Conflict Resolution Styles
  Mediation Facilitation Negotiation Arbitration Litigation
Positives for parties Parties decide the terms of the outcome.                                                                                                    Neutral third party is present Parties control the direction of the process and terms of the process.                                         Neutral third party is present Have the authority to limit information sharing.            The parties themselves can decide the process and outcomes. Parties can limit the amount of information they each share with each other.                                        Parties decide if the final agreement is court-binding. A judge  makes a definitive rulling that is  enforcable by law. 
Negatives for parties Mediator controls the communication process  There is no unilateral decision making  by any one party A neutral third party is not present during this process to level any power imbalances.                         Arbitrators can require findings of facts and will  decide the outcome. The final decision is  a matter of the court and infractions against the final ruling can lead to legal persecution.
Cost for parties $$ $ $$ $$$ $$$$


Negotiation is usually done party-to-party with no neutral third party such as a mediator or judge. This style of conflict resolution works best when both parties have actual and/or perceived equal amounts of power.   An advantage to this process is that the parties feel more in control of the process and the outcomes. A drawback is if one party feels they have less power or authority than the other party, then that party may feel bullied or cohersed into an agreement.

For more information on negotiation or any other conflict resolution practice, please call 203-215-3553 or email at