CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

10. THE ROLE OF THIRD PARTIES/MEDIATION IN MANAGING CONFLICT 305
an integrative solution. In this case, the mediator might suggest that the
salesperson pay the customer for a portion of the repairs instead of buying
back the vehicle. Using this compensation strategy, the salesperson
pays a small fee (meeting the reservation value), and the customer is compensated
for acquiescing and keeping the car.
However, when both disputing parties have low expectations for reaching
a settlement and there is little common ground between them, it may
be advisable for the mediator to engage in pressing because of the likely
failure of all of the other strategies due to the uncertainty that the parties
can reach a mutual agreement given that their current reservation values
do not overlap. In this case, “pressing” that is of the form that causes a
party (or parties) to change their reservation value may lead to satisfaction
with the mediation outcome (mediators should take care not to apply too
much coercion because it can sometimes cause parties to reevaluate the
outcome shortly after settlement). For example, mediators may set a deadline
for the disputants to reach an agreement, which can serve to make the
disputants more flexible and lower their reservation values (Carnevale &
Lawler, 1986). Moreover, they can raise questions to each party as to the
basis of their reservation values.
If the mediator does decide to use the fourth strategy, inaction, it is
because he or she assesses that both parties have low aspirations and a
large amount of common ground. In other words, the disputants are willing
to compromise on their positions and the mediator assesses that they
are working toward complementary goals. In this case, the parties will
most likely be able to compromise without additional direction from the
mediator. Unfortunately, less experienced or unskilled mediators may
gravitate toward inaction because it requires the least amount of intellectual
strain. Hence, the tactic of inaction may be incorrectly chosen due to
its appeal as being the easiest choice.
In addition to Carnevale’s (1986) taxonomy, Kressel (2000) set forth a
typology of his own with regard to mediator behavior. In the past, this
typology was used to describe other types of mediation (Kressel, 1972,
1985; Kressel & Deutsch, 1977; Kressel & Pruitt, 1985; Carnevale, Lim, &
McLaughlin, 1989). Although multidimensional scaling has found similar
dimension in the previous research (McLaughlin, Carnevale, & Lim,
1991), Kressel (2000) further simplified earlier typologies and suggested
that a three-factor structure was best to describe mediator strategy. Kressel
divided mediator behavior into reflexive, contextual, and substantive strategies.
Kressel’s strategies were different from Carnevale’s in that they
depicted the more general ways by which mediators could approach a
conflict situation. Specifically, reflexive interventions occur when the
mediator puts in an initial effort to establish the foundation on which
later dispute resolution will take place. Rapport building and neutrality
are essential components of this strategy. And, Kressel emphasized that
the mediator must be acceptable to both parties in order for this tactic to
be truly successful. On the other hand, in contextual interventions, the