Comparisons of distributive bargaing and mediation in dispute resolutions - Essay Example

Distributive Bargaining and Mediation: Similarities and Differences Distributive Bargaining and Mediation: Similarities and Differences Mediation involves a neutral party to spearhead negotiations between two parties that are in a dispute. Consequently, the aim of these negotiations is to arrive at mutually accepted resolutions that will be accepted by both parties. In fact, the mediators do not have any interest in the conflict, nor its outcome but the power lies within the disputing parties.

Hence, the mediator is only the architect of the solution (Shamir, n.d). On the other hand, distributive bargaining engages the use of power and strategies towards solutions in the two parties. In this scenario, there is a careful assessment of the position of parties, their strengths and weaknesses to gauge how far it can press its demands without obliging the other side to engage in the use of overt coercive power in the form of a strike or lockout or other industrial action (Bendix, 2001).

Furthermore, we learn that both mediation and distributive bargaining have universal similarities in that, in both cases it involves two parties with different opinions and have not come to a joint agreement. Both attract a mediator who has no interest on the issue, but volunteers to bring the parties together. Distributive bargaining focuses on the importance of minimizing losses and maximizing the gains, and often occurs when there is scarcity of resources. The two competitors compete with one another with each bargainer wanting to achieve victory over the other (World Bank, n.d). The difference between distributive bargaining and mediation is that, in mediation, both parties try to give their grievances to the mediator without hiding anything from the other party.

In distributive bargaining, one party may decide to hide some information from the other party by using tactics and strategies to outdo the other party. Additionally, in distributive bargaining, bargainers often hold sensitive information from opposing the party about their position (World Bank, n.d). In this case, distributive bargaining withhold information even goes further to exaggerate their statements in order to mislead people about their real goals, and the phenomenon does not apply in mediation because there is no room for exaggeration of information of the other party.

In most cases, distributive bargaining can use all the options including manipulation and threats to reduce the options of the other party (World Bank, n.d). In a mediation, the parties cannot use threats but come together and agree on the consensus arrived at by the mediator who will benefit both parties exclusively (Uhle, Kirchhoff & Scherer, 2006). Distributive bargaining and mediation both are set of negotiations that have set goals and deadlines that must be respected by both parties once an amicable solution has been reached.

Moreover, in both cases they involve the mediator who oversees the progress of the negotiations and sees that the solution has been achieved. The mediator should be neutral and should consider the claims of both parties (Vo, Padgham & Cavedon, 2000). References Bendix.S. (2001). Industrial Relations in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta and Company ltd. World Bank. (n.d). Communication for Governance and Accountability Program.1-5. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTGOVACC/Resources/Negotiationweb.

pdf Shamir.Y. (n.d). Alternative Dispute Resolution and their Application. P.23-24. http://webworld.unesco.org/water/wwap/pccp/cd/pdf/negotiation_mediation_facilitation/alternative_dispute_resolution_approaches.pdf Uhle, C.B, Kirchhoff, L, Scherer, C. (2006). Arbitration and Mediation in International Business. Paris, Kluwer Law International. VO, B, Padgham, L and Cavedon, L. (2000). Negotiating flexible agreements by combining Distributive and Integrative Negotiation. Intelligent Decision Technologies, 1, 1-11.