Instead, the parties are the ones that do that. In most situations, mediation usually results in a legally enforceable contract which is agreed upon by the conflicting parties. This is usually done in writing (Strasser & Randolph 2004). Mediators are usually allowed to charge for their time dedication. However, in some programs that are sponsored by the court, they are free when it comes to all residents. .
On the other hand, distributive bargaining takes into account a method used when conflicting parties want to divide something up. Therefore, distributive bargaining helps in deciding how a fixed resource such as money will be distributed between parties. In this process, the proportional to be distributed between the parties is variable (Doherty & Guyler 2008). Distributive bargaining is typically referred to us as the win-lose. This is because it has the assumption that the win of one party is the loss of the other party. Ideally, distributive bargaining takes into account the use of pie in order to show how the proportion that each party will acquire. The goal of this method is not to assure that there is a win in both sides, but rather to make sure that one side wins as much as possible. This implies that one side has to lose, or get less that it had intended. Another thing to note about this method is that its tactics rarely have the assumption that the pie will be divided equally between the conflicting parties. .
Advantages and Disadvantages of Mediation.
There are many advantages associated with the use of mediation as a way of resolving conflicts. One of the advantages is that it is cheaper as compared to other methods of resolving disputes. Despite the fact that mediators may charge the same fee as an attorney, the time taken is usually less. Less time implies less fee. Another advantage is confidentiality. On this, mediation usually remains confidential, as compared to court hearings which are public.