Mediation
There seem to be many different styles of mediation. Burgess, et.al. (1997) create two categories: transformative and problem-solving – which focuses on the goals and approach of the mediator. Augsburger (1992) and others describe a continuum, based upon the roles of the mediator. In either model, the approach to mediation is really hinged the nature of the dispute and the natures of the disputants. When the dispute allows time for learning, the mediate has the opportunity to model and teach communication skills that will transform the disputants not only with regard to the current conflict, but perhaps for life.
Mediator as facilitator
In the school district where my children have attended, the elementary schools start training peer mediators to help resolve conflicts between and among students. These peer mediators are typically what Augsburger (1992) calls ‘prompters’, which may be appropriate, given that these mediators are under 12 years old. These prompters simply nudge the parties toward expressing their feelings and coming to a resolution.
In this kind of facilitator mode, the mediator asks the parties questions that validate each of the parties’ perspective, helps reveal underlying issues, and assists them in moving toward resolution. In this role, the mediator is really more responsible for how the conversation goes, rather than being responsible for resolution.
These mediators don’t really have to know about the issues, they only have to understand a process for working through issues. Ironically, this makes sense for both elementary school children and for US state department diplomats.
This seems very much similar to modern counseling techniques, in which the therapists role is to listen, record, and play back competing conversations in a way that clarifies and brings understanding. This similarity is because mediators try to “reduce largely psychological obstacles that prevent hostile parties coming together for constructive negotiation.”
Mediator as chairperson
Chairperson mediation is a process similar to a judicial system. This is the kind of mediation popularized by People’s Court: a judge or mediator helps the parties reach resolution by pointing out the weaknesses of each of their cases. The mediator makes recommendations as to how to resolve he issues.
This tends to be my method of mediation when I’m working with my children in sibling conflicts. It may not be the best method, since it tends to focus on the “fair” application of the individual’s rights and entitlements, instead of the individual’s needs and interests. I often have to keep my twins separated while I do my own version of “shuttle diplomacy”, going back between each of them. In this role I not only structure the process, but I have a good idea of what the outcome should be, and try to influence their response to the conflict so that the outcome is fulfilled.
Mediator as coach
Transformative mediation tries to bring empowerment to each party, and get them to recognize their own and the other parties’ needs, values, interests, and perspectives. The hope is that the parties or their relationship may be transformed during the mediation. This coaching approach places an instructional burden on the mediator.
Transformative mediation is highly idealistic, and expects that the parties will find both the most appropriate process and the most satisfying outcome. By helping the parties take responsibility for their own disputes and the resolution of the disputes, transformative mediation hopes that the parties will be changed by the process – changed in ways that will minimize their disputes in the future.
In spite of its idealism, and the misapplication of this idealism by both supports and detractors, transformational mediation rightly holds to the hope that people are capable of change. However, this type of mediation takes an extraordinarily long time. In many situations, issues regarding individual or public safety may not give us the luxury of waiting for the transformation.
By letting the parties chart their own course, the results may not be satisfactory to anyone but the parties. Without the pressure to reach a conclusion (as promoted by other styles of mediation) transformational mediation may be less effective in time of crisis.
An advantage of the chairperson model is that the parties may want or need an answer – even if they cannot reach agreement on it. Also, people have a tendency to want to know that the situation is fair. The mediator has the opportunity to play that role.
Hallmarks of transformative mediation
One hallmark of transformative mediation is that the mediator’s objectives are not set in terms of settlement, but rather in terms of understanding and clarity. It’s the empowerment and mutual recognition among the parties that is important. Since reaching a settlement is not presented as the most important goal of mediation, successful mediation need only move the parties toward clarity.
Letting the parties express their emotions reveals fears, and beliefs, and identifies greater opportunities where understanding needs to be developed. In this model, discussing the past is also appropriate, because it clarifies current understandings, ways of thinking and prejudices. It also creates opportunities to reconsider the current view.
This drive to understanding requires coping with uncertainty, and keeps the mediator closely tuned to the interaction. It also means that the mediator necessarily must take a long view of the process, while at the same time promoting the value of small stops. Some of those steps will be the adoption of better communication skills by the parties, and this is why the mediator becomes the communication coach. It is when effective communication is modeled and taught that transformation begins to take root.
Slaikeu points out that many conflicts arise from poor communication (1996) and that mediators not only need these skills for themselves, but also need to model them to the disputants. Skills such as active listening and self disclosure are important in building the mutual recognition and understanding required for transformation. Questioning and reframing skills empower the disputants to shape the process in a way that reduces, not increases conflict. Confronting, although not part of the typical set of tools for transformational mediators, can be necessary to prod the disputants to the first or next step.
The realization that conflict is multifaceted and complex has led us from conflict resolution theories to conflict management strategies; the only conflict resolution comes when the parties are willing to transform themselves through sacrificial relinquishing of the demands, entitlements, rights, feelings and identities to which each insist on clinging.
That agreement is not necessary is only the part of the transformation. The other part is its corollary: being right – or having others agree on the rightness – is far less important than having an influential role in the lives of those with whom we interact. This perspective recognizes conflict as opportunity for influence -- and like all opportunities, the appropriate and fruitful response is wise investment.
Works Cited
Augsburger, D. W. (1992) Conflict Mediation across Cultures. Westminster John Knox Press. Louisville.
Burgess, H., Burgess, G., Glaser T. & Yevsyukova, M. (1997) Transformative Approaches to Conflict. Conflict Research Consortium. Accessed online at http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/transform/index.html on Sept 23, 2004.
Slaikeu, K. A.(1996) When Push Comes to Shove: A Practical Guide to Mediating Disputes. Jossey-Bass; 225-236.
Mediator as facilitator
In the school district where my children have attended, the elementary schools start training peer mediators to help resolve conflicts between and among students. These peer mediators are typically what Augsburger (1992) calls ‘prompters’, which may be appropriate, given that these mediators are under 12 years old. These prompters simply nudge the parties toward expressing their feelings and coming to a resolution.
In this kind of facilitator mode, the mediator asks the parties questions that validate each of the parties’ perspective, helps reveal underlying issues, and assists them in moving toward resolution. In this role, the mediator is really more responsible for how the conversation goes, rather than being responsible for resolution.
These mediators don’t really have to know about the issues, they only have to understand a process for working through issues. Ironically, this makes sense for both elementary school children and for US state department diplomats.
This seems very much similar to modern counseling techniques, in which the therapists role is to listen, record, and play back competing conversations in a way that clarifies and brings understanding. This similarity is because mediators try to “reduce largely psychological obstacles that prevent hostile parties coming together for constructive negotiation.”
Mediator as chairperson
Chairperson mediation is a process similar to a judicial system. This is the kind of mediation popularized by People’s Court: a judge or mediator helps the parties reach resolution by pointing out the weaknesses of each of their cases. The mediator makes recommendations as to how to resolve he issues.
This tends to be my method of mediation when I’m working with my children in sibling conflicts. It may not be the best method, since it tends to focus on the “fair” application of the individual’s rights and entitlements, instead of the individual’s needs and interests. I often have to keep my twins separated while I do my own version of “shuttle diplomacy”, going back between each of them. In this role I not only structure the process, but I have a good idea of what the outcome should be, and try to influence their response to the conflict so that the outcome is fulfilled.
Mediator as coach
Transformative mediation tries to bring empowerment to each party, and get them to recognize their own and the other parties’ needs, values, interests, and perspectives. The hope is that the parties or their relationship may be transformed during the mediation. This coaching approach places an instructional burden on the mediator.
Transformative mediation is highly idealistic, and expects that the parties will find both the most appropriate process and the most satisfying outcome. By helping the parties take responsibility for their own disputes and the resolution of the disputes, transformative mediation hopes that the parties will be changed by the process – changed in ways that will minimize their disputes in the future.
In spite of its idealism, and the misapplication of this idealism by both supports and detractors, transformational mediation rightly holds to the hope that people are capable of change. However, this type of mediation takes an extraordinarily long time. In many situations, issues regarding individual or public safety may not give us the luxury of waiting for the transformation.
By letting the parties chart their own course, the results may not be satisfactory to anyone but the parties. Without the pressure to reach a conclusion (as promoted by other styles of mediation) transformational mediation may be less effective in time of crisis.
An advantage of the chairperson model is that the parties may want or need an answer – even if they cannot reach agreement on it. Also, people have a tendency to want to know that the situation is fair. The mediator has the opportunity to play that role.
Hallmarks of transformative mediation
One hallmark of transformative mediation is that the mediator’s objectives are not set in terms of settlement, but rather in terms of understanding and clarity. It’s the empowerment and mutual recognition among the parties that is important. Since reaching a settlement is not presented as the most important goal of mediation, successful mediation need only move the parties toward clarity.
Letting the parties express their emotions reveals fears, and beliefs, and identifies greater opportunities where understanding needs to be developed. In this model, discussing the past is also appropriate, because it clarifies current understandings, ways of thinking and prejudices. It also creates opportunities to reconsider the current view.
This drive to understanding requires coping with uncertainty, and keeps the mediator closely tuned to the interaction. It also means that the mediator necessarily must take a long view of the process, while at the same time promoting the value of small stops. Some of those steps will be the adoption of better communication skills by the parties, and this is why the mediator becomes the communication coach. It is when effective communication is modeled and taught that transformation begins to take root.
Slaikeu points out that many conflicts arise from poor communication (1996) and that mediators not only need these skills for themselves, but also need to model them to the disputants. Skills such as active listening and self disclosure are important in building the mutual recognition and understanding required for transformation. Questioning and reframing skills empower the disputants to shape the process in a way that reduces, not increases conflict. Confronting, although not part of the typical set of tools for transformational mediators, can be necessary to prod the disputants to the first or next step.
The realization that conflict is multifaceted and complex has led us from conflict resolution theories to conflict management strategies; the only conflict resolution comes when the parties are willing to transform themselves through sacrificial relinquishing of the demands, entitlements, rights, feelings and identities to which each insist on clinging.
That agreement is not necessary is only the part of the transformation. The other part is its corollary: being right – or having others agree on the rightness – is far less important than having an influential role in the lives of those with whom we interact. This perspective recognizes conflict as opportunity for influence -- and like all opportunities, the appropriate and fruitful response is wise investment.
Works Cited
Augsburger, D. W. (1992) Conflict Mediation across Cultures. Westminster John Knox Press. Louisville.
Burgess, H., Burgess, G., Glaser T. & Yevsyukova, M. (1997) Transformative Approaches to Conflict. Conflict Research Consortium. Accessed online at http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/transform/index.html on Sept 23, 2004.
Slaikeu, K. A.(1996) When Push Comes to Shove: A Practical Guide to Mediating Disputes. Jossey-Bass; 225-236.
Comments