Australia's National Principles for Resolving Disputes

The National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC) has developed seven national principles for resolving disputes. The Council has created the principles to set out an approach to dispute resolution that is consistent with better access to justice.

NADRAC states on their website that they:

advocate the consistent application of the National Principles ... as an important information tool to assist people in dispute in considering ADR as an alternative, or an addition, to litigation.

The principles are largely about using ADR when you have a dispute, instead of going to court (and still using ADR even if you do end up in court!) and to offer information about how ADR aims to work so that you know what to expect if you choose to use an ADR mechanism.

National Principles for Resolving Disputes

1. People have a responsibility to take genuine steps to resolve or clarify disputes and should be supported to meet that responsibility.

2. Disputes should be resolved in the simplest and most cost effective way. Steps to resolve disputes including using ADR processes, wherever appropriate, should be made as early as possible and both before and throughout any court or tribunal proceedings.

3. People who attend a dispute resolution process should show their commitment to that process by listening to other views and by putting forward and considering options for resolution.

4. People in dispute should have access to, and seek out, information that enables them to choose suitable dispute resolution processes and informs them about what to expect from different processes and service providers.

5. People in dispute should aim to reach an agreement through dispute resolution processes. They should not be required or pressured to do so if they believe it would be unfair or unjust. If unable to resolve the dispute, people should have access to courts and tribunals.

6.  Effective, affordable and professional ADR services which meet acceptable standards should be readily available to people as a means of resolving their disputes.

7. Terms describing resolution processes should be used consistently to enhance community understanding of, and confidence in, them.


If you would like to read more on NADRAC's National Principles for Resolving Disputes, click here.

34 Characteristics of an Effective Negotiator

I stumbled across this list of characteristics while I was doing some research on how to be a better negotiator. It seems the fellow who compiled the list of traits, Howard Raiffa, knows what he’s on about. Howard has been the joint chair of the Harvard Business and Harvard Kennedy Schools and has been awarded several honorary doctorates (including one from, you guessed it … Harvard) for his lifetime contributions to the field of decision science and his work in conflict resolution.

The list appears in Howard’s book “The Art & Science of Negotiation”. At first glance, it’s interesting to see how particular characteristics out rank others that would usually be considered more effective skills for a negotiator. For example, debating ability is listed at #24 while integrity is at #7. I realise that a review of the traits themselves probably requires it’s own blog post so for now I’ll leave you to peruse and ponder the list below. For your reading pleasure…

1.     Preparation and planning skill

2.     Knowledge of the subject

3.     Ability to think clearly and rapidly under pressure and uncertainty

4.     Ability to express thoughts verbally

5.     Listening skill

6.     Judgement and general intelligence

7.     Integrity

8.     Ability to persuade others

9.     Patience

10.  Decisiveness

11.  Ability to win confidence and respect of opponent

12.  General problem-solving and analytical skills

13.  Self control, especially of emotions and their visibility

14.  Insight into others’ feelings

15.  Persistence and determination

16.  Ability to perceive and exploit available power to achieve objectives

17.  Insight into hidden needs and reactions of own and opponent’s organisation

18.  Ability to lead and control members of own team or group

19.  Previous negotiating experience

20.  Personal sense of security

21.  Open-mindedness (tolerance of other view points)

22.  Competitiveness (desire to compete and win)

23.  Skill in communicating and co-ordinating various objectives within own organisation

24.  Debating ability (skill in parrying questions and answers across the table)

25.  Willingness to risk being disliked

26.  Ability to act out skilfully a variety of negotiating roles or postures

27.  Status or rank in organisation

28.  Tolerance to ambiguity and uncertainty

29.  Skill in communicating by signs, gestures and silence (non-verbal language)

30.  Compromising temperament

31.  Attractive personality and sense of humour (degree to which people enjoy being with the person)

32.  Trusting temperament

33.  Willingness to take somewhat above-average business or career risks

34.  Willingness to employ force, threat or bluff

Back to Basics

Mediation, ADR, conciliation and facilitation are the buzz words of the business and legal worlds at the moment.
 
But what do these words actually mean?
 
To sort the wheat from the chaff, I’ve included an explanation below of each of these alternative dispute resolution terms. I’ve based them on the definitions from the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC) who are the overseers of ADR in Australia but I’ve tried to make them sound slightly less like I had copied them from a dictionary.
 
ADR is an umbrella term for all the different processes that involve an impartial third party assisting those in a dispute to resolve the issues between them. An exception to this is a matter decided by a judge. These disputes don’t fall within the ADR umbrella and instead are resolved by a judicial outcome. ADR is commonly used as an abbreviation for alternative dispute resolution, but can also be used to mean assisted or appropriate dispute resolution. Conciliation, facilitation and mediation are all types of ADR.

Conciliation involves a dispute resolution practitioner (the conciliator) helping the parties in dispute to identify the issues they are arguing about, develop options, consider alternatives and try to reach an agreement. A conciliator will provide advice on the matters in dispute and/or options for resolution, but will not make a determination. This means the conciliator won’t decide the outcome of the matter like a judge would.

Facilitation is a process in which the participants (usually a group) use a dispute resolution practitioner (the facilitator) to help them identify problems to be solved, tasks to be accomplished or disputed issues to be resolved. Facilitation generally stops there; however sometimes the facilitator may continue to assist the participants to develop options, consider alternatives and try to reach an agreement. The facilitator doesn’t provide advice on the issues being discussed or how the matter can be resolved.

Mediation is much like conciliation in that a dispute resolution practitioner (the mediator) will help the parties in dispute to identify the issues they are arguing about, develop options, consider alternatives and try to reach an agreement. Like a conciliator, the mediator does not decide the outcome of the dispute but unlike a conciliator, they don’t provide advice about the issues being discussed or how the dispute could be resolved. Mediation may be undertaken voluntarily, under a court order, or subject to an existing contractual agreement.

For a more comprehensive overview of ADR terms, visit NADRAC’s website here.