This article reports the results of two studies. The first study, based on the responses of attorneys to questions about the reasons for the success of mediators with and without prior judicial experience, shows that the capacity of the mediator to gain the confidence of the disputants was most important for mediators with and without prior judicial experience. Although certain process skills were viewed as important to the success of both former judges and nonjudges, in general, process skills were significantly more important for nonjudges than for former judges. The capacity to provide useful case evaluations, on the other hand, was significantly more important for former judges than for nonjudges. The second study, based upon attorney responses to questions about unsatisfactory mediators, reinforced the conclusions of the first study regarding the importance of confidence‐building attributes. For both judges and nonjudges, the mediator’s inability to gain the confidence of the parties was a major reason for his or her lack of success.

This article examines how perceptions of time affect Arabic‐speaking Islamic negotiators and how their attitudes about time, and their corresponding behaviors, may differ from those of their Western counterparts. We begin by identifying cultural differences in the conceptualization of time and then comment on the role of time in negotiations, discussing how time influences bargaining, trust, and negotiation tactics. In the section on tactics, we discuss stall‐and‐delay tactics, the use of the past as an objective standard, and limits on negotiating the future. Our purpose is to encourage negotiators from the West to be knowledgeable about the way they, as well as negotiators from Arabic‐speaking Islamic cultures, conceive of and use time in negotiations. We believe that understanding that the very concept of time is often quite different in these two cultures is an important step in facilitating negotiations that cross these cultural boundaries.

To ensure success in resolving difficult disputes, negotiators must make strategic decisions about their negotiation approach. In this essay, we make practical recommendations for negotiation strategy based on Ury, Brett, and Goldberg's (1993) interests, rights, and power framework for dispute resolution and subsequent empirical research by Brett, Shapiro, and Lytle (1998). We discuss how negotiations cycle through interests, rights, and power foci; the prevalence of reciprocity; and the one‐sided, distributive outcomes that result from reciprocity of rights and power communications. We then turn to using interests, rights, and power strategically in negotiations. We discuss choosing an opening strategy, breaking conflict spirals of reciprocated rights and power communications, and when and how to use rights and power communications effectively in negotiations.

What effect does culture have on the achievement of joint gains in negotiation? Prior research has identified a number of strategies, for example sharing information about preferrences and priorities, eschewing power, that lead to the development of joint gains when both negotiators are from the U.S. Are these same strategies used in other cultures? Are other strategies used? How effective are negotiators from different cultures in realizing joint gains? These are among the questions considered by the authors, whose research is based on data collected from negotiators from six different cultural backgrounds: France, Russia, Japan, Hong Kong, Brazil, and the U.S.

A study of 449 cases administered by four major providers of ADR services showed that mediation was capable of setting 78 percent of cases, regardless of whether the parties had been sent to mediation by a court or bad selected the process voluntarily. Mediation also cost far less than arbitration, took less time, and was judged a more satisfactory process than arbitration.