The purpose of mediation is to help parties that are in a disagreement come to a solution that minimizes the potential harm from that disagreement. Without mediation processes, many disagreements can lead to hostility or other outcomes that are undesirable for both parties (Winslade & Monk, 2008). As such, understanding the mediation process is an important part of understanding the psychology of conflict, and is useful in a number of different scenarios. In law, mediation is particularly useful as part of the spectrum of alternative dispute resolution, and is used to negotiate various forms of settlements without harming either party or requiring a formal lawsuit, for example (Winslade & Monk, 2008). Any conflict resolution that requires a third party mediator is considered a mediation attempt. The purpose of this paper is to explore the current mediation literature to give an overview of the topic, then to apply the mediation process to a current dispute to show how it can be used in real world scenarios.
Literature Review
Mediation is a complex process that can be applied in a number of different situations, and as such there are a number of different approaches and techniques that have been suggested. Tekleab, Quigley & Tesluk (2009) investigated the mediation process in terms of team conflict and cohesion in the workplace. In this study of 53 teams, it was found that a mediator that focused on helping individuals work through relationship conflict had the best results in terms of improving team effectiveness. T was also found that higher levels of conflict management, that is, constant monitoring by a specialist, were the most appropriate way of approaching conflict in the workplace. Psychologically, individuals working in a team that had been assigned a specialist mediator were also found to be more productive, both as perceived by themselves and by managers (Tekleab et al., 2009).
Goldman et al. (2008) have also conducted a huge amount of research into the mediation process in workplaces and organizations. Specialist mediators that understood the source of the conflict are most effective at improving relationships in teams. Having an understanding of the law is also an important part of the mediation process, as it can help to highlight whether there are any significant breaches of contract that need to be addressed in the mediation process. Mediators that provide themselves with an outline that highlights the steps they need to take are also found to be more effective. Goldman et al. (2008) also found that engaging with a mediator early on in the situation that is a source of conflict is the best way of avoiding problems before they lead to excessive harm for either party.
Narrative mediation is a new approach to mediation, but one that has gained a lot of attention in recent years for its simplicity and effectiveness. Narrative mediation has nine main elements to consider. The first, and most important, is that the mediator assumes that people live their lives through narratives. The second is to avoid essentialist assumptions, followed by engagement in double listening. Following that, the mediator also has to build an externalizing conversation, and view the problem story as a restraint. Mediators should also be able to identify openings to an alternative story, and help the involved parties to begin to write a new story about the relationship. Something which is key in narrative mediation and other forms of conflict resolution is to document the process of the disagreement and the mediation process so that the parities have a record of how they have resolved the conflict to return to in the case of future issues (Winslade & Monk, 2008).
A Critique of the Mediation Process
Mediation theory often assumes that neutrality and impartiality is the best approach, as without this, a successful agreement cann0t be made by both sides. Taylor (2007) also notes that mediators “teach new trainees that the process of mediation requires impartiality and neutrality” (p215). Despite this, in real-life contexts, mediation is not always neutral, and emerging techniques in the field mean that mediators must be critical of the concept of neutrality and how it is applied in the context of mediation. Taylor (2007) suggests that neutrality is one of the biggest issues facing the mediation technique, and to engage with certain techniques (such as transformational mediation) moves must be made to start viewing neutrality on a spectrum, or continuum. Additionally, Taylor (2007) makes the prudent point that the ethical definition of neutrality very much depends on the context of the mediation, something else which is often left out of mediation research.
Hensler (2002) also suggests that mediation need to be applied on a case-by-case basis. Mediation theory often makes the suggestion that mediation can be applied to a broad number of cases, but it needs to be noted that not all of these cases require the same amount of mediation or the same approach. Hensler (2002) suggests that the role of the mediator is to allow for the question of which story is true to be discussed, and this affects the ability of the mediator to stay neutral in a number of different scenarios. Another important factor to note when conducting mediation research is that many actually prefer the adversarial approach, and do not want to settle out of court (Hensler, 2002). Again, the role of the mediator in these cases differs from the norm, as they have to deal with an individual who wants to cause the other party harm through lawsuits. This is something to be considered when discussing the mediation process.
Application of Mediation Theory
It is important to understand how mediation theory can be applied in real life scenarios to understand its effectiveness. For the purposes of this paper, narrative mediation will be applied to a real-life scenario. One common scenario for using mediation is in divorce settlements. In this scenario, a previously married couple has been experiencing problems for three years. As a result of this, the husband cheated on his wife. There is no pre-nuptial agreement, meaning that when the wife found out about the affair she immediately sought a divorce and was interested in having a financial settlement. The husband suggests that the wife is also at fault in the marriage, and neither party is speaking to each other, making it very difficult to reach an agreement that suits both parties.
Using narrative mediation, the mediator should engage in double listening. This means that both sides of the story should be gained. The best way to do this is through getting each party to use a narrative to describe the chain of events that has led to the divorce (Winslade & Monk, 2008). These narratives can be compared, and an externalizing conversation can be built. In this sense, the problem story is a restraint for making a judgment about the legal results of this case, as the personal and emotional feelings that each party is having are limiting the ability to reach a financial settlement or agreement out of court. Taking into account the information from both parties, they should be encouraged to write a new narrative of what happened, and the mediator should promote thinking about future goals for the couple, as this is likely to reduce aggression and can help each party to define a reasonable goal for the process (Goldman et al., 2008).
In all forms of mediation, the mediator needs to record the process that they used in order to reach an agreement, as this can help the couple to assess what they have done to resolve the issue. In the case of a successful, reasonable agreement between the couple, this information can be used to prevent further issues and disputes about the marriage and the settlement (Goldman et al., 2008). In this sense, the mediation process has been very useful in helping the couple to see each other’s perspective, which is a key part of coming to an agreement (Winslade & Monk, 2008). The ability to see other people’s perspectives is also a central part of reducing the harm that comes to either party through a disagreement, and is one of the main goals of the mediator. In this sense, mediation techniques can be extremely useful for ensuring that each party is satisfied with the outcome.
Conclusions
There are many different approaches to the mediation process, each of which has benefits and drawbacks. These mediation processes need to be applied on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the right process is used for the right conflict. Overall, the mediation process can have a huge amount of benefits for solving disputes, as it attempts to reduce the level of possible harm that can arise from a conflict. As such, it is important to know which variables have an effect on mediation. One of the most important is the concept of neutrality, which needs to be applied with a view to what the mediator is trying to achieve, rather than the dictionary definition. Using the example of a divorce settlement, the mediation process can be a useful way of ensuring that both sides reach an agreement.
References
Goldman, B. M., Cropanzano, R., Stein, J., & Benson III, L. (2008). The role of third parties/mediation in managing conflict in organizations. The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management in Organizations, 291–320.
Hensler, D. R. (2002). Suppose It’s Not True: Challenging Mediation Ideology. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2002, 81.
Taylor, A. (1997). Concepts of neutrality in family mediation: Contexts, ethics, influence, and transformative process. Mediation Quarterly, 14(3), 215–236. http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3900140306
Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A Longitudinal Study of Team Conflict, Conflict Management, Cohesion, and Team Effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 34(2), 170–205. http://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108331218
Winslade, J., & Monk, G. D. (2008). Practicing narrative mediation: Loosening the grip of conflict. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2UpcD6Oc4JMC&oi=fnd&pg=PT9&dq=mediation+process+conflict&ots=Vqb9IDPZqs&sig=LOxK2UUXqNRzzwsG2ZZSf_-CEjs
