Often
times attempts to resolve an issue results in the conflict resolution or
mediation to reach an impasse or deadlock, wherein the parties cannot move
forward due to an irresolvable issue in their discussions. In these situations, the parties are unable
to discuss further issues until the impasse matter has been resolved. Often, this is the remaining issue of a
conflict in which parties are unable to reach agreement. As time goes by, this can often damage
resolutions that have been previously met or even set the overall discussion
back. In order to address such deadlocks
or impasses, there exist multiple strategies in order to move the parties
forward in pursuit of a resolution to the issue.
In
order to break the deadlock often times the parties may turn to a procedural
solution to solve the problem.
Procedural solutions are process decisions that parties agree to make in
order to resolve disputes without directly deciding on an issue. Basically, the process results in a way to
move forward in the pursuit of an agreed upon solution, but not necessarily
provide a solution to the issue at hand.
There are four common types of procedural approaches available to
mediators to resolving such impasses (Moore, pp. 317-320):
The procedural
timeline: This
approach requires negotiators to develop a process and time line for particular
agreement points and then agree to certain advantages or if necessary
consequences for not meeting the agreed upon timeline. This approach can be very effective only when
the timeline is held seriously by the parties and that either the rewards or
penalties are substantial enough to motivate them. The knowledge that a party may loose important footing on an issue due to a failure to
meet a deadline can serve as a powerful incentive in moving forward.
Researchers
have also found that when high-priced mediators were used, the stress related
to the costs for such services assisted in motivating the parties to reach an
agreement. When the costs for the actual
mediation overcome the focus of the parties interest in such a way that it
starts to minimize the issues, such distraction might facilitate the solution
since keeping with the procedural timeline would either benefit or penalize the
parties financially (Brookmire & Sistrunk, 1980).
Third-party
decision makers: Should the parties, even after
considerable effort, be unable to reach agreement, they might turn the problem
over to an impartial third party other than the mediator. Often times these individuals are a judge or
jury, and in these cases the parties are bound legally to the decision. Another third-party structure is arbitration
where a person will hear the party’s positions, review evidence and pass a
decision. Often times the arbitrator’s
decision is legally binding and serves as a lesser expensive solution to using
a judge or jury. Although these are goods
ways to finalize an issue, the cost can be rather high, especially in cases
using a judge or jury in that each party will have to secure legal
counsel. This approach should be avoided
whenever possible in order to avoid the cost and often a negative outcome
arrives in the winner/looser scenario that removes the chance for an amicable
solution for both parties.
Mechanical
Decision-Making Procedures:
These solutions are effective when the difference between the parties is
not substantial and therefore the loss would not be great by either party. Also, this approach can be used when each
party stands to loose equally if they fail to prevail
in the matter or issue. Basically, in
these approaches, the parties split the difference equally when permitting each
party to loose and win equally. Often
times this is not a viable solution when there the issue that is not dividable
or the terms cannot be equally distributed.
Postponement or
avoidance: Parties may
also break a deadlock by postponing or avoiding a decision or leaving the issue
altogether. Postponement is helpful by
allowing each party to move away from the bargaining table and revisit the
issue individually. This provides the
party more time to either reflect on the issue and their needs, to collect
additional evidence, or arrange for testimony to strengthen the party’s
position or prioritize the issue. Many
times such a delay in the discussions permits the parties to create new
proposals that perhaps were not available previously. Psychologically, this can be a helpful means
to reset the issue emotionally as well.
Postponement
may also mean delaying a decision until the other party is more psychologically
disposed towards resolving an issue. Often
times, postponement is used in conjunction with a third-party intervention such
as a judge or arbitrator whereby the parties prepare their cases to present to
this new third party.
At
times when the balance of power is not equal, including situations where an individual
feels that he or she is being abused by a larger system, organization, or
government, an Ombudsperson is often used to help facilitate a solution. Often these are individuals who are appointed
by the larger system to provide a resource to cut through red tape in order to
find a solution for the parties (Cahn & Abigail, p. 251).
Regardless
of the method used to get past a gridlock or impasse it is important that communication
continues. When parties stop the
interexchange of position and dialog to include the give and take is where all
can be lost. It by
seeking a solution in these discussions that a mutually agreeable outcome might
exist (Wilmot, Hocker, p. 338). Whether the conflict is simple or complex it’s
the seeking of solutions that moves the issue towards an agreeable outcome that
is find a place of mutual interest.
References
Brookmire, D.A., Sistrunk,
F. (1980). The Effects of
Perceived Ability and Impartiality of
Mediators and Time
Pressure on Negotiation: Method Subjects Design Procedure
Outcome Measures Mediator
Evaluations Results Manipulation Checks Outcome
Measures
Mediator Evaluations Discussion References. The Journal of Conflict
Resolution (pre-1986), 24(2), 311. Retrieved April 5, 2008, from ABI/INFORM
Global database. (Document ID: 717536501).
Cahn, D.D, Abigail, R.A. (2007). Managing Conflict through Communication,
Boston, MA:
Pearson
Education.
Moore, C.W. (2003). The Mediation
Process, San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Wilmot, W.W. & Hocker, J.L. (2007). Interpersonal Conflict, New York, NY: McGraw Hill.