Management of a Conflict - Fitchburg Water Supply Mediation - Case Study Example

MEDIATION AND NEGOTIATION Roles of Mediation and Negotiation in the Management of a Conflict between Organisation and the Community of Operation Introduction This assignment will discuss the role of mediation and negotiation in the management of a conflict between an organization and the community which it operates in. The assignment also contains case studies as examples of the role of mediation and negotiation in conflicts between industry and community. The thesis of the paper is that the role of negotiation and mediation is positive in conflict resolution between organizations and communities. Why Mediation and Negotiation for Conflict Resolution? Mediation and negotiation are ways of resolving a dispute between an organization and the community it operates in (Nicotera, 1995). This is a simple way of management of conflicts without visiting courts. Disputes can be settled through mediation and negotiation without spending thousands and millions of pounds on legal compensation. Mediation and negotiation is a better alternative to settle disputes with the community the business is operating in. In a court ruling, one party succeeds and the other party looses. Most of the times the organizations fails to win the support of judges in courts when there is a conflict with a community. The community on the other hand has the most chances of success. The organizations not only lose but it also has to make payments for legal compensation and fee. Through mediation and negotiation, the community is able to get a better control of the resources they own and the rights they deserve. Mediation and negotiation is also used as an alternative tool to settle disputes with a community. The traditional tool for settling disputes was the action of taking the opposite party to court which was not at all profitable for an organization. Negotiation Negotiation is the principal means of managing disputes between community and organization (Zartman, 2007). Bargaining is one of the identifying features of negotiation. One of the two parties bargains with the other which wants to avoid the conflict and is in a weaker position. Negotiation cannot be successful if it is not bilateral or multilateral. The two parties are in the state of negotiation when they are communicating with each other in order to resolve the issue. Negotiation can only be successful when both, the community and the organization, intend to resolve the issue (Zartman, 2007). When both the parties are not able to change their policies or viewpoints jointly, then mediation is required for the management of dispute resolution. Mediation If the organization and the community representatives in a dispute both agree, a trained mediator is hired for the resolution of the dispute. The mediator does not represent any party. It is a form of third party interference in order to resolve the issue between community and organization. The mediator helps both the parties to a settlement state which they are ready to accept. The job of a mediator is not to impose a decision without the consultation of the parties or judge the settlement amount. Role of Mediation and Negotiation in Public Interest Disputes In the recent years, our society has increased the use of litigation as a weapon against organizations and communities. In contrast, the reliance on court of the public has been falling in the past few years for conflict management. It is evident that the public and the organizations have realized the power of negotiation and mediation (Phillip, 1983). The organizations seek remedies to disputes privately rather than getting involved in lawsuits and litigations. Going to court is costly for all the involved parties in a dispute. Therefore negotiation and mediation is a better alternative that the organizations and the community have. The main role of mediation and negotiation is that these actions help the disputes divert from courts. The solution that is proposed as the result of mediation and negotiation (McKay, 1985) is probable to be accepted by the involved parties. In an instance of the entire community being involved in a dangerous dispute with an organization, mediation can be the rescuer (Bolinski, 1994). When gambling was legalized in 1989 in the state of New York, the community was involved into a bitter dispute. This dispute was breaking apart friendships and families. In this state of dispute, Joellene Adams designed a mediation program (Bolinski, 1994). This mediation program taught the community members to engage in talks for the resolution of problems peacefully (Bolinski, 1994). Mediation and negotiation have been used in China to re-educate the population in the community in the 1950s (Merry & Milner, 1995). This promoted a new social order in Chinese Revolution in 1977, as the communities started to fight for their rights (Merry & Milner, 1995). Mediation and negotiation has become a culture in the developed Asian countries. Communities get involved in mediation and negotiation with the organizations located in their community in order to seek benefits from it. Mediation and negotiation by communities has been promoted in the USA in 1970s and 1980s to reshape the society and give more power to the relatively powerless people (Merry & Milner, 1995). These powerless people have no power when they are involved in conflicts with multinational corporations and huge organizations operating in their community. Another role of mediation and negotiation is to create a system free from the flaws identified in the legal system. Legal system suffers from corruption and bribery in most of the Asian countries and the powerless person does not get the justice. Mediation on the other hand empowers the powerless by placing the law in the hand of community. With informal talks and nonprofessional negotiation, the communities are able to win their rights (Merry & Milner, 1995). Case Study 1: Fitchburg Water Supply Mediation Overview A mediation encouraged by citizens of Fitchburg is represented in this case over the replacement of contaminated water supply system (Crowfoot, 1990). It was the community which began the dispute with the Water Board of the state. The community used all the traditional ways of obtaining action that they wanted from the state government. When not successful, the community made use of a mediator and negotiation as a tool to get the required action (Crowfoot, 1990). Background Fitchburg was a community of around thirteen thousand population at the time of the dispute. The water management of the community was done by municipal water utility. There was a very little public supplied water in the community as the neighbourhood was not owned by any developer. The water supply board when monitored the water of the wells from which the community consumed water, it found that the wells were much polluted. These wells were unsafe for human consumption. The town board did not want to disrupt the land use plan by initiating new work areas of development (Crowfoot, 1990). The community claimed that the water system should be completely repaired. The Problem The town board was not convinced to invest into expansion of a public water system. This was because the water was supplied usually by private developers and the users had to pay for its use. Knowing family owned most of the real estate resources in the area. And hence the conflict was extended to the Knowing family and the water board (Crowfoot, 1990). Therefore many homeowners of Fitchburg formed vocal subgroups to raise their voice against the water board. The situation got tensed when the residents sent angry letters to the board and published contents in the local newspaper to present their viewpoints. After some years of hardship and condemnation of Knowing system, it was evident that the current system of water will have to be replaced as the problem did exist. The community and the board needed to understand that how will the problem be resolved. Informal negotiations began in July 1979 between the board and the community representatives (Crowfoot, 1990). Other associations were also asked to join the battle as it would pressurize the water board to replace the system. This resulted in a tentative agreement that three district commissioners will be appointed to decide on the replacement strategy of the system (Crowfoot, 1990). The agreement was however dissolved when the citizens got to know that the financial burden would fall on the town as the federal funding is not available. Mediation and the Result The situation was a candidate for mediation strategy to resolve the conflict as all the other alternatives had been tried. The Water Supply staff also thought that the mediation technique would be a better option. A mediator was assigned to the case named Ed Krinsky (Crowfoot, 1990). The town entered into mediation because it had hopes of resolving the water issue in the town. The town board also accepted the mediation as they wanted to calm down the angry residents of Knowing. The Knowing family also entered into mediation because they did not want any further responsibility of the problems caused in the town (Crowfoot, 1990). The mediator had four sessions (Crowfoot, 1990) overtime to get the situation resolved. In these sessions, all the stakeholders and the involved parties agree that a new water system was needed and the town cannot bear the financial responsibility (Crowfoot, 1990). The final agreement was signed in 1981, in which the town agreed to replace the water system (Crowfoot, 1990). The Knowing family paid $5,000 in cash as it was in poor cash liquidity and settled the rest of the amount in terms of land (Crowfoot, 1990). Role of Mediation and Negotiation in Case Study 1 The role of mediation and negotiation in this case was to satisfy all the stakeholders in the issue which consist of the Knowing family, the residents, the water board and the associations involved in the conflict. It also saved the Knowing family from heavy fines and litigations of court. This was because neither the community nor the board approached the court. The Knowing family was in poor cash shape although it had stake in a lot of property around the city. Mediation and negotiation helped the residents of the community in Fitchburg to retain their right of clean water and get the water system replaced. The main role of negotiation in the case describe about Fitchburg was that due to negotiations among the parties since the beginning of the issue, the parties did not engage into serious disputes. Had the Knowing family or the water board denied to take part in negotiations, the community members would have started taking disruptive actions such as marches, revolts, damaging public property and threatening the officials. The role that negotiation played in this case was pretty obvious and exemplary. It gave power to the powerless citizens of the community some command over the Knowing family and the water board. Negotiations helped the community in convincing the water board and the Knowing family that the water system needs replacement. Mediation was helpful for the community as they did not have to pay large sums of legal fees to the courts and engage in professional system of justice. The mediator was appointed in consultation to the stakeholders and the community which was favourable for all the stakeholders. The solution presented by the mediation strategy proved to be more stable in the long term. Through mediation and negotiations, the community was able to get the finances from the Knowing family which would not have been probable if they decided to consult the court. The mediation was speedier and created a solution more effective. The solution was almost free of cost for the residents of the community. The mediation was more humane, responsive and just than the formal legal system would have been. Conclusion The paper will be concluded with the thought that the role of mediation and negotiation is most of the times positive in the societal decisions. It not only helps the parties involved in the conflict to get involved in talks and negotiations, but it also helps them by providing a viable solution. This system was introduced for the powerless people and is more successful in the Asian countries which are developed. This technique of mediation and negotiation has not been very successful in the American history. As a result the judicial formal system got more powerful and reliable overtime. References Crowfoot, J & Wondolleck, J. (1990). Environmental disputes: community involvement in conflict resolution. First Edition. Washington: Island Press. Nicotera, A. (1995).Conflict and organizations: communicative processes. First Edition. USA: State University of New York Press. Merry, E, S & Milner, N. (1995). The Possibility of Popular Justice: A Case Study of Community Mediation in the United States. First Edition. USA: The University of Michigan Press. Phillips, B. Piazza, C. (1983). The Role of Mediation in Public Interest Disptes. HeinOnline Law Journal. Retrieved February 6, 2010 from HeinOnline Database. Bolinski, D.  (1994). Mediation brings peace to community. Dispute Resolution Journal, 49(1), 46.  Retrieved February 5, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. Zartman, W. (2007). Negotiation and Conflict Resolution. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Hilton Chicago, CHICAGO, IL, USA Online . Retrieved February 6, 2010 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p180655_index.html. McKay, Robert B..  (1985). The Many Uses of Alternative Dispute Resolution/Reports of the AAA Task Force on Law and Business Schools. The Arbitration Journal, 40(3), 12.  Retrieved February 5, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. Bazerman, M. Et Al. (1992). The Effect of Agents and Mediators on Negotiation Outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Department of Organization Behavior, Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University. Retrieved February 5, 2010 Fey, M., & Ramsay, K.. (2009). Mechanism design goes to war: peaceful outcomes with interdependent and correlated types. Review of Economic Design, 13(3), 233-250.  Retrieved February 7, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global Branda L, N, & Deborah S. (2004). State-Level Associations: An Emerging Trend in Community Mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 21(4), 399-417.  Retrieved February 7, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. Read More