| Free Make Money Report & Program |
| GoogleCash System |
| Silent Profit Machine |
| Make Money Program |
| Google Cash eBook - Make Money With Adwords |
| Ultimate Wealth Package |
| Paid Surveys |
| Trusted Business Program |
| Ewen Chias AutoPilot Profits |
| Ewen Chias Secret Affiliate Weapon |
| Ewen Chias Affiliate Of The Month |
| Best WebMaster's Tool |
| Run Your Own Video Sharing Site |
|
|
|
|
| WebMaster's Resource |
|
|

This is a selection among article about Harvard Program On Negotiation. For a permanent link to this article, or to bookmark it for further reading, click here.
Negotiations within NegotiationIf only two persons attend a mediation and they are both have
authority to settle, then only three negotiations take place.
They are between (1) person 1 and person 2, (2) person 1 and
mediator, (3) person 2 and mediator. The dynamics of this are
easy to manage.
More commonly, at least four persons attend, namely two parties
and two attorneys, in which case ten dynamic interactions may
take place, as follows: (1) party 1 and party 2, (2) party 1 and
lawyer 1, (3) party 1 and mediator, (4) party 1 and lawyer 2,
(5) party 2 and lawyer 2, (6) party 2 and mediator, (7) party 2
and lawyer 1, (8) lawyer 1 and mediator, (9) lawyer 2 and
mediator, (10) lawyer 1 and lawyer 2.
It is easy to draw a cat's cradle to demonstrate the complex
dynamics that exist in the above simple mediation, with only two
parties each represented by an attorney.
If this was a dinner party with five friends, the conversation
would be a free for all with everyone having a wonderful time.
But a mediator cannot afford to have a free for all in a
mediation session. A mediation is a negotiation, and every
negotiation is (however politely or amicably conducted) an
adversarial process. Further, most mediations take place within
a larger context of adversarial relationships, or adversarial
process such as potential or pending litigation.
If there are multiple participants, i.e. more than two parties
and two attorneys in a mediation, the cat's cradle becomes
exponentially more complex, in fact, exceedingly complex. Such
negotiations can easily get out of hand. It becomes all the more
important for the mediator to set herself or himself as the
focal point of all communications, and to control cross-table
communications quite carefully, with as much finesse as possible.
No one attends a mediation without an agenda. Every person's
agenda is different.
The mediator must control the flow of communication, or the
negotiation will founder. That is why he was hired. With
whatever subtlety or bluntness this is accomplished, it is
essential. The mediator must be willing to shut off a
destructive communication. He/she must also be willing to draw
necessary communication out of participants who are keeping
silent, even if this requires a private session.
The easiest way to control the dynamics of the situation,
without attempting to stifle them, is to have the participants
communicate with each other through the mediator. The slight
deflection that this requires has an ameliorating effect on the
language and the attitude of the speaker. As this is exactly
what happens in court, attorneys are used to it.
There are only two kinds of communication in mediation. The
first is any communication that keeps the negotiation moving
towards clarity and settlement. The second is any communication
that tends to torpedo, stifle or impede clarity and settlement.
When "bad" communications occur, as they always do, the mediator
must repair the damage and move on.
There are only two venues for a communication. The first is in
joint session. The second is in private session.
Joint sessions are for participants to communicate positively
such facts, attitudes, interpretations, arguments, and offers as
will tend to move the parties closer to the goal of settlement.
Individual sessions have two purposes. The first is to permit
participants to "vent." Venting means to express negative
thoughts and emotions about the other side. The setting in which
such venting takes place must be controlled by the mediator in
such a way as to advance, not impede, the purpose of settlement,
and this means in private session. The purpose of venting is to
get it said and done with. Some people take longer to vent than
others. Some people never stop venting on their own volition, in
which instance the mediator must make a calculated judgment when
to call a halt to it. The second purpose of private session is
to discuss what the participants will say in joint session, or
what they want the mediator to convey to the other side.
Sometimes a participant wants to express his or her thoughts,
emotions, feelings or attitudes directly to the other side. This
is the side of mediation that is closest to therapy. The only
reason to permit this is if it will advance the settlement
process. How this is done is very important. There is a world of
difference between on the one hand, explaining how one feels,
and on the other hand, engaging in an ad hominem attack on
another participant. This can be quite subtle. However much a
person is coached, sometimes they just cannot resist turning an
account of how they feel into a personal attack. There is a
simple rule concerning ad hominem attacks: don't do it, because
it never helps.
These issues do not always arise. Often, the volume and extent
of these potentially explosive interactions is reduced or
minimized by the parties themselves or their lawyers. Some
lawyers prefer keep their clients out of the negotiations,
keeping them on hand to ratify settlement proposals. Some
parties do not want to take an active part in the proceeding,
feeling that is what they retained an attorney to do for them.
Also, attorneys often do not want their clients interacting
directly with the other side's attorney. Some clients become
terribly frustrated with the other side's attorney, seeing him
or her as the supreme obstacle - sometimes such a client takes
the opportunity to call the other side's attorney a liar; the
mediator should put an immediate stop to such "fighting words."
About the author:
Charles Parselle graduated from Oxford University's Honor School
of Jurisprudence, and is a member of the English bar and the
California bar. He is a prolific author and sought-after
lecturer. You can contact him through his website:
http://www.parselle.com
No item elements found in rss feed.