On evaluating mediators

Conclusion Evaluating mediators is a complex process, but not an impossible one. While no single solution is likely to be found, a set of options is emerging. Any new refinement, admittedly, brings with it new difficulties, and the options laid out here are themselves complex to administer. An adroit program management may be able to put together relatively quickly a workable, efficient, and fair approach to evaluation that is tailored to its own circumstances. But most likely, the process of developing evaluation tools will require sustained effort, justified partly by recognition that only trial and error will eventually produce a result keyed to the program's, the parties', and the mediators' diverse needs.Nevertheless, it should be apparent that avoidance of the problems is no longer an acceptable strategy. In an era when rational standards for judging the elements of mediators' effectiveness are becoming more refined, and when mediation itself is becoming an increasingly common option for resolving all kinds of disputes, retaining public confidence in any program will demand that the program devote time and effort to evaluating and strengthening its most important resources. Christopher Honeyman has played a variety of dispute resolution roles including mediator, arbitrator, and administrative law judge in cases involving labor and environmental issues, for the State of Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (P.O. Box 7870, Madison, Wis. 53707-7870) and for other programs.An earlier version of this article was presented under the title Problems in Evaluating Mediators, at the North American Conference on Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution, Montreal, Quebec, March, 1989.Christina Sickles Merchant, Byron Yaffe, Stephen Goldberg, Jeanne Brett and Martha Askins offered detailed and helpful critiques of earlier drafts of this work. I am particularly grateful to the mediators of Maine's Court Mediation Service and to its directors, Jane Orbeton and the late Lincoln Clark, for their willingness to take the risks of applying an untried theory and their help in developing it. And once again, my colleagues at the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission provided numerous and significant comments and criticisms which have corrected my thinking on a number of points. However, the opinions expressed here are the author's, and do not necessarily reflect the policy of the WERC.     

Managing the negotiation agenda

Conclusion The agenda is one of the main structural elements of negotiation, in addition to such questions as site, identification of participants, and elements of timing. Together, they answer the who, what, when, and where questions. As with other aspects of negotiation, the agenda can be used either manipulatively to enhance leverage or to improve the prospects for agreement and the possibilities for mutual gain. In most cases, it will be used both ways, reflecting the nature of negotiation as a mixed-motive situation.Although it can be instrumental to volunteer as a sole source to write the agenda, in most cases it becomes a joint activity to construct a consensual basis for subsequent negotiation. In these situations, agenda-building becomes one of the pre-negotiation activities that set the tone for the relationship (Saunders, 1985). In other situations, the parties may engage in actual negotiation without a formal or written agenda. When this occurs, the risks and uncertainties may be high but the party who appreciates the importance of the informal agenda has a tremendous advantage.Whether one plans it or not, during the course of negotiation the parties will discuss a finite set of issues in some sequence and from a particular perceptual framework. Consciousness of the universality and centrality of the agenda is prerequisite to guiding negotiation to a successful conclusion. William R. Pendergast is Associate Dean at Boston University's Metropolitan College, 755 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, Mass. 02215, where he teaches graduate courses and executive development seminars on negotiation. He is preparing research on power and influence, and on strategic choice in negotiation.     

Book reviews

William C. Green and Theodore Karasik (Eds.), Gorbachev and his Generals: The Reform of Soviet Military Doctrine (Westview Press, 1990, 239pp. ISBN 0–8133–7898–2)

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, On the Law of Nations (Harvard University Press, 1990)

Peter J. Stavrakis, Moscow and Greek Communism, 1944–1949. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London. 1989. ISBN 0–8014–2125–X.

Scalpino, R.A., The Politics of Development: Perspectives on Twentieth‐Century Asia (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1989, pp.131)

Sean M. Lynn‐Jones, Steven E. Miller and Stephen van Evera (Eds.), Soviet Military Policy (MIT Press, 1989. £26.95 [cloth]; £13.50 [paperback]).