This paper examines negotiation as the preferred method of conflict resolution across social, political, and organizational environments. It outlines the key attributes that make negotiation effective, including the negotiator's objectivity, interpersonal skills, and subject-matter expertise. The paper also discusses how negotiation encourages open communication, establishes precedent for future conflicts, and avoids the pitfalls of positional and unilateral approaches. By analyzing the bilateral nature of the negotiation process, the paper argues that negotiation best serves all parties involved, particularly within organizational settings where ongoing collaboration is essential to success.
The paper demonstrates comparative analysis by placing negotiation alongside alternative conflict resolution methods — the positional and collaborative approaches — and systematically identifying the limitations of each before showing how negotiation addresses those limitations. This technique strengthens the central argument by situating it within a broader landscape of options.
The paper opens with context about rising conflict and introduces negotiation as the preferred solution. It then moves through a logical sequence: who the negotiator is and why they are effective, how the process avoids bias, what long-term benefits it creates, how it depends on open communication, and finally how it compares to other approaches. A brief concluding paragraph reinforces the value of the negotiator's neutrality and the parties' sense of having been heard.
The need to resolve conflicts amicably and efficiently has grown alongside the constantly increasing number of conflicts present in all environments — conflicts that are mostly driven by the numerous changes affecting social, political, and economic life. Several methods of resolving conflicts have been promoted in the specialized literature, but the preferred one appears to be negotiation. This approach essentially involves bringing the parties together around the table to discuss the issues at hand, so that each party can make adjustments and arrive at a generally accepted solution. The discussions are most often presided over by a neutral party, who may come from within the organization or from outside it, such as companies that specialize in mediating workforce conflicts.
A particular reason why negotiation is often preferred in resolving conflicts lies in the capabilities of the negotiator. The negotiator is generally a third party who has the ability to distance himself from the problems encountered by the two conflicting parties and analyze the matter with an objective and critical eye. Above all, the negotiator often has extensive theoretical knowledge and practical expertise in dealing with people, enabling him to fully understand the reasons put forward by each side. The intermediary possesses various interpersonal skills and the ability to make himself accepted — if not liked — by the parties involved.
The negotiator is able to communicate with the parties, offer feedback, and receive it in return. In addition, the wide range and diversity of situations previously handled gives the negotiator the ability to appreciate the full scope of the conflict. He is also capable of offering the parties a new perspective on the matter, as seen by an unbiased outsider, and can help each party understand the position presented by the other.
In this respect, the process carries the distinct advantage of being unbiased: it begins without any preconceived facts or opinions, all of which are to be established through open communication. As Femberg (1999) notes, "Any specific negotiation begins with no rules and no accepted facts. The respective negotiators must reach a consensus concerning a set of rules for conducting the negotiation." Yet even though the negotiator does not base his actions on personal preferences, he is well-informed on the subject matter and is therefore equipped to implement the most appropriate strategies available.
The negotiation process therefore stands apart from other conflict resolution methods precisely because it creates a structured but flexible space in which both parties can voice their concerns without the outcome being predetermined by the position or interests of either side.
Negotiation is also preferred for the future implications it generates. It often creates a precedent from which others will benefit and learn. The resolution of a conflict can then be implemented as a corporate policy, thereby reducing the likelihood of a similar conflict arising in subsequent periods. Furthermore, the accumulated results of past negotiations are yet another characteristic that highlights the benefits of the process. In other words, the multitude of problems resolved through negotiation lends the method a positive reputation and gives the parties reason to hope for a constructive solution to their disagreements.
Femberg, P.M. Pulling Together Can Resolve Conflict. Occupational Hazards, 1999, Volume 61.
You’re 54% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.