Evaluation of Conflict Resolution Strategies
A serious disagreement between two people or entities is described as a conflict. Conflicts are caused by a clash in the interests of individuals due to a difference in interests. Conflicting parties are engaged in a mental struggle as a result of incompatible drives, needs, wishes, and internal and external demands. Conflicts are also caused by differences in perception and thought processes.
Past Conflict Experience
My first experience of conflict was during a group discussion. Phoebe, being the leader of the group, obligated every group member to report their findings for a specific research topic in written form. However, John disagreed with Phoebe’s directive to deliver a handwritten copy and opted to submit a printed copy. Phoebe and John did not approve of each other’s thought processes and ideas. As a result, the project could not be completed within the stipulated duration as Phoebe and John could conclude.
The Thomas Kilmann model articulates that there are five main approaches to conflict resolution (Bahrol et al., 2019). Examples of conflict resolution strategies are avoiding, competing, accommodating, compromising, and collaborating. Avoidance is a conflict resolution strategy that involves ignoring or withdrawing from conflict to let it dissipate or resolve itself. This method is ideal for situations in which the discomfort from the confrontation exceeds the reward of resolving the conflict. Competing is a strategy used by assertive and non-cooperative parties that plan to win conflicts. Competition is characterized by the assumption that only one party can win while all others lose (Bercovitch, 2019). Competing does not cater to diverse perspectives given that the parties involved pursue their desires at the expense of the other parties.
Compromise is a conflict resolution strategy that encompasses agreements on an acceptable resolution despite non-satisfaction of interests. Participants involved in the conflict cede what they want in exchange for what the other party wants. Compromise is considered as a fair strategy despite every party not necessarily having to agree with the outcome. On the other hand, accommodation is a strategy that endeavors to resolve conflicts by taking steps to satisfy the demands and concerns of one party at the expense of the desires and needs of the other party. Parties taking part in accommodation are cooperative but not assertive. Accommodation is particularly gracious considering that any party can give in after discovering that they are wrong. However, accommodation is less helpful taking into account that parties are only seeking to avoid disruption and preserve harmony. Collaboration is a conflict resolution strategy that seeks to satisfy the concerns of all parties involved in a conflict. Parties that are taking part in collaboration allow each other to make contributions in the hope of creating a shared solution.
Conflict Resolution Processes
Mediation is described as a conflict resolution process through which a neutral mediator helps conflicting parties to negotiate and take part in constructive discussions to reach a mutually accepted resolution (VanderWeele, 2016). The mediator assists the disputing parties to resolve their conflict by acting as a neutral third party. Mediation offers disputing parties an alternative to litigation given that it is an alternative dispute resolution technique that aims to resolve conflicts without trials in court (Zhorzholiani, 2017). For this reason, mediation saves litigants from experiencing excruciating delays and incurring exorbitant costs associated with litigation processes. Moreover, the process of mediation provides disputing parties with an opportunity to find solutions to their conflict. Consequently, the process of mediation ensures the achievement of sustainable peace by advancing an outcome that is accepted by both parties. What is more, the process is non-adversarial given that disputing parties possess control over the final agreement. Mediation is a non-legalistic approach to managing conflicts considering that disputants are not required to file a lawsuit. Nevertheless, a trial can be avoided in conflicts whereby a lawsuit is already filed (Greyvenstein, 2018). Furthermore, mediations are less formal and less expensive compared to trials. Mediation is flexible as it saves time in comparison to litigation which is time-consuming. Mediation is less expensive considering that it is a cost-effective approach.
Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism which utilizes an unbiased third party to agree on a dispute (Vannieuwenhuyse, 2018). An arbitrator provides a legally binding arbitration award that is enforceable in the courts upon deciding on the dispute. Arbitration is an inappropriate method of conflict resolution considering that it is not cost-effective. Non-binding arbitrations do not provide an award or final decision. Moreover, conflicting parties are allowed to take the issue to court hence increasing litigation costs. Arbitration provides limited recourse given that the arbitrator’s final decision is impossible to revoke (Sea, 2016). This is inappropriate considering that an award granted by an arbitrator may be illogical and unfair.
Three Ways of Mediating
Facilitative Mediation
In line with facilitative mediation, the mediator is charged with the responsibility of structuring a process to assist conflicting parties to reach a mutually agreeable solution. Facilitative mediation as opposed to imposing a decision or recommendations (Olouch & Achieng, 2019). In contrast, the mediator encourages the parties to reach a voluntary solution on their own. Facilitative mediators strive to ensure that the disputants make an agreement based on their understanding and information provided. The facilitative mediator hides their opinion and does not make recommendations to prevent altering the outcome of the case. Notably, the mediator is responsible for the process whereas the disputants are in charge of the case outcome.
Evaluative Mediation
The process of evaluative mediation is based on settlement conferences led by judges. An evaluative mediator assists disputants to solve by shedding light on the weaknesses presented in the case and predicting the most likely decision to be made by a judge or jury (Wade, 2018). An evaluative mediator is allowed to make formal and informal recommendations to the disputing parties. Separate meetings are held between the mediator and the parties to evaluate the legal position, costs, and benefits of legal resolution. An evaluation of the conflict is made based on the legal concept of fairness and not the needs and interests of the parties involved. The mediator not only structures the process but also directly influences the mediation’s outcome.
Transformative Mediation
This method of mediation advances the values of empowerment and recognition of the disputant’s needs, interests, and opinions (Lebovics, 2018). Transformative mediation presents the opportunity for every disputant to transform during mediation. Transformative mediators instill recognition by meeting together with both parties involved in the conflict. Transformative mediation bears resemblance to facilitative mediation considering that both foster transformation and empowerment. The disputants are responsible for the process and outcome whereas the transformative mediator only follows the lead presented by the parties.
Steps for Neutrality and Ethics
Neutrality is the most significant aspect of mediation. As a mediator, I would ensure neutrality being independent and issuing an impartial decision. The first step I would take as a mediator is to make an opening statement that delineates the rules and goals for the mediation. I would then invite the disputants to make an opening statement to describe the dispute and the resulting consequences. I would then convene a joint discussion whereby each party would be invited to make direct responses to the opening statements. A private caucus in which separate meetings are held to discuss strengths and weaknesses would follow as the fourth step. I would then bring the parties together for a joint negotiation when a settlement is reached. The closure is the final step.