Third_Party_Conflict_Resolution

Third Party Conflict Resolution MGT 445 Third Party Conflict Resolution The scenario is a serious issue in a management perspective. Joe, not including Charles in the planning process could be detrimental to the company. Joe may have his reasons for not including Charles, but those reasons are self-serving and do not cater to the organization’s needs. His actions cause a huge communication breakdown even though it may have been unintentional, problems will arise from his decisions. Although Joe has been in a managerial position for a number of years, surrounding himself with minimally competent people appears to be a habit. The issue is a concern for higher management and an intervention needs to take place. Management needs to make a decision on how they are going to approach this situation. Five different types of negotiation strategies exist, and they are 1) Competing with other parties, 2) Compromising with other parties, 3) Accommodating with other parites, 4) Avoiding the issues, 5) Collaborating with the other parties (Markgraf, 2012). For a quick resolution, the competing strategy is used. The compromising strategy can be effective when both parties have influence on the outcome. The accommodating style embraces cooperation from each side. Avoiding the issue results from lack of cooperation. Collaboration will treat the parties’ goals and create ways to solve the issues. This scenario can be approached in different ways. Asking questions and stabilizing the setting is important. This intervention must have the goal to satisfy all parties. The mediator must also develop trust and keep the negotiation under control. Making the decision to help explore ideas and possibilities will benefit all involved. Choosing the method of approach is no easy task but once the decision is made, problem-solving will be attainable with commitment from each party. Best Possible Negotiation Strategy The best possible negotiation strategy that will be used in this situation is the compromising negotiation strategy. By using this strategy both parties will be able to add their concerns and needs to the negotiation. For this intervention both parties need to feel included in the proceedings and both parties need to feel that their needs and concerns are being met properly. To take on an intervention negotiation of this caliber, both parties must come to some sort of agreement and must feel that the collaboration process is going in their direction and is successful in their opinion. Joe and Charles need to compromise with each other in order to make the communication successful between the two of them. Management must have clear communication channels to be able to run efficiently. In order to have a compromising negotiation, both Joe and Charles need to understand each other’s sides. Both parties should speak about what they want and may need from the other party. This will only help to bring both sides to a compromise and both parties will be able to find common ground. A resolution in this communication deadlock will be brought forth with a compromising negotiation. As stated before both parties need to state what they would like to come from the negotiation and what the needs are for both sides. Once this negotiation commences, both parties will have the opportunity to communicate to the other party. This should help to open the lines of communication and will help to establish a common ground for both Joe and Charles to work from. The outcome of this negotiation will be a great compromise between the two and both parties will be able to see eye to eye and work together in this situation. A compromising negotiation strategy is just the type of intervention these two parties need. Reference Markgraf, B. (2012). Five Intervention Stragegies in Negotiation. Retrieved from http://www.ehow.com