chester A., Fen Osler Hampson and Pamela Aall, eds. Washington, DC : United States Institute of Peace Press, September 1996. "Mediation is best thought of as a mode of negotiation in which a third party helps the parties find a solution which they cannot find by themselves." [p. 446] Zartman and Touval focus on mediation of violent, international, or civil conflicts. They describe why third‐parties decide to mediate, why and when conflicting parties accept mediation, and what factors produce effective mediation. Touval, Saadia. "Mediators' Leverage." , 1999. Haass, Richard N. "Ripeness and the Settlement of International Disputes." Survival 30:3, 1988. Aggestam, Karin. "Ripeness in International Mediation." Paradigms: The Kent Journal of International Relations 9:2, 1995. Kleiboer, Marieke. "Ripeness of Conflict: A Fruitful Notion?." Journal of Peace Research 31:1, February 1994. Abstract: The theories of Zartman, Haass and Stedman focus on the notion of ripeness of conflict. In their view, conflict resolution depends above all on the identification of a ripe moment in the course of a conflict. This is the only time a third party has any chance to succeed. This essay seeks to provide an answer to the question whether the idea of ripeness is a fruitful notion in the discussion of third‐party intervention. In doing so, the empirical usefulness and theoretical foundation of the idea of ripeness in the three studies are examined and compared. The analysis has five parts: (1) it discusses the concept of ripeness as developed by the three authors; (2) it looks at the role of a third party in relation to such ripe moments; (3) it compares the methodological basis on which the idea of ripeness has come about and how it has been used in the three books; (4) and it assesses the analytical value of ripeness as an explanatory and prescriptive tool. In the conclusion (5) the author provides three arguments why the notion of ripeness in the way it has been approached so far is problematic. The idea of willingness is proposed as a useful alternative. Pruitt, Dean G. "Ripeness Theory and the Oslo Talks." International Negotiation 2:2, 1997. Grounded in ripeness theory, this article discusses the circumstances that motivated the convening of the Middle Eastern Oslo negotiations. Zartman, I. William. "Ripeness: The Hurting Stalemate and Beyond." In International Conflict Resolution after the Cold War. Edited by Stern, Paul C. and Daniel Druckman, eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, September 2000. Zartman lays out his basic concept of ripeness and the hurting stalemate in this book chapter. Zartman, I. William. "Ripening Conflict, Ripe Moment, Formula and Mediation." In Perspectives on Negotiation. Edited by BenDahmane, Diane, ed. Government Printing Office, January 1, 1986. Rubin, Jeffrey Z. "The Timing of Ripeness and the Ripeness of Timing." In Timing the De‐Escalation of International Conflicts. Edited by Thorson, Stuart J., ed. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1991. The author says that although the concepts of "timing" and "ripeness" are crucial to the successful de‐
escalation of international conflicts, these concepts are sometimes dismissed by social scientists because of their highly subjective nature. He defines timing as the importance of doing things in one sequence or at one time rather than another. He defines ripeness as "the right time" (to do something). [online abstract] Timing the De‐escalation of International Conflicts. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, July 1991. Timing the De‐Escalation of International Conflicts is a collection of essays which explore the context, policies and strategies of effective conflict de‐escalation. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Offline (Print) Sources "Conflict 'Ripeness' Revisited: The South Africa and Israel/Palestine Cases." Negotiation Journal 15:1, January 1, 1999. "This article seeks to develop such generalizations and to refine the ripeness concept by analyzing the factors that led to negotiated agreements between the National Party (NP) and the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa in 1990 and between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1993. Highlighted in each case will be the influence of internal politics, which, I conclude, is overlooked by ripeness propositions, along with the role of perceptual shifts regarding the possibility and the necessity of negotiation." Bercovitch, Jacob. "Conflict Management and the Oslo Experience: Assessing the Success of Israeli‐
Palestinian Peacemaking." International Negotiation 2:2, 1997. The Oslo experience and the signing of an agreement between Israel and the PLO is used as an empirical case study to highlight the nature of successful mediation in international conflicts. To provide a structure for the analysis, the concept of intractable conflicts and their management is utilized. Factors affecting the mediation of intractable conflicts are grouped into two clusters: (a) contextual factors and (b) process factors. The paper focuses on the changing balance of contextual factors and how these created a ripe moment for mediation, and on the particular way the mediation process was carried out. Timing, ripeness and secrecy are identified as the crucial variables that produced the breakthrough in Oslo. Salla, Michael E. "Creating the 'Ripe Moment' in the East Timor Conflict." Journal of Peace Research 34:4, November 1, 1997. This paper presents an anlysis of the East Timor conflict that is grounded in William Zartman's notion of 'ripeness' and John Burton's 'basic human needs' theory. This paper argues that a means of breaking out of the present impasse in negotiations concerning the East Timor conflict is to create what Zartman calls the 'ripe moment'. Crocker, Chester A. High Noon in Southern Africa: Making Peace in a Rough Neighborhood. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, January 1993. This work presents former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs from 1981 to 1989, Chester A. Crocker's, account of U.S. diplomatic policy in southern Africa during the Reagan Administration. The author argues that the U.S.'s policy of "constructive enegagement" helped bring regional security to southern Africa. Rothchild, Donald S. Managing Ethnic Conflict in Africa: Pressures and Incentives for Cooperation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, September 1997. In this work Rothchild explores the post‐colonial state in selected parts of the African continent in terms of concepts drawn from the literature of comparative and international politics. He traces Africa's current unrest back to its beginnings during the era of colonial rule. The author then discusses how negotiation and mediation can be used along with political incentives such as power sharing, and other actions may be employed to promote reconciliation. Zartman, I. William. Ripe for Resolution: Conflict and Intervention in Africa (Updated Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, January 1, 1989. This study examines the causes and nature of African conflict and addresses the issue of how foreign powers can contribute productively to the management and resolution of such conflicts without resorting to the use of military force. The book focuses on four case studies of local conflict and external response (Western Sahara, the Horn of Africa, the Shaba province in Zaire, and Namibia) to assess various approaches to conflict management, and offers guidelines for identifying the ripe moment for effective external response. Golan, Matti. The Secret Conversations of Henry Kissinger: Step‐by‐Step Diplomacy in the Middle East. New York: Bantam, 1976. Integrative or Interest­Based Bargaining By
Brad Spangler
What is Integrative or Interest­Based Bargaining? Integrative bargaining (also called "interest-based
bargaining," "win-win bargaining") is a negotiation
strategy in which parties collaborate to find a "winwin" solution to their dispute. This strategy focuses on
developing mutually beneficial agreements based on
the interests of the disputants. Interests include the needs, desires, concerns, and fears important
to each side. They are the underlying reasons why people become involved in a conflict.
"Integrative refers to the potential for the parties' interests to be [combined] in ways that create
joint value or enlarge the pie."[1] Potential for integration only exists when there are multiple
issues involved in the negotiation. This is because the parties must be able to make trade-offs
across issues in order for both sides to be satisfied with the outcome.
Why is Integrative Bargaining Important? Integrative bargaining is important because it usually produces more satisfactory outcomes for
the parties involved than does positional bargaining. Positional bargaining is based on fixed,
opposing viewpoints (positions) and tends to result in compromise or no agreement at all.
Oftentimes, compromises do not efficiently satisfy the true interests of the disputants. Instead,
compromises simply split the difference between the two positions, giving each side half of what
they want. Creative, integrative solutions, on the other hand, can potentially give everyone all of
what they want.
There are often many interests behind any one position. If parties focus on identifying those
interests, they will increase their ability to develop win-win solutions. The classic example of
interest-based bargaining and creating joint value is that of a dispute between two little girls over
an orange. Both girls take the position that they want the whole orange. Their mother serves as
the moderator of the dispute and based on their positions, cuts the orange in half and gives each
girl one half. This outcome represents a compromise. However, if the mother had asked each of
the girls why she wanted the orange -- what her interests were -- there could have been a
different, win-win outcome. This is because one girl wanted to eat the meat of the orange, but the
other just wanted the peel to use in baking some cookies. If their mother had known their
interests, they could have both gotten all of what they wanted, rather than just half.
Integrative solutions are generally more gratifying for all involved in negotiation, as the true
needs and concerns of both sides will be met to some degree. It is a collaborative process and
therefore the parties actually end up helping each other. This prevents ongoing ill will after the
negotiation concludes. Instead, interest-based bargaining facilitates constructive, positive
relationships between previous adversaries.
Identifying Interests: The first step in integrative bargaining is identifying each side's interests.
This will take some work by the negotiating parties, as interests are often less tangible than
positions and are often not publicly revealed. A key approach to determining interests is asking
"Why?" Why do you want that? Why do you need that? What are your concerns? Fears? Hopes?
If you cannot ask these questions directly, get an intermediary to ask them.
The bottom line is you need to figure out why people feel the way they do, why they are
demanding what they are demanding. Be sure to make it clear that you are asking these questions
so you can understand their interests (needs, hopes, fears, or desires) better, not because you are
challenging them or trying to figure out how to beat them.
Next you might ask yourself how the other side perceives your demands. What is standing in the
way of them agreeing with you? Do they know your underlying interests? Do you know what
your own underlying interests are? If you can figure out their interests as well as your own, you
will be much more likely to find a solution that benefits both sides.
You must also analyze the potential consequences of an agreement you are advocating, as the
other side would see them. This is essentially the process of weighing pros and cons, but you
attempt to do it from the perspective of the other side. Carrying out an empathetic analysis will
help you understand your adversary's interests. Then you will be better equipped to negotiate an
agreement that will be acceptable to both of you.
There are a few other points to remember about identifying interests. First, you must realize that
each side will probably have multiple interests it is trying to satisfy. Not only will a single person
have multiple interests, but if you are negotiating with a group, you must remember that each
individual in the group may have differing interests. Also important is the fact that the most
powerful interests are basic human needs - security, economic well being, a sense of belonging,
recognition, and control over one's life. If you can take care of the basic needs of both sides, then
agreement will be easier. You should make a list of each side's interests as they become apparent.
This way you will be able to remember them and also to evaluate their relative importance.[2]
This chart was derived from a more complex chart in Fisher, Roger,
William Ury, and Bruce Patton. (1991) Getting to Yes: Negotiating
Agreement Without Giving In, Second Edition. New York: Penguin Books.
p. 13.
Creating Options After interests are identified, the parties need to
work together cooperatively to try to figure out the
best ways to meet those interests. Often by
"brainstorming" -- listing all the options anyone can
think of without criticizing or dismissing anything
initially, parties can come up with creative new
Silke Hansen recommends that mediators focus on ideas for meeting interests and needs that had not
parties' needs to come up with the widest range of occurred to anyone before. The goal is a win-win
possible solutions. outcome, giving each side as much of their interests http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/audio/10548
as possible, and enough, at a minimum that they see
the outcome as a win, rather than a loss.
Using Integrative and Distributive Bargaining Together Although distributive bargaining is frequently seen as the opposite of integrative bargaining, the
two are not mutually exclusive. Distributive bargaining plays a role in integrative bargaining,
because ultimately "the pie" has to be split up.
Integrative bargaining is a good way to make the pie (joint value) as large as it possibly can be,
but ultimately the parties must distribute the value that was created through negotiation. They
must agree on who gets what. The idea behind integrative bargaining is that this last step will not
be difficult once the parties reach that stage. This is because the interest-based approach is
supposed to help create a cooperative working relationship. Theoretically, the parties should
know who wants what by the time they split the pie.[3]
[1] Watkins, Michael and Susan Rosegrant, Breakthrough International Negotiation: How Great
Negotiators Transformed the World's Toughest Post-Cold War Conflicts (San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2001), 31.
[2] The principal ideas regarding identifying interests outlined here were drawn from Getting to
Yes.
[3] The idea that integrative or interest-based bargaining will always include distributive
bargaining too, was originally put forth by David Lax and James Sebenius in The Manager as
Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain, 1986.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Hammond, D. P. Interest‐Based Bargaining. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Available at: http://www.afscme.org/wrkplace/cbr495_1.htm. This article explains what interest based bargaining is, how it works, and who should be interested in it.
Kersten, Gregory. "Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations: Review and Revised Characterization ." , Available at: http://interneg.concordia.ca/interneg/research/papers/2000/02.pdf. This paper examines and critiques the assumed contradictions between integrative and distributive negotiations, in light of evidence from new negotiation support software. "Negotiation: Strategies for Mutual Gain ‐ Book Summary." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10265/. This summary of Negotiation: Strategies for Mutual Gain, edited by Lavinia Hall, offers a good overview of the book. The book is a collection of essays which present key concepts and strategies intended to promote effective negotiation and mutually beneficial dispute resolution. "Negotiations and Resolving Conflicts: An Overview." , Available at: http://web.cba.neu.edu/~ewertheim/interper/negot3.htm. This web page offers a well‐organized and fairly comprehensive overview of two primary negotiation strategies, integrated and distributive. It covers the key aspects of both approaches, provides information about creating and claiming value, and gives general advice about how to proceed in negotiation situations. Kern, Molly, Gail Berger and Leigh Thompson. The Enlightened Negotiator: What is the Best Type of Interaction?. Northwestern University: Kellog Graduate School of Management. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=400780. This essay examines the process of integrative bargaining in an effort to determine the role each party's knowledge about win‐win scenarios plays in the negotiation process. Offline (Print) Sources Lax, David and James Sebenius. "Creating Value." In The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain. New York, NY: Free Press, January 1, 1986. Pages: 88‐116. Chapter Five of this work, "Creating Value," discusses the dynamics of integrative bargaining situations and various ways in which parties may identify common interests. It concentrates on tactical advice for how to succeed in this type of negotiation. Lum, Grande, Irma Tyler‐Wood and Anthony Wanis‐St. John. Expand the Pie: How to Create More Value in Any Negotiation. Seattle, WA: Castle Pacific Publishing Company, December 2002. This work focuses specifically on techniques for creating value, or exapnding the pie in negotiations so as to increase the potential for win‐win outcomes. The work is based on the experiences of the authors who are professional business negotiators. It offers a great deal of practical advice on how to successfully carry out collaborative negotiations. Fisher, Roger, William L. Ury and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving
In, 2nd Edition . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., April 1992. This is an updated version of Roger Fisher's and William Ury's classic 1981 text, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. In this bestseller, Fisher, Ury, and Patton describe what they call "principled negotiation", which is basically interest‐based bargaining with a few extra twists. Key ideas include: 1) separate the people from the problem; 2) negotiate interests, not positions; 3) look for mutually beneficial options; and 4) use objective criteria. This work is considered essential foundational reading for anyone interested in negotiation. Watkins, Michael, Susan Rosegrant and Shimon Peres. "Integrative Negotiations ." In Breakthrough International Negotiation: How Great Negotiators Transformed the World's Toughest Post‐Cold War Conflicts. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, 2001. Pages: 31‐33. This section of Breakthrough International Negotiation is about diagnosing the structure of negotiations and includes a description of what constitutes an integrative negotiation. Hall, Lavinia, ed. Negotiation: Strategies for Mutual Gain. London: Sage Publications, 1993. Negotiation: Strategies for Mutual Gain is a collection of essays which present key concepts and strategies intended to promote effective negotiation and mutually beneficial dispute resolution. Lewicki, Roy J., David Saunders and John Minton. "Strategy and Tactics of Integrative Bargaining." In Negotiation, 3rd Edition. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin‐McGraw Hill, 1999. Pages: 107‐138. This chapter offers an overview of the integrative negotiation process. It highlights key aspects and steps that must be included in order to carry out the process. As a general rule a certain process should be followed in order to achieve an integrated outcome, however, this chapter also explains that there are some intangible factors that contribute to whether parties are able to reach an integrative solution to their problems. Lastly, this chapter discusses why integrative negotiation is difficult to achieve. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Offline (Print) Sources Susskind, Lawrence and Patrick Field. Dealing With An Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach To Resolving Disputes. New York: Free Press, January 1, 1996. This practical book by Lawrence Susskind and Patrick Field analyzes scores of both private and public‐
sector cases, as well as crisis scenarios such as the Alaskan oil spill, the silicone breast implant controversy, and nuclear plant malfunction at Three Mile Island. All of these cases affected large groups of people who were extremely upset with the problems. The authors show how to manage the anger of the public sector and overcome resistance to both public and private initiatives through a mutual gains (integrative) approach, involving face‐to‐face negotiation. The Art and Science of Negotiation: How to Resolve Conflicts and Get the Best out of Bargaining. Cambridge: Belknap Press, January 1, 1998. This book is a serious text on negotiation. It offers a technical, theoretical examination of different types of negotiation situations, as well as attempting to connect theory to practice by providing specific case examples. Distributive Bargaining By
Brad Spangler
What is Distributive Bargaining? Distributive bargaining, also called "claiming value," "zerosum," or "win-lose" bargaining, is a competitive negotiation
strategy that is used to decide how to distribute a fixed
resource, such as money. The parties assume that there is not
enough to go around, and they cannot "expand the pie," so the
more one side gets, the less the other side gets.
Why Is Distributive Bargaining Important? Distributive bargaining is important because there are some
disputes that cannot be solved in any other way -- they are inherently zero-sum. If the stakes are
high, such conflicts can be very resistant to resolution. For example, if budgets in a government
agency must be cut 30 percent, and people's jobs are at stake, a decision about what to cut is
likely to be very difficult. If the cuts are small enough that the impact on employees will be
minor, however, such distributive decisions can be made more easily.
Even in cooperative negotiations, distributive bargaining will come into play. Distributive
bargaining and integrative bargaining are not mutually exclusive negotiation strategies.
Integrative bargaining is a good way to make the pie (joint value) as large as it can possibly be,
but ultimately the parties must distribute the value that was created. If they are able to expand the
pie enough, distribution is easy. If there is still not enough to give each side what it wants,
however, distributive negotiation will be more difficult.[1]
The Pros and Cons of Distributive Bargaining Some conflict resolution theorists believe that distributive bargaining is unnecessary. Any
conflict, they argue, may be solved cooperatively through integrative bargaining. For example, in
their book Getting to Yes, Fisher, Ury, and Patton argue that with creativity, disputants can
almost always work together to "expand the pie" and create outcomes that benefit both sides.[2]
Even when budgets have to be cut, they would argue, the parties make the decisions together so
that all sides get the best possible outcome. Distributive bargaining has also been criticized
because it tends to lead to destructive actions and sometimes forces the involved parties to focus
too much on their differences. If people want to maintain a good relationship with one another, it
is argued, they should take an integrative approach to distribution as well as expansion of the pie.
However, in cases where the "negotiator wants to maximize the value obtained in a single deal
and when the relationship with the other party is not important," distributive bargaining tactics
may be very useful.[3]
Process and Strategy in Distributive Negotiations The process of distributive negotiation involves the interplay of one's walk away value -- the
minimum or maximum one can accept before "walking away" from the deal -- and the
adversary's walk away value. The trick is to get an idea of your opponent's walk away value and
then try to negotiate an outcome that is closer to your own goals then theirs. Whether or not
parties achieve their goals in distributive bargaining depends on the strategies and tactics they
use.
Information is the key to gaining a strategic advantage in a distributive negotiation. You should
do your best to guard your information carefully and also try to get information out of your
opponent. To a large extent, your bargaining power depends on how clear you are about your
goals, alternatives, and walk away values and how much you know about your opponents'. Once
you know these values, you will be in a much stronger position to figure out when to concede
and when to hold firm in order to best influence the response of the other side.
[1] The idea that integrative or interest-based bargaining will always include distributive
bargaining too was originally put forth by David Lax and James Sebenius in The Manager as
Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain, 1986.
[2] Fisher, Ury, and Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In. (New
York: Penguin Books, 1991.)
[3] Ibid, p. 71.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources "Distributive Bargaining." , Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/distbarg.htm. This page explains and gives examples of distributive bargaining. Distributive bargaining is an alternative to principled negotiation in which the parties assume that the conflict is structured in a win‐lose way and the best strategy is to bargain over who is going to get how much. Distributive bargaining tends to be much more competitive and adversarial than principled negotiation, as each party tries to do better than the others in the negotiation. The page also includes suggestions for further reading on the topic. Kersten, Gregory. "Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations: Review and Revised Characterization ." , Available at: http://interneg.concordia.ca/interneg/research/papers/2000/02.pdf. This paper examines and critiques the assumed contradictions between integrative and distributive negotiations, in light of evidence from new negotiation support software. "Negotiations and Resolving Conflicts: An Overview." , Available at: http://web.cba.neu.edu/~ewertheim/interper/negot3.htm. This web page offers a well‐organized and fairly comprehensive overview of two primary negotiation strategies, integrated and distributive. It covers the key aspects of both approaches, provides information about creating and claiming value, and gives general advice about how to proceed in negotiation situations. Offline (Print) Sources Lax, David and James Sebenius. "Claiming Value." In The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain. New York, NY: Free Press, January 1, 1986. Pages: 117‐153. Chapter Six of this work, "Claiming Value," discusses the dynamics of distributive bargaining situations. It concentrates on tactical advice for how to succeed in this type of negotiation. Burgess, Heidi and Guy M. Burgess. "Definition of Distributive Bargaining ." In Encyclopedia of Conflict Resolution. ABC‐Clio, November 1997. Pages: 107‐108. This section of the Encyclopedia of Conflict Resolution offers a discussion of distributive bargaining. Watkins, Michael, Susan Rosegrant and Shimon Peres. "Distributive Negotiations." In Breakthrough International Negotiation: How Great Negotiators Transformed the World's Toughest Post‐Cold War Conflicts. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, 2001. Pages: 29‐31. This section of Breakthrough International Negotiation is about diagnosing the structure of negotiations and includes a description of what constitutes a distributive negotiation. Lewicki, Roy J., David Saunders and John Minton. "Strategy and Tactics of Distributive Bargaining." In Negotiation, 3rd Edition. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin‐McGraw Hill, 1999. Pages: 70‐106. This chapter describes the nature of distributive bargaining situations and offers advice on fundamental strategies and tactical tasks that will help one be effective in negotiation. The process of taking positions during bargaining and the role of concessions are thoroughly covered as are the issues of commitments and closing the deal. Lastly, the chapter describes hardball negotiation tactics for those wanting to really put pressure on their opponent. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Offline (Print) Sources "Two Parties, One Issue." In The Art and Science of Negotiation: How to Resolve Conflicts and Get the Best out of Bargaining. Cambridge: Belknap Press, January 1, 1998. Pages: 33‐130 . Part II of Raiffa's Art and Science of Negotiation, entitled "Two Parties, One Issue," outlines several distributive bargaining scenarios. part of the work covers seven different chapters and is sprinkled with specific examples of distributive bargaining. The examples paint a clear picture of ways in which distributive bargaining can play out in real‐life situations. Positional Bargaining By
Brad Spangler
What is Positional Bargaining? Positional bargaining is a negotiation strategy that involves holding on to a fixed idea, or
position, of what you want and arguing for it and it alone, regardless of any underlying interests.
The classic example of positional bargaining is the haggling that takes place between proprietor
and customer over the price of an item. The customer has a maximum amount she will pay and
the proprietor will only sell something over a certain minimum amount. Each side starts with an
extreme position, which in this case is a monetary value, and proceed from there to negotiate and
make concessions. Eventually a compromise may be reached. For example, a man offers a
vendor at the flea market $10 for a rug he has for sale. The vendor asks for $30, so the customer
offers $15. The merchant then says he will accept $25, but the customer says the highest he will
go is $20. The vendor agrees that $20 is acceptable and the sale is made at $20. So the customer
pays $10 more than he originally wanted and the vendor receives $10 less.
Why is Positional Bargaining Important? Positional bargaining tends to be the first strategy people adopt when entering a negotiation. This
is often problematic, because as the negotiation advances, the negotiators become more and more
committed to their positions, continually restating and defending them. A strong commitment to
defending a position usually leads to a lack of attention to both parties' underlying interests.
Therefore, any agreement that is reached will "probably reflect a mechanical splitting of the
difference between final positions rather than a solution carefully crafted to meet the legitimate
interests of the parties."[1]
Therefore, positional bargaining is often considered a less constructive and less efficient strategy
for negotiation than integrative negotiation.[2] Positional bargaining is less likely to result in a
win-win outcome and may also result in bad feelings between the parties, possibly arising out of
the adversarial, "you vs. me" approach or simply a result of one side not being truly satisfied
with their end of the outcome. Positional bargaining is inefficient in terms of the number of
decisions that must be made. The example above demonstrates the back-and-forth nature of
positional bargaining. The more extreme the opening positions are, the longer it will take to
reach a compromise.
Can Positional Bargaining Be Good? Despite criticism of positional bargaining, supporters of this negotiation strategy do exist.
It has been argued that consideration of all underlying interests in a negotiation process is
unnecessary. In fact it may sometimes be counterproductive. This is because of the distinction
and relationship between issues and interests. Issues are universal; they are shared between each
party in a conflict. Interests, on the other hand, are specific to each party: what the buyer of the
rug in the market wants is a bargain, what the seller wants is profit. This relationship is quite
simple. The problem arises when the issue at hand stirs up dramatically opposing interests
between the parties, a situation in which it would be very difficult to bring them into agreement.
If this is the case, it may sometimes be better to negotiate in terms of positions and go for a
compromise.
For example, two nations are in a dispute over water rights. However, they also differ on many
other issues, including trade, immigration, religion, and politics. Broadening the debate to
include these underlying interests will only polarize the sides further. In this case it may be much
easier to reach agreement if the two sides focus on the smaller issue of water, and set aside their
other concerns.This involves negotiating in terms of positions. This may help the sides reach a
compromise without creating any larger, interest-based conflicts. So, for issues that involve
extremely conflicting underlying interests, it may be best to just focus on positions and aim for
compromise.[3]
[1] Fisher and Ury outline the basics of this argument in Chapter 1 of Getting to Yes. Roger
Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. (New York:
Penguin Books, 1981), 5.
[2] Ibid, 4-7. The authors discuss the shortcomings of positional bargaining in this section.
[3] David A. Lax and James K. Sebenius, "Interests: The Measure of Negotiation." In
Negotiation Theory and Practice, eds. J. William Breslin and Jeffrey Z. Rubin, (Cambridge: The
Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, 1991), 165.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Helms, Wesley S. "Rubbing Your Nose Off At The Grindstone." , February 2003 Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/helmsW.cfm?nl=18. This article explores positional bargaining. The author argues, "positional bargaining only works in the short term, during times of crisis, and when it meets the needs of the bargainers constituency. Hard positional bargaining beyond the system's perceived crisis timeframe damages relationships and alienates the bargainer." Offline (Print) Sources Fisher, Roger, William L. Ury and Bruce Patton. "Don't Bargain Over Positions." In Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, 2nd Edition . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., April 1992. Pages: 3‐14. This chapter sets the stage for Fisher and Ury's classic explanation of principled negotiation (integrative bargaining). The authors explain what positional bargaining is and why this negotiation approach tends to produce unwise agreements. Lax, David and James Sebenius. "Interests: The Measure of Negotiation." Negoitation Theory and Practice , January 1, 1991. This essay discusses how the interests of negotiators themselves play into the negotiation process. The authors also make an effort to clearly distinguish various types of interests from one another as well as distinguish interests from issues and positions. They note that in some instances, commitment to a position is the most effective way to claim value in a dispute. Palmer, Michael. "Problem‐Solving Negotiation: What's In It for You and Your Clients." 26 Oct. Vermont B. Journal 1 , 2000. This article suggests that problem‐solving negotiation, as opposed to litigation, is a more advantageous strategy for lawyers to use when dealing with disputes. All too often, litigation, which involves positional bargaining, is not the most adequate tool in addressing clients' needs. Positional bargaining is faced with many limitations such as: failing to listen to each other, allowing a conflict to escalate into harsh words or even violence, and dismissing innovative ways to produce more value for each party. Creating and Claiming Value By
Brad Spangler
September 2003
What Does it Mean to Create or Claim Value? Creating and claiming value are two of the most fundamental aspects of negotiation strategy that
exist in tension with one another. In any negotiation, the parties must decide whether to be
competitive, cooperative, or some of both. (David Lax and James Sebenius call this the
"negotiator's dilemma."[1] It is similar to the "prisoners' dilemma" in game theory, because the
best outcome for one person is not necessarily the best for both, but if both pursue their best
option, they will often both get the worst outcome. This is explained further below, and in the
prisoners' dilemma essay.)
Value is created (or the "pie is enlarged") in negotiations through the cooperative process of
integrative or interest-based bargaining. This means that the parties in a dispute have managed to
find ways to increase the amount of beneficial goods (things they want or that will make their
situation better than before) that will be divided between them. This may also be called "joint
value" or "joint gains," meaning that new developments are considered improvements by both
sides.
The primary way to create value is to focus on the underlying interests of the disputing parties -why do they want what they want? By sharing information openly and communicating with one
another, the parties work to find shared interests and create joint value. Creating value makes it
more likely that both sides will get something they want out of the negotiation. This type of
mutually-beneficial outcome is called a "win-win" solution.
The competitive process of claiming value involves dividing up a "fixed pie," or the total amount
of value available to the disputing parties. This process is most closely associated with
distributive bargaining, in which each side tries to get as much of the pie as possible. The more
one side claims, the less the other side gets. This is also known as a "win-lose" negotiation. To
claim value in a negotiation, you use competitive tactics to try to convince the other side that he
wants what you have to offer much more than you want what he has. Some tactics for "winning"
at distributive negotiation include starting high; conceding slowly; exaggerating the value of
your concessions; minimizing the value of the other's concessions; concealing information;
arguing forcefully for principles that imply favorable settlements; making commitments to
accept only highly favorable agreements; and being willing to outwait your opponent.[2]
The Link Between Creating and Claiming Value Davis Lax and James Sebenius argue that creating value and claiming value are linked activities.
Creating new value improves both parties' outcomes. However, having created new value,
negotiators must still divide the resulting "pie." Unfortunately, the cooperative strategies needed
to create value tend to undermine the competitive strategies used to claim value (and vice versa).
The exaggeration and concealment needed for effective competition is directly opposed to the
open sharing of information needed to find mutual benefits. On the other hand, taking an open
cooperative approach makes one vulnerable to the hard bargaining tactics of a competitive
negotiator.[3] Therefore, if both parties cooperate, the result is usually good, while if one
cooperates and the other competes, the competitor usually does better. However, if both
compete, they usually come out worse than they would if both cooperated -- which is the same
"payoff structure" as that of the prisoners' dilemma game. The assumption, however, is that
claiming value in integrative (i.e., cooperative) situations is more likely to be balanced. This is
because the parties are expected to develop cooperative relationships and communicate freely,
which is not generally allowed in prisoners' dilemma games.
[1] Lax, David and James Sebenius. "The Manager as Negotiator: The Negotiator's Dilemma:
Creating and Claiming Value," in Goldberg, Stephen, Frank Sander and Nancy Rogers, eds.
Dispute Resolution. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co., 1992. 49-62.
[2] The listed strategies were drawn from: David Lax and James K. Sebenius, The Manager as
Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain. (New York: Free Press, 1986),
30-32.
[3] Ibid.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources The Art of Getting the Best Deal. Financial Times. Available at: Click here for more info. This article outlines some of the basic steps of a business negotiation, including determining BATNAs and identifying a zone of possible agreement. Glaser, Tanya. "Creating and Claiming Value‐‐Summary." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/articlesummary/10350/. This page is a summary of D. Lax's and J. Sebenius's article, The Manager as Negotiator: The Negotiator's Dilemma: Creating and Claiming Value. Lax and Sebenius argue that negotiation necessarily includes both cooperative and competitive elements, and that these elements exist in tension. Negotiators face a dilemma in deciding whether to pursue a cooperative or a competitive strategy. The authors suggest strategies to resolve this dilemma, and ways to encourage cooperative approaches to creating mutually beneficial outcomes. "Distributive Bargaining." , Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/distbarg.htm. This page explains and gives examples of distributive bargaining. Distributive bargaining is an alternative to principled negotiation in which the parties assume that the conflict is structured in a win‐lose way and the best strategy is to bargain over who is going to get how much. Distributive bargaining tends to be much more competitive and adversarial than principled negotiation, as each party tries to do better than the others in the negotiation. The page also includes suggestions for further reading on the topic. "Negotiations and Resolving Conflicts: An Overview." , Available at: http://web.cba.neu.edu/~ewertheim/interper/negot3.htm. This web page offers a well‐organized and fairly comprehensive overview of the primary negotiation strategies. It covers the key aspects of integrative and distributive bargaining or claiming value, and provides other general advice about how to proceed in negotiation situations. Offline (Print) Sources Lax, David and James Sebenius. "Claiming Value." In The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain. New York, NY: Free Press, January 1, 1986. Pages: 117‐153. Chapter Six of this work, "Claiming Value," discusses the dynamics of distributive bargaining situations. It concentrates on tactical advice for how to succeed in this type of negotiation. Lax, David and James Sebenius. "Creating Value." In The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain. New York, NY: Free Press, January 1, 1986. Pages: 88‐116. Chapter Five of this work, "Creating Value," discusses the dynamics of integrative bargaining situations and various ways in which parties may identify common interests. It concentrates on tactical advice for how to succeed in this type of negotiation. Lum, Grande, Irma Tyler‐Wood and Anthony Wanis‐St. John. Expand the Pie: How to Create More Value in Any Negotiation. Seattle, WA: Castle Pacific Publishing Company, December 2002. This work focuses specifically on techniques for creating value, or exapnding the pie in negotiations so as to increase the potential for win‐win outcomes. The work is based on the experiences of the authors who are professional business negotiators. It offers a great deal of practical advice on how to successfully carry out collaborative negotiations. Lewicki, Roy J., David Saunders and John Minton. "Strategy and Tactics of Distributive Bargaining." In Negotiation, 3rd Edition. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin‐McGraw Hill, 1999. Pages: 70‐106. This chapter describes the nature of distributive bargaining situations and offers advice on fundamental strategies and tactical tasks that will help one effectively claim value in negotiation. The process of taking positions during bargaining and the role of concessions are thoroughly covered as are the issues of commitments and closing the deal. Lastly, the chapter describes hardball negotiation tactics for those wanting to really put pressure on their opponent. Lewicki, Roy J., David Saunders and John Minton. "Strategy and Tactics of Integrative Bargaining." In Negotiation, 3rd Edition. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin‐McGraw Hill, 1999. Pages: 107‐138. This chapter offers an overview of the integrative negotiation process, which is essentially a process of creating value or options for the disputants' mutual gain. The piece highlights key aspects and steps that must be included in order to carry out the process. As a general rule a certain should be followed in order to achieve an integrated outcome, however, this chapter also explains that there are some intangible factors that contribute to whether parties are able to reach an integrative solution to their problems. Lastly, this chapter discusses why integrative negotiation is difficult to achieve. Lax, David and James Sebenius. "The Negotiator's Dilemma: Creating and Claiming Value." In The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain. New York, NY: Free Press, January 1, 1986. Pages: 29‐45. This chapter focuses specifically on the tension between cooperation and competition in negotiation. In order to achieve anything the parties must be somewhat cooperative, but to advance their own interests they must also behave competitively. Finding a balance between these two approaches is the key to successful negotiation. Unit IX
When Negotiation Alone Doesn't Work
Sometimes, negotiation alone is not enough to resolve a dispute. In such cases, assistance can be
brought in — in the form of mediation, arbitration, or other third party intervention, or other
techniques that seek goals other than resolution. This unit explores some of those options.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a term generally used to refer to informal dispute
resolution processes in which the parties meet with a professional third party who helps
them resolve their dispute.
Facilitation
Facilitation is a process in which a neutral person helps a group work together more
effectively. Good facilitators can help groups stay on task and be more creative, efficient,
and productive.
Mediation
Mediation is a conflict resolution process in which a third party assists the disputants to
communicate better, analyze their conflicts and their options, and develop a mutually
satisfactory solution.
Frames, Framing, and Reframing
Frames are the way we see things and define what we see. Framing can be a significant
impediment to conflict resolution, and reframing an important part of finding a solution.
Bernard Mayer wrote, "The art of reframing is to maintain the conflict in all its richness
but to help people look at it in a more open-minded and hopeful way." This essay
explains how that can be done.
Arbitration
Arbitration is a method of resolving a dispute in which the disputants present their case to
an impartial third party, who then makes a decision for them which resolves the conflict.
This decision is usually binding. Arbitration differs from mediation, in which a third
party simply helps the disputants develop a solution on their own.
Adjudication
Adjudication is a judicial procedure for resolving a dispute. In the context of ADR, it
usually means the traditional court-based litigation process.
Hybrid Processes
A hybrid dispute resolution process combines elements of two or more traditionally
separate processes into one. Hybrid processes are generally used when parties believe a
dispute requires elements of multiple processes and when a practitioner is skillful enough
to fill two roles.
Grievance Procedures
Grievance procedures are a standardized set of procedures to follow when someone has a
complaint or a problem. These are frequently used in workplace conflicts. When used
effectively, they can significantly reduce the outbreak of intractable conflict.
Consensus Building
Consensus building is used to settle conflicts that involve multiple parties and
complicated issues. The approach seeks to transform adversarial confrontations into a
cooperative search for information and solutions that meet all parties' interests and needs.
Unit IX Assignment:
Find a conflict or dispute that is making a lot of news. Write a 2-3 page paper that discusses the
following questions:
1. How do the different sides frame the conflict?
2. If you were a mediator, how might you try to get them to reframe it?
3. Do you see a possible role for a third party in this conflict? What kind? What might
he/she do?
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) By
Brad Spangler
What is Alternative Dispute Resolution? "Alternative dispute resolution" (ADR) is a term generally used to refer to informal dispute
resolution processes in which the parties meet with a professional third party who helps them
resolve their dispute in a way that is less formal and often more consensual than is done in the
courts. While the most common forms of ADR are mediation and arbitration, there are many
other forms: judicial settlement conferences, fact-finding, ombudsmen, special masters, etc.
Though often voluntary, ADR is sometimes mandated by the courts, which require that
disputants try mediation before they take their case to court
Brief History of ADR Although mediation goes back hundreds of years, alternative dispute resolution has grown
rapidly in the United States since the political and civil conflicts of the 1960s. The introduction
of new laws protecting individual rights, as well as less tolerance for discrimination and
injustice, led more people to file lawsuits in order to settle conflicts.[1] For example, the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 outlawed "discrimination in employment or public accommodations on the
basis of race, sex, or national origin."[2] Laws such as this gave people new grounds for seeking
compensation for ill treatment. At the same time, the women's movement and the environmental
movements were growing as well, leading to another host of court cases. The result of all these
changes was a significant increase in the number of lawsuits being filed in U.S. courts.
Eventually the system became overloaded with cases, resulting in long delays and sometimes
procedural errors.[3] Processes like mediation and arbitration soon became popular ways to deal
with a variety of conflicts, because they helped relieve pressure on the overburdened court
system.
Basic ADR Processes Today, ADR is used to settle a variety of disputes in American institutions, including the family, churches, schools, the workplace, government agencies, and the courts.[4] ADR is not widely used in cases of intractable conflict until those conflicts seem to become
ready (some say "ripe") for resolution. This sometimes happens when the conflict reaches a
hurting stalemate -- a situation where it becomes clear that neither side can win; yet, they are
being substantially hurt by continuing the struggle.
Ripeness is crucial for ADR processes to work effectively, and ADR has been used in
appropriate cases. For example:
•
•
•
•
Arbitration and negotiation have become common ways to resolve difficult international business disputes; Mediation and arbitration are now commonly used to settle labor‐management disputes that often used to seem like intractable situations (See the essay on formerly intractable conflicts.); International mediation has been used to resolve difficult international and ethnic conflicts, with varying degrees of success; Consensus building has become a popular process for dealing with public‐policy disputes, especially intractable environmental disputes. General Advantages and Disadvantages of ADR For many reasons, advocates of ADR believe that it is superior to lawsuits and litigation. First,
ADR is generally faster and less expensive. It is based on more direct participation by the
disputants, rather than being run by lawyers, judges, and the state. In most ADR processes, the
disputants outline the process they will use and define the substance of the agreements. This type
of involvement is believed to increase people's satisfaction with the outcomes, as well as their
compliance with the agreements reached.[5]
Most ADR processes are based on an integrative approach. They are more cooperative and less
competitive than adversarial court-based methods like litigation. For this reason, ADR tends to
generate less escalation and ill will between parties. In fact, participating in an ADR process will
often ultimately improve, rather than worsen, the relationship between the disputing parties. This
is a key advantage in situations where the parties must continue to interact after settlement is
reached, such as in child custody or labor management cases.[6]
ADR does have many potential advantages, but there are also some possible drawbacks and
criticisms of pursuing alternatives to court-based adjudication. Some critics have concerns about
the legitimacy of ADR outcomes, charging that ADR provides "second-class justice." It is
argued that people who cannot afford to go to court are those most likely to use ADR procedures.
As a result, these people are less likely to truly "win" a case because of the cooperative nature of
ADR.[7]
Similarly, critics believe that ADR encourages compromise. Compromise can be a good way to
settle some disputes, but it is not appropriate for others. In serious justice conflicts and cases of
intolerable moral difference, compromise is simply not an option because the issues mean too
much to the disputants. Another concern is that ADR settlements are private and are not in the
public record or exposed to public scrutiny. This could be cause for concern in some cases. For
example, using ADR to settle out of court could allow a company to resolve many instances of a
defective product harming consumers, without the issue getting any public exposure. On the
other hand, a court ruling could force the company to fix all problems associated with the bad
product or even to remove it from the market. [8]
[1] Stephen B. Goldberg and others, Dispute Resolution (Boston: Little, Brown and Company,
1985), 3.
[2] Ibid., 4.
[3] Ibid., 4.
[4] Ibid., 4.
[5] Ibid., 8-9.
[6] Ibid., 12.
[7] Ibid., 9.
[8] Ibid., 9.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Continuum of Dispute Resolution Process. Bickerman Dispute Resolution Group, PLLC. Available at: http://www.bickerman.com/chart.shtml. This site has an interactive continuum graph that lists and defines dispute resolution processes including negotiation, fact‐finding, mediation, arbitration, mini‐trial, and court adjudication. Krivis, Jeffrey. Desktop Guide to Alternative Dispute Resolution. Available at: http://www.firstmediation.com/desktopguide/index.htm. This guide provides clear and concise definitions of the following dispute resolution terms and procedures: mediation, negotiation, arbitration, mini‐trial, litigation, confidential listener, the language of ADR, voluntary settlement, dispute management model, and hybrid/combined procedure. "History of Alternative Dispute Resolution." , Available at: http://www.mediation.com/HTML/history.html. This piece provides a brief explanation of arbitration and mediation and the historical trajectory of their use for resolving disputes. "Manual of Dispute Resolution: ADR Law and Practice ‐ Book Summary." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10157/. This summary outlines Edward A. Dauer's, Manual of Dispute Resolution: ADR Law and Practice. This work is intended to provide ADR practitioners with a broad and accessible treatment of the law and the practice of alternative dispute resolution. (Newer 2002 edition also in print.) Morris, Catherine. Ways of Addressing Conflicts or Processing Disputes. Peacemakers Trust. Available at: http://www.peacemakers.ca/publications/ADRdefinitions.html#ways. This site offers a brief description of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and defines specific ADR processes including, negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and peacebuilding. Grant, Leslie. "What is Arbitration?." , Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/grant.cfm. This article outlines the general principles of arbitration, the different types of arbitration and the advantages it has over other kinds of conflict resolution processes. Arbitration is one of the major types of ADR. Offline (Print) Sources Ware, Stephen J. Alternative Dispute Resolution. West Wadsworth, February 1, 2001. "Provides a clear and reliable statement of the law and concepts central to ADR (arbitration, negotiation, mediation and other processes). Its thorough coverage of arbitration law renders this challenging and rapidly‐changing body of statutes and case law accessible to the student. The chapters on negotiation and mediation treat the subjects from the perspectives of theory, practice and legal doctrine." ‐ Editorial Review Atlas, Nancy F., Steven K. Huber and E. Wendy Trachte‐Huber, eds. Alternative Dispute Resolution: The Litigator's Handbook. American Bar Association Publishing, February 1, 2000. This work, written for litigators, is a guide to the variety of practices that make up alternative dispute resolution and the issues that surround them. The book was written by experienced trial lawyers and third‐party neutrals and thus provides the reader with the information needed to evaluate each technique and successfully apply them to their cases, when appropriate. Burton, John W. "Conflict Resolution as a political philosophy." In Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application. Edited by der Merwe, Hugo van and Dennis J.D. Sandole, eds. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1993. The author looks at new techniques have that been developed in dispute managment in recent years. Conflict resolution has not received as much attention though. It is capable of dealing with both domestic and international conflicts, as well as in operating in different economic and political systems. But these are not the main tasks of conflict resolution. The major promise of it is conflict provention. Both goals promote conditions for peaceful transformation of the societies toward social harmony. Costello, Edward J. Controlling Conflict: Alternative Dispute Resolution for Business. Chicago: CCH, 1996. This is a straight‐forward description of ways in which mediation, arbitration, and other forms of ADR can be used to help resolve business disputes. Yarn, Douglas H. "Definition of Alternative Dispute Resolution." In Dictionary of Conflict Resolution. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass, September 1, 1999. Pages: 17‐19. This excerpt of the Dictionary of Conflict Resolution provides a discussion of the various ways to define and conceive of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Burgess, Heidi and Guy M. Burgess. "Discussion of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)." In Encyclopedia of Conflict Resolution. ABC‐Clio, November 1997. Pages: 8‐13. This excerpt of the Encyclopedia of Conflict Resolution presents a clear, straightforward discussion of the history and key characteristics of alternative dispute resolution. Included are sections on barriers to the use of ADR, ethical issues, and institutionalization of ADR processes. Goldberg, Stephen B., Nancy H. Rogers and Frank E.A. Sander. Dispute Resolution: Negotiation, Mediation and other Processes, 3rd Edition. Aspen, CO: Aspen Publishers, Inc., June 1999. This 3rd edition of Dispute Resolution: Negotiation, Mediation, and Other Processes gives an overview of dispute resolution processes, looks at dispute resolution and the justice system, and examines the future of ADR. The work is comprised of excerpts from a large number of key works in the dispute resolution field. Patterson, Susan and Grant Seabolt. Essentials of Alternative Dispute Resolution. Pearson Publications Company, March 1, 1997. This book covers major aspects of ADR including ADR vs. litigation, negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and as well as trial‐like ADR, ethics of ADR, and the future of ADR. Dauer, Edward A. Manual of Dispute Resolution: ADR Law and Practice, Vol. 1. Colorado Springs, CO: McGraw‐Hill, Inc., May 1994. Manual of Dispute Resolution: ADR Law and Practice provides "the practitioner with a broad and accessible treatment of the law and the practice of dispute resolution. Its principal subject matter is alternative dispute resolution (ADR), a term that covers a large variety of procedures useful for resolving clients' problems within the law. The manual's primary focus is on the representation of clients through the use of those procedures.... [This is ] a guide to the selection of the process, to the representation of clients within the chosen process, and to the most common and practical legal considerations that may be encountered along the way" (Dauer, 1994, pp. 1‐1‐‐1‐2). (Newer 2000 edition also in print.) Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Consensus‐Building Principles. Available at: http://www.resolv.org/articles/princ.htm. This article describes some of the basic principles of consensus‐building as a method of dispute resolution. Krikorian, Adrienne L. Litigate Or Mediate?: Mediation As An Alternative To Lawsuits. Mediate.com. Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/krikorian.cfm. This article answers a few questions about mediation: What is mediation?; Who can mediate a case?; Should I mediate or litigate my case?; Will the court make me mediate?; How do I start the mediation process?; What if mediation does not settle my case?; and What is the secret to a successful mediation?
Offline (Print) Sources Dunlop, John Thomas and Arnold M. Zack. Mediation and Arbitration of Employment Disputes. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, January 1, 1997. This book examines the process of arbitration in the workplace. It also outlines a plan for initiating mediation and arbitration in a dispute resolution system. Facilitation By
Brad Spangler
What is Facilitation? "Facilitation" is a term that means different things to different people. In the context of U.S.
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) facilitation (or group facilitation) is generally considered to
be a process in which a neutral person helps a group work together more effectively. Facilitators
may work with small groups within an organization, or with representatives of different
organizations who are working together in a collaborative or consensus-building process.
The facilitator, in this context, may be internal or
external (that is, brought in from an outside
organization). Either way, he or she must be
acceptable to all members of the group. Such
facilitators are process leaders only -- they have no
decision-making authority, nor do they contribute
Additional insights into facilitation to the substance of the discussion. The facilitator's http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/audio/10404
job is to lead the group process; to help them
improve the way they communicate, examine and
solve problems, and make decisions.[1] Good facilitators can help groups stay on task, be more
creative, efficient, and productive than they would be without such help.
Core Values of Facilitation According to Roger Schwartz, there are three core values that guide the practice of facilitation:
valid information, free and informed choice, and internal commitment to those choices.[3] Valid
information means that everyone involved shares all information relevant to an issue. It also
means that people understand the information and its implications. Free and informed choice
means that participants have the ability to define their own goals and ways of achieving them. A
facilitator can help the parties determine or alter their goals, and assess whether a particular
option or decision meets those goals. But the ultimate decisions are up to the parties themselves.
Internal commitment to the choice means that people feel personally responsible for the choices
they make. This type of commitment results because people are happy with the decision and their
involvement in it, not because there is any possibility of reward or punishment for supporting it - other than the benefits inherent in the agreement itself.[4]
Put together, these core values reinforce each other. To make an informed choice, people must
have valid information. When people make free and informed decisions, they become internally
committed to them. When people are committed to a decision, they are likely to make sure that
the decision is implemented effectively.[5]
Role of the Facilitator It is the facilitator's role to help the group design its meetings in a way that is consistent with the
establish ground rules for an effective process.[6] Ground rules are the rules of conduct or
behavioral guidelines that members of the group agree on before proceeding with their
meeting.[7] They are based on an assumption of equality and fairness. The idea is that no
individual is permitted to dominate a discussion or hold special privilege.
There are generally three kinds of ground rules. The first kind defines the behavior of
participants; for example, "individuals will treat each other with respect." The second kind
applies to procedures to be used by the group, such as "all decisions will be made by consensus."
The last kind of ground rule may also define the boundaries of discussions on certain issues, for
example, "discussion today will focus solely on the issue of water usage, and will not go into a
discussion of mineral rights."[8]
Key Facilitation Skills and Methods Facilitators must have a variety of skills and techniques to be effective. Strong verbal and
analytical skills are essential. Facilitators must know what questions to ask, when to ask them,
and how questions should be structured to get good answers without defensiveness. Facilitators
must know how to probe for more information when the initial answers are not sufficient. They
must also know how to rephrase or "reframe" statements to enhance understanding, and to
highlight areas of agreement and disagreement as they develop. Other skills include redirecting
questions and comments, giving positive reinforcement, encouraging contrasting views,
including quieter members of the group, and dealing with domineering or hostile participants.
Nonverbal techniques include things such as eye contact, attentiveness, facial expressions, body
language, enthusiasm, and maintaining a positive outlook. A facilitator must also develop the
ability to read and analyze group dynamics on the spot in order to guide the group in a
productive way.[9]
There are also various recording techniques facilitators may employ, such as the use of large
newsprint notepads. Taking notes everyone can see during meetings helps establish a common
framework of understanding among the group and prevents people from repeating points. In
addition to basic note taking, facilitators use a variety of other visual methods that help generate,
organize, and evaluate data and ideas. Again, the main idea behind visual tools is that they allow
material to be displayed so all members of a group can see and work with the same information
at the same time.[10] This leads to greater efficiency and productivity for the group and leaves
less space for misunderstandings and conflicting recollections of what was discussed.
What are the Benefits of Facilitation? There are a number of common benefits to using facilitation skills in group settings:[11]
•
•
•
•
Group members are often more motivated to support the decisions made because of their investment in the process. The best efforts of groups usually produce better results than individual efforts. Increased participation within the group increases productivity. It is possible for managers and leaders to draw more on their staffs as resources, which contributes to overall organizational success. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Everyone involved has a chance to contribute and feels they are an integral part of the team. People realize and respect that responsibility for implementing decisions lies with everyone. Innovation and problem‐solving skills are built. People are encouraged to think and act for the overall benefit of the group. Higher‐quality decisions normally result. A forum for constructively resolving conflicts and clarifying misunderstandings is created. Negative attitudes, low morale, low involvement, and withholding of information are less likely because everyone is involved in a joint process. Why is Facilitation Important? Facilitation is important because meetings of large groups of people can be very hard to organize
as well as to control when they are in progress. First of all, a facilitator can help members of a
group get to know each other and learn to cooperate. Having a skilled facilitator run or lead a
meeting should also help focus the energy and thoughts of the various members on the task at
hand. Ideally, the group facilitator is someone who is not interested in the outcome of the
meeting (decision-making). Therefore he or she can fully concentrate on how members of the
group are working together and help the group work toward their goals, without bias. As a result,
facilitation can be extremely useful in helping groups develop consensus on issues.
Facilitation has become a more and more important communication skill in recent times. Many
businesses and organizations have restructured, giving more power to a wider range of
employees. Companies and organizations are relying more heavily on the input of individual
employees in a broad variety of decisions. In addition, professionals in many areas are also
increasingly being asked to work as members of groups. Facilitation is therefore becoming a
critical skill for coordinating the ideas and contributions of diverse sets of people within
organizations. In today's organizations, facilitators play an essential role in discussions,
meetings, teamwork, and overall organizational effectiveness.[12]
[1] Schwartz, Roger M. The Skilled Facilitator: Practical Wisdom for Developing Effective
Groups. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994), 4.
[2] Nita Yawanarajah, Political Affairs Officer and Project Manager for the UN Department of
Political Affairs Peacemaking Databank Project: UN Peacemaker (
www.un.org/peacemaker).UN Peacemaker is a publicly available website on the United
Nations'experience in peacemaking and mediation.
[3] Schwartz, Roger M. The Skilled Facilitator: Practical Wisdom for Developing Effective
Groups. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994), 8.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid, 10.
[7] Burgess, Heidi and Guy M. Burgess. Encyclopedia of Conflict Resolution. (Denver: ABCCLIO, 1997), 139.
[8] Carpenter, Susan L. and W.J.D. Kennedy. Managing Public Disputes. (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1988), 118-119.
[9] The ideas in this paragraph were primarily drawn from: Rees, Fran. The Facilitator
Excellence Handbook: Helping People Work Creatively and Productively Together. (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998)
[10] Ibid.
[11] The bullet points listed in this section are drawn from Fran Rees's list of facilitation's
benefits. Rees, Fran. The Facilitator Excellence Handbook: Helping People Work Creatively and
Productively Together. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998), 13.
[12] Rees, Fran. The Facilitator Excellence Handbook: Helping People Work Creatively and
Productively Together. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998), 3.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Conflict Research Consortium Staff. "Making Meetings Work : Achieving High Quality Group Decisions ‐‐ Book Summary." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10585/. This is a summary of Making Meetings Work, by John E. Tropman. The book offers a set of principles and instructions for managing successful, productive meetings. This book aims to enable the reader to lead effective, enjoyable meetings which produce lasting high quality decisions. (This summary refers to the first edition of the book.) Offline (Print) Sources "Benefits of Facilitation in Groups." In The Facilitator Excellence Handbook: Helping People Work Creatively and Productively Together. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass/Pfeiffer, 1998. Pages: 13. This page provides a bulleted list of the benefits using facilitation skills in group settings. Burgess, Heidi and Guy M. Burgess. "Definition of Facilitation ." In Encyclopedia of Conflict Resolution. ABC‐Clio, November 1997. Pages: 121‐122. This section of the Encyclopedia of Conflict Resolution provides a definition and brief discussion of facilitation. Making Meetings Work : Achieving High Quality Group Decisions. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, February 2003. Making Meetings Work offers a set of principles and instructions for managing successful, productive meetings. This book aims to enable the reader to lead effective, enjoyable meetings which produce lasting high quality decisions The Facilitator Excellence Handbook: Helping People Work Creatively and Productively Together. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass/Pfeiffer, 1998. This book provides a clear discussion of facilitation and the skills involved in helping groups work effectively together. The author outlines basic facilitation skills, an array of specific methods and tools, and ways to design facilitations. The book also discusses the "artistic" aspects of facilitation. Schwartz, Roger M. The Skilled Facilitator: Practical Wisdom for Developing Effective Groups. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, April 1, 1994. This book provides consultants, managers, and leaders with a practical reference for guiding groups toward achieving their creative and problem‐solving goals. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Melamed, James C. "Mediating Support Issues." , 1900 Available at: http://www.mediate.com/divorce/pg75.cfm. This article examines the issue of child and spousal support. It explains how mediators calculate support amounts and gives examines of some guidelines and forms used in divorce mediation. Offline (Print) Sources Carpenter, Susan L. and W. J. D. Kennedy. "Examples of the Facilitator's Role." In Managing Public Disputes: A Practical Guide for Professionals in Government, Business and Citizen's Groups. John Wiley & Sons, July 31, 2001. Pages: 31‐32, 33‐34, 37‐38, 42‐43. These excerpts of Managing Public Disputes provide examples of the role that facilitators can play in orchestrating communication between disputing parties in dispute resolution processes. The case examples in this chapter cover several public dispute situations in which a facilitator was required to increase understanding between parties. Doyle, Michael W. and David A. Straus. How to Make Meetings Work: The New Interaction Method. Berkley Publishing Group, September 1, 1993. This book discusses the Interaction Method for organizing and conducting meetings. The interaction method, which is a certain way of facilitating, has been tested on more than 10,000 participants and has effectively demonstrated how to get more productivity out of meetings. Mediation By
Christopher Honeyman
September 2003
What Mediation Is:
Mediation is a process in which a third-party neutral assists in resolving a dispute between two or
more other parties. It is a non-adversarial approach to conflict resolution. The role of the
mediator is to facilitate communication between the parties, assist them in focusing on the real
issues of the dispute, and generate options that meet the interests or needs of all relevant parties
in an effort to resolve the conflict.
Unlike arbitration, where the intermediary listens to
the arguments of both sides and makes a decision
for the disputants, a mediator assists the parties to
develop a solution themselves. Although mediators
sometimes provide ideas, suggestions, or even
formal proposals for settlement, the mediator is
Additional insights into mediation primarily a "process person," helping the parties
http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/audio/10741
define the agenda, identify and reframe the issues,
communicate more effectively, find areas of
common ground, negotiate fairly, and hopefully, reach an agreement. A successful mediation
effort has an outcome that is accepted and owned by the parties themselves.
Where It is Used:
Mediation is widely used in all sorts of disputes, ranging from divorces to civil lawsuits to very
complex public policy problems to international conflicts. Many disputes that have not
responded to an initial attempt at negotiation can still be settled through mediation. Even when
conflicts are seemingly intractable, they sometimes yield to mediation. Mediation is of particular
importance in long-running, deep-rooted conflicts, as this type of conflict is rarely resolved
without such outside assistance. Even if the full range of grievances cannot be resolved,
mediation is often useful for dealing with particular limited aspects of the wider conflict.
How Mediation Works:
Although a mediator cannot force an outcome, the process is very often effective. The key is the
ability of the mediator to create a more productive discussion than the parties could have had by
themselves. To do this, mediators help the parties determine facts; they show empathy and
impartiality with the parties; and they help the parties generate new ideas. Mediators also
exercise political skill and use persuasion to get people to soften hardline positions. Often,
though not always, they have a lot of background knowledge of the issues and type of dispute.
Though many mediators are highly trained and experienced, not all are professionals, and they
come from many different walks of life.
Lawyers often believe that the purpose of mediation is rapid and efficient settlement of a
particular case. But others disagree. Sometimes the purpose of a mediation is more to improve
relationships among parties who will have to deal with each other again, or even to help them
learn how best to handle conflict with other parties in the future. Often, a mediator has to learn
which of these purposes is most important to the parties in a particular case, and tailor the service
to match, but different mediators tend to specialize in one variety of mediation or another.
(Mediation that focuses on settlement is sometimes termed problem-solving mediation;
mediation that focuses more on relationships is called transformative mediation.)
While many mediators pride themselves on their neutrality, some observers believe that it is
impossible any human being to be truly neutral. Others have concluded that even biased
mediators can be useful, as long as the bias is not hidden from any party and parties have an
opportunity to protect themselves against its effects. International mediations are often of this
type, because an effective international mediator is often a foreign minister or president of an
influential country, even though everyone understands that the mediator's country has interests of
its own. President Carter's mediation between Egypt and Israel was an example.
Example:
A high school student sits down with two others to help them stop fighting; many miles away,
the Secretary-General of the United Nations is chairing a meeting of 15 ambassadors who are
trying to avert a war. These two situations may not seem to have much in common. But both are
forms of mediation.
Application:
In virtually every situation where negotiation is not going well, or where for one reason or
another it seems impossible to get a real discussion going with the other party or parties, it's
worth asking whether bringing in someone else might at least help get communication going.
That someone else is likely to be, or act as, a mediator. While parties' understanding of this
process varies from setting to setting, in some places it is now routine to use mediators where
two decades ago there was no practice to speak of.? For example, the courts of the U.S. State of
Florida alone now refer approximately 150,000 cases per year to mediation, rather than
expecting the parties to fight their disputes out in trials or to work out settlements without thirdparty help. While most of these cases are likely relatively simple to resolve, routinizing
mediation is one way to prevent conflicts from becoming intractable.
More information on different kinds of mediation, and mediation of intractable disputes can be
found in associated essays:
•
•
•
•
•
Problem‐Solving Mediation Transformative Mediation Insider Partial Mediators Mediation Strategies and Techniques, and Trust in Mediation Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Offline (Print) Sources Cobb, Sara. "Empowerment and Mediation: A Narrative Perspective." 9:3, July 1993. The author investigates and critiques current concepts of empowerment, and current mediation practices designed to empower parties. She then suggests a narrative understanding of empowerment, and describes several mediation practices which follow from the narrative approach. Fisher, Roger, William L. Ury and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, 2nd Edition . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., April 1992. This is an updated version of Roger Fisher's and William Ury's classic 1981 text, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. In this bestseller, Fisher, Ury, and Patton describe what they call "principled negotiation", which is basically interest‐based bargaining with a few extra twists. Key ideas include: 1) separate the people from the problem; 2) negotiate interests, not positions; 3) look for mutually beneficial options; and 4) use objective criteria. This work is considered essential foundational reading for anyone interested in negotiation. Bercovitch, Jacob. "International Mediation and Dispute Settlement: Evaluating the Conditions for Successful Mediation." Negotiation Journal 7:1, January 1, 1991. This article focuses on international mediation and highlights, through an original data set, the determinants of successful mediation in international relations. Zartman, I. William and Saadia Touval. "International Mediation in the Post‐Cold War Era." In Turbulent Peace: The Challenges of Managing International Conflict. Edited by Crocker, Chester A., Fen Osler Hampson and Pamela Aall, eds. Washington, DC : United States Institute of Peace Press, September 1996. "Mediation is best thought of as a mode of negotiation in which a third party helps the parties find a solution which they cannot find by themselves." [p. 446] Zartman and Touval focus on mediation of violent, international, or civil conflicts. They describe why third‐parties decide to mediate, why and when conflicting parties accept mediation, and what factors produce effective mediation. Cloke, Kenneth. Mediating Dangerously: The Frontiers of Conflict Resolution (Reprint). San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass, 2001. This book offers new and experienced mediators a fresh vision of mediation practice. The central aim of the work is to examine the essence of the process, rather than the procedure itself. The challenge to mediate "on the edge" is posed by the author. He asks readers to question their own assumptions about how conflict should be handled as well as analyze the structures around them that may restrict the approaches available to them in addressing conflict. Cloke explores the deeper underpinnings of the transformational process of mediation in order to illuminate what exactly happens when people engage in the risky practices of forgiveness and honesty, and reveal their "authentic selves" to one another. Etzioni, Amitai. "Mediation as a World Role for the United States." In The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence. Edited by Weiner, Eugene, ed. New York: Continuum Publishing, 1998. The author examines the United States' potential to mediate international conflicts in the post‐Cold war era. He begins by noting that the U.S. has already served as mediator in a number of cases. Folberg, Jay and Alison Taylor. Mediation: A Comprehensive Guide to Resolving Conflicts Without Litigation. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, April 1, 1984. This book provides practical, how‐to advice for mediating a variety of conflicts, including those arising from divorces, custody and visitation decisions, family conflict, neighborhood grievances, educational disagreements, environmental disputes, and problems in the workplace. Matz, David E. "Mediator Pressure and Party Autonomy: Are They Consistent With Each Other?." 10:4, October 1994. The author observes that parties tend to be very resistant to movement. It is this inability to move which brings them to mediation. Yet the mediation literature stresses the extent to which parties may be influenced, directed and even coerced by mediators. Mediation theory emphasizes respect for party autonomy and the need to reach voluntary agreements. Greig, J. M. "Moments of Opportunity: Recognizing Conditions of Ripeness for International Mediation between Enduring Rivals." Journal of Conflict Resolution 45:6, December 1, 2001. This article examines the factors that influence both short term and long term mediation success. Noce, Dorothy J. Della. "Seeing Theory in Practice: An Analysis of Empathy in Mediation." 15:3, July 1999. The author asks whether and how ideology affects mediator practice. She describes the individualist ideology that supports problem‐solving approaches to mediation, and the relational ideology that informs transformative approaches. Moore, Christopher W. The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict, 2nd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, 1996. This book discusses the characteristics of mediation and the increasing breadth of situations in which mediation has come to be used for resolving disputes. It offers a multitude of practical advice for how to actually carry out the mediation process. It is one of the most comprehensive works on the subject. Bush, Robert A. Baruch and Joseph P. Folger. The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict Through Empowerment and Recognition. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass, September 1, 1994. This book is the seminal work on the subject of transformative mediation. In exploring the transformative potential of mediation, the authors contrast their perspective on the practice of mediation with the more traditional problem‐solving approach. They believe empowerment and recognition among participants, should be the primary goals of the mediation process. It is argued that these effects are more valuable in the long‐term than the immediate settlement of a dispute. Chupp, Mark . "When Mediation is Not Enough." 10:3, 1991. This article analyzes the value system that dominates the present field of mediation, the author concludes that the mediator's original goal of reconciliation has been lost. Throughout the years there has been a value shift in the mediation field which is reflected in the changing use of terminology from "reconciliation" to "conflict resolution" and to "conflict management". The model that he outlines in this article has a value of inner conflict and social structure transformation at the core and uses nonviolence as a technique of conflict regulation. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Irani, George E. "Islamic Mediation Techniques for Middle East Conflicts." , 1999 Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/mideast.cfm. The purpose of this essay is to explore and analyze non‐Western modes and rituals of conflict reduction in Arab‐Islamic societies. ‐ also published in Middle East Review of International Affairs vol.3 no.2 Offline (Print) Sources Hume, Cameron R. Ending Mozambique's War: The Role of Mediation and Good Offices. Herndon, VA: USIP Press, November 1, 1994. This first‐hand account of the Mozambique mediations offers intriguing details that illustrate the complexity of the multi‐track mediation process. Hume, who was a participant observer in the Rome‐
based peace talks, relates the stages of the process to the principles of conflict management, negotiation, and mediation in a clear and graceful style. He delineates the separate roles played by the parties themselves (the government and RENAMO), the outside governments that intervened, and the mediators, with a special focus on the unique element in this peace process: the involvement of a private voluntary organization, the Community of Sant'Egidio. Herding Cats: Multiparty Mediation in a Complex World. Herndon, VA: USIP Press, January 1, 2000. This major edited volume presents a broad look at the process of international mediation and the significant amount of complexity the process presents. The essays and case studies in this volume were written by experienced international mediators and include a combination of straightforward analysis and engaging narratives. Kolb, Deborah M. When Talk Works: Profiles of Mediators. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, August 1997. This book presents twelve in‐depth profiles of professional and volunteer mediators, revealing how experienced mediators handle a variety of situations. Frames, Framing and Reframing By
Sanda Kaufman
Michael Elliott
Deborah Shmueli
What Frames Are Frames are cognitive shortcuts that people use to help make
sense of complex information. Frames help us to interpret the
world around us and represent that world to others. They help us
organize complex phenomena into coherent, understandable
categories. When we label a phenomenon, we give meaning to
some aspects of what is observed, while discounting other
aspects because they appear irrelevant or counter-intuitive. Thus,
frames provide meaning through selective simplification, by
filtering people's perceptions and providing them with a field of
vision for a problem.
"A riot is at bottom the language of the unheard." ‐‐ Martin Luther King, Jr., American civil rights leader, 1967 "[Rioters] are lawbreakers, destroyers of constitutional rights and liberties and ultimately destroyers of a free America." ‐‐ Lyndon B. Johnson, American president, 1965
Frames can significantly affect the intractability of a conflict by
creating mutually incompatible interpretations of events. Because
frames are built upon underlying structures of beliefs, values, and
experiences, disputants often construct frames that differ in significant ways. In addition, frames
often exist prior to conscious processing of information for decision-making[1] and affect
subsequent individual decisions.[2] Thus, disputants are separated not only by differences in
interests, beliefs, and values, but also in how they perceive and understand the world, both at a
conscious and subconscious level.[3]
Framing involves both the construction of interpretive frames and their representation to others.
Disputants may use framing not only as an aid to interpreting events, but also to promote
strategic advantage.[4] Framing can be useful for rationalizing self-interest, convincing a broader
audience, building coalitions, or lending preferentiality to specific outcomes. As such, many
factors affect how people frame a conflict, which, in turn, influences the direction the conflict
takes.[5]
This essay explores the nature of frames and the framing process. It seeks to
•
•
•
•
•
clarify the basic concepts, present an overview of what is known about frames and framing and their impact on conflict dynamics, explore the forms of framing that are most significant to intractable conflicts, examine the potential for reframing and frame changes as part of a process of reconciliation or conflict resolution, and direct the reader to other web‐ and print‐based resources that can provide more detail. Definitions Differing conceptual frames held by the parties involved in a dispute form the basis on which
they act. Each party to a conflict has its own perception and understanding of their agenda, the
relevance of various issues, their priorities, and the opportunities and risks involved with
different choices. This assemblage of factors can be considered as a set of lenses, or filters,
through which the various parties view the conflict, and is called the frame or conceptual frame.
In the English language, the word "frame" can be used both as a verb (to frame) or as a noun (a
frame). As a noun, frame denotes the boundary within which the whole picture is displayed
(similar to a frame placed around a picture or painting), and is used as a tool for interpreting and
understanding the perceptions and underlying objectives of the various actors in the conflict. As
a verb, framing refers to the creation of frames, either from a simple reading of the situation or
through a deliberative, analytic, or strategic process.
The concept of frames has been developed as a tool for analysis in various fields, including
psychology and sociology,[6] business management,[7] artificial intelligence,[8] decisionmaking,[9] negotiation,[10] and environmental conflict management.[11] Relevant to
understanding conflict are definitions given by such scholars as Minsky,[12] Tannen,[13] and
Gray,[14] for whom frames are "cognitive structures held in memory and used to guide
interpretation of new experience." Furthermore, "parties rely on these mental structures to
interpret or make sense of ongoing events."[15] Frames are also defined as "collections of
perceptions and thoughts that people use to define a situation, organize information, and
determine what is important and what is not."[16] We create frames to name a situation in which
we find ourselves, to identify and interpret specific aspects that seem key to us in understanding
the situation, and to communicate that interpretation to others.[17]
Why are Frames Important? An essential element in conflict resolution is an
understanding of how frames affect conflict
development. In the context of a conflict, we create
Additional insights into frames, framing, and frames to help us understand why the conflict
reframing are exists, what actions are important to the conflict,
http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/audio/10481
why the parties act as they do, and how we should
act in response.[18] During the evolution of a
conflict, frames act as sieves through which information is gathered and analyzed, positions are
determined (including priorities, means, and solutions), and action plans developed. Depending
on the context, framing may be used to conceptualize and interpret, or to manipulate and
convince.
Putnam and Holmer[19] hold that framing and reframing are vital to the negotiation process and
are tied to information processing, message patterns, linguistic cues, and socially constructed
meanings. Knowing what types of frames are in use and how they are constructed allows one to
draw conclusions about how they affect the development of a conflict, and can be used to
influence it. Thus, analyzing the frames people use in a given conflict provides fresh insight and
better understanding of the conflict dynamics and development. With such insight, and with the
help of reframing, stakeholders may find new ways to reach agreements.
The Sources and Forms of Frames Many factors influence frames and their formation. Intractable disputes are usually associated
with a complex and reinforcing set of frames about oneself, the "others," risks, what information
should apply to the situation, and how decisions should be made. Their forms and most common
sources are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identity frames: Disputants view themselves as having particular identities in the context of specific conflict situations.[20] These identities spring from the individuals' self‐conception and group affiliations. The more central the challenge to one's sense of self, the more oppositional one is likely to act. Typical responses to threats to identity include ignoring information and perspectives that threaten the core identity, reinforcing affiliations with like‐minded groups, and negatively characterizing outsiders. Characterization frames: Disputants view others in the conflict as having particular characteristics. Closely related to stereotyping, characterization frames may be either positive or negative. Parties to intractable conflicts often construct characterization frames for others that significantly differ from how the other parties view themselves. Such characterizations often undermine the others' legitimacy, cast doubt on their motivations, or exploit their sensitivity. Characterization frames are also often linked to identity frames, serving to strengthen one's own identity while justifying your actions toward the other (e.g., for me to be a liberator, my opponent must be an oppressor). Power frames: Because intractable conflicts are often imbedded in struggles to alter existing institutions or decision‐making procedures, disputants' conceptions of power and social control play a significant role in conflict dynamics. Power frames help the disputant determine not only which forms of power are legitimate (e.g., governmental, legal, civil disobedience) but also the forms of power that are likely to advance one's own position (e.g., authority, resources, expertise, coalition‐building, threat, voice). Conflict management or process frames?: Conflict over how best to manage or resolve differences is central to many disputes. Depending on disputants' identity, characterization of other disputants, perceived power, and perception of the available options, conflict frames may impel parties to seek very different remedies in response to common problems. These remedies may range from actions as disparate as violence, civil disobedience, litigation, and negotiation. Because of the wide complexity of possible actions and the uncertainty of their consequences, groups with shared interests and values may draw significantly different conclusions as to the best course of action within a particular dispute.. Risk and information frames: Intractable disputes often involve expectations about future events, in which the events are risky and the likelihood of the events occurring is uncertain.[21] In such conditions, disputants often construct risk and information frames that yield highly variable assessments about the level and extent of a particular risk. Additionally, these frames indicate to the disputant which sources of information are reliable and which are not. Risk and information frames depend not just on the disputant's interests, but also on the disputant's training, expertise, level of exposure to the risk, familiarity with the risk, potential for catastrophic impacts associated with the risk, and degree to which the risk is dreaded. Loss versus gain frames: It is common for most parties to a conflict to focus on threats of potential loss rather than on opportunities for gains. People tend to react differently to a proposed action when its expected consequences are framed in terms of losses as opposed to gains, where preventing a perceived loss is often more salient and more highly valued than capturing a commensurate gain.[22] Thus, conflicts tend to reinforce a psychological barrier to resolution. Many other types of frames can be constructed, but these six categories stand out as particularly
applicable to intractable disputes.
Reframing Within processes of reconciliation, negotiation, or joint problem solving, explicit management of
frames, and the framing process may lead to important shifts in both the frames themselves and
in their impact on the conflict dynamics. This purposive management of frames is called
reframing. Use of frame analysis and reframing processes have the following goals:
•
•
•
•
to clarify or "refresh" the perception of the issues in dispute (in order to promote more productive information exchange and listening to ideas not previously considered, and to expand the framework of discussion and explore means of action or solutions not yet attempted); to sharpen the parties' understanding of their interests and how the modes of action they have chosen serve those interests (in order to examine potential processes for managing conflict more productively and to reconsider patterns of relationships among stakeholders); to identify those subjects which the involved parties view differently, even when the basis for the divergent frames are more fully understood (in order to identify opportunities for trade‐offs based on clearly understood differences); and to identify differences which cannot be bridged (in order to more fully appreciate conflict dynamics and to evaluate the potential for conflict reduction processes that do not violate these intractable differences, to determine the degree of importance attributed to these intractable differences in frames, and to seek ways to address them). Thus, reframing, stemming from stakeholders' understanding of their own as well as others'
expressed frames, may pave ways for resolving, or at least better managing, a dispute.
Figure 1: Frames and their role in conflict development
Figure 1 illustrates the roles frames and framing play in the dynamics of conflict development. It
demonstrates how a frame change (or reframing) may cause a shift in conflict development,
towards conflict management and/or resolution. Types and frame categories are numerous and
coined differently by researchers in various fields. The categories cited in this diagram are:
substance (reframing that affects how one views the world today or potential future states of the
world), process (reframing that affects how one interacts with others in the dispute), values
(reframing that allows parties to clarify the relationship between values and interests for both
themselves and for other parties), and phrasing (the language used by disputants to communicate
with one other).
Frame Analysis and Reframing as Conflict Management Tools Frame analysis can be used by both third party interveners and by individual stakeholders and
conveners to better understand conflict dynamics. Frame analysis has been used both
retrospectively (to understand past conflicts) and prospectively (as a tool for better managing an
existing conflict). Retrospectively, it seeks to better understand conflict dynamics in order to
glean lessons for the future. Prospectively, it advances consensus building in both the conflict
assessment and intervention stages.
Analytic techniques for frame analysis include interviewing the various stakeholders to ascertain
their perceptions and interpretations, feeding back to the parties the resulting analysis, and then
exploring with the parties the meaning and impact of these frames on the conflict dynamics.
Particularly within the framework of conflict assessments,[23] frame analysis and the resulting
understanding of frames can help the stakeholders to better grasp the conflict, including the
factors and contexts that can lead to changes within a frame or changes to the frames themselves.
In this sense, framing becomes a formative analytic technique.
In intractable conflicts, frames are often quite stable over time, even when specific individuals
move in and out of the conflict. This stability comes both because various frames held by an
individual tend to be self reinforcing and because frames are often shared within a community
and therefore socially reinforced through story-telling and shared perspectives. Yet research into
intractable conflicts suggests that in at least some conflicts, frames can be altered over time
through intentional interventions, and that the shift in frames helps to render disputes more
tractable.[24]
At the same time, research shows that reframing is often not easy for parties. It requires taking
on new perspectives, and often requires some degree of risk-taking on the part of the parties. As
such, reframing works best when changes in the context of the dispute can be made, such that
incentives to consider new perspectives increase, or in the context of careful and constructive
dialogue, with a strong focus on improving communication and building trust.
A number of strategies and techniques exist in the use of dialogue to reframe intractable
conflicts. These include:[25]
•
Reduce tension and manage the de‐escalation of hostility: techniques such as listening projects, study circles, and some forms of mediation seek to reduce tension by creating forums that promote more effective communication around a set of limited objectives. The forums focus explicitly on improving communications and reducing escalatory cycles that are often associated •
•
•
with mutually incompatible frames. Perspective taking: techniques such as acknowledging critical identities, imaging of identities and characterizations, narrative forums, and listening circles allow disputants to understand the conflict and its dynamics from the perspective of other disputants. These approaches are particularly geared toward better understanding of identity and characterization frames, in order to see oneself more objectively and the other party in a more positive manner. They seek to enable disputants to see the potential validity and credibility of other perspectives, and to examine the interplay between one's own frames and those of other disputants. Establish a common ground as a basis for agreement: techniques such as search for common ground and visioning/search processes enable reframing around a smaller set of issues. Common ground processes are used in highly divisive issues (such as abortion and ethnic disputes) and seek to explore areas of agreement and possible joint action between parties who normally focus on their differences, in order to open up communication between the parties. Search processes seek to identify desired futures in order to shift the focus from a short‐term perspective to a long‐term one. Enhance the desirability of options and alternatives: Several approaches exist that may enhance the desirability of alternative options when presented to parties with divergent frames. For a disputant to examine options from the perspective of other parties, he or she must understand the other parties' frames, and be able to view options from other perspectives. Third‐party interveners are often helpful in this regard. In addition, seeking to reframe perceptions of losses as gains can enhance the openness and creativity of parties to a dispute. Conclusion Frames play a significant role in perpetuating intractable conflict. As lenses through which
disputants interpret conflicts, frames limit the clarity of communication and the quality of
information, as well as instigate escalatory processes. These frames, imbedded in personal,
social, and institutional roles, are often quite stable over time, even through the ebb and flow of
many dispute episodes. As such, they contribute to the intractability of the conflict. In addition,
frames interact, often in ways that tend to reinforce the stability of other frames. Yet, in at least
some intractable conflicts, changes in the context of the dispute or purposive interventions
designed to alter frames have led to reframing that, in turn, has increased the tractability of the
conflict. Strategies to accomplish this reframing include frame analysis and the construction of
forums designed to enhance communication, understanding, and trust.
[1] Gray, B. and A. Donnellon, 1989. "An Interactive Theory of Reframing in Negotiation,"
unpublished manuscript. Pennsylvania State University, College of Business Administration.
[2] Sheppard, B.H., K. Blumenfeld-Jones and J.W. Minton, 1987. "To control or not to control:
Two models of conflict intervention," unpublished manuscript sited in Pinkley, 1990).
[3] Elliott, M., Gray, B., & Lewicki, R., 2003. Lessons learned about the framing of intractable
environmental conflicts. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Elliott (Eds.), Making sense of intractable
environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases (pp. 409-436), Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
[4] Kaufman, S. and J. Smith, 1999. "Framing and Reframing in Land Use Change Conflicts,"
Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol.16, no.2, Summer, pp. 164-180.
[5] Elliott, M., Kaufman, S., Gardner, R., and Burgess, G., 2002. "Teaching conflict Assessment
and frame analysis through interactive web-based simulations " The International Journal of
Conflict Management, 13:4, pp. 320-340.
[6] e.g. Taylor , D.E., 2000. "The Rise of the Environmental Justice Paradigm. Injustice Framing
and the Social Construction of Environmental Discourses," American Behavioral Scientist. 43
(4), pp. 508-580; and Gonos, G., 1997. "Situation" versus "frame": The "interactionist" and the
"structualist" analyses of everyday life," American Sociological Review, 42, pp. 854-867.
[7] Watzlawick, P., J. Weakland, and R. Fisch, 1974. Change, Principles of Problem Formation
and Problem Resolution, Norton & Company, Inc.; and Goldratt, E.M., 1990. What is this thing
called Theory of Constraints and how should it be implemented?, Corton-on-Hudson, NY: North
River Press, Inc.
[8] e.g., Minsky, M., 1975. "A Framework for Representing Knowledge," in Winston, P.H.( Ed.),
The Psychology of Computer Vision, New York, NY: McGraw Hill, pp. 177-211.
[9] e.g., Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under
Risk, Econometrica 47, pp. 263-289.
[10] e.g., Neale, M.A. and M.H. Bazerman, 1985. "The Effects of Framing and Negotiator
Overconfidence on Bargaining Behaviors and Outcomes," Academy of Management Journal 28,
pp. 34-49; Gray, B., 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems,
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publication; and Pinkley, R.L., 1990. "Dimensions of
Conflict Frame: Disputant Interpretations of Conflict," Journal of Applied Psychology 75, pp.
117-126.
[11] Lewicki, R., Gray, B., & Elliott, M., 2003. Making sense of intractable environmental
conflicts: Concepts and cases, Washington, D.C.: Island Press; Kaufman and Smith, 1999, op
cit.; and Vaughan, E. and M. Seifert, 1992. "Variability in the Framing of Risk Issues," Journal
of Social Issues 48 (4), pp. 119-135.
[12] Minsky, 1975, op cit.
[13] Tannen, D., 1979. "What's in a Frame? Surface Evidence of Underlying Expectations," In
Freedle, R. (ed.), New Dimensions in Discourse Processes, Norwood, NJ: Albex, pp. 137-181.
[14] Gray, B., 1997. "Framing and Reframing of Intractable Environmental Disputes," in
Lewicki, R., R. Bies, and B. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 6, p.
171.
[15] Gray 1997, ibid.
[16] Lewicki, R, Saunders, D, and Minton, J., 1999. Negotiation. Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill
Higher Education.
[17] Buechler, S., 2000. Social movements in advanced Capitalism. New York: Oxford
University Press.
[18] Gray, B., 2003. Framing of environmental disputes. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Elliott
(Eds.), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases (pp. 11-34),
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
[19] Putnam, L. and M. Holmer, 1992. "Framing, Reframing, and Issue Development", in
Putnam L. and Roloff, M.E. (Eds.), Communication and Negotiation, Newbury Park, CA: Sage,
Vol. 20. pp.128-155.
[20] Rothman, J., 1997. Resolving Identity-Based Conflict in Nations, Organizations, and
Communities, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
[21] Heimer, C.A., 1988. "Social Structures, Psychology and the Estimation of Risk," Annual
Review of Sociology 14, pp. 491-519.
[22] Kahneman & Tverski, 1979, op cit.; Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman, 1981. "The Framing of
Decisions and the Psychology of Choice," Science 211, pp. 453-458; Schweitzer , M.E. and L.A.
DeChurch, 2001. "Linking Frames in Negotiations: Gains, Losses and Conflict Frame
Adoption." International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 100-113.
[23] Shmueli, D. and M. Ben Gal, 2000. "Reframing of Protracted Environmental Disputes",
interim report to the Israeli Ministry of Environment, March (Hebrew); Shmueli, D. and M. Ben
Gal, 2001. "Conflict Assessment to Promote Dialogue between the Stakeholders involved in the
Dispute Surrounding the Treatment and Discharge of Industrial Wastes in the Lower Kishon
Basin," draft June, final November (Hebrew); and Shmueli, D. and M. Ben Gal, forthcoming.
"The Potential of Framing in Managing and Resolving Environmental Conflict." In E. Feitelson,
G. de Roo and D. Miller (Eds.), Advancing Sustainability at the Sub-National Level, Ashgate
Press.
[24] Elliott, M., Gray, B., & Lewicki, R., 2003. Lessons learned about the framing of intractable
environmental conflicts. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Elliott (Eds.), Making sense of intractable
environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases (pp. 409--436), Washington, D.C.: Island Press at
420.
[25] ibid, at 425-434.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Gray, Barbara, Ralph Hanke and Linda L. Putnam. Differential Framing of Environmental Disputes by Stakeholder Groups. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=320364. Abstract: This paper contributes to a developing literature on the role of framing in organizational settings and in protracted environmental disputes in particular. The paper identifies four frame types (risk, conflict management, power, and views of nature frames) that can be used to understand how disputants make sense of environmental conflicts and offers predictions about differential use of these four frames by environmental disputants. Our results substantiate some differences in the frames utilized by different stakeholder groups ‐ revealing predicable antagonisms as well as the presence of strange bedfellows. We link frame usage to the intractability of conflict and offer some recommendations for handling these frame‐based disputes. Finally, our results suggest that greater insight into environmental conflicts may be derived from understanding the patterns of frames held by disputants rather than concentrating solely on interest‐based stakeholder groupings. Reframing the Debate: The New Silent Majority. 2004. Available at: http://www.aworldofpossibilities.com/details.cfm?id=156. An interview with Lawrence Chickering, Celinda Lake, and George Lakoff. Our differences, amplified by power‐driven politicians and conflict‐driven media are threatening to divide and conquer us. But, in fact, we may well share more than we realize. Blanciak, Peter. "Reframing: The Essence of Mediation." , August 2002 Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/blanciak.cfm. This article explains why, and how mediators reframe conflicts. It also lists a number of techniques that a mediator can use to achieve this aim. "The Frame: An Introduction." , 1900 Available at: http://www.workingpsychology.com/frintro.html. A somewhat detailed discussion of framing. Conflict Research Consortium Staff. The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society‐‐Book Summary. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10065/. This is a summary of Kenneth Boulding's The Image. The book presents a new unifying concept through which a better understanding of individual behavior and social dynamics may be had. He proposes, in effect, a new theory of knowledge: knowledge as image. Treating Framing Problems. This page lists and defines several framing strategies that can be used to determine what a conflict is about and how it is being addressed. Offline (Print) Sources Gray, Barbara, Linda L. Putnam and R. Hanke. The Role of Framing in Intractable Conflicts. The Pennsylvania State University; Center for Research in Conflict and Negotiation. Ury, William L. "Change the Game: Don't Reject...Reframe." In Getting Past No: Negotiating With Difficult People. New York: Bantam Books, January 1, 1993. Pages: 59‐85. This chapter provides advice to people involved in dispute and/or conflict resolution practitioners, on how to go about reframing issues and statements that arise in the course of a negotiation. Ury describes various questions one may ask as well as tactics for effectively reframing contentious points, so that parties have a better chance at reaching agreement. Schon, Donald A. and Martin Rein. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books, 1994. This work focuses on the problem of intractable policy controversies. The work concentrates on the importance of frames and the notion that parties to policy controversies see issues, policies, and policy situations in different and conflicting ways that correspond to certain systems of belief and consequent modes of action. The authors outline a theoretical framework for thinking about these issues and employ multiple case studies to illustrate their innovative approach to solving policy disputes. The approach emphasizes the practice of reframing issues as a way toward resolution. . Mayer, Bernard. "Framing a Conflict for Resolution." In The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution: A Practitioner's Guide. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, 2000. Pages: 132‐139. This section defines the process of "successive reframing" and outlines a series of principles for effective reframing as well as describing four different levels on which issues may be reframed ‐‐ detoxification, definitional, metaphoric, and shifting the conflict paradigm. The section includes clear examples of reframed statements for each level discussed. Putnam, Linda L. and M. Holmer. "Framing, Reframing and Issue Development." In Communication and Negotiation. Edited by Putnam, Linda L. and M. Holmer, eds. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1992. This chapter offers a review and critique of the theoretical approaches that researchers have employed in studying framing in negotiation. The review offers good background information on the concept of framing and the research that has been conducted on it. After reviewing previous literature on the subject, the authors introduce two alternative models of framing and reframing. Deutsch, Morton and Peter T. Coleman, eds. Process and Outcome Goal Orientations in Conflict Situations: The Importance of Framing. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, 2000. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice part three: Personal Differences looks at the article "Processes and Outcome Goal Orientations in Conflict Situations: The Importance of Framing." Alinsky, S.D. Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals. New York: Random House, 1971. "First published in 1971, Rules For Radicals is Saul Alinsky's impassioned counsel to young radicals on how to effect constructive social change and know "the difference between being a realistic radical and being a rhetorical one." Written in the midst of radical political developments whose direction Alinsky was one of the first to question, this volume exhibits his style at its best. Like Thomas Paine before him, Alinsky was able to combine, both in his person and his writing, the intensity of political engagement with an absolute insistence on rational political discourse and adherence to the American democratic tradition." ‐Amazon.com Boulding, Kenneth E. The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, June 1, 1956. In The Image Kenneth Boulding presents a new unifying concept through which a better understanding of individual behavior and social dynamics may be had. He proposes, in effect, a new theory of knowledge: knowledge as image. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Frameworks Institute. Available at: http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/index.shtml. This is the home page of the Frame Works Institute, which is an organization dedicated to advancing "the nonprofit sector's communications capacity by identifying, translating and modeling relevant scholarly research for framing the public discourse about social problems. FrameWorks designs, commissions, manages and publishes communications research to prepare nonprofit organizations to expand their constituency base, to build public will, and to further public understanding of specific social issues. In addition to working closely with social policy experts familiar with the specific issue, its work is informed by a team of communications scholars and practitioners who are convened to discuss the research problem, and to work together in outlining potential strategies for advancing remedial policies." The site provides information about the organization itself as well as access to many substantive articles regarding the framing of social issues and conflicts. Kaufman, Sanda and Janet Smith. "Framing and Reframing in Land Use Change Conflicts." Journal of Architectural & Planning Research: Special issue Managing Conflict in Planning and Design , 1998 Available at: http://urban.csuohio.edu/~sanda/papers/frames98.htm. Proposed changes to community land use frequently give rise to protracted disputes. Cognitive psychology, communication, and decision‐making research suggests that frames, which filter people's perception of a problem, can affect conflict processes and outcomes. This paper argues that frames may significantly influence public participation in decisions to change a community's physical space. Framing Problems. Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/!overlay_problems.htm. This page lists and defines potential problems with defining what the conflict is about and how it is being addressed. Offline (Print) Sources Moore, Christopher W. "Defining Issues and Setting an Agenda." In The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict, 2nd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, 1996. Pages: 213‐
230. This chapter discusses some of the steps that mediators must carry out in order to move disputants from a competitive to cooperative orientation. One of the key steps in this process is that of identifying issues to be dealt with, and framing and/or reframing them in a way that will allow the parties to move forward toward resolution. A significant portion of this chapter focuses on the concepts framing and reframing and incorporates examples of the method throughout. Burgess, Guy M., Sanda Kaufman and Robert Gardner. "Just the Facts, Please: Framing and Technical Information." In Environmental Practice. Edited by Gray, Barbara, Roy J. Lewicki and Michael Elliott, eds. Oxford, OH: Oxford University Press, September 2003. In this article, the authors introduce the concept of framing theory in the context of environmental disputes. They examine the various ways that individuals and stakeholders in environmental policy disputes interpret, relate to, and understand technical and scientific facts. They offer solutions to reframe common relationships to highly technical information in ways that allow greater communication between parties to environmental conflicts. Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Frames and Cases. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003. This edited volume consists of a series of case studies that examine processes used to help resolve environmental conflicts. The work opens with an introductory chapter on how environmental conflicts are framed as well as a discussion of the meaning of the term intractability. The case studies cover natural resource cases, water cases, toxics cases, and growth management cases. The concept and importance of framing are emphasized throughout all of the pieces in the work. Arbitration By
Christina Leb
Arbitration as a Solution for Protracted and Intractable Conflicts Can arbitration serve as an alternative mechanism of
dispute resolution, as opposed to "conventional" methods
such as submitting a dispute to an international or national
court or seeking a negotiated agreement? Historically,
arbitration was successfully used by the ancient Greeks
and the Vikings to solve interstate and intrastate
conflicts.In more recent history, arbitration played an
important role in solving international border disputes.[1]
Currently, however, negotiation and mediation are the
prevalent mechanisms for resolving international conflicts.
This fact can be attributed to a lack of established
enforcement mechanisms for international law, and the
resulting difficulty of enforcing international arbitral
awards. However, arbitration continues to be an effective
tool for conflict resolution, especially for international and national commercial or investment
disputes, as well as labor disputes.
What is Arbitration? Arbitration is an extra-judicial mechanism through which conflicts can be solved. It is an
adversarial process, which is governed by the principle of party autonomy. This means that it is
the parties to a conflict who determine whether they want their dispute to be solved through
arbitration. Thus the arbitrators derive their authority solely from the parties. Parties are free to
choose the place (seat) of arbitration, and often do so through a contractual clause before a
dispute emerges. Arbitration processes are convened on an ad hoc basis, and the parties influence
the composition of the arbitration panel and/or the selection of a specific arbitrator. The parties
determine the "rules of the game," either by designing the process themselves or by choosing the
seat of arbitration. In the latter case the parties agree to make use of existing institutions, which
provide facilities and a set of adopted rules that govern the process.
In most cases, arbitral awards are conclusive, final, and binding. However, it can occur that the
unsuccessful party challenges the award by claiming that the arbitrators exceeded their power, or
by asserting that they cannot be bound by a foreign award. In a small number of cases, national
arbitration legislation allows for the right of appeal.
Current Domains of Arbitration Though historically important for the resolution of non-commercial international disputes,
arbitration is not often used in that way currently. Today it is widely used for commercial and
investment disputes by states and private entities.
The fact that arbitration allows parties to determine the rules of procedure is particularly
advantageous in cases where companies involved in commercial and investment disputes are
founded in and governed by different legal systems. Arbitration allows the parties to determine
the seat and rules of procedure through a contractual arbitration clause, and hence preempts
conflicts over jurisdiction. The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, adopted by the U.N. General
Assembly in its Resolution 31/98, are a useful guide to parties, as they provide model rules of
procedure. The parties' ability to choose an arbitrator guarantees high quality decisions, because
they can nominate experts in the field. Furthermore, disclosure of trade secrets is avoided by the
traditional privacy of arbitration procedures.
Institutions and bodies, which provide facilities and framed rules for the arbitration of
commercial disputes, exist in practically all countries. Even though these are considered national
institutions, international as well as national disputes can be submitted to them. The World Bank
developed a mechanism to solve international investment disputes through arbitration or
consultation in 1966, in order to foster private investment in developing countries. The
International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) was created to provide a
reliable dispute resolution mechanism to private investors who take the risk of investing in
countries with unfavorable investment climates. The rationale for the creation of this institution
is that the guarantee of a fair process renders investment in "political risky" countries financially
justifiable. The ICSID adjudicates over disputes between states and the investing private entity of
another state.
The Diminishing Role of Arbitration for Settlement of Disputes Between States Arbitration proved its effectiveness as a dispute resolution mechanism during and after the
American Civil War.[2] This positive experience led to the desire for institutionalization of
international adjudication, and subsequently the Permanent Court of Arbitration was created in
1899. It is worth mentioning that the name, Permanent Court of Arbitration, is misleading, as it is
neither a court, nor permanent. Its role is to provide interested parties with a list of qualified
arbitrators and a set of rules for the settlement of their disputes.
Generally, however, countries show reluctance to submit their disputes to arbitration. What
explains this behavior? The flexible but formalized procedure before an arbitration panel or an
arbitrator is often too long and expensive, and thus undermines the utility of the mechanism. In
addition, there is another, more compelling reason for states to avoid arbitration as a means of
resolving disputes. Arbitration is characterized by an adversarial process, which in most cases
ends with a win-lose solution. Without a formal enforcement mechanism, such an outcome is
less sustainable and can lead to re-escalation of conflict or non-abidance to the decision. Thus an
arbitration award or court decision should only be sought if the parties fail to reach a
cooperative, negotiated agreement that could provide them with a win-win solution.
Problems with Enforcing Arbitration Awards Theoretically, the submission of the parties to arbitration implies that the parties will agree to
carry out the award without delay. However, this can only be true for situations in which the
disputants are seeking a conclusive settlement of their conflict. Parties submit themselves to
arbitration only when they are incapable of reaching a negotiated agreement. In adversarial
dispute resolution procedures, parties are hoping to see their interests served. If defeated, they
award or by trying to evade implementation of the decision.
For entirely national arbitration awards, those granted by a national body to two private entities
both subject to the same national legislation, laws provide a solid framework for the enforcement
of decisions or for options to transfer the matter to a national court. The implementation of
international awards, however, can be more than difficult in cases where parties decide not to
abide by the decision. One factor which can make a national court more or less willing to enforce
an award is the nation in which the seat of arbitration is located. Yet, the determination of the
seat can become a contentious matter, as different national jurisdictions treat this issue
differently. Also, while there are a number of international and bilateral treaties that govern the
implementation of judicial awards under foreign jurisdiction, there is no such mechanism for
arbitration awards.
Litigation versus Arbitration versus Mediation Characteristics Litigation Jurisdiction
determined
by law Decision-making
authority Arbitration
Mediation Parties
Parties agree to
decide to
mediate submit their
dispute to
arbitration
(often
through
contractual
arbitration
clause) Jurisdiction is Parties
determined
choose the
by the
seat circumstances
of the case Often takes
place in neutral
territory Courts are
limited to
cases that fall
within their
jurisdiction Mediators
decide whether
or not to take
cases
submitted to
them. Arbitrators
decide on
disputes
submitted to
them Decisions
Decisions
Decision made
made by
made by
by parties judge or jury arbitrator(s)
Can be
Rarely can
Parties can
appealed with be appealed decide not to
cause settle Procedure Open to the
public Confidential Confidential Adversarial Adversarial Cooperative Process
Flexible
determined
process by procedural
laws Flexible process Fixed set of
procedures Parties and
mediators
determine
ground rules Parties
choose the
"rules of the
game" Judges are
Arbitrators
Parties select a
pre-appointed are selected mediator by the
parties Judges often Arbitrators
lack technical are experts
expertise on the
issues Mediators are
process
experts, may
or may not be
substance
experts Judges are a
disinterested
third party Mediators can
be outsiderneutrals or
insider partials.
If insider
partials, they
often work with
an outsiderneutral. Characteristics
of third party
involved Arbitration
panels often
include
partial as
well as nonpartial
arbitrators
or
One nonpartial
arbitrator Institution End of process Permanent Ad-hoc
panels Ad-hoc End
determined
by procedural
requirements Parties can
determine
an end date
(fast track
arbitration) Ends once
cooperative
agreement is
reached, or
parties decide
not to settle Win-lose
solutions Win-lose
Win-win
solution
solutions (unless
arbitrator
negotiates a
win-win
outcome) Established
enforcement
mechanism National
regulations
provide
enforcement
mechanism
Decision
subject to
revision
(unless
decision by
the Highest
Court) Award
conclusive,
final and
binding
(right of
appeal is the
exception) Enforcement Implementation
of agreement
depends largely
on the parties'
goodwill, but
the court may
International enforce in
some
arbitration
often lacks circumstances an
established
enforcement
mechanism [1] Case Studies: United States versus Great Britain:
No appeal once
settled; other
process can be
used if no
settlement is
reached. http://www.bartleby.com/65/ws/WshngtnTR.html,
http://www.bartleby.com/65/al/Alabamac.html, Egypt versus Israel:
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/example/roth7308.htm
[2] Ibid.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Arbitration Procedures. Securities Industry Conference on Arbitration (SICA). Available at: http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/arbpro.pdf. This site consists of many questions and answers about the process of arbitration. Questions include: What Is Arbitration? What Disputes Are Eligible For Arbitration? Who Are The Arbitrators? Can I Be Represented By An Attorney? How Is Arbitration Begun? What Happens After The Claim Is Filed? Can I Challenge An Arbitrator? How Do I Prepare For A Hearing? How Are The Hearings Conducted? How Are The Parties Notified Of The Arbitrators' Decision? Colagiovanni, Joseph and Thomas Hartmann. "Enforcing Arbitration Awards." , 1900 Available at: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/adr15.htm. Winning an arbitration award may not immediately end the dispute, especially when it comes to collecting payment from the losing party. What can be done to enforce the decision of the arbitrator? The authors provide a step‐by‐step approach to giving the award binding effect and also address motions to vacate, modify or correct. Grant, Leslie. "What is Arbitration?." , Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/grant.cfm. This article outlines the general principles of arbitration, the different types of arbitration and the advantages it has over other kinds of conflict resolution processes. Offline (Print) Sources Malanczuk, Peter. Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law. Routledge, July 1997. A widely‐used textbook on international law which emphasizes the relationship between international law and international politics. Haagen, Paul H., ed. Arbitration Now: Opportunities for Fairness, Process Renewal and Invigoration. New York: American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution, 1999. This volume is a collection of essays emerging from a conference entitled, Arbitration: Preparing for the Twenty‐First Century, that was sponsored by the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York in the Fall of 1998. The essays cover many of the current challenges posed by the expansion of arbitration as well as several essays that concentrate on ethical codes and issues for arbitrators. Goodman, Allan H. Basic Skills for the New Arbitrator. Solomon Publishing, January 1, 1993. This work provides a detailed overview of arbitration and guides the arbitrator through the process by answering numerous frequently asked questions. Stipanowich, Thomas. Commercial Arbitration at Its Best: Successful Strategies for Business Users: A Report of the CPR Commission on the Future of Arbitration. ABA Publishing, October 1, 2000. This book is organized in a convenient question and answer format, and is organized according to the chronology of the dispute resolution process. Each chapter covers a key area of the arbitration process and addresses the most important issues that parties using or contemplating arbitration must consider. The final chapter is focused on international arbitration. Wallace, Rebecca M.M. International Law. Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, November 28, 2002. An introduction to contemporary public international law. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources American Arbitration Association: Ethics and Standards for Arbitrators and Mediators. American Arbitration Association. Available at: http://www.adr.org/EthicsAndStandards. This article is a description of the American Arbitration Association's code of ethics, standards of conduct, and code of professional responsibility. Basic Documents of the Permanent Court of Arbitration: UNCITRAL. Permanent Court of Arbitration. Available at: http://library.lawschool.cornell.edu/pca/bdeuncitral.htm. This page lists the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules that the General Assembly of the United Nations has recommended for inclusion in international commercial contracts. This page includes the guidelines, procedures, models, and rules of UNCITRAL. State Court Rules for ADR Programs. The National Center for State Courts. This page provides links to every state's rules of court‐annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution. Offline (Print) Sources Plapinger, Elizabeth S. and Donna Stienstra. ADR and Settlement in the Federal District Courts: A Sourcebook for Judges and Lawyers. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center, 1996. This work is a definitive guide for lawyers and judges to more than 150 ADR and settlement programs in the 94 federal district courts, providing in‐depth analysis and description. Brand, Norman, Patricia Thomas Bittel and Henry G. Stewart. Discipline and Discharge in Arbitration. BNA Books, December 1, 1998. This book outlines the processes and procedures associated with arbitration of workplace conflicts. The authors focus extensively on the analysis and evaluation of cases and offer extensive guidelines for choosing an arbitrator and traveling through the arbitration processes and related circumstances. Dunlop, John Thomas and Arnold M. Zack. Mediation and Arbitration of Employment Disputes. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, January 1, 1997. This book examines the process of arbitration in the workplace. It also outlines a plan for initiating mediation and arbitration in a dispute resolution system. Adjudication By
Brad Spangler
What is Adjudication? Adjudication generally refers to processes of decision making that involve a neutral third party
with the authority to determine a binding resolution through some form of judgment or award.[1]
Adjudication is carried out in various forms, but most commonly occurs in the court system. It
can also take place outside the court system in the form of alternative dispute resolution
processes such as arbitration, private judging, and mini-trials (see ADR). However, court-based
adjudication is usually significantly more formal than arbitration and other ADR processes. The
development of the field of alternative dispute resolution has led many people to use the term
adjudication to refer specifically to litigation or conflicts addressed in court. [2] Therefore,
court-based adjudication will be the main focus of this essay.
Adjudication is an involuntary, adversarial process. This means arguments are presented to prove
one side right and one side wrong, resulting in win-lose outcomes. In civil cases, one side/person
that believes he or she has been wronged (plaintiff) files legal charges against another
(defendant). In other words, somebody sues someone they have a legal problem with. Once this
occurs, both parties are obligated by law to participate in court-based proceedings. If the case
goes to trial, each side then presents reasoned arguments and evidence to support their claims.
Once that presentation of evidence and arguments is completed, a judge or jury then makes a
decision. Appeals may be filed in an attempt to get a higher court to reverse the decision. If no
appeal is filed, the decision is binding on both parties.[3]
Disadvantages of Court­Based Adjudication The alternative dispute resolution movement of the1970s and 1980s was based primarily on
promoting alternatives to litigation and court-based resolution procedures. ADR advocates
argued that alternative processes such as mediation and arbitration were more effective and
constructive, among other reasons, than litigation.[4] Though the debate over which form of
justice is "better" is still ongoing, adjudication definitely does have some negative qualities or
disadvantages. Some of the main criticisms of court-based adjudication include:[5]
•
•
•
•
•
•
Court‐based adjudication is prohibitively expensive in terms of monetary cost making it impossible for some parties to take their complaints to a court of law. Control of the process is removed from the client/disputant and delegated to the lawyer and the court. The decision makers lack expertise in the area of the dispute. In most courts the judges are generalists and practically every jury is too. Court dockets are often overbooked, causing significant delays before a case is heard. In the meantime, the unresolved issues can cause serious problems for the disputants. Litigation requires that people's problems be translated into legal issues, yet the court's decision about those issues does not always respond to the real nature of the underlying problem.For example, issues might be framed in terms of money, where the real issue is one of trust and respect...emotional issues not dealt with in an adversarial process. In addition, courts are constrained by the law as to what solutions they can offer. When the underlying issues are not addressed, the decision may produce a short‐term settlement, but not a long‐term resolution. (See meaning of resolution). •
•
•
Adjudication results in win‐lose outcomes, leaving little chance the parties will develop a collaborative or integrative solution to the problem, unless the case is settled out of court before the trial. Litigation often drives parties apart because of its adversarial, positional nature, while effective resolution often requires that they come closer together. This polarization of the disputants is also often accompanied by emotional distress. People enmeshed in litigation experience indirect costs beyond the legal fees. For example, disruption to the functioning of one's business or progression of one's career can be just as damaging. Some conflicts cannot be resolved in court, because there is no court with clear jurisdiction that
is accepted by all the parties involved. This happens most often in international conflicts when
one or more parties refuses to honor the authority of any international court (such as the
International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice).
Advantages of Adjudication/Litigation Though adjudication is an adversarial process, it can produce some clear benefits over other
options for dispute resolution (i.e. ADR). Proponents of adjudication argue that the process
produces more fair and consistent decisions than alternative dispute resolution processes. In fact,
ADR has been criticized as providing "second-class justice." This allegation is based on the fact
that processes like mediation have not been institutionalized and there are no set standards of
practice or rules of law upon which they are based. On the other hand, adjudication or litigation
is grounded in the public judicial system and has a vast array of rules and regulations. There are
several advantages that adjudication advocates cite when promoting this dispute settlement
process:
•
•
•
•
Adjudication produces an imposed, final decision that the parties are obligated to respect. An alternative process, such as mediation, produces only voluntary agreements that can easily fail. The outcomes of litigation are, without exception, binding and enforceable. Although arbitration decisions can be binding and enforceable (with the backing of the judicial system) this only occurs when the participating parties agree to such parameters. A party who has not agreed to arbitrate cannot be forced to do so, or be bound by the outcome of arbitration between other parties. With court‐based adjudication, however, participation is involuntary and all outcomes are binding and enforceable. This can be a true advantage in situations where there is a serious lack of trust and/or respect between the parties. The use of court‐based adjudication or litigation allows for decisions to be appealed. The option to appeal confers multiple benefits. For example in monetary settlements, the winning party is often willing to re‐negotiate the settlement before it goes to appeal so as to avoid full reversal and retrial. Appeals also allow the reversal of incorrect decisions. Sometimes mistakes are made or evidence that was clearly prejudicial was allowed, thus tarnishing what otherwise may have been a just outcome.[6] Public adjudication offers procedural safeguards that ensure parties due process under the law. Among such safeguards are cross‐examination, limitations on hearsay and other rules of evidence, pre‐hearing mandatory sharing of information between sides, and other statutory and constitutional protections that fall under the umbrella of due process. Procedural stipulations such as these help ensure that adjudicated outcomes will be fair. •
•
•
•
•
Litigated decisions are authoritative and based on precedent. Court‐based decisions are, in theory, based on principles of the law (established norms) that have been previously validated. This makes for consistency in how similar cases are decided over time and better predictability regarding the range of possible outcomes. Court‐based adjudication is institutionalized, meaning that a party with a complaint needs no one's permission to bring a lawsuit against another party. In addition, since the courts are funded by the government and do not rely on customer satisfaction (as do some ADR providers), they can issue decisions that may be disliked by the parties, without fear of reprisal in any form. Judges, the ultimate adjudicative decision makers, are chosen through a variety of publicly known procedures that ensure they are qualified for the job. In addition, there are cases where settlement of a short‐term dispute is all that is needed or possible. (Here "settlement" is being compared to resolution which is deeper and more lasting.) If there is no need for or no possibility of a future relationship between the parties, a settlement of their dispute is adequate. If relationships are going to be a long‐term issue, however, resolution is preferable, when possible. When not, dispute settlement may well be better than continued fighting, and arbitration is a way to obtain such a settlement.[7] [1] Douglas Yarn, The Dictionary of Conflict Resolution (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers,
1999), 5.
[2] Heidi and Guy Burgess, Encyclopedia of Conflict Resolution (Denver: ABC-CLIO, 1997), 2.
NOTE: This excerpt of the Burgess' book includes a helpful discussion of the key differences
between court-based adjudication and alternative dispute resolution processes.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Stephen B. Golderg, Frank E.A. Sander and Nancy H. Rogers, Dispute Resolution:
Negotiation, Mediation, and Other Processes, 2nd Edition (Boston: Little, Brown and Company,
1992), 6-8.
[5] The following bullet points were distilled from the discussion of disadvantages of litigation
in: Edward A. Dauer, Manual of Dispute Resolution: ADR Law and Practice (Colorado Springs:
McGraw Hill, Inc., 1994), 4-3-4-12.
[6] For discussion of how appeal procedures can be incorporated into private ADR see: Edward
A. Dauer, Manual of Dispute Resolution: ADR Law and Practice (Colorado Springs: McGraw
Hill, Inc., 1994), 4-16.
[7] The following bullet points were distilled from the discussion of advantages of litigation in:
Edward A. Dauer, Manual of Dispute Resolution: ADR Law and Practice (Colorado Springs:
McGraw Hill, Inc., 1994), 4-12-4-20.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Offline (Print) Sources Goldberg, Stephen B., Nancy H. Rogers and Frank E.A. Sander. Dispute Resolution: Negotiation, Mediation and other Processes, 3rd Edition. Aspen, CO: Aspen Publishers, Inc., June 1999. This 3rd edition of Dispute Resolution: Negotiation, Mediation, and Other Processes gives an overview of dispute resolution processes, looks at dispute resolution and the justice system, and examines the future of ADR. The work is comprised of excerpts from a large number of key works in the dispute resolution field. Allain, Jean. A Century of International Adjudication: The Rule of the Land and Its Limits . T.M.C. Asser Instituut, 2000. This study analyzes the first century of the evolution of international adjudication as a permanent fixture of the international society. Through a case study approach, examining specific international courts, the study seeks to demonstrate the various limitations to effective adjudication on the international plane.
Bilder, Richard. "Adjudication: International Arbitral Tribunals and Courts." In Peacemaking in International Conflicts. Edited by Zartman, I. William and J. Lewis Rasmussen, eds. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Institute of Peace, 1997. "This chapter describes the general nature and role of international adjudication, some of its advantages and disadvantages as compared with other dispute‐settlement techniques, and its prospects." ‐From Book Garner, Bryan A., ed. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Standard Edition. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1999. This dictionary is the leading reference on legal terminology. Dauer, Edward A. "Ltitgation, Negotiation, and Settlement." In Manual of Dispute Resolution: ADR Law and Practice, Vol. 1. Colorado Springs, CO: McGraw‐Hill, Inc., May 1994. Pages: 4‐20. This chapter of the manual discusses the disadvantages and advantages of litigation or court‐based adjudication. The discussion serves as a way to compare litigation with alternative dispute resolution processes. Lucy, William. Understanding and Explaining Adjudication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. This work provides a thorough examination of the philosophy and methodology of adjudication. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Offline (Print) Sources Hibberd, Peter R. and Paul Newman. ADR and Adjudication in Construction Disputes. Boston: Blackwell Science, Inc., January 2000. This work discusses the pros and cons of litigation and arbitration, as well as other dispute resolution options in the context of construction industry disputes. Audiovisual Materials on this Topic:
Offline (Print) Sources Mabo ‐ Life of an Island Man . Directed and/or Produced by: Graham, Trevor. First Run Icarus Films. 1997. This film traces the story of an extraordinary man whose struggle for land rights had a profound effect on indigenous rights in Australia. Hybrid Processes By
Christopher Honeyman
A hybrid dispute resolution process combines elements of two or more traditionally separate
processes into one. The most common hybrid process is mediation-arbitration, or "med-arb"
which uses the same individual or dispute resolution forum first as a mediator, and then if
necessary, as an arbitrator. This is distinguished from the common circumstance where more
than one type of dispute resolution procedure is provided for in sequence, such as a grievance
procedure that provides first for negotiation, then mediation, and finally for arbitration, where
each of these processes is carried out by a different person.
Med-arb or other hybrid processes are generally used where parties believe a given dispute is
likely to require elements of two or more processes, and/or where they believe that an individual
or forum is available who has the skills necessary to enact more than one process, with a
consequent saving of the time and expense.
Med-arb was first used in U.S. public-sector collective bargaining, particularly for public safety
groups (e.g. police and fire departments) where strikes are generally illegal. In many states, the
state legislature has called for a hybrid system to resolving these disputes peacefully and
efficiently.
Usually such systems call for mediation, after which either party can compel arbitration if the
mediation effort fails to reach an agreement. The mediation in this type of case is often actually
the second attempt at mediation, following an earlier "pure mediation" effort by the labormanagement mediation agency of that state. The hybrid process is invoked if the initial, agency
attempt at mediation fails.
Such "duplicate mediation" has two advantages: first, neutrals who practice as mediatorarbitrators are sometimes able to apply skills that agency neutrals may not possess to the same
degree (though often, the agency neutrals are themselves highly skilled); second, and more
important, is that a mediator-arbitrator's suggestions carry more weight than those of a "pure
mediator," even when the suggestions are similar or identical. This is because the neutral
mediator may have the final decision if the case is unresolved. This gives the mediator more
perceived power, even in the mediation, and most certainly in the arbitration phase of the
process.
Med-arb in these contexts has generally been considered effective, as illegal strikes are very rare,
and most parties believe the process works effectively and promptly.
However, parties sometimes object to the amount of power a mediator-arbitrator has. Typically,
arbitrators never meet with the parties separately, but only meet together where both sides can
hear (and rebut) all the arguments the other side makes. In addition, arbitrators avoid reaching
any conclusions or dropping hints as to the decision until the last argument has been fully
expressed.
This mode of working is greatly different from the typical working methods of a mediator, which
usually includes meeting privately with each party, and at times, trying to persuade a party to
make a particular concession, or to try another approach to their negotiations. If the mediator is
also an arbitrator, such pressure can take the form of an implied threat of an adverse decision if
one party is seen as being "unreasonable."
In such cases, the losing party may believe (rightly or wrongly) that the decision was influenced
by private conversations between the mediator and the opposing party. Concerns about such
issues have led some jurisdictions to opt for mediation followed by separate arbitration instead of
med-arb as the public service dispute resolution procedure of choice.
Other hybrid combinations of role also exist. The combination of the roles of facilitator and
mediator is so common that many believe that the role of a mediator can hardly be fulfilled
without taking on a facilitator's role as well -- though the converse is not true. And it is quite
common for a judge to take on the role of a mediator. While this inherently triggers the same
potential concerns as mediation-arbitration, it is indisputable that many cases have been resolved,
to the satisfaction of all parties, when a judge has engaged in adroit and sensitive intervention
along these lines.
Parties who understand the risks inherent in mixing the roles of a neutral are in a much better
position to make creative uses of available neutral talents, a hallmark of the flexibility that
conflict resolution claims as one of its virtues as a field. There is probably no pair of neutral
functions that has not been combined in one individual at some point, many times to the benefit
of all parties. And there are subtleties in the distinctions between the common combinations: for
example, many see a meaningful distinction between a mediator-arbitrator and an arbitratormediator. (In this instance, the distinction is in which role the neutral was primarily selected for.
Thus describing a neutral as an "arbitrator-mediator" typically sets up an expectation that the
case will probably be pursued to the point of a decision by an arbitrator, but with the parties
willing to mediate if the circumstances seem favorable. A "mediator-arbitrator" is hired by the
parties with the expectation that the focus will be on mediation, with arbitration reserved as a last
resort.)
Other forms of hybrid include the "Special Master" in such major issues as the September 11
Victims' Compensation Fund or the "Black Farmers' Case" (involving tens of thousands of
farmers who sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture over decades of racial discrimination in its
lending policies). Both of these are highly responsible functions that include elements of a
mediator, an arbitrator, and a magistrate.
Meanwhile, fact-finding, summary jury trials, mini-trials, and private judging have also been
described as hybrid processes, although in these instances the term "hybrid" refers more to a
process that exists between two more classical neutral roles than to one in which the neutral is
asked to "wear two hats."
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Shenoy, George. "Alternative Methods of Dispute Resolution For Small Businesses." , Available at: http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/icsb/1998/pdf/155.pdf. This paper outlines a number of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes including hybrid forms. Krivis, Jeffrey. Desktop Guide to Alternative Dispute Resolution. Available at: http://www.firstmediation.com/desktopguide/index.htm. This guide provides clear and concise definitions of the following dispute resolution terms and procedures: mediation, negotiation, arbitration, mini‐trial, litigation, confidential listener, the language of ADR, voluntary settlement, dispute management model, and hybrid/combined procedure. Manual On Alternative Dispute Resolution. Available at: http://www.cobar.org/group/display.cfm?GenID=1244. The Manual On Alternative Dispute Resolution, by The Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee of the Colorado Bar Association, describes the most well‐known alternative dispute resolution processes. The manual includes helpful charts that illustrate the continuum of ADR processes. Offline (Print) Sources Nolan‐Haley, Jacqueline. Alternative Dispute Resolution in a Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West, 1992. This book facilitates an understanding of the wide variety of ADR procedures that can suit clients' needs better than litigation. Negotiation, mediation and arbitration, have been practiced for hundreds of years. They have achieved a new popularity today. This resource will enable the reader to answer exam questions quicker and more accurately, and enhance attorney skills. From The Publisher Negotiation: Mediation; Arbitration; Dispute Resolution in the Court System: Hybrid Dispute Resolution Procedures." ‐ Barnes and Noble.com Burton, John W. and E. Frank Dukes. Conflict: Practices in Management, Settlement, and Resolution . New York: St. Martin's Press, October 1990. Conflict: Practices in Management, Settlement, and Resolution describes different types of conflicts and different approaches to conflict management. It attempts to match the different types of conflict with the most appropriate management process. This work includes some very influential definitions of key terms in the field of conflict resolution . Green, E.D., Stephen B. Goldberg and Frank E.A. Sander. Dispute Resolution. Boston, Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1985. This book examines the different forms of adjudication, why parties use courts rather than ADR processes, and cites the most common criticisms of adjudication such as costs, and process delays. Telford, Megan Elizabeth. Med‐Arb: A Viable Dispute Resolution Alternative. IRC Press, January 2000. This work describes the process of med‐arb, and examines the debate over whether it is a useful and fair dispute resolution process. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Brewer, Thomas J. and Lawrence R. Mills. "Med‐arb Process Can Help Settle Disagreements." , 1999 This article explains how the Med‐arb process can be used to settle commercial landlord‐tenant disputes. Offline (Print) Sources Forester, John and David Stitzel. "Beyond Neutrality: The Possibilities of Activist Mediation in Public Sector Conflicts." Negotiation Journal 5:3, July 1, 1989. This article discusses the role of and issues surrounding, mediators as non‐neutral activists in certain types of public sector negotiations. Grievance Procedures By
Christopher Honeyman
In situations in which multiple disputes of a similar sort occur--such as workplace disputes over
alleged discrimination, promotion, leaves, etc. it is often useful to establish a set of procedures to
deal with them in a fair and efficient manner. This is commonly done by establishing a formal
grievance procedure--a standardized set of procedures to follow when someone has a complaint
or a problem. It is particularly important to have a grievance procedure when it is likely that
people who were not direct signatories to the original labor negotiations will be affected by the
implementation of an agreement. Employees, whether represented by a union or not, are
frequently in this position, and the classic grievance procedures are derived from workplaces
with unions. Many decades of experience have resulted in fairly standard grievance procedures
that might well be utilized by people in other situations as well.
There are two key factors in establishing a workable grievance procedure. The first is the concept
of a progression of levels at which a given complaint may be handled. Typically this begins with
a step that provides for rapid and informal addressing of a complaint by those immediately
involved, with appeals to successively higher levels of management or other representatives
possible in the event that lower-level resolution doesn't work. The second factor is the
availability of an alternative procedure, to be used if several successive attempts at negotiation
have failed. Typically this will be mediation, arbitration, or both.
Many grievances can be resolved quickly by correcting a misunderstanding, or with a simple
negotiation. In this case the grievance procedure saves time, money, and the relationship between
the parties. Having the issue handled by those immediately involved is a benefit as well, as they
know more about the problem at hand than do people at higher levels.
However, a given grievance may involve a more difficult issue, or one or more of the parties
may refuse to settle with a simple negotiation. The availability of appeals to a higher level not
only provides an end to what might otherwise become frustrating bickering, but often serves to
remind a given representative at any level that reasonableness at this stage will eliminate the
need for review of his or her actions by someone higher up. Time limits at each step, so that no
one can stall the process indefinitely, are typical. And in the event that the parties have discussed
the matter at all levels provided in the procedure and are still deadlocked, an arbitration provision
generally provides for a final decision by a decision maker that both sides have had a say in
choosing.
A typical grievance procedure in a unionized environment might look something like this:
Any dispute which may arise from an employee or Union complaint with respect to the
interpretation of the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be subject to the following
Grievance Procedure, unless expressly excluded from such procedure by the terms of this
Agreement. All grievances shall be initiated at Step 1. Time limits set forth herein may be
extended upon mutual agreement of the parties. The Union shall have the right to be notified and
be present at all steps of the Grievance Procedure.
•
•
•
•
•
Step 1: The employee, Union steward or officer, and/or the Union representative shall present the grievance to the most immediate supervisor who has the authority to make adjustments in the matter within 14 days of the alleged grievance or knowledge thereof. Step 2: If a satisfactory settlement is not reached in Step 1 within three days following its completion, the employee, the Union and/or the Union representative may present the grievance to the department head. Upon the request of said department head, the grievance shall be in writing and shall state the grievant(s) names(s). Step 3: If a satisfactory settlement is not reached in Step 2 within five days of the date of submission of the written grievance to the Department Head, the employee, the Union Committee and/or the Union representative may present the grievance to the Personnel Director. The Director or his/her designee shall schedule a meeting to be held within fourteen days of the receipt of the grievance by the Personnel Director with the Union Committee and/or Union Representative for the purpose of attempting to resolve the grievance. The Personnel Director or his/her designee shall respond in writing within seven days of the date of the meeting. Time frames may be extended in writing by mutual agreement of the parties. Step 4: If the grievance is not resolved at Step 3 the Union may within 14 days after the Personnel Director's written response is due, serve written notice upon the employer that they desire to arbitrate the grievance, and the Union may request the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to furnish a panel of five arbitrators. Within ten days of the receipt of the panel of arbitrators the parties shall select an arbitrator. The Union shall make the first and third strike and the employer the second and fourth strike of names. The remaining individual shall serve as arbitrator and hear the dispute. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties. The cost of the arbitration shall be borne equally by the parties, except that each party shall be responsible for the cost of any witnesses testifying on its behalf. Upon the mutual consent of the parties more than one grievance may be heard before one arbitrator. Limit on Arbitrators: The Arbitrator shall have jurisdiction and authority to interpret the provisions of the Agreement and shall not amend, delete or modify any of the provisions or terms of this Agreement. Note that here, as is often the case, the parties have provided for a final and binding arbitration
phase at the end of the grievance procedure if nothing else has worked. Only a small percentage
of all grievances filed end in arbitration, which keeps the overall costs of the system under
control. Yet the availability of the arbitration mechanism provides a "fail-safe," as well as a set
of standards against which the reasonableness of proposals made in grievance negotiations can
be measured: though only a minority of arbitrators' decisions (generally known as "awards") are
indexed and published, over 50 years this has added up to thousands of published decisions -certainly enough that there are decisions on most issues that parties can turn to evaluate their
own and the opponent's proposals.
It is also possible that a long-running conflict that has already occurred (or more likely, a
particular dispute in such a long-running conflict) might be submitted to a grievance procedure
drafted specially for that occasion. The practical difficulty in doing this is that unless the
grievance procedure already exists, the pressures of the dispute tend to discourage the parties
from committing themselves to a new procedure. There have even been relationships in which
the proliferation of day-to-day grievances overwhelmed the parties' willingness and ability to use
an existing grievance procedure effectively, and resulted in a larger, intractable dispute.
One of these situations, a relationship between mine workers and a mine owner that resulted in
the single most strike-prone coal mine in the United States, became the basis for a fresh look at
existing relationships and their capacity to create intractable conflict. The result was the
development of the specialized field of dispute systems design. In that instance, a more effective
grievance procedure was created, which took into account the special needs of the parties
involved, and provided procedures that encouraged all concerned to make more effective use of
their ability to negotiate with one another.[1]
[1] More about this case and dispute systems design can be found in William Ury, Jeanne Brett,
and Stephen Goldberg, Getting Disputes Resolved. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1988.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Offline (Print) Sources Goldberg, Stephen B. "Grievance Mediation: A Successful Alternative to Labor Arbitration." Negotiation Journal 5:1, 1989. This article discusses mediation as an effective alternative to labor arbitration, in cases of disputed collective bargaining agreements. Goss, J. H. and D. C. Elliot. Grievance Mediation: Why and How it Works. Aurora, ON: Canada Law Book, 1994. The authors show how mediation can be used voluntarily even under labour relations legislation which typically prescribes a three‐step grievance procedure terminated by arbitration. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
e through both mediation and arbitration, and contrasting the impact of the two mechanisms on the interests of the parties. Offline (Print) Sources Ferguson, Tracy H. and William L. Bergan. "Grievance‐Arbitration Procedures and Contract Administration." The Journal of College and University Law 1:371, 1974. This article examines the methods that institutions of higher education are using to settle labor grievances and disputes. Feuille, Peter and Deborah M. Kolb. "Waiting in the Wings: Mediation's Role in Grievance Resolution." Negotiation Journal 10:3, July 1, 1994. This article explores how grievance mediation emerged in the 1980's to become one of the top conflict resolution techniques to be used in resolving union and employer conflicts, especially in the coal industry. Feuille, Peter. "Why Does Grievance Mediation Resolve Grievances?." Negotiation Journal 8:2, April 1, 1992. This article details the history of grievance mediation, focusing primarily on unionized settings. Consensus Building By
Heidi Burgess
Brad Spangler
What is Consensus Building? Consensus building (also known as
collaborative problem solving or collaboration)
is a conflict-resolution process used mainly to
settle complex, multiparty disputes. Since the
1980s, it has become widely used in the
environmental and public policy arena in the
United States, but is useful whenever multiple
parties are involved in a complex dispute or
conflict. The process allows various stakeholders (parties with an interest in the problem or
issue) to work together to develop a mutually acceptable solution.
Like a town meeting, consensus building is based on the principles of local participation and
ownership of decisions. Ideally, the consensus reached will meet all of the relevant interests of
stakeholders, who thereby come to a unanimous agreement. While everyone may not get
everything they initially wanted, "consensus has been reached when everyone agrees they can
live with whatever is proposed after every effort has been made to meet the interests of all stake
holding parties."[1]
Defining Success It is critical that the definition of success is made clear from the beginning of any consensusbuilding process. Most consensus-building efforts set out to achieve unanimity. However,
sometimes there are "holdouts" who believe their interests will be better served by resisting the
proposed agreement. In such cases, it is acceptable for a consensus-building effort to settle for
overwhelming agreement that gets as close as possible to meeting the interests of every
stakeholder. If some people are not in agreement and might be excluded from the final solution,
participants have a duty to make sure that every effort has been made to meet the interests of the
holdouts. (This is to their advantage as well, as holdouts may become "spoilers," -- people who
try to "spoil" or block implementation of any agreement that is reached.)
Why is Consensus Building Important? Consensus building is important in today's
interconnected society because many problems
exist that affect diverse groups of people with
different interests. As problems mount, the
organizations that deal with society's problems
come to rely on each other for help -- they are
Additional insights into consensus building interdependent. The parties affected by decisions
http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/audio/10271 are often interdependent as well. Therefore it is
. extremely difficult and often ineffective for
organizations to try to solve controversial problems
on their own. Consensus building offers a way for individual citizens and organizations to
collaborate on solving complex problems in ways that are acceptable to all.
Consensus-building processes also allow a variety of people to have input into decision-making
processes, rather than leaving controversial decisions up to government representatives or
experts. When government experts make decisions on their own, one or more of the stakeholder
groups is usually unhappy, and in the U.S. system, they commonly sue the government, slowing
implementation of any decision substantially. While consensus building takes time, it at least
develops solutions that are not held up in court.
In addition, stakeholders always possess a wide range of understandings or perceptions of a
problem. The consensus-building process helps them to establish a common understanding and
framework for developing a solution that works for everyone.[2] The process also fosters the
exploration of joint gains and integrative solutions (see integrative bargaining) and permits
stakeholders to deal with interrelated issues in a single forum. This allows stakeholders to make
trade-offs between different issues, and allows the development of solutions that meet more
peoples' needs more completely than decisions that are made without such widespread
participation.
The Nature of Consensus­Building Problems Consensus building is employed to settle conflicts that involve multiple parties and usually
multiple issues. The approach seeks to transform adversarial interactions into a cooperative
search for information and solutions that meet all parties' interests and needs.
One of the most common applications of consensus processes is natural resource conflicts and
site-specific environmental disputes (over land use, water resources, energy, air quality, and
toxics). Other types of disputes that can be resolved through consensus building include product
liability cases, intergovernmental disputes, and other public policy controversies involving issues
such as transportation and housing.[3]
Problems that may be effectively addressed with a consensus-building approach tend to share
some general characteristics. Some of these characteristics are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The problems are ill defined, or there is disagreement about how they should be defined. Several stakeholders have a vested interest in the problems and are interdependent. These stakeholders are not necessarily identified as a cohesive group or organization. There may be a disparity of power and/or resources for dealing with the problems among the stakeholders. Stakeholders may have different levels of expertise and different access to information about the problems. The problems are often characterized by technical complexity and scientific uncertainty. Differing perspectives on the problems often lead to adversarial relationships among the stakeholders. Incremental or unilateral efforts to deal with the problems typically produce less than satisfactory solutions. Existing processes for addressing the problems have proved insufficient and may even exacerbate them.[5] Stages of Consensus Building Models of consensus building vary from three to ten stages, but all address the same set of
fundamental issues. We will describe an eight-stage process here, but processes with fewer steps
are similar; they just combine certain steps into one.
1) Problem identification: This is the very initial stage where a problem is identified and a
decision to consider trying consensus building as a resolution process is made. This decision may
be made by one or more of the stake holders, or by a third party who believes that consensus
would be a good way to bring disputants together.
2) Participant identification and recruitment: Problems that are typically resolved through
consensus building have multiple stakeholders. In addition to the obvious parties, there are often
people who are "lurking" behind the scenes, but are not vocal, so they are not as visible. Yet they
will be affected by the outcome of a decision, and might block a decision if it harms them. Thus,
it is important to get such people involved and get their needs met.
Legitimacy of representatives is a second key "stakeholder" issue. Conveners and the parties
themselves must make sure that the people involved in the consensus effort really represent who
they say they represent, and can speak for that group with legitimacy. Oftentimes one or more of
the groups involved is very informal and disorganized, and splinter groups form, breaking away
from the original stakeholder group. This complicates the question of who speaks for whom, who
can make agreements on behalf of whom, and who should thus be "at the table."
Even after people are identified, getting them to agree to participate is a major issue. Some
people may be reluctant to enter a consensus process because they think it will take too long,
involve too much of their time, or will force them to "sell out" or give in for too little. They may
think they have a better chance of "winning" in another forum, such as the courts. One way to
encourage people to try consensus is to explain that it is a very low-risk process. No one is
forced to agree to anything, so if things are not going well, they can always back down and
pursue their alternative approach to solving the problem (frequently called their "BATNA" -"best alternative to a negotiated agreement"). In addition, it can be pointed out that consensus
building allows them to stay in control of the process and the decision. Nothing happens unless
everyone agrees on it. In a court, it is quite possible that rulings will go against them. Although
reluctance is common at the outset of consensus-building efforts, once people get involved, if the
process works well, participants usually decide that it is more useful than they expected it to be,
and they stay involved. Even when an agreement cannot be reached, the improvement of
relationships and trust between groups often makes the process worthwhile.
3) Convening: Actually convening the process involves several steps. They include securing
funds, finding a location, and choosing a convener and/or mediator or facilitator.
Securing Funds: Consensus building processes can be expensive, as they involve a lot of people
over a long period of time, using multiple facilitators and mediators and often outside technical
experts. Thus, significant sources of funds may be needed. Although these funds can be supplied
by the participants themselves, often one side is more able to pay than another. If the richer party
or parties pays for the facilitator or mediator, there is a question of impartiality. But it may be
very difficult for all sides to pay equally. This is why securing outside independent funding
(from a foundation or government agency, for instance) is often helpful.
Finding a Location to meet. The location usually should be "neutral," as in, not on any one
stakeholder's "home turf." It should also be accessible to all and a large enough location to hold
everyone comfortably. It also needs to be available for as long as the group needs to meet, which
can be for several months, or even years.
Selecting a convener, facilitator, and/or mediator: Sometimes these are the same person or
organization, sometimes they are different. In a major consensus building process over water
development in the United States West, a process was convened by the Governor of Colorado,
who used his personal power to get all the interest groups to the table. (Who could say "no" to
the Governor?) Yet the Governor asked a local mediation firm to provide the facilitation of the
process, as that was not his area of expertise. Yet he stayed involved off and on to encourage
people to stay at the table and keep working, even when progress seemed discouragingly
slow.[6]
4) Process Design: This is usually done by the person or group acting as facilitators or
mediators, although they usually involve the parties to some extent, sometimes to a large extent.
At the least they will design a process, present it to the parties, and get their approval on it.
Often, the parties will suggest modifications to the proposed process and negotiations will ensue.
Decisions will be made, and a process, usually including ground rules for participant behavior
will be set.
This actually is an excellent way to start a consensus-building process. The parties can
"practice" working together and negotiating over "easy" issues before they tackle the emotionladen issues surrounding the real issues in dispute. Once they have a track record of working
together and coming to agreement, they begin to build trust in the mediator, the process, and
each other. This then helps them move on to the real issues in a positive frame of mind.
Agenda setting is another key aspect of process design. The initial agenda must be made
carefully so no legitimate stakeholders feel their interests are being ignored. It must also include
a reasonable timetable. People should not feel rushed to make a decision, but they should also
not feel as if the process is so slow that a decision will not be reached in a timely manner.
One of the key questions that must be decided is the order in which issues should be considered.
Should the group tackle the easy ones first, and the harder ones later? (This is common.) Or
should they try to tackle the hardest ones first, because if they succeed there, the rest is smooth
sailing? Or should they form subgroups and tackle many things at once?
5) Problem definition and analysis. This goes much farther than the "problem identification" of
step one. Rather it identifies all the issues, and all the ways the stakeholders have of "framing" or
defining the problem(s) or conflicting issues. Typically, each stakeholder has different interests
and concerns, and defines the problem somewhat differently. For example, in an environmental
conflict, one side may see the conflict as being about air and water quality, while another sees it
to be about jobs, a third about recreational opportunities. The first might care little about jobs and
recreation, while the second and third are less worried about environmental degradation. A more
complete picture of the problem will emerge as more stakeholders share their perceptions, and
come to understand how all their concerns and interests are interrelated. Recognizing this
interdependence is crucial to consensus building. This recognition ensures that each interested
party will have at least some power in the negotiation.[7]
After everyone explains their views of the situation, re-defining or "reframing" the conflict is
usually the next step. Facilitators or mediators usually try to get the disputants to reframe the
issues in terms of interests, which are usually negotiable, rather than positions, values, or needs,
which usually are not. By re-framing the problem in terms of interests, a variety of options for
dealing with the conflict usually appear, which were not apparent before.
6) Identification and evaluation of alternative solutions. Before the group decides on any
single course of action, it is best to explore a variety of options or alternative solutions. This is
extremely important in multiparty disputes, because it is unlikely that any single option will
satisfy all parties equally. Parties should be encouraged to develop creative options that satisfy
their interests and others'. As more options are explored, parties become able to think in terms of
trade-offs and to recognize a range of possible solutions.
There are various techniques for exploring alternative solutions. One of the most common is
brainstorming, when parties are encouraged to think of as many options as possible, without
evaluating any of them at first. Sometime this is done as a large group; other times it can be done
in small work groups, with different groups of people tackling different issues or different
aspects of the overall problem. This way many parts of the problem can be investigated
simultaneously. Then the subgroups report back to one another.
An effort is made to develop new, mutually advantageous approaches, rather than going over the
same win-lose approaches that have been on the table before. After the parties generate a list of
alternatives, these alternatives are carefully examined to determine the costs and benefits of each
(from each party's point of view), and the barriers to implementation.
Many consensus-building processes involve technical issues in which scientific facts are in
dispute. In this case it often helps to have one or more subgroups involved in some sort of joint
fact-finding exercise, designed to replace "adversary science" in which one expert contradicts
another expert, with "consensus science" in which the adversaries' experts work together or with
a neutral expert to come to some joint agreement on the technical facts in dispute. Although
resolving technical facts seldom resolves the agreement, as value issues are still in debate, it
removes one major stumbling block to resolution.
7) Decision making: Eventually, the choice is narrowed down to one approach, which is finetuned, often through a single negotiating text, until all the parties at the table agree. Thus
consensus building differs from majority rule decision making in that everyone involved must
agree with the final decision -- there is no vote.
8) Approval of the agreement: The negotiators then take the agreement back to their
constituencies and try to get it approved. This is one of the most difficult steps, as the
constituencies have not been involved in the ongoing process, and often have not developed the
level of understanding or trust necessary to see why this is the best possible agreement they can
get. Negotiators need to be able to explain exactly why the settlement was drafted as it was, and
why it is to the constituencies' benefit to agree to it. If any one of the groups represented in the
consensus-building process disagrees at this stage, they will likely refuse to sign the agreement,
and the agreement may well fall apart. Stakeholders may be able to help each other develop
strategies for persuading their respective constituencies of the merit of the agreement. However it
is done, it is important that stakeholder constituencies understand the trade-offs that were made.
If they do not, it is likely that the agreement will be broken sometime down the road. It is also
critical that stakeholders gain the support of those responsible for implementing the agreement,
often government agencies.
9) Implementation: This is the final phase of consensus building. Consensus building often
results in creative and strong agreements, but implementing those agreements is an entirely
separate task. If careful attention is not given to certain issues during the implementation phase,
agreements may fall apart. These issues include building support with constituencies and others
who are affected by the agreement, monitoring the agreement, and ensuring compliance. The
consensus building group should be involved in this aspect of implementation to be sure that the
agreement is being carried out as they envisioned. If it is not, or there are serious obstacles, the
group can then come back together to solve new problems.
Monitoring often involves some sort of formal structure or organization to be an effective
method of solving future problems.[8] However, a committee including representatives of all
stakeholder groups may be formed to address and resolve questions in the future. One of the
great benefits of consensus processes is that they improve relationships between the adversaries
so much that such monitoring and enforcement committees are usually successful. So although
unforeseen problems inevitably develop, they usually can be solved.
Determinants of Success and Criteria for Evaluation
There are four primary determinants of a successful consensus process.[9]
•
•
•
•
First, the stakeholders must be interdependent so that none of them can achieve on their own what the group will be able to achieve through collaborating. There must be an incentive for people to work together and cooperate. If someone can satisfy their interests without the group, they probably will.[10] Second, participants must deal with their differences in a constructive way. That means that differences in values, needs, and interests must be recognized, worked with and respected. This requires "good‐faith" participation by stakeholders because destructive attempts to undermine a party's differing interests will likely cause the process to break down. Third, there must be joint or group ownership of the decisions made. Participants in the consensus‐building process must agree on the final decisions and be willing to implement those decisions themselves. Fourth, consensus building or collaboration must be an emergent process. In other words, the decisions and outcomes of stakeholder collaboration must be carried out in a flexible way. How the group works together must be allowed to evolve over time, so that it does not become a static approach to problem solving. If the collaborative process is successful, new solutions emerge that no single party could have envisioned or implemented on their own. At a more specific level, there are further criteria by which to evaluate the success and
effectiveness of consensus building. These criteria fall into two main categories of assessment -process and outcomes. The criteria serve as ideal guidelines, and will not all be met perfectly by
all consensus-building efforts, successful or not. Process criteria focus on the nature of a
consensus process, and the more of these criteria a process meets, the more likely it will succeed.
Consensus building should also be evaluated by the type and quality of its outcomes it produces.
Both short-term and long-term outcomes should be evaluated. Again, the more criteria are met
by the outcomes, the more successful a consensus process is considered.[11]
Process Criteria
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The process included representatives of all relevant and significantly different interests. It is driven by a purpose that is practical and shared by the group. It is self‐organized by the participants. It follows the principles of civil, respectful, face‐to‐face conversation. It adapts and incorporates high‐quality information ‐‐ personal experiences, facts, and data. It encourages participants to challenge assumptions, be creative, and explore alternatives. It keeps participants at the table, involved, and learning. It seeks consensus only after discussions fully explore the issues and interests and significant effort was made to find creative responses to differences. Criteria to Assess Outcomes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The process produced a high‐quality agreement that met the interests of all stakeholders. It compared favorably with other planning or decision methods in terms of costs and benefits. It produced feasible proposals from political, economic, and social perspectives. It produced creative ideas for action. Stakeholders gained knowledge and understanding. It created new personal and working relationships and social and political capital among participants. It produced information and analyses that stakeholders understand and accept as accurate. Learning and knowledge produced within the consensus process were shared by others beyond the immediate group. It had second‐order effects, beyond agreements or attitudes developed in the process, such as changes in behaviors and actions, spin‐off partnerships, collaborative activities, new practices, or even new institutions. It resulted in practices and institutions that were both flexible and networked, which permitted a community to respond more creatively to change and conflict. It produced outcomes that were considered fair. The outcomes seemed to serve the common good or public interest. The outcomes contributed to the sustainability of natural and social systems. Benefits of Consensus Building Several benefits can result from properly employing consensus-building processes to address
multiparty problems. Probably the most important benefit of collaboration is that it increases the
quality of solutions developed by the parties. This is because solutions are based on a
comprehensive analysis of the problem. Each party has a different perspective and therefore
many more angles are considered than if a few experts or a select few people developed the
solution on their own. This variety of perspectives may lead to innovative solutions. In addition,
the capacity of the group to respond to the problem is increased as stakeholders can apply a
range of resources to solving it. Bringing in all interested stakeholders can also minimize the
chance of impasse or deadlock.
Consensus building guarantees that all parties' interests will be protected. This is possible
because participants make final decisions themselves. Each party has a chance to make sure their
interests are represented in the agreement and are a part of signing off on the agreement. As a
result, stakeholders have ownership of the outcome of consensus-building processes.
Other benefits of consensus building include the fact that people most familiar with the problem
at hand will be able to participate in solving it. This is often better than having a representative,
who is removed from the problem, work on solving it. The ability to participate in the problemsolving process will also enhance acceptance of the solution and willingness to implement it. The
participatory process may also help strengthen the relationships between stakeholders that used
to be adversaries. Consensus building can also save money that may have been spent on court
cases, for example. Lastly, the stakeholder group can develop mechanisms for dealing with
related problems in the future.[12]
[1] Lawrence Susskind, "An Alternative to Robert's Rules of Order for Groups, Organizations,
and Ad Hoc Assemblies that Want to Operate By Consensus," in The Consensus Building
Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement, eds. Lawrence Susskind, Sarah
McKearnan, and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999), 6.
[2] This section is based on the discussion offered in Chapter One of Barbara Gray,
Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, and (San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers, 1989).
[3] Gray, 7
[4] Text of and information about the Montreal Protocol can be found at the UN's Environmental
Program's Web site: http://www.unep.org/ozone/montreal.shtml?(Accessed Sept 27, 2003).
[5] The bullet points in this section were drawn from: Barbara Gray, Collaborating: Finding
Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1989), 10.
[6] This process was the Denver Metropolitan Water Roundtable, which was convened by
Governor Richard Lamm in 1980. A short case study of this effort appears in Carpenter and
Kennedy, Resolving Public Disputes. (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1988), 48-49.
[7] Ibid, 58.
[8] Ibid, 87-91.
[9] Information in the "Determinants of Success" section is drawn from: Gray, Barbara. 1989.
Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 1989), 11-16.
[10] See the discussion on BATNA in this knowledge base.
[11] Ideas in the above paragraph and the bullet points following both came from Judith E. Innes,
" Evaluating Consensus Building ," In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive
Guide to Reaching Agreement, eds. Lawrence Susskind, Sarah McKearnan, and Jennifer
Thomas-Larmer (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999), 647-654.
[12] This section is drawn from Barbara Gray, Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for
Multiparty Problems, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1989), 21-23.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources "Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems ‐ Book Summary." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10257/. In Collaborating, the author Barbara Grey, describes a process for developing cooperative solutions to complex social problems. The author argues that the sources of current impasses are "as much conceptual and organizational as they are technical and economic," and so offers a model of collaboration designed to alleviate these conceptual and organizational roadblocks to problem solving and conflict resolution. "Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems ‐ Book Summary." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10257/. In Collaborating, the author Barbara Grey, describes a process for developing cooperative solutions to complex social problems. The author argues that the sources of current impasses are "as much conceptual and organizational as they are technical and economic," and so offers a model of collaboration designed to alleviate these conceptual and organizational roadblocks to problem solving and conflict resolution. Conflict Research Consortium Staff. "Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes‐‐Book Summary." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10564/. This is a summary of Breaking the Impasse, by Susskind and Cruikshank. The book offers a guide to consensual strategies for resolving public disputes. Consensus Building Tools & Techniques. RESOLVE. Available at: http://www.resolv.org/tools/. Consensus building refers to a range of processes used to foster dialogue, clarify areas of agreement and disagreement, and resolve controversial issues. This page provides links to detailed information on the consensus building field, specifically, information about definitions, assumptions and approaches. Fairman, David. "Evaluating Consensus Building Efforts: According to Whom? And Based on What?." , 1999 Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/evaluateconsensusC.cfm. This article discusses efforts to assess the effectiveness of the increasingly popular use of consensus‐
building in public dispute resolution. Potapchuk, William. "Moving From Collaborative Processes To Collaborative Communities: Building Our Agenda." , October 1999 Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/collabcomm.cfm . This article discusses the increasing use of collaborative approaches to problem solving in local communities. Moreover, the author focuses on the idea that the technique is at a crossroads, as its use has not always been successful. Offline (Print) Sources Susskind, Lawrence and Jeffrey Cruikshank. Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. New York: Basic Books, January 1, 1987. Breaking the Impasse offers a guide to consensus building strategies for resolving public disputes. The authors frame their discussion of public disputes in terms of distributional versus constitutional disputes. The authors describe possible obstacles to agreement and techniques for getting past those obstacles. Click here for more info. Building United Judgment: A Handbook for Consensus Decision Making, Reprint Edition. Louisa, VA : Fellowship for Intentional Community, June 1999. "Building United Judgment describes the techniques and skills which groups can apply to make the principles of consensus work effectively. Whether you are new to consensus or a 'practiced hand', whether your group uses consensus in the 'classic' form or wants to apply consensus principles to your own decision‐making structure, this book provides a thorough review of practical methods that can make your efforts work." ‐Fellowship for Intentional Community Carpenter, Susan L. "Choosing Appropriate Consensus Building Techniques and Strategies." In Consensus Building Handbook. Edited by Susskind, Lawrence, Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer and Sarah McKearnan, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. This article offers a discussion of things to consider before initiating a consensus building process. The author discusses aspects such as who should design the process, whether a consensus process is appropriate given the issues and interested parties, and whether consensus is feasible. She concludes by outlining the structure of what steps a consensus process should include. Gray, Barbara. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco: Jossey‐
Bass Publishers, 1989. This book discusses the use of collaboration, also known as consensus building, as a particularly effective method of problem solving. The work includes discussion of the theoretical foundations of collaboration and the advantages of collaboration in comparison to more adversarial approaches to resolving differences. It offers a thorough dicussion of the dynamics involved in the collaborative process, and the considerations that people attempting collaborative problem solving should take into account. These points are illustrated with a couple of case stuides. Specific suggestions for how to design a collaborative process are also incorporated into the work. Burgess, Heidi and Guy M. Burgess. "Definition of Collaborative Problem Solving." In Encyclopedia of Conflict Resolution. ABC‐Clio, November 1997. Pages: 58‐59. This section of the Encyclopedia for Conflict Resolution covers collaborative problem solving, also known as consensus bulding. It includes a brief outline of the the key steps in the collaborative process. Straus, David A. "Designing A Consensus Building Process Using a Graphic Road Map." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by Susskind, Lawrence, Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer and Sarah McKearnan, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. This article provides a general framework for consensus building and focuses on steps and strategies for designing consensus building processes. Straus emphasizes the idea of using a 'graphic road map' as a tool for designing a consensus process. A graphic road map serves as a guide for the process design phase of a consensus building effort. Innes, Judith E. "Evaluating Consensus Building." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by Susskind, Lawrence, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. In this chapter of the Consensus Building Handbook, the author offers a discussion of the challenges of evaluating consensus building processes. The author also discusses some criteria and strategies that may be used to evaluate the consensus building processes and their outcomes. Crocker, Jarle and William Potapchuk. "Implementing Consensus‐Based Agreements." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by Susskind, Lawrence, Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer and Sarah McKearnan, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. This article discusses the challenge of implementing consensus‐based decisions. The authors explain that there are two main dilemmas for the implementation of consensus‐based approaches to solving complex, multiparty problems. One is that while new ways of making public decisions continue to spread in use and popularity, most mechanisms for implementing them are still found in traditional institutions and processes. The other issue is related to the intangible aspects (trust, reciprocity, mutual support) of using consensus processes to solve public disputes. The authors argue that successful implementation depends on creating a fertile forum for these aspects to grow. Warfield, Wallace P. . "Public‐Policy Conflict Resolution: The nexus between culture and process ." In Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice. Edited by Sandole, Dennis J.D. and Hugo van der Merwe, eds. Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press, 1993. The author investigates the impact of organizational culture on public‐policy disputes. He argues that differences in culture between policy‐making organizations and stakeholder groups complicate policy conflicts and awareness of this cultural element is necessary for a more adequate understanding of policy conflict. Gray, Barbara. "The Collaborative Process." In Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, 1989. Pages: 55‐94. This chapter of Collaborating outlines a general model for carrying out a collaborative (or consensus building) process. It works through each step, from problem setting to direction setting, and finishing with implementation. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Brandenburg, Andrea. Building Agreement on Public Decisions in Wyoming: An Introduction to Collaboration and Consensus. University of Wyoming: William D. Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment and Natural Resources. Available at: . This page provides a discussion of collaboration and consensus processes as they may be used to make public decisions and resolve public disputes. Round Tables on the the Environment and Economy in Canada. Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future. Mediation Information & Resource Center. Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/consen.cfm. This article lists and explains the ten principles of consensus processes as they have been employed in sustainable development efforts in Canada. Adler, Peter S. and Juliana Birkhoff. Building Trust: When Knowledge From Here Meets Knowledge From Away. RESOLVE. Available at: http://www.resolv.org/pubs/buildingtrust/. This pamphlet discusses "the art and craft of consensus‐building." It focuses on maintaining dialogue between all parties involved in environmental public policy conflicts. Bash, Chadwich, Maria Amato and Michele Sacks. "Chelsea, Massachusetts: A City Helps Its Diverse People Get Along." , Available at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/179866.pdf. This piece offers background information on the City of Chelsea, Massachusetts, where a consensus building process succeeded in restoring the local democratic government of the municipality. The article describes the very successful conflict intervention program created by the City of Chelsea which trained community members to help solve conflicts before they escalated into assaults or litigation. Consensus‐Building Principles. Available at: http://www.resolv.org/articles/princ.htm. This article describes some of the basic principles of consensus‐building as a method of dispute resolution. Environmental Protection Agency Case Studies on Stakeholder Involvement Activities. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/pdf/appd1.pdf. This series of case studies comes from the U.S. EPA's Constructive Engagement Manual detail a variety of types of stakeholder involvement activities. Constructive engagement is based on the principles of consensus building. These case studies illustrate how consensus processes can be employed in a variety of contexts and different ways. Chamberlin, Katherine M. and Deborah D. Paulson. Guidelines and Issues to Consider in Planning a Collaborative Process. University of Wyoming: William D. Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment and Natural Resources. Available at: http://www.uwyo.edu/enr/ienr/CollabDocs/DPReport.html. This research report provides some general guidelines and principles on collaboration. More specifically, it focuses on guidelines for those considering or planning a collaborative process to address natural resource and environmental issues in the Western U.S. This report also examines the extent to which collaborative processes can, or should be used to replace more traditional forms of resource management and environmental decision‐making practices. Conflict Research Consortium Staff. "Resolving Environmental Regulatory Disputes‐‐abstract." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium, 1900. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10565/. Resolving Environmental Regulatory Disputes by Lawrence Susskind, analyses the use of voluntary, informal negotiations to resolve environmental disputes. The author proceeds by examining case studies. Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the U.S. EPA: Lessons Learned, Barriers, & Innovative Approaches . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/pdf/sipp.pdf. This report identifies key cross‐cutting lessons learned, pinpoints unique barriers and ways to overcome them, and highlights innovative approaches to stakeholder involvement and public participation. This effort is based upon a review of over thirty formal evaluations and informal summaries from across the U.S. EPA that describe and/or evaluate Agency stakeholder involvement and public participation activities. States Mediating Solutions to Environmental Disputes. Policy Consensus Initiative (PCI). Available at: Click here for more info. The Policy Consensus Initiative report describes how states benefit by using the processes of conflict resolution and consensus building to deal with differences over a variety of environmental issues. The issues range from cleaning up the environment and managing natural resources to establishing rules for water quality and coastal zone protection and preserving endangered species. Offline (Print) Sources Driessen, Peter. "Activating a Policy Network: The Case of Mainport Schiphol ." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by McKearnan, Sarah, Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer and Lawrence Susskind, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. This case study in consensus building "analyzes a case in which a policy network was activated in an attempt to resolve an incoherent and fragmented act of government. This case involves a dispute about plans to expand Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport." The public importance of the airport as well as its impact on the population near its urban location, demanded a comprehensive planning and dispute resolution effort. Susskind, Lawrence and Susan L. Podziba. "Affordable Housing Mediation: Building Consensus for Regional Agreements in the Hartford Area." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by McKearnan, Sarah, Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer and Lawrence Susskind, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. In 1988, the state of Connecticut passed legislation that sponsored mediator‐guided pilot projects aimed at increasing housing opportunities for low‐and moderate‐income families. This case study examines the consensus building process employed in the Hartford, Connecticut region in order to develop regional affordable housing plans. Susskind, Lawrence. "An Alternative to Robert's Rules of Order for Groups, Organizations, and Ad Hoc Assemblies that Want to Operate By Consensus." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching. Edited by Susskind, Lawrence, Sarah McKearnan and Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, January 1, 1999. With this chapter Susskind presents a "short guide" to consensus building. He includes definitions of some basic terms and concepts and then outlines the steps for three situations in which consensus building may potnetially be used. Mares‐Dixon, Judy, Julie A. McKay and Scott Peppet. "Building Consensus for Change within a Major Corporation: The Case of Levi‐Strauss & Co.." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by Susskind, Lawrence, Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer and Sarah McKearnan, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. This case study discusses how Levi Strauss Corporation employed a consensus‐based process to develop ideas on how to reengineer its product to respond to new fashion trends. This study shows how the company took thousands of employees' opinions into account as it restructured its product development and distribution systems in the mid‐1990s. Dale, Norman. "Cross‐Cultural Community‐Based Planning: Negotiating the Future of Haida Gwaii (British Columbia)." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by Susskind, Lawrence, Sarah McKearnan and Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. This case study describes the consensus‐based negotiations that took place between the Haida First Nation (native people) of British Columbia and government officials and other non‐Native communities, interest groups, and industry representatives. The primary conflict was over rights to log the southern portion of Haida Gwaii. The consensus process spawned an agreement centered on the creation of a community‐managed Trust. Forester, John, Irene Weiser and Michael A. Hughes. "Facilitating Statewide HIV/AIDS Policies and Priorities in Colorado." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by McKearnan, Sarah, Lawrence Susskind and Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. This case study "describes a consensus building process for HIV prevention strategies in the state of Colorado." The case is covered both chronologically and thematically, decribing how relationship building, common language, celebration, and rigorous consensus checks enhanced the process. Scher, Edward. "Negotiating Superfund Cleanup at the Massachusettes Military Reservation." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by Susskind, Lawrence, Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer and Sarah McKearnan, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. This case study reports on the consensus‐building process used to outline plans to clean up the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR). The longtime military base was found to be polluting the aquifer underneath it, which supplied drinking water to much of the Cape Cod region. Brubaker, David. "Organizational Trauma Recovery: "The God's Fellowship Community Church" Reconciliation Process." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by Susskind, Lawrence, Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer and Sarah McKearnan, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. This case study takes a look at the reconciliation process carried out among the members of "God's Fellowship Community Church". After allegations of misconduct, the founding minister of the church resigned, leaving behind a deeply divided congregation. The study details the community's recovery process and concludes with implications for consensus building processes in deeply divided organizations. Fairman, David and Sarah McKearnan. "Producing Consensus." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by Susskind, Lawrence, Jennifer Thomas‐
Larmer and Sarah McKearnan, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. This chapter offers a basic framework for building consensus in a group. It employs a specific example of a consensus building process to illustrate the obstacles that come up as groups try to reach consensus. The authors make suggestions on how to overcome the obstacles they identify. Falkner, Juliette A. and Jan Jing‐Min Sunoo. "Regulatory Negotiations: The Native American Experience." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by Susskind, Lawrence, Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer and Sarah McKearnan, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. This case study examines the negotiated rulemaking process carried out by representatives of Native American Indian tribes and tribal organizations and several federal agencies. The consensus‐based rulemaking process resulted in the largest negotiated rulemaking to date, achieving a, acceptable regulatory framework that years of typical negotiations had failed to produce. Susskind, Lawrence, Lawrence Bacow and Michael Wheeler. Resolving Environmental Regulatory Disputes. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Books, June 1, 1983. Resolving Environmental Regulatory Disputes analyses the use of voluntary, informal negotiations to resolve environmental disputes. The author proceeds by examining case studies. Click here for more info. McCreary, Scott T. "Resolving Science‐Intensive Public Policy Disputes: Lessons From the New York Bright Initiative." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by Susskind, Lawrence, Sarah McKearnan and Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. This case study examines the collaborative decision‐making process employed by the New York Bight initiative, an effort to manage pollutants in the ocean region adjacent to New York Harbor. The study concentrates on aspects including framing the issues, how scientists were recruited in the process, hoe joint fact‐finding mworked, and how the initiative developed a single‐text agreement. Ferenz, Michele and Colin Rule. "Rulenet: An Experiment in Online Consensus Building." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by Susskind, Lawrence, Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer and Sarah McKearnan, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. This case study explores the technical and political dimensions of RuleNet, an online forum for negotiated rulemaking. Negotiated rulemaking is a consensus‐based process that directly involves stakeholders in developing administrative rules. Connick, Sarah and Judith E. Innes. "San Francisco Estuary Project." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by Susskind, Lawrence, Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer and Sarah McKearnan, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. This case study details the consensus building process carried out by the San Francisco Estuary Project (SFEP). The SFEP "was part of the National Estuary Project (NEP), which was designed to bring all the stakeholders in an estuarine system into a consensual agreement on the state of the estuary and a plan for its restoration and management." Smith, Melinda. "The Catron County Citizens Group: A Case Study in Community Collaboration." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by Susskind, Lawrence, Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer and Sarah McKearnan, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. This case study details the collaborative process that developed between ranchers, loggers, other community members and federal agents in Catron County, New Mexico. The effort revolved around environmental conflicts over public land use in the county, where more than 75% of the land is under federal domain. In the early 1990s, conflicts between federal management strategies and local livelihoods demanded an innovative approch for resolution. Parr, John. "The Chattanooga Process: A City's Vision is Realized." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by Susskind, Lawrence, Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer and Sarah McKearnan, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. This case study offers an in‐depth look at The Chattanooga process, a consensus‐based policy making process used for making city planning decisions in the Tennessee city. The study examines the process in which citizens were engaged at multiple levels of policy planning and implementation. By promoting the principles of consensus building, Chattanooga has developed a more inclusive, cooperative approach to civic decision making. Podziba, Susan L. "The Chelsea Charter Consensus Process." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by McKearnan, Sarah, Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer and Lawrence Susskind, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. This case study looks at the consensus building process used in Chelsea, Massachusetts. The aim of the process was to engage the politically disillusioned community and restore the town's local democracy, which had fallen into state receivership. The process produced the Chelsea Charter of 1994 and eventually the town was released from receivership in July 1995. McKearnan, Sarah and Patrick Field. "The Northern Oxford County Coalition: Four Maine Towns Tackle a Public Health Mystery." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Edited by Susskind, Lawrence, Jennifer Thomas‐Larmer and Sarah McKearnan, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. This case study in consensus building examines the work of the Northern Oxford County Coalition (NOCC) in Maine. The Coalition formed in 1994 to initiate a consensus building process aimed at addressing community members' concerns about the environmental and health impacts of a local paper mill. The mill was alleged to be the cause of abnormally high cancer rates in the county, while simultaneously standing as the economic heart of the region. Unit X
The Third Side
One of the best-known conflict professionals in the world, Bill Ury, has developed the concept of
"the Third Side," which goes beyond typical third party roles of mediation and arbitration to
point out that there are roles that EVERYONE can play in disputes and conflicts to help them be
handled more constructively. This final unit explores Ury's 10 third side roles and tries to
encourage you to consider how YOU can become active through one or more of these roles in
the disputes and conflicts affecting your life.
Third Siders
Third siders act in a community threatened with destructive conflict as an immune system
acts in a body threatened by disease. Average citizens such as teachers, journalists, artists
and police officers can play key roles in preventing, de-escalating and resolving conflict.
Bill Ury has labeled these people "third siders."
Bridge Builders
A relationship operates like savings in the bank; whenever an issue arises, the parties can
dip into their account of goodwill to help deal with it. Bridge building, or the act of
building relationships, takes place all around us, sometimes without us even perceiving it.
Mediators
Mediators get involved in a dispute in order to help the parties resolve it. Unlike
arbitrators or judges, mediators have no power to define or enforce an agreement, but
they can help the parties to voluntarily reach agreement.
Arbitrators
Arbitrators listen to the arguments of both sides in a dispute and issue a final and binding
decision. Arbitration is used for cases that either cannot be negotiated, or where
negotiation has failed.
Educators
Educators play a critical role in preventing or de-escalating conflict. Teaching tolerance
and critical thinking and helping to break down stereotypes can help disputants manage
their own conflicts more constructively.
Witnesses
In Bloomington, Indiana, a group called "Moms on Patrol" walks the streets with cell
phones, looking out for dangerous gang activity, and reporting it to the police. By
watching carefully, witnesses like Moms on Patrol can prevent escalation of conflict and
even save lives. This essay describes what witnesses can do and how they can do it.
Peacekeepers
When violence breaks out, the community needs to employ measures to stop harmful
conflict in its tracks. The police and UN peacekeepers can act as peacekeepers, but it is a
community function too. Parents, teachers, and co-workers all can be peacekeepers in
their own domains, as described in this essay.
Healers
Conflict often leaves deep wounds. Even if a conflict appears resolved, the wounds may
remain and, with them, the danger that the conflict could recur. The role of the healer is
to restore injured relationships.
Equalizers
Stronger parties often refuse to negotiate with weaker parties. This is where the equalizer
comes in. Each of us is capable of empowering the weak and the unrepresented. This
essay discusses the role of the equalizer in conflicts.
Referees
If and when people do fight, it is important to reduce the harm. Referees set limits on
fighting.
Providers
Conflict usually arises in the first place from frustrated needs, like safety, identity, love
and respect. Providers are those who help fulfill such needs.
Unit X Assignment:
Third Side Exercise:
Find a conflict in your community — one that is in the newspaper or one that you know about.
What third side role(s) might you be able to play in this conflict to make it more constructive?
Briefly describe the problem and what you might be able to do to address it in a 2-3 page paper.
Third Siders By
William L. Ury
Introduction No more critical challenge faces each of us, and all of us
together, than how to live together in a world of differences. So "When spider webs unite, they can much depends on our ability to handle our conflicts peacefully -- halt even a lion." ‐‐ African proverb
our happiness at home, our performance at work, the livability of
our communities, and, in this age of mass destruction, the
survival of our species.
The Third Side offers a promising new way to look at the conflicts around us. The Third Side is
the community -- us -- in action protecting our most precious interests in safety and well-being.
It suggests 10 practical roles any of us can play on a daily basis to stop destructive fighting in our
families, at work, in our schools, and in the world. Each of our individual actions is like a single
spider web, fragile perhaps but, when united with others, capable of halting the lion of war.
Although the Third Side is in its infancy in our modern-day societies, it has been used effectively
by simpler cultures for millennia to reduce violence and promote dialogue.
What is the Third Side? Unlike the ultimate arbiter in the form of a king or
authoritarian state, the third side is not a
transcendent individual or institution who
dominates all, but rather the emergent will of the
community. It is an impulse that arises from the
vital relationships linking each member and every
other member of the community.
Additional insights into third siders http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/audio/10963 9. Using the power of peers.
The third side possesses the power of peer pressure and the force of public opinion. It is people
power. It uses the power of persuasion. It influences the parties primarily through an appeal to
their interests and to community norms. [2] In every conflict, there usually exists not just one
possible third party but a multitude. Individually, we may not be able to intervene effectively, but
collectively we are potentially more powerful than any two conflicting parties. Organizing
ourselves into a coalition, we can balance the power between the parties and protect the weaker
one.
From a perspective of common ground. While most issues in contention are presented as having
just two sides, pro and con, there usually exists a third. From this third perspective, the truth of
each competing point of view can be appreciated. Shared interests often come to loom larger
than the differences. People remember that they all, in the end, belong to the same extended
community.
Supporting a process of dialogue and nonviolence. Silently or loudly, the Third Side says "No"
to violence and "Yes" to dialogue. Third siders urge disputants to sit down and talk out their
differences respectfully. They focus, in other words, on the process. To them, how people handle
their differences is just as important as what outcome they reach.
Aiming for a product of a "triple win." Third siders strive for a resolution that satisfies the
legitimate needs of the parties and at the same time meets the needs of the wider community. The
goal of the third side is, in other words, a "triple win."
Who are the Third Siders? The Third Side is made up of both insiders, such as friends, family, and even the parties
themselves, who are in turn actively supported by outsiders, such as neighbors, neutrals, and
bystanders.
What are the roles we can play? 10 Roles Of The Third Side Conflict does not come out of nowhere but proceeds from latent tension, develops into overt
conflict, erupts into power struggle, and from there crosses the threshold of destructive conflict
and violence. As third siders, our aim is not to suppress conflict altogether but simply to keep the
trajectory of escalation below this threshold.
We have at least three major opportunities to channel the conflict's vertical momentum, leading
to destruction, into a horizontal impulse, leading to constructive change.
The first is to prevent destructive conflict from emerging in the first place by addressing latent
tensions. The second is to resolve any overt conflicts which do develop. The third is to contain
any escalating power struggles that temporarily escape resolution. What is not prevented is
resolved; and what is not resolved is contained. The motto of the Third Side is thus: "Contain if
necessary, resolve if possible, best of all prevent."
Prevention Roles The Provider - Enabling People to Meet Their Needs
Contain if necessary, resolve if possible, best of all prevent. Conflict usually arises in the first place from frustrated needs, like love and respect. Frustration
leads people to bully others, to use violence, and to grab someone else's things. The most basic
human needs include food (and other necessities for living), safety, identity, and freedom. If we
as third siders can help people address one or more of these four needs we can avert destructive
conflict. This is the role of the Provider.
•
•
•
•
Share resources, share knowledge Give others a sense of security Offer respect Empower others[3] Although a more thorough description of each of these activities is beyond the scope of this
essay, by clicking on each activity (above and below) more detail can be found at
www.thirdside.org.
The Teacher - Giving People Skills to Handle Conflict
Sometimes people fight simply because they know no other way to react when a need is
frustrated and a serious difference arises. By helping people learn new values, perspectives and
skills, we as Teachers can show them a better way to deal with differences.
•
•
•
Delegitimize violence[4] Teach tolerance[5] Teach joint problem‐solving The Bridge-Builder -- Forging Relationships Across Lines of Conflict
Good relationships are key to preventing conflict. Anyone can help build bridging relationships
across natural divides. A relationship operates like savings in the bank; whenever an issue arises,
the parties can dip into their account of goodwill to help deal with it. Often not a discrete
activity, bridge-building takes place all around us, sometimes without us even perceiving it -- at
family meals, on school projects, in business transactions, and at neighborhood meetings.
•
•
•
Creating cross‐cutting ties Develop joint projects[6] Foster genuine dialogue[7] The Mediator - Reconciling Conflicting Interests
At the core of conflict are often conflicting interests. As mediators, we can help reconcile the
parties' interests. The Mediator does not seek to determine who is right and who is wrong, but
rather tries to get to the core of the dispute and help the parties resolve it. We may not think of it
as mediation, but that is what we are doing whenever we listen attentively to people in dispute,
when we ask them about what they really want, when we suggest possible approaches, and when
we urge them to think hard about the costs of not reaching agreement.
•
•
•
•
Everyone's a mediator Bring the parties to the table Facilitate communication Help people search for a solution The Arbiter - Determining Disputed Rights
Sometimes mediation is not enough to resolve a dispute or is not appropriate because basic rights
are being violated. Whereas a mediator can only suggest a solution, an arbiter can decide what is
right. The arbiter is a familiar role, embodied in the judge in the courtroom or the arbitrator in a
work setting. More informally, the arbiter is the teacher deciding a dispute among two quarreling
students, the parent ruling on a matter involving two children, or the manager determining an
issue among two employees. In this sense, we are all potential arbiters.
•
•
•
Replace destructive conflict Promote justice[8] Encourage negotiation[9] The Equalizer - Democratizing Power
Every conflict takes place within the larger context of power. Imbalance of power often leads to
abuse and injustice. The strong refuse to negotiate with the weak or to submit their dispute to
mediation or arbitration -- why should they, the strong think, when they can win? This is where
the Equalizer has a contribution to make. Each of us holds a packet of power, a measure of
influence over the parties around us. Individually, our influence may be small, but collectively, it
can be considerable. We are capable of empowering the weak and the unrepresented so that they
can negotiate a fair and mutually satisfactory resolution.
•
•
•
Help bring the powerful to the table Build collaborative democracy Support nonviolent action[10] The Healer - Repairing Injured Relationships
At the core of many conflicts lie emotions -- anger, fear, humiliation, hatred, insecurity, and
grief. The wounds may run deep. Even if a conflict appears resolved after a process of mediation,
adjudication, or voting, the wounds may remain and, with them, the danger that the conflict
could recur. A conflict cannot be considered fully resolved until the injured relationships have
begun to heal. The role of the Healer is to assist in this process.
•
•
•
Create the right climate Listen and acknowledge[11] Encourage apology[12] The Witness - Paying Attention to Escalation
Destructive conflict does not just break out but escalates through different stages, from tension to
overt conflict to violence. By watching carefully, the witness can detect warning signals, which,
if acted on, can prevent escalation of conflict and even save lives. A witness can also speak up to
persuade the parties to cease fighting and sound the alarm to call the attention of other
Thirdsiders who can intervene as mediators, peacekeepers, or other witnesses.
•
•
•
•
Watch out for early warning signals Go on patrol Speak out Get help fast The Referee -- Setting Limits to Fighting
Some fighting can be salutary. Fighting can serve the function of clearing the air and bringing
suppressed problems into sharp focus.[13] If and when people do fight, it is important to reduce
the harm. That is the role of the referee, who sets limits on fighting. Parents know this role well:
"Pillows are OK, but fists are not." "No blows above the neck or below the belt." As referees, we
can change the way people fight, replacing destructive weapons and methods with substantially
less destructive ones.
•
•
•
Establish rules for fair fighting Remove offensive arms[14] Strengthen defenses ‐ nonoffensively The Peacekeeper - Providing Protection
When the rules are broken and the limits on fighting exceeded, the community needs to employ
the minimally forceful measures necessary to stop harmful conflict in its tracks. The role of
Peacekeepers need not be limited to specialists like the police and U.N. Peacekeepers, it is a
community function that anyone may be called upon to play. When two children fight, adults can
step in the middle and, if necessary, physically pull the two apart. The best peacekeepers never
fight. They never fight because they don't need to. They accomplish their ends by intervening
early and using persuasion.
•
•
•
Interpose between parties Enforce the peace Preempt violence before it starts What can I do to help? The Third Side is us. As simple societies like the Semai have
long recognized, it is everyone's responsibility to prevent
Friends for life don't let friends harmful conflict. "You have to help resolve a dispute," one
fight. Semai explained. "If you don't intervene and something happens
between the two disputants, you are accountable." "Friends for
life don't let friends fight" is the slogan of a successful media campaign against violence in
Boston. That could be the motto of the Third Side.
We may not think of ourselves as third parties -- in fact we generally don't. Yet each of us has
the opportunity to serve as a third party in the conflicts around us - either as outsiders or as
insiders. We constitute the family, the friends, the colleagues, the neighbors, the onlookers, the
witnesses. Even when no third party is present, each of us has the opportunity to mediate our
own disputes by taking the Third Side.
In short, the Third Side is not some mysterious or special other. It is us. The missing alternative
to force and domination is in our hands.
Steps for Mobilizing the Third Side Getting to peace is rarely easy, but there are some simple steps any of us can take to begin to
mobilize the Third Side:
1. Change the story. The principal obstacle to preventing destructive conflict lies in our minds in the fatalistic beliefs that discourage people from even trying. The story that humans have
always warred, and always will, is spread unchallenged from person to person and from parent to
child. It is time, in our everyday conversations, to question and refute this story and its embedded
assumptions about human nature. It is time to give our children -- and ourselves -- a more
accurate and more positive picture of our past and our future prospects. From realistic hope
springs action.
2. Learn some skills. "Why do you feel this way?" said the student recently trained in conflict
resolution to the youth pointing a gun at his head at a nighttime basketball game, "Don't you
understand that if anything happens to me, you'll get life?" The youth put the gun away.
Each of us can benefit from honing our joint problem-solving and conflict resolution skills.
There are many ways: take a class, read a book, or get some coaching from a friend or colleague.
The key lies in practice; the more, the better. As with sports, no matter how skilled you already
are, there always remains room for improvement.
3. Start close to home. "You have to remember all the steps," reports third-grade mediator Ian
Morton, "but when it's over, it makes you feel very happy to help a friend." We don't need to
look far to find a place to practice our third sider skills. Daily occasions abound at home among
our family and friends, at school, at work among our colleagues, and in the neighborhood. It may
be to listen and hear the parties out. It may be to facilitate dialogue between those who do not
understand one another. It may be to use peer pressure to urge constructive resolution. Each of us
has a role to play.
4. Mediate your own disputes. "This one kid came up to me and was pushing me," recalls fifthgrader Alexandria Ritch, "and I said 'Don't push me.' He said, 'What are you going to do about it,
hit me?' And I said, 'I would never hurt you. I'm a mediator, and hitting others isn't right.' He
started listening to me. . . and then he said he was sorry and we got on the bus. I felt better
because I was being a bigger person."
Our own disputes often prove the most challenging. It may not be easy to gain perspective, yet, if
we can, each of the 10 Thirdsider roles is available to us. We can attempt to build bridges, heal
wounds, and resolve our differences by ourselves. In the absence of a mediator, we can, in effect,
mediate our own dispute. If our efforts falter, we can actively seek the help of others, mobilizing
the Third Side around us.[15]
5. Do what you do best. As you look around and wonder how you can contribute to the wider
community, you don't need to start from scratch. Instead, begin with what you already do and
add an extra third-side dimension. Parents can help their children learn how to deal with conflicts
constructively. A teacher can weave a conflict resolution strand into the subject matter, whether
it is history, social studies, or languages. A minister can help people apologize and forgive. A
lawyer can facilitate the creative resolution of conflicts by practicing "collaborative lawyering"
or mediation. A journalist can spotlight emergent conflicts for public attention. A police officer
can mediate domestic disputes informally. Some of us may have special talents as teachers,
others as mediators, and still others as peacekeepers. The key is to identify your distinctive
competence and incorporate it into what you do every day.[16]
6. Volunteer your services. "In over two hundred cases (I mediated), I can think of only two
that bogged down," says 74-year-old volunteer community mediator Gail Robertson, speaking of
her experience over the past 10 years. "If they're willing to listen, speak, and follow the process,
it works."
Like Gail Robertson, anyone of us can volunteer our time and skills. Many communities have
neighborhood justice centers that rely on volunteer mediators and staff. Schools have peer
mediation programs. You can volunteer as a peer juror, a neighborhood peace officer, or as a
mentor or sports coach for needy teens. You can also teach others in the community about joint
problem-solving and conflict resolution. Further a field, there exist volunteer opportunities as
election monitor or humanitarian aid worker in conflicted societies. All these roles help build a
strong Third Side.
7. Fill a missing role. The firm's strategic planning committee was paralyzed. Although the vice
presidents disagreed with the senior vice president for administration, none of them wanted to
confront him directly, nor did they intend to implement what he proposed. Finally Olivia Lane
spoke up in exasperation, pointing out how they were skirting the real issues. As manager of
executive training and development, she was not formally a member of the committee, but
informally she had spent a lot of time listening individually to each of the participants. Once she
brought the issues out in the open, the committee members began discussing them in earnest. For
follow-up sessions, the committee appointed Lane as official facilitator. The result: the first
strategic plan ever implemented at the firm.
Just as Olivia Lane spotted the conflicting interests and surfaced them as an informal mediator,
so each of us can identify the causes of escalation around us and then play - or find someone else
to play - the appropriate roles that address them. In this way, safety net by safety net, we can
construct a comprehensive system for transforming conflict.
8. Create a winning alliance. "The deal we cut [with the police] was, 'Take this one off the
streets, we can deal with him in prison ministry,'" explained the Reverend Jeffrey Brown. The
police, in turn, depend on the ministers to work with the more winnable kids. "Right now," said
the Reverend Eugene Rivers, "any cop in Dorchester can dump a kid off in Baker House [a
neighborhood recreation center and parish house run by Rivers] and say, 'Look, I'm gonna crack
this kid's skull, take him.' So we have taken the pressure off the police to play heavies." The
ministers and the police have created a winning alliance against teenage violence.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking you need to do it all yourself. Recruit help. Take a lesson from
the Bushmen and speak to all the disputants' friends and relatives. Keep on strengthening the
Third Side until it becomes more powerful than any aggressor.
9. Urge your organization to take the Third Side. We all belong to organizations - businesses,
professional associations, unions, civic clubs, cultural affinity groups, or political parties - that
can greatly magnify our Thirdsider efforts. We can leverage our membership, turning our
organizations into Thirdsiders. On the issues that divide the wider community, our organizations
can take a stand for constructive discussion. They can serve as Bridge-Builders, offering public
forums for dialogue, or as Equalizers, providing weaker parties with information and support.
10. Support the Third Side in the wider community. "As long as we the citizens let [negative
political campaigning] be effective, it will continue," says Becky Cain of the League of Women
Voters. "We are the only ones with the power to stop it." Even where you are unable to assume a
direct role in the wider conflicts surrounding us, you can still lend your voice to the Third Side.
You can speak out and cast your vote against harmful conflict and violence. When even a single
person takes a stand, the ripple effect can result in surprising change.
11. Help build Third Sider institutions. Programs and institutions are the backbone of the
Third Side. Each of us can champion the teaching of conflict resolution and tolerance to children
of all ages as a standard part of the school curriculum. We can promote the establishment of
community mediation centers. In the wider world, we can support the development of
international mediation services, the strengthening of the International Criminal Court, and the
creation of standing peacekeeping units that can act promptly to prevent genocide and war.
12. Help create a social movement. For some, serving as part of the Third Side may mean
nothing more than putting a new label on what they have been doing all the time. For others, it
may mean engaging in new activities. For all, it may mean a new awareness of themselves as
part of the larger human community engaged in the historic project of learning to live and work
together. Just as the environmental movement addresses the relationship between human beings
and nature, so a coexistence movement would deal with the relationship between human beings
and other humans. In coalition with other great social movements like those for human rights,
women's rights, and democracy, such a movement could help raise awareness and mobilize a
powerful Third Side.
Such a movement needs a new vocabulary. Imagine a prefix like "co" (from the Latin "with")
starting to be attached to names in the way that "eco" is for environmental terms. "Codemocracy" would mean the practice of democracy through consensus-building and
collaboration rather than by destructive combat. "Co-history" would mean the history of how
humans have gotten along together. "Co-culture" would mean a culture of conflict resolution and
cooperation.
We know that the Third Side can work because it already does - some of the time. In Kenneth
Boulding's words, "what exists is possible." The task remaining is to take the success stories and
make them the norm. Plenty of obstacles remain but none are insurmountable. There is in fact no
good reason why we cannot get to peace.
[1] This essay is a condensation of www.thirdside.org, which itself is a condensation and
"webification" of the book The Third Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop by William
Ury (Penguin 2000). It is reprinted here with the permission of William Ury. This essay has
many links in it, some of which go to more detailed pages published on www.thirdside.org, and
others of which go to associated essays on www.BeyondIntractability.org
[2] See also the essay on integrative power.
[3] See also the empowerment essay in BeyondIntractability.
[4] See both the linked essay
(http://www.thirdside.org/index.cfm?pageCode=ROLES_02#violence) and the nonviolence
essay in www.BeyondIntractability.org for details.
[5] See both the linked essay
(http://www.thirdside.org/index.cfm?pageCode=ROLES_02#violence) and the tolerance essay in
www.BeyondIntractability.org
[6] See both the linked essay (http://www.thirdside.org/index.cfm?pageCode=ROLES_03) and
the www.BeyondIntractability.org essay on joint projects for details.
[7] See both the linked essay (at http://www.thirdside.org/index.cfm?pageCode=ROLES_03) and
the essay on dialogue in www.BeyondIntractability.org for details.
[8] See both the linked essay (http://www.thirdside.org/index.cfm?pageCode=ROLES_05) and
the set of essays on justice in www.BeyondIntractability.org for details.
[9] See both the linked essay on negotiation
(http://www.thirdside.org/index.cfm?pageCode=ROLES_05) and the net of essays on
negotiation in www.BeyondIntractability.org for details.
[10] See both the linked essay (http://www.thirdside.org/index.cfm?pageCode=ROLES_06) and
the nonviolence essay in www.BeyondIntractability.org. for details.
[11] See both the linked essay (http://www.thirdside.org/index.cfm?pageCode=ROLES_07) and
the www.BeyondIntractability.org essays on empathic listening and recognition for details.
[12] See both the linked essay (http://www.thirdside.org/index.cfm?pageCode=ROLES_07) and
the www.BeyondIntractability.org essay on apology and forgiveness for details.
[13] See the BeyondIntractability essay on Benefits of Conflict.
[14] See the linked essay (http://www.thirdside.org/roles_09.cfm?menu=no#remove) and the
essay on Arms Control in www.BeyondIntractability.org.
[15] See also the essays on mediators and mediation in www.BeyondIntractability.org.
[16] See also the www.BeyondIntractability.org essays on educators, mediators, and
peacekeepers.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Catalysts for Resolution of Social Conflict. 2003. Available at: http://www.aworldofpossibilities.com/details.cfm?id=90. William Ury, associate Director of Harvard Law School's Program on Negotiation and coauthor of the bestselling book "Getting to Yes", asserts that a "third side" of citizen mediators can become a catalyst for conflict resolution. Conflict Resolution from the Third Side. 2003. Available at: http://www.aworldofpossibilities.com/details.cfm?id=91. William Ury of Harvard's Program on Negotiation discusses how individuals who stand apart from a conflict can intervene to achieve a just settlement for the disagreeing parties. The Third Side. Available at: http://www.thirdside.org/index.cfm. "ThirdSide.org is sponsored by the Global Negotiation Project (formerly the Project on Preventing War) at Harvard University. The Project develops and encourages the use of effective negotiation processes to reduce the risk of war. In addition, the Project is also committed to the development of negotiation theory and practice in a wide range of related areas, such as international mediation and designing dispute resolution systems to contain violence and resolve conflict." The site provides access to a variety of information regarding William Ury's concept of the Third Side including a definition and examples of third siders in action. Offline (Print) Sources Ury, William L., ed. Must We Fight?: From The Battlefield to the Schoolyard ‐ A New Perspective on Violent Conflict and Its Prevention. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass, December 1, 2001. In this book, the authors provide new research and insights into human behavior and human nature, which show that we are not, in fact, doomed to violent conflict. The book also outlines a brilliant program for personal and community empowerment called The Third Side. This new paradigm shows how we can intervene to support healthy conflict while preventing destructive confrontation. Ury, William L. The Third Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop. New York: Penguin Books, September 2000. In this book, William Ury explains that it takes two sides to fight and a third to stop it. Based on years of experience as a conflict resolution practitioner, Ury describes ten practical roles that people can play to prevent destructive conflict. He argues that fighting is not inevitable human behavior and that we can transform battles into constructive conflict and cooperation by turning to what he calls, "the third side". This is the original book upon which this essay and the larger website (www.thirdside.org) are based. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Making Peace in Venezuela. 2005. Available at: http://www.aworldofpossibilities.com/details.cfm?id=191. An interview with Ana Cabria Mellace, Arnaldo Este, Jennifer McCoy, and William Ury. The election of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez provoked strikes, coup threats and foreign intervention‐ a civil war in the making. Against all odds, another way was found: a third way or a third side. A potent new movement of ordinary people emerged seeking to mediate the conflict without violence. Join us for the story of how citizens with no weapons and few tools discovered their own power. Offline (Print) Sources Weiss, Joshua N., ed. When Spider Webs Unite: Five Case Studies on the Third Side in Action. Cambridge, MA: PON Books, September 2002. When Spider Webs Unite is the next work in the evolution of William Ury's "Third Side" concept. Through a series of case studies, the book illustrates how the "Third Side" becomes operationalized in actual conflict situations. The five case studies, written by Program on Negotiation Graduate Fellows, represent a wide range of conflicts: Native American land claim disputes in upstate New York in the late 1990s, a management buyout conflict during German reunification and the privatization of former East German companies, collective resistance in Tuzla during the 1991‐95 Balkan war, a health care access crisis in Peru during the mid‐1990s, and the 1994 US‐North Korea nuclear standoff. The case studies shed light on the obstacles and barriers to the emergence of the Third Side as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the concept. The book concludes with a summary of "Third Side" lessons and thoughts for future research. Teaching Materials on this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources How Can I Apply This? (The Third Side). Available at: http://www.thirdside.org/Apply.cfm. This page takes users through a four‐step process on a conflict of their choosing: assessing the cost of the conflict, diagnosing the situation, identifying roles, and identifying actions you can take to become a "third sider." Third Side Mapping Tool. Available at: http://www.thirdside.org/tools.cfm. The Third Side website has a "mapping tool" that users can use to think through how they would apply the third side concepts to a particular conflict. Bridge Builders By
William L. Ury
Introduction Good relationships are key to preventing conflict.
A relationship operates like savings in the bank;
whenever an issue arises, the parties can dip into
their account of goodwill to help deal with it. Often
not a discrete activity, bridge-building takes place
all around us, sometimes without us even
Additional insights into the bridge builder role perceiving it - at family meals, on school projects, http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/audio/10162
in business transactions, and at neighborhood
meetings.
Creating cross­cutting ties Nothing can escalate conflicts faster than the absence of communication, trust, and relationship.
Ignorance creates and exacerbates fears. Misunderstandings accumulate and stereotypes build up.
People attribute the worst intentions to others' behavior. Cross-cutting ties, relationships that cut
across a line of potential or actual conflict, can serve as a safety net to catch escalating tensions.
Cross-cutting ties can build trust and establish natural avenues for communication.
Anyone, no matter what their occupation, can help build bridging relationships across natural
divides. The bridge-builder is the one who invites two estranged family members who have not
talked in years to the same celebration or who invites two business rivals for a golf game. The
Knowledge Revolution facilitates the process of building bridges on a global scale. As more and
more young people spend time living as exchange students in other countries, as more and more
businesspeople make deals across borders and visit partners in their homes, as more and more
tourists travel to foreign lands, stereotypes are replaced by genuine understanding. The more
bridges we build across the chasms of culture and distance, the harder it becomes to demonize
others.
Develop joint projects One intentional way to forge cross-cutting ties is to create joint projects. As parents know, telling
two children to get to know each other can be an awkward proposition; but assign them a
common task like washing the dishes, and soon they will be grumbling together about adults and
carrying on a lively conversation. Similarly, a manager faced with two rivalrous sales
representatives can put them to work as a team on the same important account. In a classic 1950s
experiment with two groups of boys at a summer camp, psychologist Muzafer Sherif
demonstrated that a common task, such as jointly pushing a truck to get its engine started, helps
reduce negative stereotypes and build friendships - far more effectively, in fact, than simply
bringing the boys together to socialize.
In communities around the United States, a growing number of people are getting together across
ethnic, class, and ideological divides to tackle concrete problems of mutual interest. In Sonoma,
California, Hispanic farmworkers and middle-class whites have learned to work together by
supporting each other's favorite causes - from education to affordable housing. In southern
Oregon and northern California, environmentalists and loggers, long-time foes, have forged
partnerships to plant trees, protect streams, and start new forest-product businesses. "This is not
about preservation vs. exploitation," declares a member of a third-generation logging family.
"This is about communities - forest communities and people communities."
Perhaps the most substantial exercise in bridge-building in the world is the joint project of
European integration spearheaded by Jean Monnet after the two bloodiest wars in world history.
After World War II, he managed to persuade two bitter and ancient enemies, France and
Germany, and a half dozen of their smaller neighbors, to pool their coal and steel resources.
Monnet reasoned that joint control of the resources most essential to industrial development and
modern war would make it difficult for the participating nations to go to war once again. And
history has proven him right. From this first step has evolved the European Economic
Community, the European Parliament, the European Court of Justice, the European Central Bank
- the institutions of a confederated Europe. Disputes within the European Community continue to
spring up but it has become unthinkable to use force to resolve them. Europe, the epicenter of
war in the twentieth century, has become an experiment in coexistence and cooperation.
Foster genuine dialogue Dialogue aims not to convert others or to reach agreement on the issues, but rather to promote
mutual understanding and build relationships that can prevent escalation into violence. They
provide a safe atmosphere in which people can talk openly and deeply about their differences,
and perhaps discover their underlying commonalties.
Dialogue is demanding. It is much easier to remain at a distance casting stones at the other. It
takes courage to face the pain of human differences and to talk in a vulnerable fashion about
what really matters. Yet, in conflicts large and small, dialogue has the power to change attitudes.
While it may seem obvious to outsiders, the parties often are amazed to discover that their
enemies are human like themselves, and sometimes end up concluding that, placed in the same
position, they might feel and act the same way.
In Los Angeles, the city sponsored a series of interracial discussions in all parts of the city to try
to ease tensions after the O. J. Simpson murder trial. Churches, unions, and businesses became
involved. "It's amazing how little we really know about each other," commented one participant.
"I've seen two riots in my life," declared another. "This is riot prevention work. It has more
potential than anything I've seen."
Bridge-builders can also foster dialogue on the streets. In Omaha, Nebraska, a small group of
African-American fathers came together under the name "Mad Dads" to walk the streets and
reconnect with young people involved in drugs and violence. "We just started talking with
them," explains the cofounder. "'What would you like to see change around here?' We listen to
them. We get them engaged expressing themselves. Then we get into feelings. 'How do you feel
about so and so? What about your father?'" Mad Dads has spread to twelve states across America
- with tangible results. As one government official explains, "In 1990, there were sixteen people
killed in one single neighborhood. This year there has been only one killing. . . . Mad Dads
taught us that ours was not a black or white problem but a community problem. The only way to
help a community is for the community to help itself - one house, one block at a time."
Genuine dialogue can take place every day between potential adversaries - husbands and wives,
workplace rivals, or neighbors at odds. Acting as third parties, even if we say very little, we can
foster dialogue by bringing the parties together in a comfortable and neutral place - a couples
counselor's office, a conference room, or a friend's living room. If emotions threaten to explode,
we can intervene to cool things down and keep the conversation going. We can serve, in short, as
a container for contention.
[1] This essay is reprinted, with permission from Bill Ury, from www.thirdside.org. A few
minor changes were made to fit this space, most importantly, links to other related essays in the
knowledge base and formatting changes. Our thanks to Bill Ury for allowing us to use this.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources The Third Side. Available at: http://www.thirdside.org/index.cfm. "ThirdSide.org is sponsored by the Global Negotiation Project (formerly the Project on Preventing War) at Harvard University. The Project develops and encourages the use of effective negotiation processes to reduce the risk of war. In addition, the Project is also committed to the development of negotiation theory and practice in a wide range of related areas, such as international mediation and designing dispute resolution systems to contain violence and resolve conflict." The site provides access to a variety of information regarding William Ury's concept of the Third Side including a definition and examples of third siders in action. Offline (Print) Sources Kelman, H. C. "Coalitions Across Conflit Lines: The Interplay of Conflicts within and between the Israeli and Palestinian Communities." In Conflict Between People and Groups. Edited by Worchel, S. and J. Simpson, eds. Chicago: Nelson‐Hall, 1993. Bercovitch, Jacob and Jeffrey Z. Rubin, eds. Mediation in International Relations: Multiple Approaches to Conflict Management, Reprint Edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1994. "Mediation is one of the most important management strategies in international relations, yet it has been the focus of relatively little scholarship. International mediation may involve private individuals, academic scholars, small or large states, transnational and international organizations, and yet the nature and consequences of such variation have yet to be examined systematically. The purpose of this book is to analyze the mediating efforts of these actors, and to consider their contributions to international peace and security." ‐‐Harvard Law School Ury, William L. The Third Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop. New York: Penguin Books, September 2000. Bridge Builders are one of 10 roles described in detail in this book which describes how ordinary people can stop fights at all levels from interpersonal to international. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources PeaceBuilders. Available at: http://www.peacebuilders.com/. "PeaceBuilders is a community based program launched in schools that shifts the entire school climate to a peaceful, productive and safe place for faculty and students. PeaceBuilders effects risk factors which predict violence, bullying, drugs, tobacco, etc. PeaceBuilders builds and reinforces protective factors. These factors improve academic achievement, positive social skills and helps build character through easily implemented research based proven tools." ‐From Website PeaceNet. Available at: http://www.igc.org/index.html. PeaceNet is a project of the Institute for Global Communications, and aims to help bring communication technologies to grassroots organizations worldwide working for peace, human rights, environmental sustainability, women's rights, conflict resolution and worker rights. PeaceNet helps connect bridge builders through the world's communications infrastructure. The Online Healthy Relationship Project. Available at: http://www.m4c.ns.ca/new14.html. "The Online Healthy Relationships Project is an innovative approach to educating adolescents about the underlying issues that contribute to violent behaviour. Essentially a violence‐prevention program, the object is to help students learn skills and attitudes needed to build healthy relationships based on sharing power with others. The initiative is a community partnership which derives its strength from the relationship among educators, police, the developers of an acclaimed violence‐prevention curriculum and Internet technology specialists." Offline (Print) Sources Garber, Randi. "Health as a Bridge for Peace: Theory, Practice and Prognosis, Reflections of a Practitioner." Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 1:1, 2002. This article explains how members of both antagonistic parties in Haiti, Israel‐Palestine, and the Balkans, collaborated on health care programs, and thus, opened up avenues for peacebuilding efforts in their embattled communities. Kelman, Herbert C. "Informal Mediation by the Scholar/Practitioner." Mediation in International Relations: Multiple Approaches to Conflict Management , 1992. Kelman describes his interactive problem solving approach to conflict resolution. This approach consists primarily of workshops which, "try to contribute to creating a political environment conducive to conflict resolution and to transformation of the relationship between the conflicting parties."[65] Such workshops are intended to supplement and complement official negotiations. [online abstract] Mediators By
Heidi Burgess
Resources At the core of conflict are often conflicting interests. As Mediators, we can help reconcile the
parties' interests. The Mediator does not seek to determine who is right and who is wrong, but
rather tries to get to the core of the dispute and help the parties resolve it. We may not think of it
as mediation, but that is what we are doing whenever we listen attentively to people in dispute,
when we ask them about what they really want, when we suggest possible approaches, and when
we urge them to think hard about the costs of not reaching agreement.
Everyone's a mediator Jonah, four-and-a-half-years-old, occasionally mediates between his two older brothers, ages
eight and twelve. When an argument breaks out, he holds up his hands and says, "Okay, stop
fighting!" He shuttles back and forth between them, explaining to each brother how the other one
feels, and often brings about a reconciliation.
Like Jonah, each of us has a chance to mediate every day, at least in an informal sense. Parents
can mediate among their children and children between their parents. Supervisors can mediate
among their employees and employees between their bosses. Colleagues can mediate among
their peers, managers among their team-mates, and friends among their friends.
Splitting the difference between two opposed positions is often not satisfactory. A Mediator can
help the parties meet the interests - the concerns, desires, and aspirations - underlying those
positions. One family dispute among the Bushmen, for example, concerned a certain betrothal
gift from the bride's mother that the groom's mother had expected would go to her present
husband but was given to someone else instead. Through a process of community mediation, the
parties agreed a few days later that the stepfather would receive a gift, not the one in question,
but one which satisfied everyone so that, as one Bushman put it, "they could all start again in
peace." Even if the position, the particular item in question, was not obtained, the underlying
interest in recognizing the stepfather and the community's interest in harmony were fulfilled.
Bring the parties to the table The first step is to get people to sit down together.
Sometimes, the community can require the parties to go through the mediation process. Some
American schools, for example, demand that students who have been suspended for violence - or
other reasons - resolve any outstanding disputes with other students, teachers, or administrators
before they can return. The mediation sessions include parents and other significant people in
their lives who constitute the Third Side. "We are strict about not letting unresolved conflicts
fester," explains one assistant principal. "The school has a different atmosphere than before we
instituted the program."
If the parties are not ready to meet, a Mediator can still help by using shuttle diplomacy. In one
union-management conflict, personal relationships were so strained and distrust so high that it
was better to make some progress first in separate meetings with each side. Only when
agreement seemed near, to the surprise of both sides, was there success in bringing them together
for constructive talks.
Facilitate communication One of the Mediator's key functions is to help each side understand what the other is really
saying or asking for.
One union-management negotiation became stuck on the issue of "attendance." Management
complained that many employees were regularly absent; they wanted the union's help in
improving attendance. The union officials refused even to discuss the subject. Upon questioning
them closely, it was discovered that much of their resistance came from the word "attendance."
"People feel treated like schoolchildren, being reprimanded by the teacher for not showing up for
class!" exclaimed one union leader. Interestingly, once the issue was reframed as "increasing
worker participation," the union leaders became much more responsive. Participation was a
positive issue they could support.
Simple ground rules can help. One rule that has helped prevent angry escalating exchanges is:
Only one person can get angry at a time. The other person listens, knowing he or she will get a
turn later. Another rule dates back at least as far as the Middle Ages, when theologians at the
University of Paris used it to facilitate mutual understanding: One can speak only after one has
repeated what the other side has said to that person's satisfaction.
Help people search for a solution The next step is to help the parties generate creative options for agreement. "The students, not
the mediators, make suggestions on how to solve the conflict," explains one twelve-year-old peer
mediator. "The mediator sums up the plan or the agreement that was reached." Ideally, the
solution does come from the parties themselves. Sometimes, however, the Mediator can advance
the process by proposing solutions for the parties to consider. Because many people tend to
distrust ideas offered by the other side, an option suggested by the Mediator may prove easier for
both sides to accept.
The goal is a mutually satisfactory agreement. One dispute between a big department store in
Johannesburg and the street vendors camped on the sidewalk outside had escalated into a bitter
fight. The store wanted the vendors to move, but the vendors refused. The store then enlisted the
help of the police who, encountering fierce resistance, were reluctant to risk a violent
confrontation. The deadlock was broken with the help of a community mediator, who began by
probing for each side's interests. The store's managers, it turned out, feared that the vendors
would scare away customers and damage its public image; the vendors just wanted a busy place
to sell their wares. A creative brainstorming session resulted in a decision by the store to help the
vendors set up proper booths, which enhanced the vendors' business as well as the street's
appearance. In return, the vendors promised to keep the street clean and to look out for thieves,
who had become a major problem for the store. Having begun as adversaries, the parties ended
up as partners - thanks to mediation.
--------------------------[1] This essay is reprinted, with permission from Bill Ury, from www.thirdside.org. A few
changes were made to fit this context, most importantly, the article was shortened a bit, links
were inserted to other related essays in the knowledge base and formatting changes were made.
Our thanks to Bill Ury for allowing us to use this.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Melamed, James C. Communication and Facilitation Skills. Available at: http://www.mediate.com/divorce/pg54.cfm. This page is the 7th chapter of a mediation training manual. It examines the facilitation skills of mediators for a number of mediation situations. Stepp, Jessica A. How Does the Mediation Process Work?. Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/steppJ.cfm?nl=18. This articles gives an over view of the six steps to formal mediation: 1) introductory remarks; 2) statement of the problem by the parties; 3) information gathering time; 4) identification of the problems; 5) bargaining and generating options; and 6) reaching an agreement. "Selecting a Mediator: A Guide for the Public." , Available at: http://www.hawaii.gov/jud/selmed.htm. To make an informed choice of a mediator, the consumer must have information and the ability to evaluate that information. This guide begins the educational process by presenting a framework for understanding mediator competence. This guide is for anyone looking for a mediator. It will be especially useful to lawyers or other professionals advising their clients, court systems and mediation programs that provide information to consumers, judges who refer litigants to mediation, and people who have been referred by the court to mediation and who must choose their own mediator. The guide generally discusses the qualifications and characteristics a trustworthy and competent mediator should have, as well as a process for narrowing down one's choices. The Third Side. Available at: http://www.thirdside.org/index.cfm. "ThirdSide.org is sponsored by the Global Negotiation Project (formerly the Project on Preventing War) at Harvard University. The Project develops and encourages the use of effective negotiation processes to reduce the risk of war. In addition, the Project is also committed to the development of negotiation theory and practice in a wide range of related areas, such as international mediation and designing dispute resolution systems to contain violence and resolve conflict." The site provides access to a variety of information regarding William Ury's concept of the Third Side including a definition and examples of third siders in action. What Does a Mediator Do?. Available at: http://www.resolv.org/articles/med.htm. This article provides a basic explanation of the role a mediator plays in mediated negotiations. It also presents a list of helpful things mediators do to facilitate dispute resolution. Ahrens, Ed. What Does A Mediator Do?. Mediation Information & Resource Center. Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/ahrens1.cfm. This article explains the role a mediator actually plays in the process of mediation. Glaser, Tanya. "When Talk Works‐‐Book Summary." Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10322/. This summary of When Talk Works, by Deborah Kolb, offers a good overview of the book, which provides profiles of twelve successful practicing mediators and their techniques. The author concludes by contrasting their practices to prevailing theories of mediation. Offline (Print) Sources Cobb, Sara. "Empowerment and Mediation: A Narrative Perspective." 9:3, July 1993. The author investigates and critiques current concepts of empowerment, and current mediation practices designed to empower parties. She then suggests a narrative understanding of empowerment, and describes several mediation practices which follow from the narrative approach. Fisher, Roger, William L. Ury and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, 2nd Edition . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., April 1992. This is an updated version of Roger Fisher's and William Ury's classic 1981 text, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. In this bestseller, Fisher, Ury, and Patton describe what they call "principled negotiation", which is basically interest‐based bargaining with a few extra twists. Key ideas include: 1) separate the people from the problem; 2) negotiate interests, not positions; 3) look for mutually beneficial options; and 4) use objective criteria. This work is considered essential foundational reading for anyone interested in negotiation. Bercovitch, Jacob and Jeffrey Z. Rubin, eds. Mediation in International Relations: Multiple Approaches to Conflict Management, Reprint Edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1994. "Mediation is one of the most important management strategies in international relations, yet it has been the focus of relatively little scholarship. International mediation may involve private individuals, academic scholars, small or large states, transnational and international organizations, and yet the nature and consequences of such variation have yet to be examined systematically. The purpose of this book is to analyze the mediating efforts of these actors, and to consider their contributions to international peace and security." ‐‐Harvard Law School Folberg, Jay and Alison Taylor. Mediation: A Comprehensive Guide to Resolving Conflicts Without Litigation. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, April 1, 1984. This book provides practical, how‐to advice for mediating a variety of conflicts, including those arising from divorces, custody and visitation decisions, family conflict, neighborhood grievances, educational disagreements, environmental disputes, and problems in the workplace. Matz, David E. "Mediator Pressure and Party Autonomy: Are They Consistent With Each Other?." 10:4, October 1994. The author observes that parties tend to be very resistant to movement. It is this inability to move which brings them to mediation. Yet the mediation literature stresses the extent to which parties may be influenced, directed and even coerced by mediators. Mediation theory emphasizes respect for party autonomy and the need to reach voluntary agreements. Moore, Christopher W. The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict, 2nd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, 1996. This book discusses the characteristics of mediation and the increasing breadth of situations in which mediation has come to be used for resolving disputes. It offers a multitude of practical advice for how to actually carry out the mediation process. It is one of the most comprehensive works on the subject. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources American Arbitration Association: Ethics and Standards for Arbitrators and Mediators. American Arbitration Association. Available at: http://www.adr.org/EthicsAndStandards. This article is a description of the American Arbitration Association's code of ethics, standards of conduct, and code of professional responsibility. Irani, George E. "Islamic Mediation Techniques for Middle East Conflicts." , 1999 Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/mideast.cfm. The purpose of this essay is to explore and analyze non‐Western modes and rituals of conflict reduction in Arab‐Islamic societies. ‐ also published in Middle East Review of International Affairs vol.3 no.2 Offline (Print) Sources Herding Cats: Multiparty Mediation in a Complex World. Herndon, VA: USIP Press, January 1, 2000. This major edited volume presents a broad look at the process of international mediation and the significant amount of complexity the process presents. The essays and case studies in this volume were written by experienced international mediators and include a combination of straightforward analysis and engaging narratives. Bailey, Sydney D. "Non‐Official Mediation in Disputes: Reflections on the Quaker Experience." International Affairs 61:2, 1985. This article presents a discussion of the role of non‐official mediators in international conflicts, such as Quakers. This article represents a relatively early take on the potential role of NGOs in peacemaking activities, as NGOs were just emerging as significant international actors in the mid‐1980s. The author notes that the UN was not entirely prepared to relate to, nor effectively utilize the contributions of, NGOs at this point in time. Kolb, Deborah M. When Talk Works: Profiles of Mediators. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers, August 1997. This book presents twelve in‐depth profiles of professional and volunteer mediators, revealing how experienced mediators handle a variety of situations. Teaching Materials on this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources "Selecting a Mediator: A Guide for the Public." , Available at: http://www.hawaii.gov/jud/selmed.htm. To make an informed choice of a mediator, the consumer must have information and the ability to evaluate that information. This guide begins the educational process by presenting a framework for understanding mediator competence. This guide is for anyone looking for a mediator. It will be especially useful to lawyers or other professionals advising their clients, court systems and mediation programs that provide information to consumers, judges who refer litigants to mediation, and people who have been referred by the court to mediation and who must choose their own mediator. The guide generally discusses the qualifications and characteristics a trustworthy and competent mediator should have, as well as a process for narrowing down one's choices. Arbitrators By
William Ury
Determining Disputed Rights [1] Sometimes mediation is not enough to resolve a dispute or is not appropriate because basic rights
are being violated. Whereas a mediator can only suggest a solution, an arbiter can decide what is
right. The arbiter is a familiar role, embodied in the judge in the courtroom or the arbitrator in a
work setting. More informally, the arbiter is the teacher deciding a dispute between two quarreling
students, the parent ruling on a matter involving two children, or the manager determining an issue
among two employees. In this sense, we are all potential arbiters.
Replace destructive conflict Adjudication stands as one of humanity's great social inventions if only because it provides an
alternative to the violent resolution of conflicts. Adjudication does not always require the
intervention of the state, however, but can be arranged simply through the consent of the parties.
They can agree in advance to accept the binding decision of a trusted third party, jointly selected,
to whom they then present their case. This private form of adjudication - called arbitration - is
widely used to resolve commercial disputes, both domestic and international, as well as employee
grievances. Indeed, ninety-five percent of all collective bargaining contracts in the United States
provide for arbitration of employee grievances.
Arbitration can also be employed to end wars. After Peru and Ecuador fought a brief but intense
war in 1995 over their border, international mediators worked hard but proved unable to procure a
complete agreement. Finally in 1998, under international prodding, the presidents of both
countries agreed to seek arbitration by the four guarantors of a prior 1942 treaty: Brazil,
Argentina, Chile, and the United States. To everyone's surprise, the legislatures of Peru and
Ecuador consented in advance to accept the decision of the four guarantors. With nationalist
passions still running strong, political leaders felt it easier to accept a ruling by others than to
make direct concessions to the enemy.
To play the role of arbiter, we need not necessarily be superior in status or power to the parties but
may simply be the parties' peers. "Peer pressure seems to be the most important factor in whether a
kid commits a crime," explained volunteer judge David Silverstein to the defendant, a thirteenyear-old boy who had stolen two packs of cigarettes from a Wal-Mart store. "Here you have a
whole room of peer pressure, trying to turn you around." Silverstein was referring to the six jurors
in the case, all between the ages of ten and seventeen. After hearing from the boy, the six
collectively decided on his "punishment": to perform twenty-eight hours of community service,
make an apology to the store, and write two reports, one on the effect of stealing on the
community's economy, and the other on the health hazards of smoking. They also directed him to
serve as a juror himself on eight cases so that he could help the system that had helped him. Far
from ostracizing him, then, they included him. "It's a second chance," the boy declared afterwards.
"Since the inception of our youth court in 1983," reports police sergeant Gordon Ferguson, "our
numbers [of juvenile crimes] have gone down drastically."
The Arbiters' goal, in such cases, is not just to determine who is right and who is wrong but to
repair the harm to victims and to the community, and to reintegrate the offender as a constructive
member of society. What works with teens works with adults as well. Hundreds of community
courts have recently been established, part of a growing trend toward the restorative and
compensatory justice long practiced in simpler societies. In Vermont, for example, citizen
volunteers on Community Reparative Boards sentence nonviolent adult offenders to make amends
to their victims and perform community service work. "They're trying to help, and not screw you
over," explains one offender. "They have you think about what you did. I've learned a lot from it."
Promote justice Peace is not the only aim of the arbiter; so is justice. A ruling offers the community a chance to
send a message about right and wrong.
Parents have an opportunity to reaffirm the principles of fairness when adjudicating among their
children. Seven-year-old Chip, who shared a bedroom with his five-year-old brother Tony,
announced one day that he would move to a separate bedroom. Terrified at the prospect of being
left alone in the dark, Tony agreed to pay Chip his entire weekly allowance if Chip stayed. When
their parents discovered the arrangement, however, they immediately stopped the transaction and
used the occasion to teach both boys how wrong it was to use money in such a situation. They
asked Chip to decide where he wanted to sleep without financial inducements. Chip chose to
continue sharing the bedroom with Tony out of brotherly concern alone.
By promoting justice, courts might also one day deter political violence. Domestic courts have
already begun to extend their jurisdictions to hear cases involving crimes against humanity
committed elsewhere in the world. One instance made worldwide headlines in the fall of 1998:
Chilean ex-dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in Britain at the request of a Spanish magistrate
for his involvement in the torture and murder of thousands of political opponents during the
1970s. Spurred by the massacres in Bosnia and Rwanda, and building on the precedent of the
Nuremberg Tribunal, a hundred and twenty nations agreed in July 1998 to establish a permanent
international criminal court in order to deter those who would commit genocide, aggression, and
other crimes against humanity, such as mass rape and the forced recruitment of children as
soldiers. Eighteen judges from eighteen different countries will serve terms of nine years each.
While the court's effectiveness remains to be seen, its establishment is a critical first step.
Encourage negotiation By deciding who is right and who is wrong, however, an Arbiter runs the risk of further straining
the relationship among the parties. Paradoxically then, the role of arbiters is to encourage a
negotiated settlement whenever possible and appropriate. Bosses can urge disputing employees
who come to them for a decision to try first to resolve the matter by themselves, or a judge can
take the parties into her chambers and instruct them to attempt mediation before returning. To
assist the parties, the arbiter can even suggest a standard or procedure of fairness to be employed
in their settlement talks. A manager can specify the cost and quality criteria he wants met by two
departments arguing about a product design. Or a parent can tell two children quarreling about a
piece of cake: "Okay, Johnny, you cut the cake, and Mary, you get first pick."
[1] This essay is reprinted, with permission from Bill Ury, fromwww.thirdside.org. A few minor
changes were made to fit this space, most importantly, links to other related essays in the
knowledge base and formatting changes. Our thanks to Bill Ury for allowing us to use this.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Arbitration Procedures. Securities Industry Conference on Arbitration (SICA). Available at: http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/arbpro.pdf. This site consists of many questions and answers about the process of arbitration. Questions include: What Is Arbitration? What Disputes Are Eligible For Arbitration? Who Are The Arbitrators? Can I Be Represented By An Attorney? How Is Arbitration Begun? What Happens After The Claim Is Filed? Can I Challenge An Arbitrator? How Do I Prepare For A Hearing? How Are The Hearings Conducted? How Are The Parties Notified Of The Arbitrators' Decision? The Third Side. Available at: http://www.thirdside.org/index.cfm. "ThirdSide.org is sponsored by the Global Negotiation Project (formerly the Project on Preventing War) at Harvard University. The Project develops and encourages the use of effective negotiation processes to reduce the risk of war. In addition, the Project is also committed to the development of negotiation theory and practice in a wide range of related areas, such as international mediation and designing dispute resolution systems to contain violence and resolve conflict." The site provides access to a variety of information regarding William Ury's concept of the Third Side including a definition and examples of third siders in action. Grant, Leslie. "What is Arbitration?" , Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/grant.cfm. This article outlines the general principles of arbitration, the different types of arbitration and the advantages it has over other kinds of conflict resolution processes. Offline (Print) Sources Haagen, Paul H., ed. Arbitration Now: Opportunities for Fairness, Process Renewal and Invigoration. New York: American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution, 1999. This volume is a collection of essays emerging from a conference entitled, Arbitration: Preparing for the Twenty‐First Century, that was sponsored by the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York in the Fall of 1998. The essays cover many of the current challenges posed by the expansion of arbitration as well as several essays that concentrate on ethical codes and issues for arbitrators. Goodman, Allan H. Basic Skills for the New Arbitrator. Solomon Publishing, January 1, 1993. This work provides a detailed overview of arbitration and guides the arbitrator through the process by answering numerous frequently asked questions. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources American Arbitration Association: Ethics and Standards for Arbitrators and Mediators. American Arbitration Association. Available at: http://www.adr.org/EthicsAndStandards. This article is a description of the American Arbitration Association's code of ethics, standards of conduct, and code of professional responsibility. Offline (Print) Sources Brand, Norman, Patricia Thomas Bittel and Henry G. Stewart. Discipline and Discharge in Arbitration. BNA Books, December 1, 1998. This book outlines the processes and procedures associated with arbitration of workplace conflicts. The authors focus extensively on the analysis and evaluation of cases and offer extensive guidelines for choosing an arbitrator and traveling through the arbitration processes and related circumstances. Educators By
Charles (Chip) Hauss
One can argue that education -- and hence educators -- provide the best opportunities to both
prevent and de-escalate intractable conflicts. Educators can prevent intractable conflicts by
teaching tolerance and critical thinking, as well as teaching students about multiple views of any
difficult conflict situation. Although it is harder, educators also play a key role in de-escalating
conflicts that already exist, by helping to break down stereotypes, increase mutual understanding,
and help students develop new, and broader images of the world and possible solutions to their
current dilemma(s).
Who Are the Educators? Educators fall into two main categories. First, of course, are the traditional educators who work in
classrooms from the pre-school through university level. The last generation has seen what can
only be described as an explosion of interest in teaching conflict resolution and the related field of
peace studies at all of these levels, from pre-school on up. The second broad area of education
does not involve formal classrooms, but is carried out in the course of other activities by parents,
peers, community, political, and religious leaders, the mass media, and entertainment industries.
All of these people and institutions shape our images of ourselves, of others, and the world around
us -- profoundly affecting our approach to conflicts we become involved in.
University Educators Peace studies began as a formal academic discipline after Word War II, and grew considerably (at
least in the U.S.) during and shortly after the Vietnam War. There are now several hundred such
degree programs in the U.S. and many more abroad. In the 1980s, conflict resolution degree
programs were started as well. Though fewer in number than peace studies programs, conflict
resolution degrees are now offered at universities on every continent, save Antarctica.
The curricula vary tremendously. Some focus only on international conflict. Some cover
international, domestic political, and interpersonal conflict. Those housed in law or business
schools tend to concentrate on conflict in organizational settings and draw heavily on
organizational development and other fields in which conflict is a central issue.
Perhaps even more encouraging is the fact that conflict resolution has been "mainstreamed" into
the curricula of conventional academic disciplines such as political science. Thus, I make conflict
resolution a central component of the introductory and intermediate level comparative politics
courses I teach. Similarly, at least some mainstream academics have included elements of conflict
resolution in their texts on such topics as international relations.[1]
K­12 (Primary and Secondary) Education Conflict resolution has also made its way into the educational system below the university level. In what we in the United States call the K‐12 grades, conflict resolution is not often part of the formal curriculum. More commonly, schools help students develop skills that would allow them to settle the conflicts in their daily lives nonviolently. With younger children, this can be as simple as calling a "time out" when two or more students
are arguing so that they don't start fighting. Among older children, the programs can be much
more ambitious, including efforts to stop the shootings and stabbings which afflict many schools
in the United States and beyond. Peer mediation programs are especially popular. Here students
(usually 4th grade on up) are taught how to act as mediators for conflicts among their peers. They
mediate playground conflicts at the elementary level and other interpersonal and intergroup
conflicts among older students.
Three programs that are worth mentioning as examples.
In 2001, the Superintendent of Schools in Washington, D.C. (U.S.) decided to include some
aspects of conflict resolution in every classroom in every school. A conflict resolution specialist
was hired to supervise the work for, on average, six schools each. The program was widely
applauded because of the widespread teen violence which has plagued the nation's capital for
many years.
Some of these programs are born of tragedy, such as the Louis D. Brown Peace Foundation which
was established by his parents, Joseph and Clementine Chery. Brown was a talented fifteen year
old who announced to his parents that he would be the youngest and first African-American
president of the United States. Unfortunately, while on his way to a Christmas party (ironically
given by a group opposed to teen violence), Brown was killed in a random drive-by shooting. To
honor their son, the Cherys established the foundation through the Harvard University School of
Public Health. The foundation has created curricula on peace education for students from
kindergarten to high school, provides speakers and training for schools, and has Louis D. Brown
fellows who publish a book on peace each year.
Many peace education programs exist outside the U.S. as well. Indeed, given the much greater
damage caused by intractable conflicts elsewhere, the need for input by peace educators is even
more important. Sometimes, the mere availability of education -- not what is taught -- is critical.
Thus, in Bosnia, it is hard to imagine the more than two million refugees and internally displaced
persons returning to their home towns if their schools (as well as their houses) are not rebuilt. The
European Union has funded World Vision, a Christian relief, development, and peace building
organization to do that. But World Vision and many other groups go a lot farther and take on more
ambitious, long term projects whose impact is often hard to measure. For instance, throughout the
Balkans, World Vision, Search for Common Ground, and others have begun establishing multiethnic schools so that children whose parents had gone to war with each other can literally learn to
live together in peace.
Informal/Grassroots Education The most ambitious grass roots educational effort was the Beyond War, which spanned most of
the 1980s and thus reached its peak early in the history of the field of conflict resolution. Beyond
War (now the Foundation for Global Community) started by developing a curriculum to address
the global crisis it saw being created by the new arms race in the Cold War and the growing
interdependence of life on the planet. As they saw it, the leaders of Beyond War argued that
learning to deal with conflict better everywhere -- from the interpersonal to the international level
-- was the best to respond to that crisis.
It was able to raise enough money for families to move to 14 American states (later reaching 30
states and a handful of other countries) to start its program of public education. Part of its work
involved public meetings including such different events as talks to local Rotary Clubs to some of
the world's first "space bridges" in which satellite technology was used to host meetings that
brought people on all continents "together." Mostly, however, it did much less spectacular work,
for instance, by hosting three-evening seminars or "orientations to a world beyond war" in which
groups of ten to twenty people got an introduction to basic conflict resolution skills. No one knows
for sure how many people participated in those sessions, but it certainly topped a quarter million.
Since then, other organizations have broadened the training options available to adult learners.
Professional organizations such as Educators for Social Responsibility and the Association for
Conflict Resolution provide resources to help educate teachers and conflict resolution practitioners
respectively. Grass roots organizations such as the Montgomery County (Md.) Center for Conflict
Resolution offers sessions in which average citizens can learn basic conflict resolution skills. For
people who cannot attend such sessions, there are some projects people can go to for online
training, although we clearly have a long way to go before we have truly mastered distance
learning techniques.
There are even summer camps which emphasize peace and conflict resolution. The most famous
of these is Seeds of Peace in Otisfield, Maine. During its first season in 1993, Seeds of Peace
brought together 46 Israeli and Palestinian teens for a summer of "normal" summer camp and
conflict resolution training. By the summer of 2001, campers had come from 22 war-ravaged
countries. And in 2002, young Afghans were added. As with everything else, the summer camp
phenomenon is moving beyond the United States. In summer 2001, the Benetton Company
brought nine National Basketball Association stars and 40 teenagers from the various republics of
the former Yugoslavia together for two weeks of training in basketball skills and peace building.
Oasis of Peace (Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salaam) has been conducting training for Jewish and
Palestinian teenagers since 1979.
Perhaps most importantly of all, educators have to develop programs to integrate the more than
300,000 child soldiers who have been combatants in many of the world's intractable conflicts.
Some were forced to fight before they were 10. Many have had no formal education and have no
social or occupational skills -- other than fighting. Many have no remaining family members and
are stuck living in squalid refugee camps or on the streets. Successful reintegration projects will
have to help these (mostly) young men learn how to reconcile with their former adversaries, help
the communities they move into prepare for them, and help provide opportunities for them to find
meaningful lives and careers in societies which, for the most part, have shunned them. American
readers will probably be struck by the similarities between the situation facing child soldiers and
that of the more then 100,000 offenders who are released from prison each year, most of whom
will end up back in jail.
Finally, it should be noted that very little is known about how effective any of these educational
programs are. There is scattered evidence from the Middle East and elsewhere that programs that
bring together teenagers for brief periods may not have much of a lasting impact. However, there
is also evidence that some people undergo profound transformations in such sessions, especially
those that last for an extended period of time. What we don't know is how to design these
programs so that they can produce the kind of personal development that makes stable peace and
reconciliation of intractable conflict possible.
[1] See, for instance, the evolution of Joseph Nye's, Understanding International Conflict. 4th ed.
(New York: Longman, 2003). The first edition does not mention conflict resolution. The fourth
edition gives it quite a bit of attention. That is true, by the way, of Nye's career in general. He has
served in both the State Department and the Pentagon, but in another recent book, Nye talks about
the importance of "soft" power in which the United States tries to use diplomacy and negotiation
to solve international problems.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources Assessment of Education for All (EFA), 2000‐‐Thematic Study: Education in Situations of Emergency and Crisis. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Available at: http://www.ginie.org/about/about_ginie.crisis2000.htm. This paper assesses the progress of UN efforts to meet the goals of the World Conference on Education for All (EFA) that took place in 1990. Specifically, this paper examines the obstacles that emergency situations such as natural disasters and war present to providing basic education to all. This page provides access to the five parts of the paper, which are: 1) Introduction; (2) Education in Emergency Situations‐
Achievements and Challenge; (3) Towards a Shared Knowledge of Education in Emergency and Post‐
Emergency Situations Analysis of Strategies and Practices; (4) Challenges of the New Century: Lessons Learned for the Future; (5) Recommendations. Facing History and Ourselves. Available at: http://www.facinghistory.org. This organization is based around helping people to understand the present and future by educating them about the past. It seeks to develop programs that would allow students to think critically about the past by emphasizing morality in history. The website has links to new articles discussing current world events and also provides resources for understanding these events. There are also resources like academic articles, films, books, and teaching tools provided at this site. Boyden, Jo and Paul Ryder. Implementing the Right to Education in Areas of Armed Conflict. Available at: http://www.essex.ac.uk/armedcon/story_id/000021.htm. This extensive online publication deals with many aspects of the problem of providing education to children in regions where violent conflict is ongoing. It not only discusses why this is important in terms of the well‐being of children and in terms of peace education and post‐conflict recovery, but also provides suggestions on how to deal with many of the logistical and administrative obstacles that will inevitably be encountered. Sandy, Leo R and Ray Jr. Perkins. "The Nature of Peace and Its Implications for Peace Education." The Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution , April 2002 Available at: http://www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/4_2natp.htm. This article focuses on what people mean when they say peace, and how that is affected by peoples' ideas of violence and war. The authors encourage a view of "positive peace," that is not just the absence of overt violence. In part, positive peace is defined as, "A pattern of cooperation and integration between major human groups." Following a discussion of the importance and implications of developing a solid definition of peace, the article concludes with "Lessons for Peace Education." The Third Side. Available at: http://www.thirdside.org/index.cfm. "ThirdSide.org is sponsored by the Global Negotiation Project (formerly the Project on Preventing War) at Harvard University. The Project develops and encourages the use of effective negotiation processes to reduce the risk of war. In addition, the Project is also committed to the development of negotiation theory and practice in a wide range of related areas, such as international mediation and designing dispute resolution systems to contain violence and resolve conflict." The site provides access to a variety of information regarding William Ury's concept of the Third Side including a definition and examples of third siders in action. The Two Faces of Education in Ethnic Conflict: Towards a Peacebuilding Education for Children. Available at: http://www.unicef‐icdc.org/publications/pdf/insight4.pdf. This insightful report explores the importance of ethnic identity and how education plays into the formation of ethnicity. It then examines the negative and positive sides of education as it relates to conflict situations. The paper goes on to discuss strategies for developing "peacebuilding education" curriculum for children directly exposed to conflict. Offline (Print) Sources Raviv, Amiram, Louis Oppenheimer and Daniel Bar‐Tal. How Children Understand War and Peace: A Call for International Peace Education. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass, July 1999. This wark examines how children's notions of war and peace develop in different contexts around the world. The authors believe that conscious efforts toward peace education in the world's school systems will lead to a more peaceful world. Stomfay‐Stitz, Aline. Peace Education in America, 1828‐1990. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press, 1993. This work provides a chronological account of the history of peace education in the United States by examining available peace education and curriculum literature. It also discusses prospects for the future of peace education as they were viewed in the early 1990s. Harris, Ian M. and Mary Lee Morrison. Peace Education, 2nd Edition. McFarland & Company, December 13, 1998. This work provides a thorough explanation of what peace education is. The work discusses various conceptions of peace, and how peace education can help move society toward alternatives to violence. The authors also discuss ways to institute peace education in schools as well as some key issues and obstacles facing peace educators. Johnson, Marcia L. "Trends in Peace Education." , 1998. This ERIC Digest reviews the development and current status of peace education in the United States. After briefly surveying the peace education movement from its origins with a small group of educators in New England in the 1800s through its stigmatization as being anti‐American during periods of hot and cold war, the Digest devotes more attention to recent trends of the 1980s and 1990s. (Note: This document often exists in libraries on microfiche.) Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Arabs, Palestinians, Islam and Peace in Israeli School Textbooks. Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace. Available at: http://www.edume.org/reports/8/toc.htm. "This report examines the way in which Arabs, Islam and the Israel‐ Arab conflict are presented in the new textbooks introduced in school years 5761 (2000‐2001) and 5762 (2001‐2002) for use in Israeli schools in State Schools, State Religious Schools and the Ultra Orthodox Schools. The books surveyed are in the following subjects: History, Civics, Literature, Geography, Language and the Scriptures...The purpose of both reports is to examine whether attitudes and facts relating to the Arabs, developments in the Israel‐
Arab conflict and Islam are presented in the textbooks in such a way as to promote peace, tolerance, mutual recognition and respect." This page offers access to all parts of the report. College Level Teaching Programs‐‐ CRInfo Resource Page. University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium. Available at: http://www.crinfo.org/menu/education_college.jsp. This resource page provides links to information on over two hundred higher education programs in the fields of conflict resolution and/or peace studies. Curriculum Change and Social Cohesion in Conflict‐Affected Societies: Proposal of Mozambique. International Bureau of Education (IBE). Available at: Click here for more info. This paper provides a look at the re‐organization of the school curriculum in an independent Mozambique, in the wake of colonialism and decades of violent conflict. Groiss, Dr. Arnon. Jews, Israel and Peace in the Palestinian Authority Textbooks: The New Textbooks for Grades 3 and 8. Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace. Available at: http://www.edume.org/reports/11/toc.htm. This report is a survey of the latest school textbooks that were issued in 2002 by the Palestinian Authority, mainly for grades 3 and 8. Thirty‐five books in various school subjects were examined. The material contained therein was carefully scrutinized in the light of two sets of criteria: 1) The image of other peoples and communities. Are they recognized? Are they accepted? Or are they presented in a stereotyped and prejudiced way?; 2) Peace and the peace process. Does education, as reflected in the textbooks, foster peace? Does it support the peace process? Is there any room for improvement in this respect? K‐12 Programs‐‐CRInfo Resource Page. University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium. Available at: http://www.crinfo.org/menu/education_k‐12.jsp. This resource page provides links to information on over 100 conflict resolution and peace programs associated with primary and secondary schools. Offline (Print) Sources "Children Teaching Children in Israel: Investing in Future Decision Makers." In People Building Peace: 35 Inspiring Stories From Around the World. Edited by European Centre for Conflict Prevention, ed. Utrecht: European Centre for Conflict Prevention, 1999. This chapter discusses a program in Israel which brings together Arab and Jewish children. "Gandhi's Visions Are Millennium Proof." In People Building Peace: 35 Inspiring Stories From Around the World. Edited by European Centre for Conflict Prevention, ed. Utrecht: European Centre for Conflict Prevention, 1999. This chapter discusses India's City Montessori School, which has been educating world citizens since 1959.
Feuerverger, Grace. Oasis of Dreams: Teaching and Learning Peace in a Jewish‐Palestinian Village in Israel. Routledge Falmer, May 2001. This book presents the results of a 9‐year study of Neve Shalom/Wahat Al‐Salam (the Hebrew and Arabic words for "Oasis of Peace"), which is a village that was established as part of an intercultural education experiment. The book tells the story of this village where Jews and Palestinians lived together in order to demonstrate the potential for breaking down walls of fear and mistrust, and living in peace. The work explores the psychological, social and personal dimensions of this intersting and inspiring educational endeavor. Teaching Materials on this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources International Peace Bureau: Peace Education Program. International Peace Bureau (IPB). This site is associated with The Hague Appeal for Peace Global Campaign for Peace Education. It offers access to a variety of information and resources related to peace education. The two main goals of the global campaign are: "First, to build public awareness and political support for the introduction of peace education into all spheres of education, including non‐formal education, in all schools throughout the world. Second, to promote the education of all teachers to teach for peace." ‐from website Peace Education Foundation. Available at: http://www.peace‐ed.org/. "The Peace Education Foundation offers grade‐level specific classroom‐tested curricula for Pre‐K through grade 12. The Foundation's user‐friendly materials feature activities that foster school norms of cooperation and problem solving rather than violence and aggression. Through role‐playing, group work and other interactive techniques, students are taught pro‐social skills such as anger management, perspective taking, peer resistance, effective communication, and problem solving. Internationally, more than 20,000 schools use these materials. This site allows you to order PeaceWorks curricula online." United Nations Cyberschoolbus: Peace Education. United Nations. Available at: http://www0.un.org/cyberschoolbus/peace/index.asp. This page offers a gateway into an extremely well‐done and helpful website focused on peace education, both the theory behind it as well as actual teaching materials. The "Teacher as Learner" section explains the foundational ideas of peace education and discusses the importance of educational environments, and the challenges and opportunities of peace education. The "Learner as Teacher" section offers 5 different peace education curriculum units, each for a different age group. The units are: 1) Ecological Thinking and Respect for Life, Ages 8‐12; 2) Tolerance and Respect for Dignity and Identity, Ages 11‐16; 3) Critical Thinking Active Nonviolence, Ages 12+; 4) Social Justice and Civic Responsibility, Ages 14+; 5) Leadership and Global Citizenship, Ages 14+. The site also includes a page of links to other informative resources. Offline (Print) Sources Barash, David P. Introduction to Peace Studies. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., October 1998. This is an introductory textbook to the developing academic field of Peace Studies. Witnesses By
William L. Ury
Destructive conflict does not just break out but escalates through different stages from tension to
overt conflict to violence. By watching carefully, the witness can detect warning signals, which, if
acted on, can prevent escalation of conflict and even save lives. A witness can also speak up to
persuade the parties to cease fighting and sound the alarm to call the attention of other thirdsiders
who can intervene as mediators, peacekeepers, or other witnesses.
Watch out for early warning signs
Early warning signals appear most clearly to those of us immediately around the disputants. In the days leading up to the fatal shooting of five students at a Jonesboro, Arkansas, school in March 1998, 13‐year‐
old Mitchell Johnson and 11‐year‐old Andrew Golden made their intentions clear to those around them. "I have a lot of killing to do," one of them remarked to a schoolmate. If that was not enough, one of them threatened a fellow student with a knife the day before the killing. Tragically, their friends and schoolmates did not pass on the information to those who might have headed off the impending massacre. As a professional field, early warning remains in its
infancy but it is progressing. Police forces, which
have traditionally aimed at arresting violent
offenders after the fact, now develop "threat
assessment" techniques to identify potential
perpetrators the damage is done. They have
Jannie Botes , of the University of Baltimore, talks discovered that offenders typically have a traceable
about the important and often‐ignored role of history of problems, disputes, and failures. Once they
informal third parties in conflicts identify a person at risk of using violence, they can http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/audio/10122
usually manage him or her by working with family,
friends, neighbors, social service staff, and courts -in other words, by mobilizing the Third Side.
Go on patrol
As witnesses, we need not limit ourselves to watching; more actively, we can go on patrol. When two days of racial fighting in 1997 set off rumors of violent revenge at one middle school in Florida, United Colors, a student group formed earlier to counter racism and violence, started patrolling the halls and urged the principal to ban book bags and backpacks until fears about weapons died down. It worked. In thousands of violence‐plagued schools across America, teachers and parents have come to rely on student groups like United Colors to help keep the peace by patrolling campuses and reporting incidents. "The heart of the philosophy is watching out for each other and helping each other, reporting crime because it's the right thing to do," says the founder of Miami‐based Youth Crime Watch of America. At a neighborhood level, the Guardian Angels perform much the same role. Unarmed young
people, they patrol the streets of many American cities in order to prevent robberies and violence.
In Bloomington, Indiana, a group called "Moms on Patrol" walks the streets with cellular phones,
looking out for dangerous gang activity, and reporting it to the police. On the global level, U.N.
peacekeeping forces, armed only for self-defense, patrol hotspots around the world.
The act of witnessing alone can often help prevent violence. During the Central American wars of
the 1980s, church groups from North America and Europe went to "bear witness," spending time
in villages threatened by paramilitary groups or the army. Similarly, during the violent transition
to majority rule in South Africa, citizens from local peace committees, both white and black,
would stay with people whose lives had been threatened.
Speak out
"When there is gang warfare," explains Boston Police Commissioner Paul Evans, "we call (gang) members in for an open session with representatives from the District Attorney's office, the probation officers, social‐service workers and neighborhood ministers and say, 'Look, the community is telling you that the violence has got to stop. If it doesn't, the whole system here is going to indict you, sentence you and send you to prison.' " Witnesses, in other words, need not limit themselves to watching; they can speak up to persuade the parties to cease fighting. In the former Yugoslavia, a group of U.N.
peacekeepers were asked to describe their job. "It is
ninety percent negotiation," they chorused. They
explained how they spent most of their time trying to
induce warring parties to withdraw to the agreed upon lines, to respect the cease-fire, and not to shoot
Jannie Botes , a South African journalist and when provoked by a hothead on the other side or
Baltimore‐based conflict resolution scholar, says when someone's cow wandered over the line. The
journalists need to understand how their coverage same opportunity to speak up against destructive
affects conflicts, and that they are essentially conflict is available to each of us in the daily
parties, too, when they start covering conflicts. conflicts around us. "One of the kids from my class
http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/audio/10114
and a kid I didn't know were fighting," says 6-yearold Jimmy Ellison, newly trained in conflict
resolution, "until I told them, 'Maybe you guys should quit fighting, work the problem out
together, and then play.' " It worked.
Get help fast
The witness sounds the alarm to call the attention of other thirdsiders, who can then intervene as peacekeepers, mediators, or other witnesses. In contrast to what happened at the Arkansas school, a student who brought a knife to a New York school using a violence prevention program was quickly reported by another student. School officials immediately confiscated the knife and suspended the student; only through a mediated agreement involving the community was he allowed to reenter the school. One major reason why the incidence of street violence is so low in Japan is the widespread
participation of citizens as witnesses who report problems to the policeman stationed in the
neighborhood. The lesson is catching on in the United States, where police forces are learning
that, in order to reduce violence, they too must draw on local communities for information, early
warning, and support. Called community policing, this approach is credited with decreasing
violent crime all the way from New York City to Hawaii. In Spokane, Washington, for example,
an armed robber, called the "Bad Tooth Bandit" after his poor dental work, was nabbed nine
blocks from the crime scene because the neighborhood immediately called in reports to the police
substation. "The police are moving away from a 'we do it for you' approach to where 'we're
working with you,' explains Boston police captain Robert Dunford. "This requires citizens' taking
responsibility."
The media play a key role in sounding the alarm. Their reporting alerts thirdsiders around the
world. When an artillery shell landed in a Sarajevo marketplace in February 1994, the world
community saw the televised images of innocents slain, public revulsion was voiced, and
governments hitherto reluctant to act were spurred into action. NATO bombers threatened to
destroy Serb artillery in the hills overlooking Sarajevo and the artillery attacks ceased for months.
Just in the course of doing their jobs, media professionals serve as the eyes and ears of the Third
Side.
--------------------------[1] This essay is reprinted, with permission from Bill Ury, from www.thirdside.org. A few
changes were made to fit this context, most importantly, the article was shortened a bit, links were
inserted to other related essays in the knowledge base and formatting changes were made. Our
thanks to Bill Ury for allowing us to use this.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Offline (Print) Sources Staub, Ervin. "Bystander Psychology: Studying the pivotal role of bystanders." In Deathly Silence Guide. Edited by Southern Institute for Education and Research, ed. Barnett, V. Bystanders Conscience and Complicity During the Holocaust. West Port, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1999. Staub, Ervin. "Preventing Genocide: The Power of 'Bystanders'." Boston Research Center for the 21st Century Newsletter #9 , 1997. Ury, William L. The Third Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop. New York: Penguin Books, September 2000. In this book, William Ury explains that it takes two sides to fight and a third to stop it. Based on years of experience as a conflict resolution practitioner, Ury describes ten practical roles that people can play to prevent destructive conflict. He argues that fighting is not inevitable human behavior and that we can transform battles into constructive conflict and cooperation by turning to what he calls, "the third side". Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Amnesty International Online. Available at: http://www.amnesty.org/. Amnesty International is a worldwide campaigning movement that works to promote all the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international standards. In particular, Amnesty International campaigns to free all prisoners of conscience; ensure fair and prompt trials for political prisoners; abolish the death penalty, torture and other cruel treatment of prisoners; end political killings and "disappearances"; and oppose human rights abuses by opposition groups. One of the primary ways Amnesty International carries out their mission is to send out fact‐finding missions to research reports of violations. The people carrying out these missions may serve as witnesses in order to corroborate alleagations. Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools. U.S. Department of Education. Available at: http://cecp.air.org/guide/guide.pdf. This guide to safe schools was published by the U.S. Department of Education in response to several violent acts that took place in American schools in the late nineties. The guidebook discusses the qualities of safe schools, outlines early warning signs of potentially violent situations, provides advice on how to help troubled students, and also offers advice on how to respond to crisis in the school setting. Environmental Monitoring Systems. Available at: http://www.emss.net. Global Rights. Available at: http://www.globalrights.org/. Global Rights is a human rights advocacy group that partners with local activists to challenge oppressive ideologies and power structures, channel international pressure to secure human rights protections, and amplify new voices within the global discourse. At times, Global Rights will provide witness testimony in human rights cases they are involved in. Holocaust Witnesses. Available at: http://www.remember.org/witness/. This section of Remember.org provides eyewitness accounts of the atrocities of the Holocaust. It includes stories from actors with various points of view, including survivors, victims, bystanders, liberators, resuers, and perpetrators. Human Rights Watch. Available at: http://www.hrw.org/. This is the home page of Human Rights Watch (HRW), which is a nongovernmental organization that works to protect the human rights of people around the world. This includes exposing human rights violations, pressuring those in power to end abusive practices, and bringing offenders to justice. International Check Point Watch. Available at: http://www.canadazone.com/icw/report_protest_deir_ibzia_020602.htm. This report from International Check Point Watch (ICW), describes the findings of a fact‐finding mission sent to the village of Deir Ibzi'a, west of the Palestinian city of Ramallah. The purpose of the mission is to, first, reassess the needs of the village in terms of medical supplies and other provisions and to report to Palestinian and International relief and development agencies. Second, to be in solidarity with the villagers as they demonstrate against the closure of their village, providing extra security for them vis‐a‐vis the Israeli soldiers patrolling the roadblock. Third, to go advance the cause of villages such as Deir Ibzi'a to the international media so that every effort will be made to alleviate the situation of the villagers affected by closures, curfews, roadblocks, and checkpoints. Neighborhood Watch. Available at: http://www.usaonwatch.org/. This is the home page of the well‐known national crime prevention movement in the United States, called Neighborhood Watch. The program provides support for private citizens to help patrol their own streets and prevent crime. The entire program revolves around insights and knowledge relayed by witnesses at the local level. New York University: Center for War, Peace and the News Media. Available at: http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/. New York University's Center for War, Peace, and the News Media is a non‐profit, non‐partisan organization supporting journalists and news organizations worldwide in their efforts to sustain an informed and engaged citizenry. The organization includes various programs that aim to improve journalistic coverage of conflict and security issues, as well the media's effect on the resolution of conflicts. The Guardian Angels. Available at: http://www.guardianangels.org/. This is the home page of the Guardian Angels, a non‐profit organization that started in the Bronx, NY with the aim of organizing citizens to patrol the streets and take the city back from criminals. Since the late 1970s, the organization has grown and chapters have started around the world. The Angels can potentially serve as witnesses to crime and therefore help deter it from happening in the first place. United Nations Watch. Available at: http://www.unwatch.org/. United Nations Watch aims to promote the balanced, fair, and non‐discriminatory application of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, and to encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, culture, language, or religion. It is a non‐governmental organization based in Geneva whose mandate is to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its Charter. UN Watch was established in 1993 under the Chairmanship of Ambassador Morris B. Abram, the former US Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva. Witness for Peace. Available at: http://www.witnessforpeace.org/. Witness for Peace is a politically independent, grassroots organization made up of people who are committed to nonviolence and led by faith and conscience. The mission of the organization is to support peace, justice and sustainable economies in the Americas by changing US policies and corporate practices which contribute to poverty and oppression in Latin America and the Caribbean. Peacekeepers [1] By
William L. Ury
October 2003
When the rules are broken and the limits on fighting exceeded, the community needs to employ
the minimally forceful measures necessary to stop harmful conflict in its tracks. The role of
Peacekeeping need not be limited to specialists like the police and UN Peacekeepers, it is a
community function that anyone may be called upon to play. When two children fight, adults can
step in the middle and, if necessary, physically pull the two apart. The best Peacekeepers never
fight. They never fight because they don't need to. They accomplish their ends by intervening
early and using persuasion.
Interpose between parties Interposing is perhaps the most obvious step a Peacekeeper can take to halt an escalating conflict. When two men brawl in a public place, their peers can drag them off each other. When rival gangs in Los Angeles started to eye one another, a group of mothers would regularly interpose themselves; after a gang member was killed, they shepherded his "brothers" from the funeral ceremony safely through the enemy gang's territory. Neighbors can intervene as well. The owner of a small moving company in Lincoln, Nebraska,
routinely fields emergency calls from the local Rape-Spouse Abuse Crisis Center. He promptly
shows up with his truck and helps the victims of domestic violence escape with their possessions.
It can be dangerous work. In one instance, he recalls, "We knew the husband carried guns and
might be back soon. We were trying to hurry, but the rain delayed us. Finally, we told her son,
'Look, if you see your dad returning, you need to call the sheriff.'" Fortunately, they all got out
before the husband came back.
Thankfully, there is the sheriff. When a fight breaks out, people can summon the police. "Okay,
that's enough! Let's break it up!" is a familiar cry. To avert violence, police in New York and other
cities patrol gang-troubled neighborhoods at night, working together with the community to ensure
that teenagers on probation are off the streets. In hot spots around the world, interposing is perhaps
the chief role for international Peacekeepers, who establish and occupy buffer zones between
hostile forces. From Africa to Central America, and from Europe to Asia, men and women from
dozens of nations, many of whom are former enemies, work together as Peacekeepers, risking
their lives so that others might survive.
Enforce the peace Sometimes the community needs to go further and use actual force to protect the innocent and stop the aggressor. No matter how strong any single aggressor, the Third Side is potentially stronger. Consider how a group of young women freed another young woman being forcibly abducted by
six youths in a working-class neighborhood in Mexico. "She was screaming and kicking," reports
anthropologist Laura Cummings. "Then some of these young cholos, four or five girls, came along
and were yelling at the fellows to let her go. All but one did. So the girls picked up stones and
sticks and started pelting the guy who was dragging the girl. He let go of the girl. . . . The fellows
who were with him stood in a circle and did not intervene." The power of numbers helped liberate
the victim while the legitimacy of the young womens' intervention helped neutralize the attacker's
allies.
The girls in that situation did have to resort to mild violence (sticks and stones), but the best
Peacekeepers never fight. They never fight because they don't need to. They accomplish their ends
by intervening early and using persuasion. American police forces have learned this lesson,
sometimes painfully, over the past two decades. Their old approach when confronted by hostagetakers, for example, was the "John Wayne" method: Surround the place, pull out a bullhorn, give
the hostage-taker an ultimatum, "You've got three minutes to come out with your hands up!" then
lob in the tear gas canisters and charge. The result, more often than not, was dead hostages, dead
police, and dead hostage-takers. The 1993 tragedy at Waco, Texas, in which FBI forces stormed
the retreat of a religious group, the Branch Davidians, was all too predictable; 21 children and 74
adults died needlessly in the ensuing fire.
The alternative and more effective approach is to surround the place, toss in a phone, and talk with
the hostage-taker. Talking may take hours, days, or even longer, but with patience, listening, and
negotiation skills, the police are able to bring the overwhelming majority of hostage-taking
situations to a peaceful end without casualties and with the surrender of the hostage-taker.
[1] This essay is reprinted, with permission from Bill Ury, from www.thirdside.org A few changes
were made to fit this context, most importantly, the essay was shortened, links to other related
essays in the knowledge base were added and formatting changes were made. Our thanks to Bill
Ury for allowing us to use this.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources The Third Side. Available at: http://www.thirdside.org/index.cfm. "ThirdSide.org is sponsored by the Global Negotiation Project (formerly the Project on Preventing War) at Harvard University. The Project develops and encourages the use of effective negotiation processes to reduce the risk of war. In addition, the Project is also committed to the development of negotiation theory and practice in a wide range of related areas, such as international mediation and designing dispute resolution systems to contain violence and resolve conflict." The site provides access to a variety of information regarding William Ury's concept of the Third Side including a definition and examples of third siders in action. Offline (Print) Sources Ury, William L., ed. Must We Fight?: From The Battlefield to the Schoolyard ‐ A New Perspective on Violent Conflict and Its Prevention. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass, December 1, 2001. In this book, the authors provide new research and insights into human behavior and human nature, which show that we are not, in fact, doomed to violent conflict. The book also outlines a brilliant program for personal and community empowerment called The Third Side. This new paradigm shows how we can intervene to support healthy conflict while preventing destructive confrontation. Ury, William L. The Third Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop. New York: Penguin Books, September 2000. In this book, William Ury explains that it takes two sides to fight and a third to stop it. Based on years of experience as a conflict resolution practitioner, Ury describes ten practical roles that people can play to prevent destructive conflict. He argues that fighting is not inevitable human behavior and that we can transform battles into constructive conflict and cooperation by turning to what he calls, "the third side". Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Allen, Robert D. "Lessons from Somalia: The Dilemma Of Peace Enforcement." , 1997 "During the summer of 1992, American military forces were committed to Somalia in an effort to bring a halt to widespread human suffering and starvation. Over the course of the subsequent 27 months, the American mission in Somalia presented United States forces with a multitude of diverse challenges which spanned the spectrum of peace operations. After realizing initial success in establishing security and saving thousands of lives, American servicemen clashed with Somali forces and were subsequently withdrawn in the spring of 1994.[1] This experience provides a sobering glimpse of the dilemmas of peace enforcement operations conducted in the chaos of a country ravaged by famine and clan warfare." More Than Victims: Women's Role in Conflict Prevention. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Available at: http://wwics.si.edu/topics/pubs/ACF19D.pdf. This work discusses the role women play in conflict situations, usually as part of civil society movements. The report examines women's roles in organizing to prevent conflict, to help end it once it begins, and also as post‐conflict peacebuilders. The paper includes examples from several conflict regions including Kashmir, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Rwanda, El Salvador, and Lebanon. Neighborhood Watch. Available at: http://www.usaonwatch.org/. This is the home page of the well‐known national crime prevention movement in the United States, called Neighborhood Watch. The program provides support for private citizens to help patrol their own streets and prevent crime. The entire program revolves around insights and knowledge relayed by witnesses at the local level. The Guardian Angels. Available at: http://www.guardianangels.org/. This is the home page of the Guardian Angels, a non‐profit organization that started in the Bronx, NY with the aim of organizing citizens to patrol the streets and take the city back from criminals. Since the late 1970s, the organization has grown and chapters have started around the world. The Angels can potentially serve as witnesses to crime and therefore help deter it from happening in the first place. Offline (Print) Sources Rotberg, Robert I., ed. Vigilance and Vengeance: NGOs preventing ethnic conflict in divided societies. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, November 1996. This edited volume concentrates on international preventive action as carried out by non‐governmental organizations. The work ultimately concludes that early warning and early action are not as straightfoward in practice as they sound in theory. Various obstacles to NGO's effectively participating in early warning systems are outlined. The work includes case studies on Guatemala, Macedonia, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, the Sudan, Rwanda, and Burundi to demonstrate its general points. Healers By
William Ury
At the core of many conflicts lie emotions -- anger, fear, humiliation, hatred, insecurity, and grief.
The wounds may run deep. Even if a conflict appears resolved after a process of mediation,
adjudication, or voting, the wounds may remain and, with them, the danger that the conflict could
recur. A conflict cannot be considered fully resolved until the injured relationships have begun to
heal. The role of the Healer is to assist in this process.
Create the Right Climate Healing ideally takes place not just at the conclusion of the process of dispute resolution, but at the
very start. A psychological wall of suspicion and hostility may separate the parties more
definitively than any stone wall. Our task as Healers is to break through this psychological wall.
"People would call me up angry," explains Timothy Dayonot, a community relations officer for
the University of California at San Francisco. "There'd always be some tough issue - student noise,
or traffic, or construction, or radiation from the labs. My approach was to listen to them calmly
and then, when they paused for a second, I'd say, 'Do you have a pen and piece of paper handy?'
'Why?' they'd ask irritably. 'Because I want you to have my home telephone number. Any time
you have a problem, day or night feel free to give me a call.' They'd be so surprised - they were
expecting some kind of bureaucratic runaround - that their tone would change. They'd begin to
trust me, and we could then talk through their problem." In the five years Dayonot held the job, he
reported that only once did he receive a call at home - and that was from a complainant who had
been so impressed by Dayonot's open approach that he wanted to offer him a job!
Trust-building can take place not just between individuals but between nations. In May 1977,
Egyptian President Anwar Sadat shocked the world and offered to fly to Jerusalem, the capital of
his enemies, to talk peace. For the first time, he pierced the psychological wall dividing Arabs and
Israelis. Up to that point, no Arab leader had publicly acknowledged the existence of the state of
Israel, let alone even pronounced its name - it had always been the "Zionist entity." Overnight,
Sadat's surprise trip to Jerusalem, undertaken within a week of his offer, seized the imagination of
millions, both Israelis and Arabs, and created the atmosphere that led to the Camp David peace
settlement between Egypt and Israel.
Listen and Acknowledge One of the most powerful methods for healing a relationship is also the simplest. It is to listen, to
give one's complete attention to the aggrieved person for as long as he or she has something to say.
Acknowledgement reinforces the effect of listening. "You validate their feelings of frustration,"
explains a customer service representative who deals daily with angry customers. "You recognize
their concerns are legitimate and show that you understand their concerns. Then they calm down."
In couples' therapy and marriage workshops, husbands and wives learn to listen to and
acknowledge each other's feelings. Indeed, often what people really want most is a chance to have
their grievance heard and acknowledged by others.
Healing comes from acknowledging not just feelings, but also the truth. In South Africa after
apartheid, President Nelson Mandela established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission with a
mandate to collect and investigate the accounts of the victims of apartheid, to offer amnesty for
those who confessed their part in atrocities, and to make recommendations on reparations for the
victims. The purpose was to use the healing power of the truth to help put the brutal past to rest.
Limited by time and resources, the investigation could not possibly satisfy everyone's need for
justice but it did help many victims and their families. After testifying before the commission, one
victim, Lucas Baba Sikwepare, who had been cruelly blinded by a police officer known as
"Rambo," declared, "I feel what has been making me sick all the time is the fact that I couldn't tell
my story. But now I - it feels like I got my sight back by coming here and telling you the story."
Encourage Apology Apologies, sincerely offered, play a vital role in helping emotional wounds heal and restoring
injured relationships. As third parties, we often don't need to do much except offer encouragement.
"Our last meeting changed how we view our marriage," announced one husband to the therapist he
and his wife had been seeing for some time. "For all that's been accomplished this past year with
you, your question to us about whether we'd ever forgive each other might be the most important
thing you've ever said." The therapist was surprised, scarcely remembering having asked the
question. Yet it proved to be a turning point. While up to then, the couple had made slow progress
backing away from the brink of divorce, after that, the therapist reports, they were a "transformed
couple." "Forgiveness was their goal, and they worked hard on it. Resentments really did wither,
hope emerged healthy and vigorous, and they were in love again. Six months after we terminated,
they were still going strong."
The surrounding community's reaction to violence can often make the difference between
vengeance and reconciliation. When, in December 1997, the first teenager in more than two years
was killed in Boston, the neighbors did not respond the way they had always done before by
simply adding another lock and bolt to their doors. Instead, they came in great numbers to offer
their condolences to the family and to express their concern about future violence. It was a
genuine showing of the Third Side. The slain youth's friends talked of revenge but at the funeral,
the victim's cousin, Carl Jefferson announced, "His blood is crying out to all of us. What will you
do in regards to his life and legacy? Let's end this violence." No vengeance killing took place.
Forgiveness is not easy. "I've heard people say that forgiveness is for wimps," writes Marietta
Jaeger. "Well, I say then that they must never have tried it. Forgiveness is hard work. It demands
diligent self-discipline, constant corralling of our basest instincts, custody of the tongue, and a
steadfast refusal not to get caught up in the mean-spiritedness of our times. It doesn't mean we
forget, we condone, or we absolve responsibility. It does mean we let go of the hate, that we try to
separate the loss and the cost from the recompense or punishment we deem is due. This is what
happened to me," she explains as she recounts how she came to talk with and forgive the sick
young man who murdered her seven-year-old daughter.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources CRInfo Third Side Gateway. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/user_guides/third_side/. The Third side Gateway into CRInfo is a portal into CRInfo's holdings that relate best to the Third side concept and its ten roles. This gateway also has an extensive listing of resources related to the concept in general and the specific third side roles. Offline (Print) Sources Washington, R. and G. Kehrein. Breaking Down Walls: A Model for Reconciliation in an Age of Racial Strife. Moody Press, 1996. Ury, William L. The Third Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop. New York: Penguin Books, September 2000. In this book, William Ury explains that it takes two sides to fight and a third to stop it. Based on years of experience as a conflict resolution practitioner, Ury describes ten practical roles that people can play to prevent destructive conflict. He argues that fighting is not inevitable human behavior and that we can transform battles into constructive conflict and cooperation by turning to what he calls, "the third side". Price, M. "Victim‐Offender Mediation: The State of the Art." VOMA Quarterly Volume 7:3, 1996. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources International Reconciliation Coalition. Available at: http://www.reconcile.org/. "If we have broken our covenants with God and violated our relationships with one another; the path to reconciliation must begin with individual acts of confession. Paradoxically, the greatest wounds in human history, the greatest injustices, have not happened through the acts of some individual perpetrator; rather through the institutions, systems, philosophies, cultures, religions and governments of humankind. Because of this, we, as individuals, are tempted to absolve ourselves of all individual responsibility. However, unless somebody chooses to identify themselves with corporate entities, such as the nation of our citizenship, or the subculture of our ancestors, the act of honest confession will never take place. This leaves us in a world of injury and offense in which no corporate sin is ever acknowledged, reconciliation never begins and old hatreds deepen." ‐ From Website South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Available at: http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/index.html. This is South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission's home page. The Commission is based on the understanding that "... a commission is a necessary exercise to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation." Trauma Research Net. Available at: http://www.traumaresearch.net/. This organization is dedicated to researching various forms of trauma people can experience. It has several publications, which are all listed on the website, and holds conferences to discuss trauma and trauma healing. Victim‐Offender Reconciliation Program (VORP) Information and Resource Center. Available at: http://www.vorp.com/. Our mission is to bring restorative justice reform to our criminal and juvenile justice systems. The Center specializes in providing victim‐offender mediation and reconciliation services in cases of severely violent crimes, including homicides. The Center serves non‐profit organizations, governmental agencies and individuals. Offline (Print) Sources Menkin, E.S. and L. Baker. "I Forgave My Sister's Killer: I Couldn't Begin to Heal Until I Let Go of My Hatred." Ladies' Home Journal , 1995. Volkan, V. and E. Zintl. "Life After Loss: Lessons of Grief." New York, 1993. Equalizers By
William Ury
Every conflict takes place within the larger context of power. Imbalance of power often leads to
abuse and injustice. The strong refuse to negotiate with the weak or to submit their dispute to
mediation or arbitration -- why should they, they think, when they can win? This is where the
Equalizer has a contribution to make. Each of us holds a packet of power, a measure of influence
over the parties around us. Individuality, our influence may be small, but collectively, it can be
considerable. We are capable of empowering the weak and the unrepresented so that they can
negotiate a fair and mutually satisfactory resolution.
Help Bring the Powerful to the Table Each of us has opportunities to use our influence to bring about productive negotiations. A parent
can equalize the power between a younger and an older child, insisting that they reach an
agreement fair to both. A boss can direct a more powerful department head to negotiate an evenhanded resolution with a weaker rival. A chorus of newspaper editorials can promote talks
between an unwilling company and its union, or vice versa. The neighbors of a country torn by
civil war can exercise diplomatic peer pressure on that country's reluctant government to sit down
with the rebels.
Ensuring that the weak and the unrepresented sit as equals at the table is just the first step, of
course. As Thirdsiders, we often need to remain involved so that the parties reach an equitable
agreement - and carry it out. The job, for instance, of an organizational ombudsperson, who
typically reports directly to the CEO, is to balance the power between a weaker employee (or
customer) and someone more powerful inside the organization, such as a supervisor, so that the
issue - racial discrimination, sexual harassment, or less serious matters - can be fairly addressed
and a resolution fully implemented.
Build Collaborative Democracy Stepping in to bring about a negotiation only temporarily equalizes the power balance. More
sustainably, we as Thirdsiders can build democracy and promote the fair sharing of power.
Creating collaborative democracy helps handle difficult disputes, starting at home. Democratic
family meetings can air contentious issues and allow creative agreements to be worked out. "We
sit down maybe once a month, tears are shed, and we talk and air it out," explains one father of a
family of six. Parents and children participate as equals in such meetings, helping make decisions
such as how to distribute chores fairly or where to go for a family vacation. It is not easy to share
power, but it can work - if people learn to take the Third Side.
Collaborative democracy can be used in schools as well. The most effective strategy for
preventing violence in American schools turns out not to be installing metal detectors but rather
involving students in a problem-solving process. Adults frequently do not understand the depth of
adolescent passions or what sets them off - the insults, the pressure to conform, the teasing in the
school shower. Fellow students can understand and often have better ideas for what will work to
resolve the problem. At one school cafeteria where fights were breaking out regularly on the lunch
line, for example, students suggested creating two separate lines, one for pizza and the other for
salad. The fighting stopped.
Building democracy can also help end wars. The violence ceased in Italy when the Germanspeaking minority was accorded autonomy in the 1970s. Malaysia, once torn by ethnic strife
between ethnic Malays and Chinese in the 1950s and 1960s, learned to share power between the
two communities and came to enjoy civil peace and prosperity in the 1970s and 1980s. At the
current time, a great experiment is under way to end the thirty-year civil war in Northern Ireland.
In May 1998, the people of the entire island, North and South, voted together for the first time.
Acting as Thirdsiders, the great majority of them voiced their support for a peaceful solution
through political power-sharing among Protestants and Catholics in the North. "The conflict isn't
over," reflected one hopeful citizen on a radio talk show, "but the war is."
Support Nonviolent Action Sometimes people resort to violence out of desperation, believing there is no other way to address
their needs. Even in a democracy, the formal mechanisms of government may be insufficient to
correct injustices. It is up to us as Thirdsiders to show that nonviolent action can work instead.
Indeed, community support is the key mechanism through which nonviolent action ultimately
achieves its goals.
No one has done more to develop and popularize the tool of nonviolent action than Mahatma
Gandhi. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Gandhi was determined to free India from
centuries of British rule; he was equally determined to do so without using violence. At the time,
most people thought his enterprise laughable. How could one man take on the British empire, the
largest empire on the face of the earth? How many battalions did Gandhi command? his opponents
asked contemptuously. But over time Britain weakened and grew weary with the costs of empire,
whereas Gandhi only grew stronger.
Gandhi carefully crafted a strategy for measuring power in terms of the willingness of people to
suffer for their cause - without inflicting violent harm on their adversaries. Through such
nonviolent actions as breaking unjust laws and flooding the jails of colonial India, boycotting
English textiles, provoking the wrath of the occupiers, and accepting whatever violent punishment
they meted out, he persuaded a nation infinitely more powerful in conventional military terms to
withdraw peacefully from a country it had occupied for four hundred years.
Gandhi succeeded by mobilizing the community itself, millions of Indians from all walks of life.
He also aroused widespread sympathy and support for his cause around the world, including in
Great Britain itself. The Third Side, both outside and inside India, served to hold in check those
British officials who counseled using massive force to put an end on Gandhi and his followers.
Gandhi's efforts have inspired the use of nonviolent action around the world. During the 1960s,
Martin Luther King, Jr., led the American civil rights movement in an effective nonviolent
campaign to obtain equal rights for black Americans. During the 1980s, nonviolent protests in
Poland, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia, orchestrated by labor unions, churches, and other
civil institutions, helped bring an end to communist dictatorship. In all these cases, the wider
public became engaged as Thirdsiders and helped equalize the power between the weak and the
strong.
Nonviolent action extends well beyond the political arena. It begins with babies; crying, after all,
represents a nonviolent attempt to induce big, powerful adults to meet the baby's needs. In the
workplace, employees use strikes and management resorts to lockouts when an impasse develops
in contract negotiations. In schools too, students use nonviolent action. In one instance during the
late 1960s, two hundred girls wore pants to a Massachusetts high school in violation of the dress
code, confronting the principal with an unpleasant choice. He either had to suspend two hundred
students or change the dress code; wisely, he chose to do the latter.
Whether the powerful negotiate with the weak usually depends on the rest of us. Whether or not
we agree with the specific cause behind a nonviolent protest, an industrial strike or lockout, or a
consumer boycott, we may choose as Equalizers to support nonviolence and assist the weaker
party in bringing their stronger opponents to the table.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources CRInfo Third Side Gateway. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/user_guides/third_side/. The Third side Gateway into CRInfo is a portal into CRInfo's holdings that relate best to the Third side concept and its ten roles. This gateway also has an extensive listing of resources related to the concept in general and the specific third side roles. Offline (Print) Sources Sharp, Gene. Dynamics of Nonviolent Action: Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part 3. Boston: Porter Sargent Pub., November 1985. The Dynamics of Nonviolent Action explores the nature and processes of nonviolent action. Sharp, Gene. Methods of Nonviolent Action: Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part 2. Boston: Porter Sargent Pub., January 1, 1973. The Methods of Nonviolent Action describes nearly two‐hundred specific methods of nonviolent action. Sharp, Gene. Power and Struggle: Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part I. Boston: Porter Sargent Pub., May 1974. Part One of the Poltics of Nonviolent Action, Power and Struggle, explores the nature of power and the possibility of controlling or challenging power through nonviolent means. Ackerman, P. and C. Kruegler. Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People Power in the Twentieth Century. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1999. King, Jr. Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story. New York: Harper and Row, 1958. This book presents Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s full account of the nonviolent resistance demonstrated during the Montgomery bus strike. Laue, J. and G. Cormick. "The Ethics of Intervention in Community Disputes." In The Ethics of Social Intervention. Edited by Bermant, Gordon, ed. Washington, D.C.: Halsted Press, 1958. Volkan, Vamik D. The Need to Have Enemies and Allies: From Clinical Practice to International Relationships.. New York: Jason Aronson, November 1, 1995. Ury, William L. The Third Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop. New York: Penguin Books, September 2000. In this book, William Ury explains that it takes two sides to fight and a third to stop it. Based on years of experience as a conflict resolution practitioner, Ury describes ten practical roles that people can play to prevent destructive conflict. He argues that fighting is not inevitable human behavior and that we can transform battles into constructive conflict and cooperation by turning to what he calls, "the third side". Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Agape Foundation: Fund for Nonviolent Social Change. Available at: http://www.agapefn.org/. "The Agape Foundation Fund for Nonviolent Social Change is a non‐profit public foundation founded in 1969 out of opposition to the war in Southeast Asia. Pacifists, World War II conscientious objectors and anti‐Vietnam War activists founded it in order to build a movement that seriously challenged the Pentagon and the American culture of violence. The Foundation's purpose is to fund nonviolent social change organizations committed to peace and justice issues. Unlike social services that aid and assist individuals, social change efforts confront the root causes of social problems by challenging the responsible systems and institutions." ‐ Website Albert Einstein Institution. Available at: http://www.aeinstein.org. The mission of the Albert Einstein Institution is to advance the worldwide study and strategic use of nonviolent action in conflict. The Institution is committed to defending democratic freedoms and institutions, opposing oppression, dictatorship, and genocide, and reducing reliance on violence as an instrument of policy. Group of 77. Available at: http://www.g77.org/main/intern.htm. "As the largest Third World coalition in the United Nations, the Group of 77 provides the means for the developing world to articulate and promote its collective economic interests and enhance its joint negotiating capacity on all major international economic issues in the United Nations system, and promote economic and technical cooperation among developing countries (ECDC/TCDC)." ‐ Website M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence. Available at: http://www.gandhiinstitute.org/. The Mission of the Gandhi Institute is to promote and apply the principles of nonviolence locally, nationally, and globally, to prevent violence and resolve personal and public conflicts through research, education, and programming. National Democratic Institute (NDI) for International Affairs. Available at: http://www.ndi.org/. The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs is a nonprofit organization working to strengthen and expand democracy worldwide. Calling on a global network of volunteer experts, NDI provides practical assistance to civic and political leaders advancing democratic values, practices and institutions. One World. Available at: http://us.oneworld.net/. This organization's website is filled with international news concerning human rights and other global issues. You can find news by country and it can also be translated into other languages. The King Center. Available at: http://www.thekingcenter.org/. "Established in 1968 by Mrs. Coretta Scott King, the King Center is the living memorial and institutional guardian of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s legacy. As such, the King Center's programming focuses on the following areas: developing and disseminating programs that educate the world about Dr. King's philosophy and methods of nonviolence, human relations, service to mankind, and related teachings; building a national and international network of organizations that, through sanctioned programs, promote, compliment, and help further the organization's mission and objectives of building the Beloved Community that Dr. King envisioned; functioning as the clearinghouse for non‐profit organizations and government agencies which utilize Dr. King's image and writings for programs and ensuring that the programs are historically and interpretively accurate and consistent with building the Beloved Community that Dr. King envisioned; monitoring and reporting on the impact of Dr. King's legacy on the world The King Center collaborates with other organizations, public and private, in carrying out its mission." ‐ website The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Available at: http://www.eeoc.gov. This organization seeks to ensure that businesses are following proper highering policies, giving equal opportunities to minorities. Offline (Print) Sources Gandhi, Mohandas K. Gandhi An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Beacon Press, November 1, 1993. "Mohandas K. Gandhi is one of the most inspiring figures of our time. In his classic autobiography he recounts the story of his life and how he developed his concept of active nonviolent resistance, which propelled the Indian struggle for independence and countless other nonviolent struggles of the twentieth century." Referees By
William Ury
February 2005
Some fighting can be salutary. Fighting can serve the function of clearing the air and bringing
suppressed problems into sharp focus. If and when people do fight, it is important to reduce the
harm. That is the role of the Referee, who sets limits on fighting. Parents know this role well:
"Pillows are okay, but fists are not." "No blows above the neck or below the belt." As Referees,
we can change the way people fight, replacing destructive weapons and methods with
substantially less destructive ones.
Establish Rules for Fair Fighting During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union evolved a code of conduct to contain
their periodic conflicts around the globe. Rule number one was: Never use nuclear weapons, even
against other parties. This rule turned into a taboo as strong as any tribal taboo. Rule number two
was: Never put American and Soviet soldiers into situations where they would be firing directly at
one another. Leaders feared that breaching either rule could all too easily escalate into a
thermonuclear war. The rules may seem simple but they helped avert World War Three.
The same kind of rules apply on the streets. "If I can get them to have a fist fight, that's great,"
declares Ron Sinkler, a former gang member and prison inmate who now works for the city of
Boston. His main priority, he says, is to persuade gang members to settle their disputes without
guns. "I try to explain that if you use a gun, then you're going to prison. Kids aren't stupid. They
listen, some of them anyhow."
Referees have even arrived on the Internet. America Online, the world's largest Internet provider,
has recruited nearly fourteen thousand volunteers to patrol over a hundred and eighty thousand
continuing conversation groups to ensure that people do not harass, threaten, or deliberately
embarrass others, a code of conduct accepted by subscribers when they sign up for the service. A
further group of about a hundred, known as the Community Action Team help determine when a
comment crosses the line. While America Online was criticized, with good reason, when it
suspended for three weeks a conversation about Northern Ireland that was getting belligerent, its
initiative is an interesting large-scale experiment in the use of a code of conduct and Referees in a
public forum.
Codes of conduct have a place in political campaigns as well. "We were frustrated by the personal
attacks, one candidate calling the other one a liar," explained one civic activist. "People were
getting angry and cynical." So a group of citizens - civic activists, campaign workers, former
public officials, members of the media - devised a strategy called "Project Positive Campaign"
that, through fliers and public service announcements in the media, urged voters to let their
candidates know that they would support only those who ran positive, informative campaigns. As
a start, candidates withdrew several negative "attack ads" after voters complained.
Remove Offensive Arms One way to stop people from using dangerous weapons against each other is to take them away. In
Great Britain, the annual murder rate stands at one per hundred thousand people, while in the
United States the rate is at least eight times higher. One powerful reason is that firearms, tightly
controlled in Britain, are plentiful and easily available in America. The death rate among
American children from firearms is nearly sixteen times higher than among children in twenty-five
other industrialized countries combined.
To combat teen homicide in Boston in the 1990s, the Boston Gun Project sought to keep guns out
of the hands of youth. Researchers at Harvard University provided information about the kinds of
guns used by teenagers, and government officials then developed strategies for tracking down and
arresting suppliers of these types of guns. The project also established a program to buy back guns
from teenagers. Backed by the community, the police rigorously enforced firearms restrictions and
the courts imposed heavy sentences on offenders. The collaboration among researchers,
government agencies, and the community worked. In 1996, no youths under seventeen died from
handgun violence; and homicide rates for people under twenty-four had dropped by three quarters
from the 1990 numbers. The successful initiative has now spread to at least seventeen other cities.
Strengthen Defenses ­ Nonoffensively It is not easy to persuade people to lay down their arms. Many efforts at disarmament in the
twentieth century have failed in good part because the weapons themselves were treated as the
primary problem instead of as an unfortunate response to a condition of insecurity. Once people
feel safer through strengthened defenses, they become more willing to discard their offensive
weapons.
One promising approach advocated by British military strategist Sir Basil Liddell-Hart is
simultaneously to strengthen defenses as one gets rid of weapons that could be used to attack.
Building stronger castle walls works better if accompanied by efforts to eliminate the siege
artillery that could destroy those walls. The aim is simultaneously to reduce the power of offensive
weapons and strengthen defenses to the point where the advantage in any fight goes to the
defender. Any would-be aggressor would then think hard before attacking.
Switzerland illustrates the approach at work. Centuries ago, it adopted a policy of armed
neutrality, actively signaling its intention of threatening no one. Today, its armed forces have no
nuclear weapons, no long-range aircraft, no heavy bombers, and no tanks capable of advancing
deep into enemy territory. Its weapons consist instead of antiaircraft systems, antitank weapons,
antitank traps, short-range aircraft, helicopters, and light vehicles suitable for mountain defense.
Switzerland relies heavily on its own people. Eighty percent of the active male population, a force
of some six hundred and fifty thousand, can be mustered within forty-eight hours. Other citizens
are trained to maintain essential economic activities, provide medical services to the wounded, and
offer nonviolent resistance to the invaders. The entire community is thus mobilized to provide
defense without offense.
Nonoffensive defense stretches into the schoolyard. "Your mother is nutty!" the ten-year-old bully
shouts in a school skit. "So that's why she hangs out in trees so much," responds the hero. "Hey,
Spike!" calls out another bully. "I know," comes the response, "I worked really hard on my hair
this morning. I even used extra hair spray." This skit was written by ten-year-olds and used to
teach other children in school how to defend themselves against insult and provocation with
humor, not counterattacks. The children learn that being a leader means going out of their way to
befriend children who have no friends, thus putting would-be bullies on notice that these children
will not prove easy targets. On a physical level, many children learn the defensive martial arts of
judo, jujitsu, and aikido, all ways of protecting themselves without hurting others.
Nonoffensive defense can be used in the workplace as well. When a man was stalking his former
girlfriend at the Los Angeles law firm where she worked, "We went out and got a restraining
order, hired a guard and locked the doors," recalls her boss. Thanks to the protective intervention
of the employee's work community, the harassing calls and visits stopped and the crisis subsided.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources CRInfo Third Side Gateway. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/user_guides/third_side/. The Third side Gateway into CRInfo is a portal into CRInfo's holdings that relate best to the Third side concept and its ten roles. This gateway also has an extensive listing of resources related to the concept in general and the specific third side roles. "Just War Principles”, 1900 Available at: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm. This is a brief list of some of the characteristics or qualifications of a just war. Offline (Print) Sources Sharp, Gene. Civilian‐Based Defense: A Post‐Military Weapons System. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990. "Two things are certain about the future of politics and international relations," writes Gene Sharp. "Conflict is inevitable, and effective defense will be required against internal usurpers and international aggressors." The crucial issue is how to deter and defend against such attacks. Sharp has been called the "Clausewitz of nonviolent warfare" and has been a leading pioneer in developing of civilian‐based defense. This book applies the results of his studies on nonviolent struggle to the problems of deterrence and defense. For the general public and policymakers, it explains how massive and selective non‐
cooperation and defiance by a country's population and institutions can deny attackers their objectives without the dangers of modern war." ‐Amazon.com Click here for more info. Schmidt, F. and A. Friedman. Fighting Fair for Families. Peace Education Foundation, 1989. Mindell, Arnold. Sitting in the Fire: Large Group Transformation Using Conflict and Diversity. Portland: Lao Tse Press, 1995. "Sitting in the Fire will introduce you to inner work as a way to overcome the fear of conflict. You will gain understanding of the cultural, personal and historical issues that underlie multicultural violence. You will acquire some of the skills necessary to work with large groups of people. The fire that burns in the social, psychological and spiritual dimensions of humanity can ruin the world. Or this fire can transform trouble into community. It's up to us. We can avoid contention, or we can fearlessly sit in the fire, intervene and prevent world history's most painful errors from being repeated." ‐‐‐ Foreward Ury, William L. The Third Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop. New York: Penguin Books, September 2000. In this book, William Ury explains that it takes two sides to fight and a third to stop it. Based on years of experience as a conflict resolution practitioner, Ury describes ten practical roles that people can play to prevent destructive conflict. He argues that fighting is not inevitable human behavior and that we can transform battles into constructive conflict and cooperation by turning to what he calls, "the third side". Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Albert Einstein Institution. Available at: http://www.aeinstein.org. The mission of the Albert Einstein Institution is to advance the worldwide study and strategic use of nonviolent action in conflict. The Institution is committed to defending democratic freedoms and institutions, opposing oppression, dictatorship, and genocide, and reducing reliance on violence as an instrument of policy. Conciliation Resources (CR). Available at: http://www.c‐r.org/. Conciliation Resources serves as an international resource for local or national organisations pursuing peace or conflict prevention initiatives. The principal objective is to support sustained practical activities of those working at the community and national levels to prevent or transform violent conflict into opportunities for social, political and economic development based on more just relationships. In addition to its services in support of local organisations working for conflict resolution, Conciliation Resources also publishes Accord: an international review of peace initiatives as part of its Accord programme. The publication documents peace processes and is available in web format free of charge from www.c‐r.org. Mennonite Conciliation Service (MCS). Available at: http://conciliationserv.mennonite.net/. Providers By
William Ury
Conflict usually arises in the first place from frustrated needs, like love and respect. Frustration
leads people to bully others, to use violence, and to grab someone else's things. The most basic
human needs include food (and other necessities for living), safety, identity, and freedom. If we as
Thirdsiders can help people address one or more of these four needs we can avert destructive
conflict. This is the role of the Provider.
Share Resources, Share Knowledge When people feel that there is not enough to go around for everyone, fear and anxiety rise and
fights may break out. Hungry people can scarcely be blamed for coveting the food of their wellfed neighbors. Not coincidentally, those societies that share their resources most equitably, such as
the Scandinavian nations, have relatively low rates of crime and violence. "Lagom" is a Swedish
expression used when passing food or drink around the table, meaning "Take just enough so that
there is enough for everyone."
Enough food exists for everyone and the cost of purchasing and distributing it would be a
minuscule portion of what is spent on arms and armies. The same holds true when it comes to
addressing any of the elementary material needs of human beings such as clean water, warm
clothes, simple medical care, and shelter from the elements.
Just as important as sharing scarce resources is sharing knowledge, educating people so that they
can meet their own needs. As the old adage goes, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Boston's success in reducing teenage
violence stemmed in part from the community, business, and government working together to
provide over ten thousand after-school jobs for teenagers at risk, along with educational programs
and job training. Churches in Rio de Janeiro aim to do the same by educating poor young men for
jobs other than selling drugs. [See the essay on Development, Education, and Conflict for more
information on the drug-education nexus in Brazil.]
Peace does not require great prosperity. Consider the little country of Costa Rica, not rich despite
its name, but with a record of internal and external peace during the last half of the twentieth
century that any of the rich nations might envy. The Costa Ricans achieved this record by
eliminating their army and using their resources instead for health, education, and development.
For many years, Costa Rica spent a larger percentage of its government budget on health than any
other country in the world. It had the second highest education budget, proportionally, in the
world. While expensive, these social programs were credited with helping head off the immensely
more costly social uprisings and revolutions that occurred in almost all of Costa Rica's neighbors
in Central America.
Give Others a Sense of Security Medieval England had an estimated homicide rate of fifty per hundred thousand inhabitants.
Today, England's rate is less than one twenty-fifth of that. One major reason is that people feel
safe. Police are present. No one feels compelled, indeed no one is allowed, to carry a weapon. The
community provides protection for everyone.
The same lesson is being learned at the international level. During the first half of the twentieth
century, the nations of Europe engaged in arms buildups that inflamed fears, triggered arms races,
and led to catastrophic wars. Nations sought to make themselves feel more secure by making
others feel less secure - and it did not work. In the 1970s and 1980s, European nations began to
learn to respect the security needs of others. To reduce fear and distrust, they agreed to exchange
military observers and to notify neighbors before carrying out military exercises. No nation, they
came to recognize, can feel truly secure unless its neighbors do too. True security lies in common
security.
Offer Respect Human beings have a host of emotional needs - for love and recognition, for belonging and
identity, for purpose and meaning to their lives. If all these needs had to be subsumed in one word,
it might be "respect." People want to be recognized and respected for who they are.
The frustration of these needs creates conflict everywhere. In families, children competing for
parental attention fight frequently. In the neighborhood, teenagers join gangs in order to feel a
sense of belonging; they regularly kill each other because of a perceived lack of respect. In the
workplace, the struggle for recognition and meaning can escalate, sometimes even into violence.
Most of the wars in the world today revolve around identity and respect. Disrespect for a group's
identity - and other basic needs - leads naturally enough to demands for a separate state that will
address those needs, demands which in turn can trigger civil war.
By addressing young people's needs for meaning and respect, we as parents, teachers, and
community members can help avert violence. In Milwaukee, a midnight basketball program was
credited with a thirty percent drop in teenage violence; young men preferred to shoot baskets
rather than to shoot each other. Similarly, noting that the hours just after school are peak hours for
youth crime, dozens of communities around the United States have organized "homework clubs"
that offer young people the chance to engage in stimulating activities after school. In one Florida
town, for example, violent crime committed with guns dropped seventy percent in neighborhoods
where homework programs operate.
Providing respect also proves critical in reducing ethnic violence. In a world of more than six
thousand intermixed ethnic groups, the solution cannot be a state for every ethnic group. Strong
national cultures can survive without their own state - but only if the larger community respects
their identity and their right to express it - as Catalans in Spain, Tamils in India, and Welsh in
Great Britain can attest. When asked why his Bosnian city has enjoyed more ethnic tolerance than
so many of its neighbors, Mayor Selim Beslagic explains, "In Tuzla, we have always given
priority to respect for human dignity over belonging to a nation or an ethnic community."
Empower Others The need for autonomy, for exercising a measure of control over one's life, runs deep. Even small
children want to be able to do things themselves without help from adults. Teenagers struggle to
define their identity as separate from their parents. Indeed, many of the wars of the last two
centuries have been fought to secure freedom - freedom from feudalism and absolute monarchy,
freedom from the grip of colonial powers, freedom from right-wing or left-wing dictatorships, and
freedom from the domination of other ethnic or religious groups.
Providing freedom can begin in the family when parents invite young children to make their own
decisions whenever possible: "Would you like to wear this outfit or that one?" It can continue at
work where companies are learning that getting the most out of their employees requires freeing
them to make as many of their own decisions as possible. The same is true at the international
level, where providing ethnic groups with a sense of security and as much autonomy as possible
can help stave off inter-ethnic violence and even civil war.
Sources of Additional, In­depth Information on this Topic Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources CRInfo Third Side Gateway. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/user_guides/third_side/. The Third side Gateway into CRInfo is a portal into CRInfo's holdings that relate best to the Third side concept and its ten roles. This gateway also has an extensive listing of resources related to the concept in general and the specific third side roles. Offline (Print) Sources Burton, John W., ed. Conflict: Human Needs Theory. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990. Dollard, J., L.W Doob and N.E Miller. Frustration and Aggression. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1939. Maslow, A. Motivation and Personality (Third Edition). New York: Harper and Row, 1987. Ury, William L. The Third Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop. New York: Penguin Books, September 2000. In this book, William Ury explains that it takes two sides to fight and a third to stop it. Based on years of experience as a conflict resolution practitioner, Ury describes ten practical roles that people can play to prevent destructive conflict. He argues that fighting is not inevitable human behavior and that we can transform battles into constructive conflict and cooperation by turning to what he calls, "the third side". Gurr, Ted R. Why Men Rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970. Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources Grameen Bank. Available at: http://www.grameen‐info.org/. "Grameen Bank (GB) has reversed conventional banking practice by removing the need for collateral and created a banking system based on mutual trust, accountability, participation and creativity. GB provides credit to the poorest of the poor in rural Bangladesh, without any collateral. At GB, credit is a cost effective weapon to fight poverty and it serves as a catalyst in the over all development of socio‐economic conditions of the poor who have been kept outside the banking orbit on the ground that they are poor and hence not bankable. Professor Muhammad Yunus, the founder of 'Grameen Bank' and its Managing Director, reasoned that if financial resources can be made available to the poor people on terms and conditions that are appropriate and reasonable, 'these millions of small people with their millions of small pursuits can add up to create the biggest development wonder.'" Mauritius Page. University of Pennsylvania ‐ African Studies. Available at: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Country_Specific/Mauritius.html. This page includes links to general information about Mauritius. Project Hope. Available at: http://www.projhope.org/. "The name Health Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE) is reflected in its mission: To achieve sustainable advances in health care around the world by implementing health education programs and providing humanitarian assistance in areas of need. Identifiable to many by the S.S. HOPE, the world's first peacetime hospital ship, Project HOPE now conducts land‐based medical training and health care education programs on five continents, including North America. " ‐ Organization Mission The Giraffe Project. Available at: http://www.giraffe.org/. The Giraffe Project is a story‐based curriculum that teaches courageous compassion and active citizenship. It also provides an engaging and effective structure for service‐learning, and for meeting community service requirements. The Self Family Foundation. Available at: http://www.selffoundation.org. This organization is dedicated to helping to improve the quality of life for citizens of Greenwood and South Carolina. Offline (Print) Sources Bornstein, D. The Price of a Dream: The Story of The Grameen Bank. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.