Negotiating Under Co-resolution

By creating a unique set of incentives around negotiation, co-resolution should produce a unique type of behavior in negotiation. Professionals with preconceived notions of "advocacy" and "dispute resolution" may find this new strategy to be troublesome or grating, so I will discuss in this entry the style and tone of negotiation that I imagine co-resolution will produce.


Remember, the co-resolution structure enforces cooperation across the table and loyalty from each co-resolver to their assigned party (see essay under "About" tab). Under this dynamic, the co-resolvers will be able to participate in the negotiation as coaches, advocates, and problem-solvers, while also maintaining a restrained focus on cooperation and resolution. Attorneys may have difficulty dealing with these restraints, and mediators may be uncomfortable with advocating for only one side in a dispute. However, it is possible to fully and freely operate under the co-resolution structure, protecting one side and promoting positive negotiation behavior across the table.


In order to achieve this fusion, co-resolvers should promote both powerful and amicable communication. This means that each co-resolver should focus on bringing their party to communicate their interests persuasively and compassionately, but not in a way that attacks or offends the other side.


Untrained communicators and unfamiliar negotiators often have difficulty expressing their differences without upsetting the other side or providing ammo that will later be used in a counterattack. These problems do not occur in co-resolution, because each negotiator knows that the other will not attack or undermine them and the parties are constantly coached and protected by these cooperative negotiators. Instead of being overly conciliatory or adversarial (criticisms lobbed at mediation and legal advocacy, respectively), co-resolution promotes strong, compelling messages, but packages them in a way that intends to connect with--not frustrate--the other side.



And as the flip side to this method of expression, co-resolution also promotes positive behavior in receiving communications from the other side of the table. Legal advocates may protect their clients by attacking, rather than trying to understand, assertions from the other side. Meanwhile, mediators are hindered from protecting either party by the detached impartiality that is the core of their role. In co-resolution, on the other hand, each party has a co-resolver at their side who can filter the other party's assertions in a way that mitigates offensiveness but enhances understanding. Besides rephrasing incoming communications (much like a mediator) to clarify, narrow, and translate the other's ideas, co-resolvers can also respond with positive counterpoints--arguments that counteract what the other side says without hindering communication or empathy. So when one party asserts an argument, the opposing co-resolver can bring up a parallel point that supports their side (counteracting without attacking) and can conciliate the argument by adding overall perspective. In this way, co-resolution offers protection during the negotiation that focuses on understanding and reaching resolution with the other side.



The combination of powerful and cooperative communication, described above, may be difficult to pull off if it is approached as internal balancing within each advocate. Any role will experience frustration if it is required to exercise self-restraint in implementing contradictory values (as power and cooperation often prove to be).


However, co-resolution is able to provide consistent and full strategies to follow in executing its unique approach to negotiation. First, while attorneys aim for the best negotiated deal for their client, co-resolvers aim for the best performance in negotiation by their assigned party. Second, while mediators aim for maximum party participation, co-resolvers aim for optimal party participation. Thus, like other roles, co-resolution guides its professionals with a consistent goal that may be pursued to the full extent: promoting and protecting the best experience in negotiation for the assigned party.


In summation, the professional negotiators in co-resolution should coach their parties to sell their ideas to the other side and understand the other's communications. This will bring the co-resolvers to enhance their party's power in the negotiation, while maintaining smooth dealings with the other side. And unlike mediators, co-resolvers are not restrained from ensuring this strategy of selling/understanding through their own direct participation in the discussion. Co-resolution will therefore fully enhance the negotiation experience of each party by bringing them to present their perspectives in a way that the other side will understand and by protecting them with conciliating defenses.