Mediation †Practicum

What kept the two sides glued to the negotiating skirt was their mutual desire to stay out of court. Although for different reasons, a court example would not help the causes of Manasseh Pulp & Paper Company (Manasseh) and Shawnee Power Company (Shawnee). Manasseh had two reasons for wanting to settle the dispute out of court. First, the company was not financially healthy. It feared that the combined cost of taking down the dam and bringing Shawnee to court would dangerously drain the company coffers.Second, it considered Shawnee a big customer for their specialty written document and believed, correctly, that filing a suit would certainly mean losing a sizable amount of business. (Selig, 2002) Although Manasseh appeared adamant in its initial demand, I believe that the company was in truth hoping for a favorable out of court settlement.Shawnee, on the other hand, had its own reasons for avoiding a court fibre. Even before the problem with Manasseh arose, the company had already authorized an order from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requiring it to clear the river of their toxic metal discharge. The company counsel pointed out that a suit involving the same issue aptitude work to their disadvantage in that it might force EPA to compel Shawnee to speed up its compliance with the clean-up directive.Shawnee would not want this to happen because it would mean an earlier silver outflow for the project. Moreover, if Shawnee lost a court case with Manasseh (and the probability was very high because unquestionably, Shawnee was the source of the toxic metal in the river), the company counsel feared that much(prenominal) a ruling might cause a negative influence on the EPA regarding their directive on the toxic metal clean-up. (Selig, 2002)The aforementioned motivations compelled both parties to withhold on discussing possibilities despite recurring impasses brought about by their conflicting interests. The counsels of both parties played a signific ant role in maintaining interest in the intervention not only by their constant reminders about the undesirability of litigation, but also by their active participation in efforts to look for mutually-beneficial alternatives. It mustiness be the right way noted that during one of the lulls in the discussion, it was the remark of one of the legal counsels that it would be a lot simpler and cheaper if we could repair the dam instead of having to take it down, (Selig, 2002) that started the ball trilled again.Notice should also be make of the participants enthusiasm in following-up any new ideas that came from discussants from both sides of the table every time an impasse occurred. When one of the attorneys made the remark about the possibility of a repair being cheaper, it was a Manasseh vice president who followed it up by asking if we were to repair this dam, could we restore railway system service over the top and also use it once again to generate electricity? (Selig, 2002)An other constructive quality shown by the parties to the conflict was their exercise set to look at the issue from all sides and take into account radical departures from their original demands and objectives in order to investigate all possible areas of agreement. For instance, the final exam consequence found by the parties that of repairing the dam, restoring the railway service, and operating a turbine that would generate power (Selig, 2002) was a far cry from their original plan of dredging the toxic wastes and dismantling the dam. However, since both parties were determined to look for a solution, their discussions stretched that far.The successful resolution of the problem faced by Manasseh and Shawnee as shown in this case history, is evidence that if parties to conflicts adopt the correct position before embarking on conflict resolution processes, solutions that could benefit all parties involved are almost always available. That attitude would include a determination to fragmentise the issue in a way that would benefit the two sides. To achieve such an attitude, both parties are required to come prepared to open up, chatter freely, patiently listen to arguments, empathize with the others situation, and be prepared to utilize all pieces of information arising out of the discussions to explore possible avenues of success.As a tactical move, it might help to stand firm on ones position, but for the sake of a successful negotiation, one should never determination the door on proposals from the other side. In the case history presented, several issues stalled the discussion. The first hurdle proved to be the differential amount of $2.2 million that Manasseh insisted must be paid by Shawnee and which Shawnee expectedly rejected. (Selig, 2002). However, because both sides were decided to settle things out of court, that disagreement, and all other subsequent differences of opinions, did not deter them from seeing the process to its final conclusion.Th e Manasseh Shawnee negotiation showed that in cases where the parties to a conflict are both intent on resolving their common problem, the mediator becomes redundant. A mediator is someone who has no interest in the case, personal or otherwise, and his or her neutrality is supposed to afford him or her with an unobstructed view of the possible solutions to the conflict.However, in the subject case history where both parties were determined to cooperate in order to find a mutually-beneficial solution out of court their positive attitude was enough to cater them with a certain amount of neutrality that enabled them to stay focused on looking for possible solutions to their shared problem. Of course, full realization of the dire consequences to both parties in case they failed to reach an agreement proved decisive. Both Manasseh and Shawnee, for instance, were fully aware of the urgency of repairing the dam before it collapsed because they were advised by their respective counsels that they would probably be held jointly and severally liable for the consequences of such a collapse. (Selig, 2002)The six-month deadline fixed by the Corps of Engineers for the removal of the dam provided an added impetus for the two parties to stay on the negotiating table in spite of several impasses until a solution was finally found. (Selig, 2002) Based on this case history, it would therefore be safe to conclude that given the priggish guidance and control from the proper authority, it only takes total cooperation from both parties to render the mediator redundant.REFERENCESSelig, E.I. (2002). Mediation Principles An Environmental Case History. Dispute Resolution