This in turn will ensure a positive outcome for all parties involved. A mediator would also prevent settlement resulting in fairness that benefits one party more so than the other.
The key premise Murray fails to observe when describing the disadvantages of collaborative negotiation is that parties entering such agreements must first agree they will each "compromise" or give and take, to create a solution to a problem that will benefit each party more so than it will detract from their aims and objections. Collaborative negotiation has nothing to do with "win/lose" as Murray suggests (Wilmot & Hocker, 257) but rather emphasizes the importance of decision-making and problem-solving that promotes win-win situations. While each party may have to compromise on some of their "idealisms" ultimately each party is working to create an agreement that is mutually beneficial.
Conclusion
J.A....
Murray fails to recognize the mutually beneficial outcomes associated with collaborative negotiation. He focuses instead on subjective interpretation of what collaborative negotiation means, assuming that any settlement derived from such negotiations results in a "win/lose" situation.
By very definition the term "collaborative" suggests two or more parties work with each other to produce a mutually satisfying result. Any disadvantages associated with collaborative negotiation, such as intimidation by a competitive force, are easily negated by introduction of a trained mediator who can work with parties individually and collectively to come to a decision that benefits the good of all parties involved in conflict or dispute.
Reference:
Wilmot, William & Hocker, Joyce. Interpersonal Conflict, 7th Edition. New York:
McGraw Hill, 2001.
Mediation
