Organizational Disputes Mediating Organizational Disputes

Organizational Disputes

Mediating Organizational Disputes

This paper reviews J.A. Murray's (1986) list of disadvantages of collaborative negotiation, arguing that Murray's list is subjective in nature and inaccurate given ample evidence of the advantages associated with mediation and negotiation as evidenced by Wilmot & Hocker's (2001) observations of negotiation.

Analysis of Murray's Arguments

Murray suggests that collaborative negotiation is disadvantageous for multiple reasons, including it is according to Murray, "biased toward cooperation," "confrontational," "vulnerable to deception and manipulation," and "requires substantial skill and knowledge" to accomplish ones goals (Wilmot & Hocker 257). These arguments interestingly enough are subjective in nature. Murray argues for example, that collaborative negotiation is biased because it places internal pressure on individuals to compromise and accommodate what may not be in the best interests of the individual involved in negotiation (Wilmot & Hocker 257). This does not align with the core concepts of collaborative negotiation, which include aligning ideas and beliefs to promote the greater good of the community or all parties involved in conflict, rather than to support the beliefs of a single individual.

With respect to Murray's comments on deception and manipulation, while there is some chance that a person may attempt to mislead another, this problem is easily resolved by the introduction of a third party, such as a mediator, who may decrease any "threat" presented by what Murray describes as a "competitive" opponent.

In fact, assuming J.A. Murray's disadvantages were all valid, introducing a mediator into collaborative negotiations would negate any of the disadvantages proposed by Murray. A mediator could easily have the skill and knowledge of negotiating processes for example, to ensure all collaborative negotiations entered follow stringent rules, guidelines and regulations. This in turn will ensure a positive outcome for all parties involved. A mediator would also prevent settlement resulting in fairness that benefits one party more so than the other.

The key premise Murray fails to observe when describing the disadvantages of collaborative negotiation is that parties entering such agreements must first agree they will each "compromise" or give and take, to create a solution to a problem that will benefit each party more so than it will detract from their aims and objections. Collaborative negotiation has nothing to do with "win/lose" as Murray suggests (Wilmot & Hocker, 257) but rather emphasizes the importance of decision-making and problem-solving that promotes win-win situations. While each party may have to compromise on some of their "idealisms" ultimately each party is working to create an agreement that is mutually beneficial.

Conclusion

J.A. Murray fails to recognize the mutually beneficial outcomes associated with collaborative negotiation. He focuses instead on subjective interpretation of what collaborative negotiation means, assuming that any settlement derived from such negotiations results in a "win/lose" situation.