Conflict Resolution Implementation Plan - Research Paper Example

Running Header: CONFLICT RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Conflict Resolution Implementation Plan BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Conflict Resolution Implementation Plan Summary of the Conflict At Spark Island, there is considerable disagreement occurring between community leaders and residents regarding the viability of increased tourism as a result of growing popularity of the Spark Island Lighthouse in the traveler market. Because the island is of relatively small size, there are infrastructure problems associated with new roadway development feasibility to support a higher volume of tourists, problems related to guaranteeing the serenity of island residents, and improving the aesthetic environment of the island which is allegedly being impacted by tourist behaviors. Infrastructure problems are leading to substantial conflict between all stakeholders with a vested interest in Spark Island and its tourist-related situation and previous efforts to utilize a conflict resolution approach has led to failures to achieve a negotiated solution to the problem. As a result of these failures, and inability to satisfy all parties involved in this situation, there is a need to explore an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methodology to identify how this problem can be solved effectively. Stakeholder analysis The residents of Spark Island are key stakeholders in this conflict situation. Residents of this small island want to ensure that their lifestyles remain tranquil, however with growing tourism rates on the island, increased traffic is allegedly leading to issues with tourist trespassing and safety concerns related to tourists with the propensity to speed on the area roadway. These resident stakeholders want to ensure that any new plan to support growing tourism ratios will take into consideration the privacy and security of all residents impacted by increased tourism. Community leaders also are stakeholders in this scenario. It is the responsibility of community leaders to ensure revenue growth for the local government which supports continuing effectiveness of government policy development. Tourism improves the economic condition of the region, therefore these administrative stakeholders want to ensure that Spark Island experiences economic growth by promoting increased tourism. The tourists that desire to visit Spark Island are also stakeholders. Recreation is an important factor in lifestyle for many travelers and Spark Island provides opportunities for bringing families closer together, enhancing social self-expansion, and bringing general utility at the emotional level. Tourists will want to ensure that the island maintains the facilities and other infrastructure necessary to support a quality tourist experience. The laborers that are responsible for conducting maintenance, performing potential roadway improvements, and cleaning of the popular tourist areas are also stakeholders in this scenario. New infrastructure developments or improvements could lead to opportunities for personal income improvement or long-term job stability. These stakeholders will likely experience many financially-related benefits as a result of making changes to infrastructure on the island to better support growth in tourism, therefore they will likely be more supportive of making tourist-centric changes to the area. Exploring Potential Obstacles to Resolution One of the most significant barriers to effective conflict resolution is the phenomenon of confirmation bias. The domain of psychological recognizes confirmation bias as a legitimate phenomenon in which an individual maintains the tendency to seek out information capable of confirming an individual’s inherent beliefs while rejecting information that conflicts with these beliefs (Hergovich, Schott & Burger, 2010). It is a tendency for individuals to listen to information using selective judgment and uses bias when interpreting this information. In a situation when individuals that maintain opposing beliefs and values tend to interpret information using bias, it leads to viewpoints moving further apart, a phenomenon referred to as attitude polarization (Wojcieszak, 2011). Confirmation bias as an element of human psychology can significantly complicate effective negotiation and conflict resolution especially when both parties adamantly reject evidence and other information provided by a second party that directly conflicts with their attitudes and viewpoints. Interpersonal barriers, such as lack of trust between parties, can pose significant barriers to conflict resolution (Sebenius, 2006). Trust is best defined as the level of confidence that an individual maintains in the conduct, character and ethics of a second party. Trust in negotiation is essential for the achievement of social stability and creating an environment of teamwork ideology in the pursuit of seeking mutually-rewarding outcomes. Additionally, the phenomenon of spoilers can serve as a barrier. These are individuals involved in negotiations that deliberately attempt to sabotage the resolution process. General motives of the spoiler group is maintaining a status quo or viewing themselves as being marginalized, therefore iterating they are suffering and therefore refuse to commit to communications and negotiation. ADR Techniques as Potential Resolution Methods Arbitration is one method of potential resolution to this conflict that could be utilized. This approach involves incorporating a third party into the dispute resolution process who maintains the responsibility to hear both sides of the conflict, reviews all presented evidence relative to both disputing sides, and ultimately determines a decision that is recognized in courts as enforceable and legally-binding (Born, 2012). Under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, the arbitrator is obliged to compel witnesses to attend the arbitration hearings, ensures that all parties involved are heard and their evidences considered, and is given authority to cross-examine witnesses who agree to attend the hearing (IADRWG, 1996). A selected arbitrator should maintain the ability to effectively interpret statutory requirements, consider all relevant legal precedents related to the arbitration conflict, and explore various policy directives relevant to the case. Yet another ADR strategy is mediation, in which a third party is brought into the negotiation process in order to facilitate the achievement of an agreed-upon settlement of the issue. Mediators utilize empathic strategies to appeal to intense emotional responses between parties and facilitate more effective dialogue between disputing parties to ensure that communications are more productive and without explosive behavioral reactions. The goal of the mediator is typically to identify opportunities and strategies to achieve a win-win scenario, which is generally considered the most effective negotiation outcome (Lewicki, Hiam & Olander, 1996). The benefits of a mediator strategy is that it reduces costs to both parties, ensures confidentiality, and provides greater support in the dispute resolution process as mediators are typically trained with socio-psychological learning that can be effectively applied in difficult and emotionally-charged conflicts. A third ADR strategy in the Spark Island case is conciliation, whereby a third party meets with the disputing parties separately in an attempt to identify the underpinning issues leading to conflict and assist in reducing tensions at the individual level. A conciliator, if able to assist in the negotiation process and achieve positive outcomes, does not maintain any legal standing and does not have the authority to explore witnesses and evidences. However, the conciliator provides opportunities to assist each party, individually, in determining their goals, listing all objectives they hope to achieve, and fosters an environment of trust between both parties that creates more effective negotiation outcomes. In this approach, the conciliator is obliged to maintain a high moral character and maintain competencies in law, commerce, finance, or industry as a foundation of rationale and expert judgment capability to make sensible determinations (Temitayo, 2014). The Recommended ADR Technique and Justification for this Choice In this conflict scenario, it would be most relevant to adopt an arbitrator to intercede and pass legally-enforceable judgment related to a determined solution. One of the main problems that most participants in this dispute is that there is a general lack of willingness on behalf of other parties to listen the grievances and issues being raised by disparate stakeholder groups. There is an air of distrust amongst the parties and concerns that not all parties are interested in finding win-win scenarios. The residents who are worried about privacy and security might also be acting as spoilers, feeling that their personal needs are marginalized in the pursuit of achieving better economic growth that benefits community leaders more substantially. With such a complexity of distrust, lack of cooperating, alleged unwillingness to seek mutually-beneficial solutions and a historical inability during previous negotiations to reach any worthwhile solution, the arbitrator serves as a viable ADR technique to make an informed decision that is supported by law. While it might seem that a conciliator might be a quality approach for having the skills and competencies needed to build trust and cooperation between participants, the extent of problems in this particular conflict (and lack of cooperation) will likely cause future negotiations to go around in proverbial circles without reaching consensus. In this situation, improving economic security for the island is paramount and it can be facilitated through increased tourism and ensuring tourists have a quality experience on the island. At the same time, residents worried about trespassing and safety related to speeding on the roadways are legitimate arguments and property laws support that a homeowner should be protected from such violations. It is unlikely that in the Sparks Island dispute, due to the complexity of different perspectives and potential confirmation bias occurring, that any win-win scenario is going to be achieved. The arbitrator, therefore, provides a forum by which all frustrated participants can be given an opportunity to present their evidences which support all parties’ positions. Alleged unwillingness to find a common ground, whether a product of being a potential spoiler or psychologically-motivated propensity to reject information conflicting with inherent values, makes it necessary to formulate a rather rapid and legally-binding decision from a competent third party qualified to make judgments. While an arbitrator decision might create future frustrations from parties not victorious, it does provide a legally-binding framework by which to finally move forward. Implementation Plan for Arbitration Task Resource Type Inherent Responsibility Period 1. Arbitrator Screening Local government administration – Resident stakeholders Create a metrics system to identify legal and commercial competencies necessary to facilitate rational judgment January 1, 2015 2. Arbitrator Selection Local government – resident stakeholders Construct binding contract agreement indicating multiple party consent to utilize arbitrator for dispute resolution. January 12, 2015 3. Case and Evidence Production Government – Residents – Infrastructure laborers Produce case-supporting evidence relevant to represent stakeholder group interests. January 31, 2015 4. Witness Procurement All Stakeholder Groups Gather witnesses critical to case support who will present opinion, experience and quantitative data for arbitrator consideration February 7, 2015 5. Confirming of impending arbitration award Government administration Create a “rights” declaration in the event that an unsatisfied party seeks to challenge a determined arbitrator award February 7, 2015 6. Arbitration Hearing All Stakeholder Groups Attendance of determined arbitration hearings February 15, 2015. Recommendations for Preventing Future Conflicts Fortunately, in most instances, the judgment or award of the arbitrator is difficult to challenge. This approach will ensure that a legally-enforced resolution is determined which will, unfortunately, likely not lead to a full win-win resolution satisfactory to all parties. However, it will allow the island and all stakeholders to finally move forward on making progress related to infrastructure, aesthetics and maintenance related to tourism concerns. Future conflict in this scenario is avoided through legal enforcement. However, local government, once the determined solution is put into place by the arbitrator, can conduct routine electronic or face-to-face communications to describe the benefits the solution sustained or any continued problems. By opening dialogue, residents will not feel marginalized and the government will illustrate its commitment to all stakeholders to build a foundation of trust. Open communications, such as presenting quantitative metrics of successes and achievements, will foster more social conviction with all stakeholders and thereby facilitate more future teamwork ideologies related to potential future tourist-related issues. References Born, G.B. (2012). International Arbitration: Law and Practice. Frederick: Wolters Kluwer. Hergovich, A., Schott, R. & Burger, C. (2010). Biased Evaluation of Abstracts Depending on Topic and Conclusion: Further Evidence of a Confirmation Bias within Specific Psychology, Current Psychology, 29(3), pp.188-209. IADRWG. (1996). “Electronic Guide to Federal Procurement ADR: Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996”, Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group. Retrieved November 21, 2014 from http://www.adr.gov/adrguide/adra1996.html#575 Lewicki, R.J., Hiam, A. & Olander, K.W. (1996). Think Before you Speak: A Complete Guide To Strategic Negotiation. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Sebenius, J.K. (2006). Do a 3-D Audit of Barriers to Agreement, Negotiation: A Newsletter from Harvard Business School. Retrieved November 20, 2014 from www.exed.hbs.edu/assets/Documents/3d-audit-barriers.pdf Temitayo, B.A. (2014). The Rules of Procedure for Conciliation Proceedings in International Investment Law, Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 4(2), pp. 22-36. Wojcieszak, M. (2011). Deliberation and Attitude Polarization, Journal of Communication, 61(4), pp.596-617. Read More