Mediation and negotiation require similar skills and approaches:– a win-win outcome and removal of psychological blocks. Mediation involves two parties who jointly invite a third party to facilitate reaching an agreement. In some cases the mediator might need to understand contract law or to have access to comparative data. However, the principles of mediation require only that the facilitator is able to understand the objectives, beliefs and perceptions of the parties – and then facilitate mutual changes of position until the two parties can agree. Mediation is the attempt to help parties in a disagreement to hear one another, to minimise the harm that can come from disagreement (eg hostility or ‘demonising’ of the other parties) to maximise any area of agreement, and to find a way of preventing the areas if disagreement from interfering with the process of seeking a compromise or mutually agreed outcome. In negotiation the facilitator normally works for one side, training the team or individual in negotiation skills, preparing them for a particular negotiation and coaching them during the negotation. Many of the processes are the same, though, because the object is to understand the other party and to create an outcome that will fulfil their aspirations as well as one's own. Negotiation is the process of searching for an agreement that satisfies various parties. An agreement may be reached either through a barter or through real negotiation. A barter allows only one party, the one in a position of power, to ‘win’. The other party is forced to accept something of lesser value. A real negotiation implies a ‘win-win’ situation in which all parties are satisfied. The parties agree to work with each other to resolve a dispute. The parties always meet with each other. The parties can bind themselves in an agreement. The parties have their own interests in the negotiation. The parties use persuasion to get the other side to agree with them. Some negotiations fail because the parties cannot work with each other. Some negotiations fail because the parties have too many conflicts. Some negotiations are not voluntary such as union negotiations. When the parties can't agree, they reach a deadlock or impasse . The parties agree to work with a facilitator or mediator to resolve a dispute. A mediator may meet with both parties jointly or meet individually with one party which is called a caucus. The mediator has no decision-making authority and cannot bind the parties. A mediator does not make a ruling like a judge or arbitrator. The mediator is neutral and impartial and does not represent either party's interests. The mediator may play devil's advocate or give a reality check to the parties, but it is not the mediator's role to persuade the parties. A mediator may be used because the parties prefer a third party. A mediator may be able to defuse conflicts or disagreements. Mediation is voluntary and either party may choose to stop at any time. When negotiations reach an impasse, the parties may try mediation . The advantages of negotiation are that it limits the number of players to those involved in the dispute. This allows for a focused approach to problem solving. The disadvantage is that if the viewpoints of the parties are to distant then progress is difficult to achieve. 1. A negotiator's relative strength is determined by the quality and extent of his/her preparation. The better you understand your interests (why you want what you want); and the better you understand the interests of other parties (why they want what they want), the greater the chance you will be able to reach an elegant solution which leaves the parties feeling as if each has achieved the major portion of their goals. 2. A negotiator's relative strength can be measured by whether people walk away thinking they would be pleased to negotiate again with him/her. If people leave a negotiation with you thinking they never want to see you again, then you are a poor negotiator. 3. A negotiator needs to understand that different issues should be treated as having different priorities in different negotiations. Sometimes the relationship is most important; other times creativity is the measure of how well one negotiates; and it is always true that good communication is a fundamental measure of a negotiator's strength. A good negotiator makes her/his points clearly understood by other parties. A better negotiator makes understanding other parties her/his top priority. If mediation follows no set procedure, results in no assured outcome, and cannot compel parties to agree unless those parties wish to do so, what advantages are there to mediation? 1. Mediation is relatively inexpensive. Seeing a case through trial is an expensive proposition. 2. Mediation is relatively swift. There is no dearth of mediators ready and willing to assist parties whose goal is to try to settle a matter. A quick web search will result in hundreds of mediators and mediation websites, some specializing in certain types of cases and some more experienced and able than others. Mediation does not run by a clogged court schedule and sessions can be easily scheduled any time at the mutual convenience of the parties and the mediator, and can take place in a variety of locations. 3. Mediation is relatively simple. There are no complex procedural or evidentiary rules which must be followed. While most would agree that a general rule of fairness applies, the maximum penalty a party can impose for foul play is to walk away from the mediation and take his chances in court. 4. Mediation allows the parties to revise and adjust the scope of their conflict. In a trial, initial pleadings and rules of procedure limit the issues which a party can raise. In mediation, as circumstances change so can the topics up for discussion. This increased flexibility makes it easier for negotiators to act as problem-solvers instead of adversaries. 5. Mediation allows for flexible solutions and settlements. The relief available in court is usually based on pecuniary damages, and equitable relief is hard to come by. In mediation, however, the parties can agree to a settlement requiring, or restraining, action by one party which was not originally envisioned as something beneficial to the other party. 6. Settlements reached in mediation are more agreeable to both parties than court judgments. Because any settlement arrived at through negotiation is necessarily agreed to voluntarily by both parties, obligations under the agreement are more likely to be fulfilled than obligations imposed by a court. This list is by no means exhaustive, but at least presents a framework in which we can consider the advantages of mediation. In addition, there is a similar list which can be constructed in which we can start to consider some of the typically mentioned disadvantages of mediation. 1. Mediation does not always result in a settlement agreement. Parties might spend their time and money in mediation only to find that they must have their case settled for them by a court. Opting for mediation, therefore, presents something of a risk. Further, if mediation fails, much of a party’s “ammunition” might have already been exposed to the opposing party, thereby becoming far less useful in the ensuing trial. 2. Mediation lacks the procedural and constitutional protections guaranteed by the federal and state courts. The lack of formality in mediation could be a benefit, as noted above, or a detriment. Mediation between parties of disparate levels of sophistication and power, and who have disparate amounts of resources available, might result in an inequitable settlement as the less-well positioned party is overwhelmed and unprotected. 3. Legal precedent cannot be set in mediation. Many discrimination cases, among others, are brought with the intention of not only securing satisfaction for the named plaintiff, but also with the hope of setting a new legal precedent which will have a broader social impact. These cases are only “successful” if a high court (usually the United States Supreme Court) hands down a favorable decision on the main issue. Mediation is therefore not beneficial for such cases. 4. Mediation has no formal discovery process. If one of the parties to a dispute cannot fully address the case without first receiving information from the other party, there is no way to compel disclosure of such information. The party seeking disclosure must rely instead on the other party’s good faith, which may or may not be enough. So is mediation a good thing? Should you encourage a client to mediate a matter rather than litigate? The answers to these questions depend on which of the various advantages and disadvantages of mediation apply in any given case. I use negotiation and mediation skills look like in the future: • Good COMMUNICATION SKILLS. The usual suspects of building rapport, picking up cues, non-verbal communication and also being able to clarify and summarise regularly. Etc…. • Being FLEXIBLE. (Have options thought about before but also try thinking creatively.) • CHUNK UP. This is just a term suggesting if negotiation is stuck in the specifics you could try to be a bit more general to see if other options occur. • CHUNK DOWN. This makes things more specific and might be used to move negotiation on. • Being able to stress the POSITIVE CONSEQUENCES of your proposal being accepted. (For example if we concentrate on this the evidence is that the majority of registrars pass the video component of the exam.) • Let the other person know the NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES of your proposal being rejected. (For example that you feel so strongly about this that I will consider not filling in the trainer’s report.) • Be aware that the block on a lot of negotiation is based on conflict of BELIEFS AND VALUES so I have to acknowledge what mind are and try and explore what is important to the other person. • Try to identify whether the other person’s perspectives are locked in the PAST (We have always done things this way) the PRESENT (At this moment in time we have to consolidate things) or the FUTURE. (The only way is to make changes and move ahead.) • Recognise when TIME OUT is needed either to consider options or for some housekeeping. • In every negotiation/mediation individuals should anticipate that there will be challenges to their ideas or style. Being able to respond to such challenges ensures that negotiators can recover and restore face. Building self-confidence and being creative is an essential pre-condition to that response. Self-confidence encourages experimentation and risk-taking in the sense of following intuition or novel interventions that might positively alter the flow of the interaction and lead to creative breakthroughs. • As an experienced negotiator/mediator I already have many of the technical skills and capabilities which are necessary for quality performance. This workshop focuses on the role of creativity in negotiation/mediation – to bring fresh thinking and new techniques for breaking deadlock, developing a future focus and generating ideas for solutions. • The programme offers a range of techniques which will enhance your ability to think more freely, to encourage creativity in others, to tackle difficulties and to help build solutions. . Mediation and negotiation require similar skills and approaches:– a win-win outcome and removal of psychological blocks. Mediation involves two parties who. of mediators and mediation websites, some specializing in certain types of cases and some more experienced and able than others. Mediation does not run by a clogged court schedule and sessions. disagreements. Mediation is voluntary and either party may choose to stop at any time. When negotiations reach an impasse, the parties may try mediation . The advantages of negotiation are