{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

ECE _ DSST Organizational Behavior

Although the overall effectiveness of mediated

Info iconThis preview shows pages 29–30. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Although the overall effectiveness of mediated negotiations is fairly impressive, the conflicting parties must be motivated to bargain and resolve their conflict. Additionally, conflict intensity can’t be too high; mediation is most effective under moderate levels of conflict An arbitrator is a third party with the authority to dictate an agreement. Arbitration can be voluntary or forced on the parties by law or contract. The authority of the arbitrator varies according to the rules set by the negotiators. For instance, the arbitrator might be limited to choosing one of the negotiator’s last offers or to suggesting an agreement point that is nonbinding, or free to choose and make any judgment he or she wishes. A plus of arbitration over mediation is that it always results in a settlement. The key thing is, an arbitrator has authority to force a settlement, whereas a mediator simply facilitates discussion and advises towards a settlement. A conciliator is a trusted third party who provides an informal communication link between the negotiator and the opponent. Conciliation is used extensively in international, labor, family, and community disputes. Comparing its effectiveness to mediation has proven difficult because the two overlap a great deal. In practice, conciliators typically act as more than mere communication conduits. They also engage in fact-finding, interpreting messages, and persuading disputants to develop agreements. A consultant is a skilled and impartial third party who attempts to facilitate problem solving through communication and analysis , aided by his or her knowledge of conflict management. The consultant’s role is not to settle the issues, but to improve relations between the conflicting parties so they can reach a settlement themselves. Instead of putting forward specific solutions, the consultant tries to help the parties learn to understand and work with each other. Therefore, this approach has a longer term focus: to build new and positive perceptions and attitudes between the conflicting parties. The most simple and least costly method for managing intergroup relations is to establish, in advance, a set of formalized rules and procedures that will specify how group members are to interact with each other. Rules and procedures minimize the need for interaction and information flow between departments or work groups. The major drawback to this method is that it works well only when intergroup activities can be anticipated ahead of time and when they recur often enough to justify establishing rules and procedures for handling them. If rules and procedures are inadequate, the use of the organization’s hierarchy becomes the primary method for managing intergroup relations. This means that coordination is achieved by referring problems to a common superior higher in the organization. The major limitation to this method is that it increases demands on the common superior’s time. If all
Background image of page 29

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 30
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}