CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

304 GOLDMAN, CROPANZANO, STEIN, AND BENSON
Mediator’s
Perception of
Common
Ground
High
Low
Mediator’s Value of Parties’ Aspirations
High
Low
Integrate
Inaction
Compensate Press
fiGure 10.4. strategic choice model of mediator behavior adapted from Carnevale
(1986).
much the mediator cares about the disputants resolving their dilemma
and the mediator’s recognition of a common ground.
According to Carnevale’s (1986) model, integration was the most desirable
method due to its ability to accommodate both parties. However, in
order to utilize this strategy effectively, the mediator must perceive an
ample amount of common ground and recognize that both parties have
high aspirations for any communal solution. The size of common ground
is dependent upon the mediator’s assessment of the probability that a
mutually acceptable solution will be found. For example, if the disputing
parties are business partners, any dispute that leads to a stoppage in
business productivity could hurt both of the parties. Therefore, it is likely
that the disputants will agree that they want to continue to do business
together and concur that the solution should be quick and cost effective
for both parties. Because both parties have similar end goals, the mediator
can guide them toward resolutions that will benefit both groups.
While the compensation strategy shares the same high settlement
aspirations as the integrative solution, the mediator recognizes that there
is little common ground between the parties. Therefore, the best solution
involves meeting one party’s reservation value and compensating
by other means the party that is forced to acquiesce. For example, there is
a dispute between a used-car salesperson and a customer over a car that
the customer purchased. The customer is angry because the car that was
sold to her broke down three weeks after she purchased it and requires
$500 to repair. She wants the salesperson to take back the lemon and
refund the money she spent on the vehicle. However, the salesperson
refuses to buy back the vehicle. The customer is angry because she does
not feel that the salesperson disclosed all of the relevant information
about the car’s history prior to the purchase. In this situation, both parties
have high aspirations, but there is little common ground to come to