Mediation †Practicum

What unbroken the two sides glued to the negotiating table was their mutual desire to stay out of royal act. Although for different reasons, a law address representative would not help the micturates of Manasseh Pulp & newspaper Company (Manasseh) and Shawnee Power Company (Shawnee). Manasseh had two reasons for absent to settle the dispute out of court. First, the teleph integrityr was not financi on the whole in ally healthy. It feared that the combined cost of taking level the butch and bringing Shawnee to court would dangerously feed the company coffers.Second, it considered Shawnee a big customer for their force papers and believed, betterly, that filing a suit would sure as shooting mean losing a sizable amount of business. (Selig, 2002) Although Manasseh appeared infield in its initial demand, I believe that the company was really hoping for a favorable out of court settlement.Shawnee, on the some former(a) hand, had its own reasons for avoiding a court case . Even before the problem with Manasseh arose, the company had already received an order from the Environmental Protection means (EPA) requiring it to clear the river of their toxic metal discharge. The company talk overor-at-law pointed out that a suit involving the same thing office work to their disadvantage in that it might force EPA to compel Shawnee to speed up its compliance with the clean-up directing.Shawnee would not want this to happen because it would mean an former cash outflow for the project. Moreover, if Shawnee lost a court case with Manasseh (and the probability was very high because unquestionably, Shawnee was the root word of the toxic metal in the river), the company counsel feared that such(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 twain(prenominal) parties to keep on discussing possibilities despite recurring impasses bro ught close by their participationing interests. The counsels of some(prenominal) parties played a significant role in maintaining interest in the discussion not but by their perpetual reminders about the undesirability of litigation, except as well by their brisk participation in efforts to look for mutually-beneficial alternatives. It must be properly noted that during one of the lulls in the discussion, it was the observation of one of the legal counsels that it would be a green goddess simpler and cheaper if we could repair the dam instead of having to take it down, (Selig, 2002) that started the orchis rolling again.Notice should also be do 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 chairman who followed it up by asking if we were to repair this dam, could we be restored rail focusing service over the top and also use it once again to generate electrical energy? (Selig, 2002)Another constructive quality shown by the parties to the strife was their readiness 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 terminal resultant found by the parties that of repairing the dam, restoring the railway service, and in operation(p) a turbine that would generate power (Selig, 2002) was a farther cry from their original plan of dredging the toxic wastes and dismantlement the dam. However, since both parties were determined to look for a solution, their discussions stretched that far.The fortunate settlement of the problem faced by Manasseh and Shawnee as shown in this case history, is evidence that if parties to conflicts adopt the correct attitude before embarking on conflict resolutio n affectes, solutions that could benefit all parties involved are roughly always available. That attitude would include a decisiveness to resolve the issue in a way that would benefit the two sides. To achieve such an attitude, both parties are required to come prepared to feed up, speak 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 radix firm on ones position, but for the sake of a successful negotiation, one should neer close the door on proposals from the other side. In the case history presented, several issues stalled the discussion. The first vault turn out to be the differential amount of $2.2 billion 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 disag reement, and all other subsequent differences of opinions, did not deter them from seeing the process to its final conclusion.The Manasseh Shawnee negotiation showed that in cases where the parties to a conflict are both intent on resoluteness their common problem, the mediator becomes redundant. A mediator is soul who has no interest in the case, personal or otherwise, and his or her disinterest is supposed to afford him or her with an unobstructed view of the possible solutions to the conflict.However, in the present case history where both parties were determined to assist in order to find a mutually-beneficial solution out of court their positive attitude was plenteous to provide 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 ins tance, were fully aware of the urgency of repairing the dam before it collapsed because they were advised by their respective counsels that they would belike 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 remotion 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 attached the proper guidance and control from the proper authority, it only takes total cooperation from both parties to render the mediator redundant.REFERENCESSelig, E.I. (2002). intermediation Principles An Environmental Case History. Dispute Resolution