This is the P2PU Archive. If you want the current site, go to www.p2pu.org!
Conflict Resolution
My recent threads
You haven't posted any discussions yet.
Recently updated threads
- Notification of research observation Tue, 2011-04-05 23:19
- Week 8: Multi-Track Diplomacy Mon, 2011-03-21 03:19
- Week 7: Ethics Sun, 2011-03-13 23:39
- Week 5: Facilitated Dialogue & Appreciative Inquiry Wed, 2011-03-09 21:50
- Week 4: Mediation Wed, 2011-03-09 21:14
How to handle personal Internal conflicts to be a successful negotiator
I think it could very difficult o successfully negotiate peace without the ability to handle opposing and warring internal views and still be able to drive the negotiating table towards the desirable results. That means you need to maintain a neutral position even when you are opposed to the issues from any of the parties involved.
Sometimes I just think some negotiators have a one tough job. Imagine having long history of blood relation/friendship or just being sympathy to one party while you are expected to have a balcony view of the conflict before you.
Your opinions, thoughts, ideas and suggestions in handling this internal conflict will be very useful as sometimes I cannot be bothered when I think that some of these conflicts should not have come up in the first instance
It is easier I think when there is clarity about the desired outcome of the negotiation. The negotiator must know what he wants: does he want a resolution with both parties reconciled or is it okay is one of the parties involved isn’t satisfied or the kind of compromise that is expected from the parties involved. When negotiators are clear about the outcomes they are willing to accept then I think resolution becomes more concrete and there are clear avenues to explore.
It is quite difficult to be the negotiator in such a situation i agree but when both parties know you have their best interest at heart and you also do your part by letting them know you are not there to take sides with anyone but to ensure that peace reigns.This will indeed be a struggle as each party will try to make their point clear as to why they are right and to paint a negative picture of the other.At this point your duty is to stop asking what caused the conflict but to ask each of them what the other party can do to bring peace back then you can work with their respective request in order to bring about the much desired peace.
It seems to me that it is very important to examine and get to the heart of what the actual/real issue is. Oftentimes people are are overcome by hurt pride and anger and it's hard to see through that, and they themselves may be unaware of the real issue. It is imperative that we bring the parties back to the table. When things are especially tense and there is passionate anger it is best to suggest a break. We must be cautious that we don't bring our own feelings into the situation, and remain as impartial as humanly possible. I like to declare my interest in seeing both parties heal, and move forward. Sometimes you need to repeat that message throughout negotiations.
To effectively handle personal internal conflicts for succesful negotiation, one has to move away from "self" and make honest chargement on the cons and pros of his/her personal conflicting interests and habituate and live on a give and take atitute with a personal declaration/oath of upholding this atitute within and without. That is when you can be in a position to be a negotiator in solving conflicts.
Winifred, I think you mean "mediator" instead of "negotiator" - a negotiator is someone who is working for a specific goal, while a mediator is someone who is helping the two parties in conflict to reach an agreement. The issue of whether or not neutrality is required of a mediator is a topic of some debate within the field of conflict resolution. What I think is key is to remember that the mediator is simply there to guide the conflicting parties to a resolution. The mediator should make sure that each side has had a chance to express himself/herself, and should do his/her best to make sure that the final agreement is agreeable to both parties. The most significant benefit of mediation is that the conflicting parties themselves are the ones who come up with the solution, so as long as one party is not "bullying" the other, it is not necessarily essential for the mediator to be completely without bias. (Mediators are only people, after all, and it is practically impossible for us to be totally unbiased!)
We will be discussing mediation more during week 4 of our class, but for now you can check out this great resource for more information: http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/mediation/?nid=1291
Emily, Thanks for your clarification. It is interesting skimming over the link to apprpreciate the efforts of the UN in mediation processes in conflict zones. If I am clear on this, would be safe to say that the UN is a negotiator in the Iran Nuclear Enrichment case?. They have a specific goal of controlling the Iran's nuclear acquisition. Can also the effort of US in Isreali - Palestine Conflict be that of a negatiator or Mediator? Like you mentioned there are biases we have as humans, which I think might make shifting from the position of a mediator to a negotiator most probable. I have a got a lot to learn from this course and it is getting very exciting me. Learning the skills for peaceful conflict resolution will make me handle personal, relationship, national and other group conflicts more effectively.