Thrid-party Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration
Third-party Conciliation
Third-party Conciliation involves a neutral third party facilitating communication between disputing parties to identify common ground and reach a mutually acceptable resolution. The conciliator may propose solutions but needs more decision-making power (Ojo, 2021). For example, a labor dispute could involve a government-appointed conciliator helping employers and employees find common ground on wage negotiations.
Mediation
Mediation entails a neutral mediator guiding disputing parties through structured negotiations to reach a voluntary agreement. The mediator facilitates dialogue and encourages open communication while the parties decide (Cydni, 2020). In workplace conflicts, a mediator might assist managers and employees in resolving interpersonal conflicts affecting team dynamics.
Arbitration
Arbitration involves a neutral arbitrator hearing evidence from both parties and making a binding decision (Cole, 2020). It is more formal than mediation or conciliation. An arbitrator might review the contract terms and determine compensation in a contract dispute between a supplier and a company.
Key differences between third-party conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration
Conciliation, mediation, and arbitration each offer distinct advantages and are suitable for different conflict scenarios.
Third-party Conciliation
Due to its non-binding character, it can assist parties in keeping their relationships intact. It is appropriate when parties want to retain control over the ultimate decision but need help identifying common ground. Unresolved concerns recur since judgments are not legally enforceable.
Mediation
With mediation, parties may control the resolution since it promotes open dialogue. It is especially appropriate in disputes where maintaining existing ties is crucial. However, it depends on voluntary agreements, which might not happen if parties are still adamantly opposed to one another.
Arbitration
When parties cannot agree, arbitration offers a firm conclusion. It is appropriate for complicated conflicts that need a firm decision. However, judgments could not align with the parties’ interests, and official processes might take a while.
