WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2010-07-30 Time: 16:00:07 Posted By: News Poster
Johannesburg – NEWS reports and analysis from experts about the public spat between corporate giants Kumba Iron Ore and ArcelorMittal SA leave the impression that, had they been a married couple, the two parties would be on the brink of very acrimonious divorce.
Unlike the situation in a troubled marriage, however, divorce is not an option for them as their commercial relationship is continuing and interdependent. Why, then, the sabre-rattling, threats and posturing?
In his book, Confronting Conflict (1999), the Austrian political scientist, economist and mediator Friedrich Glasl described a ladder with nine rungs that typifies the life cycle of a dispute.
These range from the parties taking opposing positions, to increased polarisation, the deterioration of communication, increased personal attacks and the issuing of threats, to a point where the parties, quite irrationally, engage in tactics in which the goal is no longer just winning, but destroying the other side (the “red zone”).
Finally, as the conflict continues to escalate, the parties enter a mutually destructive abyss; it no longer matters that both are bleeding, as long as the other side bleeds more. As the dispute escalates, its fall- out may also settle on society at large, as potentially happened with ArcelorMittal’s threats to close its Saldanha plant.
Luckily, Kumba and ArcelorMittal appear to have retreated, at least temporarily, from the red zone, thanks to the intervention of three senior government ministers.
Without insider knowledge, it is difficult to describe the nature of the process the ministers engaged in to bring the parties to their senses – that is, whether it was consensus-seeking, or whether the power of government prevailed. Thankfully it seems to have worked – at least for now.
What went wrong with what appears to have been a very cosy business relationship? How is it possible that seemingly responsible corporate players – who no doubt profess adherence to best practice in ethics and governance – can be so inept at resolving their differences? How does it happen that parties to a commercial dispute, such as this one, lose sight of the fact that they have a continuing business relationship and that the way in which they resolve their differences affects their future dealings?
Several explanations may apply: politicians or others with political influence may have interfered at some point; issues may have become personalised; those involved in managing the conflict might have got caught in the typical psychological traps that negotiators often fall into; the wrong people may have been given the job of resolving the issues, and so on – one cannot know for sure from the outside.
What is clear, however, is that neither side covered itself in glory in the very public manner in which they dealt with their differences. Reputations were harmed, relationships were damaged and possible shared commercial value was compromised.
What can businesspeople do to avoid these consequences? It is surprising how few people in business have a thorough understanding of best negotiation practice and are sufficiently skilled to negotiate sustainable, value-adding commercial deals.
The starting point is to develop an integrated negotiation strategy and to create the necessary internal negotiation capacity.
Second, those given the task to resolve disputes with internal and external stakeholders must be fully informed about the available range of dispute resolution options and should adopt a horses-for-courses strategy in relation to each dispute.
Unfortunately, the tendency in business – fuelled, no doubt, by the legal profession – is to litigate about the rights and wrongs of a dispute, instead of using litigation as the fall- back if other, more cost-effective and quicker processes, either do not deliver an outcome or are inappropriate for the dispute.
Litigation isn’t just a risk – it cannot be controlled by business. It is the third party – the arbitrator or the judge – that controls the outcome, and the lawyers who control the process. Exerting more control over litigation involves more than delegating the dispute to competent litigators: it involves exploring the alternatives that may lead to an acceptable settlement of the dispute.
What are the alternatives?
The range includes negotiation, deal mediation, facilitation, conciliation, early independent case assessment, minitrials, settlement counsel and hybrids of mediation and arbitration. The benefits of these consensus-oriented processes are well documented and include saving time and money; greater control over the inherent risks in the dispute; the potential for repairing damaged relationships (something that is difficult, if not impossible, after litigation); and greater scope for the business case – rather than the legal case – to be heard and addressed.
Finally, businesses can start demanding a more effective dispute resolution service from their lawyers. There is, as far as I am aware, only one law school in SA that teaches negotiations skills or alternative dispute resolution as part of its core curriculum. This is as surprising as it is shortsighted. Most of a commercial lawyer’s life is spent negotiating, yet those skills are mostly self-taught and therefore often limited.
Businesses should ask themselves: what kind of legal assistance do we need when we are faced with commercial disputes? Do we want a lawyer who is an expert litigator and is quite adept at putting our case to a third party – a judge or arbitrator – to solve our problem for us in the most narrowly focused, expensive, stressful and time-consuming dispute resolution process known to us? Or do we want to be provided with a broad range of alternatives for the resolution of the dispute that take into account not only the legal case, but also business realities and reputational and relational interests?
In short, do we merely want litigation expertise, or dispute-resolution expertise?
All companies have a reputation. How it is perceived and whether it is respected by competitors, regulators and stakeholders depends to a large degree on the message it conveys through its legal, negotiation and dispute-resolution strategies.
Unfortunately, the ArcelorMittal – Kumba saga reflects poorly on all fronts for the protagonists involved.
Jordaan is extraordinary professor at the University of Stellenbosch Business School and director of its Africa Centre for Dispute Settlement.
Original Source: 
Original date published: 30 July 2010
Source: http://allafrica.com/stories/201007300675.html?viewall=1