Introduction
This paper seeks to explore conflict resolution in the field of business by applying Camp David’s point of view while reaching an amicable ground between two or more conflicting parties. In trying to define conflict, Masters and R. Albright (2002) refer it as to what “exists when there is a disagreement between two or more parties who are interdependent “(p. 14).
This means that there must exist parties that differ in something, be it ideas, beliefs or stands in various issues concerning the business and, the parties involved that have a mutual interest are to be interdependent. In fact, the element of interdependence is essential in defining a conflict. Dana (2001) provides that “that there wouldn’t be a conflict without interdependence” (p. 6).
Negotiations, on the other hand, refer to the process of trying to reach some sort of a truce between the disagreeing parties. The essentials of negotiation (2005), defines it as “…the means by which businesspeople create synergies and resolve problems” (p. xiii).
Negotiations can be approached from different angles depending on the type of dispute. In business, there are different types of disputes ranging from disputes amongst workmates, workers and managers, managers and managers, as well as disputes between two companies that may have had a working relationship before.
The need for negotiation will highly depend on various issues, but most importantly, on the consequences of the conflict, especially in terms of the productivity of the involved parties.
One of the approaches that can be considered by business owners, especially where the conflict involves two or more companies, is Camp David’s approach to conflict resolution.
Camp David Views on Conflict Resolution
Conflict resolution, from this perspective, involves using the approaches employed by the U.S.A president Jimmy Carter in trying to mediate between Anwar Sedat and Benachem Begin, president of Egypt and the Israel prime minister respectively in 1978. Both of them had firm stands in regard to peace between Israel and the Middle East nations.
Jimmy Carter acted as an arbitrator and mediator between these two leaders, rooted in their respective chambers, in talks that had lasted for almost two weeks.
Application of the Approach in Business
In a nutshell, this approach emphasizes the employing of a third party that must be neutral in trying to resolve the conflict. Negotiation, being connected largely with communication, the third party must work on his/her skills to avoid any ambiguity that may result in misinterpretation by the other parties in conflict.
He/she must also be well versed in the conflict the parties are undergoing, but should not jump into giving personal opinions before taking time to listen to both parties separately.
Steps Employed by the 3rd Party in Negotiation
Study the bone of contention between the parties.
The differences resulting in a conflict could be disparities in tying up an important deal between the parties, conflict resulting from a breach of an agreement, a party involving itself in unethical issues, etc. It is therefore important that the 3rd party studies the case carefully and try to direct the two parties into a way forward.
This is necessary as Dana (2001), observes that “should any of the two parties walk out, something is bound to be lost by either side” (p. 5).
Listening to what the two parties are willing to give.
Negotiation is always a matter of giving and take. Some negotiations may stall due to the lack of interest from one party. It is the responsibility of the neutral party to try and show all the parties what they are likely to gain at the end of it and what they would lose should a truce fail to be reached. The 3rd party must, however, be categorical in telling all the parties that to gain; they must be ready to concede in one way or another.
Read between the lines on information received to find a solution for the conflicting parties.
As it has been stated earlier, the 3rd party must be a good communicator; he/she should even be able to engage the other parties in cheap talk with the goal of understanding both parties, hence know which solutions would be interesting to them. (Remember that all those steps are taken separately, meaning the mediator should be willing to carry messages back and forth, convince both parties in the importance of embracing between the conflicting parties).
The proposed solutions.
This should be done amicably without seeming to force things down the throats of the conflicting parties. Before this is done, the 3rd party must have considered all alternatives to ensure the solutions proposed are at the best interest of both parties.
Conclusion
The introduction of a third party during negotiation in conflict resolution is a core principle from Camp David’s point of view. It should be given a lot of consideration in the world of business as it fosters trust and gives both conflicting parties a sense of achieving justice, largely due to the use of an impartial third party. This also saves both parties’ money and reputation as compared to solving matters in law courts.
References
Albright, R.R. and Masters, M. F. (2002). Conflict resolution in the workplace. Newyork: Amacom.
Dana, D (2001). Conflict resolution. Newyork: Mcgraw Hill.
The essentials of negotiation (2005). Boston: Harvard Business Press.