Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The role of mandates in third party intervention

  • In Theory
  • Published:
Negotiation Journal

Conclusion

Mandate, as a noun, is the charge that authorizes and legitimizes an intervenor's actions. The intervenor may act at the bidding of the disputants or of third party stakeholders. Mandate provides a functional taxonomy of intervenors—from go-betweens to conciliators to mediators to arbitrators to dictators. Mandate affords a perspective for analyzing initiation, process, and evaluation of intervention. Useful heuristics have been proposed for categorizing the ways in which intervenors restricted to persuasion, such as mediators, can attempt to change beliefs. Future work might seek to determine conditions under which an intervenor's persuasive abilities may change beliefs about available alternatives, about the probability that the alternative will lead to certain outcomes, and about the value of the outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Galenson, W. (1952).The Danish system of labor relations: A study in industrial peace. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, S. (1986).Mediation to resolve conflict: Theory, experimentation, and case studies. Doctoral thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Penn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, S. andDuncan, G. T. (forthcoming). “Third party intervention: A theoretical framework.” InManaging conflict: An interdisciplinary approach, ed. M. A. Rahim. New York: Praeger.

  • Maggiolo, W. A. (1971).The techniques of mediation in labor disputes. New York: Dobbs Ferry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, H. (1982).The art and science of negotiation, Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, B. H. (1984). “Third-party conflict intervention: A procedural framework.” InResearch in organizational behavior, vol. 6, ed. B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L. andCruikshank, J. (1987).Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Sanda Kaufman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George T. Duncan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Sanda Kaufman is Assistant Professor of Urban Studies at the College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio 44115.George T. Duncan is Professor of Statistics at the School of Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Penn. 15213.

The authors thank Mark Kamlet for many valuable discussions, Linda Argote for her thoughtful suggestions, and Christina Duncan for her criticial reading.

About this article

Cite this article

Kaufman, S., Duncan, G.T. The role of mandates in third party intervention. Negot J 4, 403–412 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000776

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000776

Keywords

Search

Navigation