Why Are Subordinates Less Satisfied with Mediation? The Role of Uncertainty

This study explores the influence of hierarchical position on both mediation satisfaction and uncertainty about the mediation. As parties involved in hierarchical conflict typically behave differently and have different perceptions and experiences, we think it is most likely that hierarchical position will affect the mediation process and its outcomes. In this article, we investigate the influence of hierarchical position on both uncertainty about the mediation and satisfaction with the mediation and its potential moderating role on the relationship between uncertainty and satisfaction. To test our hypotheses, we use data from fifty real mediation cases dealing with hierarchical labor conflicts in the Netherlands. As expected, uncertainty has a stronger negative effect on subordinates' satisfaction with the mediation than it does on the supervisors who were involved in mediation. Implications for mediation theory and practice are discussed.     

The Negative Impact of Attorneys on Mediation Outcomes: A Myth or a Reality?

Mediators often do not welcome the presence of attorneys at the mediation table. Because of the apparent contradictions between both professions, many mediators believe that the presence of attorneys is prejudicial to the mediation process. Using empirical data collected from workplace mediation cases, we have explored the actual impact of the presence of attorneys. Our results indicate that the presence of an attorney does not significantly affect the outcome of a mediation, with two exceptions. First, the presence of attorneys in a mediation process reduces the parties' level of satisfaction with the mediator. Second, the presence of an attorney would appear to hinder the level of reconciliation possible between the parties.     

Beyond the Thomas–Kilmann Model: Into Extreme Conflict

This article discusses an extension to the Thomas–Kilmann conflict mode instrument (Thomas and Kilmann 1977) designed specifically for conflict situations in which strong negative emotional relationships are at play. The Thomas–Kilmann (TK) model is widely used to help participants (disputants and mediators) identify how two basic conflict characteristics interact to influence how stakeholders shape their actions with regard to their interests. Essentially the TK Model is built on the premise that the two salient conflict variables are the relative importance of the relationships at hand and the substantive issues being discussed. These variables are illustrated with a simple matrix that shows how each party will interact with the other based on the relative importance it places on these variables. Graphically illustrating where the behaviors fall on the matrix can explicate parties' behaviors to add a new perspective that may change the dynamic of the conflict. But the TK Model does not address scenarios in which individuals have very negative or destructive relationships, and sabotage, blocking, and exclusion are behavioral norms. Hence, we developed the Baumoel–Trippe (BT) Extension to the TK Model to address the highly negative and often identity‐based conflicts that are often found in the world of family business. Accordingly, the BT Extension to the TK Model explores conflicts in which the relationships are not merely unimportant or uncooperative, but where they become negative to downright vengeful. There is so much at stake for family business stakeholders that the family relationships may become so adversarial that the very business and family harmony all parties value are at risk. With our extension of the TK Model, we seek to provide insight into how decisions might be made when stakeholders are in highly negative, conflictual relationships.     

Incentives for Talking: Accepting Mediation in International and Civil Wars

This paper examines the conditions under which warring parties will accept an outside party's offer to mediate. Specifically, we explore variation in the incentives for accepting third-party offers in interstate conflicts as compared to civil wars. We argue that since mediation in civil wars transfers legitimacy to the non-state actor and can generate a precedent of exceptions to the norm of sovereignty, the political cost associated with accepting international mediation will be substantially higher in civil wars compared to international conflicts. States should therefore only accept mediation in the most serious disputes, or when the costs of legitimizing an opponent are outweighed by the benefits of conflict resolution. Building on this theoretical reasoning, the paper analyzes the implications of differences in incentive structures between inter- and intrastate conflicts for offer and acceptance of mediation. We find an empirical discrepancy between interstate and civil wars in regard to demand-side (acceptance) of mediation, and to a somewhat lesser extent the supply-side (offer) of international mediation. In line with our argument, we find that the historical ties between the potential intermediary and at least one of the disputants play different roles in regard to acceptance of mediation in interstate compared to civil wars. This is important to take into consideration in the emerging debate on mediation bias.     

A Helping Hand? The Moderating Role of Leaders' Conflict Management Behavior on the Conflict–Stress Relationship of Employees

Interpersonal conflict between colleagues within organizations negatively affects employee well‐being (e.g., stress). It is unclear how leaders' third‐party conflict management behaviors influence the relationship between employee conflict and well‐being. In this study, we examine the effects of leaders' perceived conflict management behaviors on the relationship between relationship, task, and process conflicts and the conflict‐related stress (as a measure of well‐being) that employees experience. We tested our expectations using a survey of 145 employees of an insurance company in the Netherlands. The results confirmed our expectations that the perception that leaders engaged in third‐party forcing behavior and avoiding behavior amplified the effects of conflict on conflict‐related stress. Furthermore, we found that leaders' third‐party problem‐solving behavior had a buffering effect on the association between relationship conflict and conflict‐related stress. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

Procedural Justice and Conflict Management at School

In this research, we explored the contributions of perceived procedural justice (PPJ) to the conflict management behaviors of adolescents when they experience conflict with their teachers. We tested an extensive model to determine how PPJ contributes to conflict management. We also extended research on PPJ to examine its impact on adolescents. Our results, acquired from a large and diverse sample of 256 high school students, indicate that PPJ had an impact on adolescents' approach to managing conflicts with their teachers. Students who perceived that their teachers' decision processes were just were less dominating and more avoiding, obliging, and compromising. In addition, we found that students' perceptions about the legitimacy of their teachers' authority mediated the relationships between PPJ and conflict management style. This study contributes to the rather scarce research on PPJ's role in conflict management and should be useful for educators searching for constructive, relationship‐based tools for conflict management.     

Credibility and Strategy in International Mediation

We study mediation in international conflict as a process of strategic interaction among the two disputants and the (would-be) mediator. We develop a rational model that examines the choice, process, and outcome of mediation. We start with a conflict game of incomplete information played by rational players that examines the conditions under which disputants and would-be mediators would consider mediation a preferred strategy. The mediation game that follows models the mediator's choice of mediation strategy and the possible responses of the disputants offers. Finally, we explore the conditions under which a mediated solution emerges and the conditions under which mediation fails.

The credibility of the mediator—defined as the extent to which disputants believe the mediator's statements, threats, or promises and her ability to deliver the promised agreement—emerges as a key factor that drives the model. Each disputant has an assessment of the mediator's credibility. Broadly speaking, the more credible the mediator is perceived by the disputant, the more accepting the disputant will be of her offers. Yet, the mediator does not know how credible she is in the view of the disputants. This uncertainty affects the mediator's decision to intervene and her choice of strategies. We derive testable propositions from this model and test them on a dataset consisting of mediation efforts in international conflicts over the years 1945–1995. The findings generally support the propositions derived from the model, and we explore the theoretical and empirical implications of these findings.     

Conflict Analysis and Conflict Resolution: Divorce or Friendly Mediation?

The interests, needs, and academic practices of conflict analysis scholars are often fundamentally at odds with those of conflict resolution scholar practitioners. In this essay, I make suggestions for new academic arrangements that could allow both groups to be productive and empowered in their theory building and teaching and also have positive impacts on the development of students and on global institutions and conflict environments.     

冲突层级与国际非政府组织参与冲突调停的效力分析

冷战结束后,国内冲突逐步成为世界武装冲突的主要形式之一,而冲突调解是构建冲突国国内和平的关键一环。伴随着和平建构主题的多元性,国际非政府组织逐步成为当今时代各类冲突中活跃的调解主体。然而,国际非政府组织的调停实效始终备受争议。一方面,国际非政府组织宣称可凭借其在中立性、道义性上的优势对国内冲突进行有效调停;另一方面,强制能力的缺乏也使其难以在实施环节有所作为。因此,研究国际非政府组织在调停过程中的成功与失败,界定冲突层级,对于理解国际非政府组织的调解效力至关重要。不同层级的冲突顺应不同的冲突逻辑,不同的冲突逻辑则生发不同的冲突情境与格局。在底层冲突中,碎片化和多元主体并存的冲突格局更适合国际非政府组织的运作;而在顶层冲突中,其强制能力不足的缺点遭到放大。基于这一逻辑,在调解活动中与主权国家展开合作则有望强化其调解效力。通过对非洲和平进程展开的实证研究说明,评价国际非政府组织的调解效果特别是在非洲地区的调解效果需要考虑冲突层级等限定条件,并将其与多元主体的互动纳入考量范围。国际非政府组织在冲突调停中应与主权国家的调停体系进行密切配合,在维护国家主权与国际体系稳定的前提下,整合主权国家、国际非政府组织等多方治理行为体的作用,可有效地提升冲突调停的可能性。     

What Can We Learn from a University that Rewards Faculty Practice?

What conditions, including standards for promotion and tenure, should we be cultivating at universities if we want scholar practitioners (or pracademics) in conflict‐related fields to thrive in academic settings? This article examines the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University as an example of “positive deviance” — a university and an academic program that wholeheartedly support faculty members who engage in extensive practice, including long‐term involvement with peacebuilding processes. Three conditions — location, culture, and the application of peacebuilding strategies within the university — have given rise to and continue to support this system even as the university embraces a commitment to increasing scholarly productivity by faculty members.     

What Makes Parties Trust Mediators?

The relationship of trust between mediators and parties is a key element of the mediation process. This article reviews the trust relationship from the parties' perspectives. A qualitative research methodology was used to identify five key factors explaining why parties trust their mediator: degree of mastery over the process, explanation of the process, warmth and consideration, chemistry with the parties, and lack of bias toward either party. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.     

全球安全倡议与冲突调停的方式创新

当今世界和平赤字与安全赤字加剧,地区冲突频发,传统安全与非传统安全风险交织,热点地区的冲突管控成为国际社会共同面临的难题。而调停作为冲突管理的重要方式,在二战后被越来越多地应用于实践中。以美国为代表的西方国家在冲突调停领域有较长的实践历史,也有较为丰富的成功案例,形成了既有的调停方式。但是,伴随当前冲突复杂性的进一步加强,美国的传统调停方式因其缺乏中立性、威逼利诱并存和灵活性不足等弊端面临巨大的现实挑战。近年来,中国积极参与热点地区的调停工作,不断探索中国特色的热点问题解决之道,担当大国责任,为推动冲突的和平解决贡献中国力量。中国的调停方案与实践呈现出坚持多边主义与国际民主、秉持立场中立与不干涉内政原则、将冲突调停与发展援助相结合、坚持对话与和平方式解决争端以及推动灵活务实的渐进式调停的特点,很好地体现了全球安全倡议的核心理念,是对全球安全倡议的具体落实,也是一种具有中国智慧的国际安全模式探索。     

Context and Content toward Consensus in Public Mediation

The mediation of public conflicts is a complex interactive, social‐psychological, and often politicized process. Because of their complexity, the literature on how to effectively mediate these conflicts remains imprecise. In this study, I have focused on the sequencing of the overall mediation process and the interplay between initial conditions, mediation styles, and process dynamics to explore predictable patterns from early stage to deadline negotiations. By undertaking a two‐step qualitative comparison of twenty‐three public mediation cases, I have attempted to identify “equifinal” pathways — that is, a variety of different ways in which the same outcome can be achieved — that can lead to mediation success (or failure). My analysis reveals that both inclusivity (i.e., including all relevant participants in the process) and mediation institutionalization (i.e., the mediation process is sufficiently embedded in the political and administrative system) correlate to greater mediation effectiveness. Furthermore, this study also suggests that such key elements of deliberative negotiations as recognition and argumentation are essential for reaching a consensual agreement.     

Methods Meet Policy: Transnational Monitoring of the Israel–Palestine Conflict

For the past 2 years, the Kansas Event Data System project has been using event data and other web-based sources to produce quarterly reports on the Israel–Palestine conflict for the swisspeace (Swiss Peace Foundation) FAST Project, which is sponsored by Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and a number of non-governmental organizations. This paper describes the indicators that we are monitoring, the process we have developed to generate the reports, and the supplemental sources we are using. We address the issue of the differences between newspaper and news wire reports with respect to "media fatigue" effects and also analyze some of the strengths and weaknesses of this approach to conflict monitoring.