Do You Need a Mediation?

Webster’s defines mediation as “intervention between conflicting parties to promote reconciliation, settlement or compromise.”

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines mediation as “a fair and efficient process to help you resolve your ...disputes and reach an agreement. A neutral mediator assists you in reaching a voluntary, negotiated agreement.” The emphasis, which the EEOC includes in their definition, is on fairness and efficiency. If you are interested in labor meditations, please read more about the EEOC and negotiation here:

http://www.eeoc.gov/mediate/index.html

By understanding those definitions, it seems that every business and diplomatic negotiation could use mediation. After all, what is negotiation if not the act of reaching an agreement?

However, not every negotiation requires a mediator. Many times, the parties are able to reach an agreement on their own. On the other hand, certain situations such as deadlock or when communications have been compromised by heightened emotion, benefit greatly from mediation and even require mediation to be able to conclude negotiations.

A mediator helps to diffuse conflict and to reach accord. He or she acts as a communications go-between.

Dr. Chester Karrass tell us that mediators bring the following to a negotiation:

• They suggest realistic expectations
• They listen to both sides without bias
• They help stimulate alternative thinking or different approaches to a resolution
• The may suggest a compromise that neither party considered
• They may give both parties an “out” or a way to save face

Choosing a mediator is probably just as hard as the situation that brought you to mediation. A good mediator must be impartial and must command respect. A good mediator also has the social skills to manage conflict, knowledge of business practices, and experience. Be wary of any mediators with conflicts of interest or who are overly biased.

Listen to me!

Norm Brodsky, an entrepreneur and business advice columnist, writes in the June 2009 issue of Inc. Magazine:

“(The) key rule of negotiating for me: Never anticipate what the other side is thinking. Go into every negotiating situation with an open mind and listen to what the other party is saying.”

Read the business story of why Brodsky arrived at this conclusion here:

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20090601/norm-brodsky-when-negotiating-listen-before-you-speak.html

There is no doubt that active listening during a business negotiation is crucial for your success. After all, if you don’t understand where the other party stands or why, you won’t know how to proceed or what is expected of you.

Sometimes we hear someone talking but we don’t listen to what they are saying. Our minds are not focused on what the other person is saying because we are too involved in our own thoughts. We are distracted or we ignore information we don’t like or disagree with.

Real, active listening is a skill that we can and should master. It takes a conscientious effort to do so. Dr. Chester Karrass gives us a few tips that can help improve our listening:

1) Provide the other party with your full attention. That means that you are not engaging in doing anything else—no fiddling with papers or looking at your text messages.
2) Don’t interrupt the person speaking. Let him or her finish his or her thoughts before you jump in.
3) Don’t tune out just because you don’t like what the person is saying.
4) Repeat back what you have heard.

Dr. Karrass also advises that you should have an “official listener” on your team who takes detailed notes recording what is said, how it is said and in what order.

Your negotiations will certainly improve if you work on your listening skills.

Were you ever in situation in which you faltered because you did not listen to the other side? Please share in the comments.

Negotiating Labor Strikes

Striking out

In Canada, the City of Toronto’s workers are on strike after a breakdown in labor negotiations with the city. (Read the story here:)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a8VzZFdlwQyI

At issue are job security, benefits, and other union demands. The strike will stop garbage pick up in Toronto, as well as several other municipal services.

A strike to show unhappiness with labor negotiations is not unusual. In this case, a strike that affects a basic and necessary service such as garbage removal is bound to stir up discontent and discomfort, which in turn will create pressure on the City of Toronto to go back to the negotiating table. Many workers’ unions have used strikes as a pressure tactic to regain traction in labor negotiations that are deadlocked.

Are strikes a good negotiating tactic? While we are not advocating striking, we do know that strikes, as Dr. Chester Karrass says, are maneuvers that can impact the negotiation process. Karrass writes that strikes “affect the expectation of the parties and alter the balance of power.”

In his book, Give and Take: The Complete Guide to Negotiating Strategies and Tactics, Dr. Karrass goes on to say that strikes are a phase in negotiations. Negotiations may go on during or after a strike, but “the estimates of probable costs are sharpened by reality. The biggest difference is that both parties convey their resolve by accepting the real costs in preference to a deal that they don’t like. They test each other’s strength and resolve in the marketplace of suffering.”

In essence, strikes are designed to tip the balance of power and to create an environment that is more favorable to concessions.

We will see how long the garbage strike goes on in Toronto. By targeting this essential service, the strikers know that pressure will build quickly. It remains to be seen how many concessions Toronto will make in order to stop the strike.

Do you think that strikes are a good tactic? Please share thoughts in the comments.