The book The Promise of Mediation, written by Baruch Bush and Joe Folger, outlines two different approaches to mediation: problem-solving and transformative. A problem-solving mediator uses a highly controlled process that directs the “substance of the discussion” (Burgess, 1997). Problem-solving mediators highlight the areas that the parties agree on, while avoid areas of disagreement. This approach means that problem-solving mediators play a large role in in “crafting settlement terms and obtaining the parties' agreement,” even though in theory all decisions are made by the participants (Burgess, 1997).
The transformative mediation approach differs from problem-solving mediation and allows the mediation process to empower participant’s decision making skills along with mutual recognition. According to authors Bush and Folger, empowering the participants during mediations allows them to “define their own issues and to seek solutions on their own” (Burgess, 1997). Since conflict tends to be a long term process, transformative mediation provides an opportunity for growth and transformation. Empowerment paves the way for a mutually agreed up on settlement to their current problem, and empowers the participants to use the tools during future disputes. The participants, not necessarily the mediator, become primarily responsible for the outcome (Folberg, 2004).
The first stage to the STAR approach is for the mediator to convene with and bring the participants to the negotiation table, and this step is considered to take place at an earlier stage in the process. According to Mediator and Author, Judy Cohen, “mediators, or other convenors, can use pre-session preparation to ensure that all parties understand the process and can part...
... middle of paper ...
...tionships. A transformative mediator would approach the closing stage by applauding the small steps that have taken place, as well as bigger steps that can occur during mediation. Transformative mediation will emphasize relationship-building, empowerment, and recognition much more than obtaining a settlement (Burgess, 1997).
References
Burgess, H. (1997). Transformative Mediation. Transformative Mediation. Retrieved May
13, 2014, from http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/transform/tmall.htm3
Cohen, J. (2003, July 1). Convening for Enhanced Self-Determination and Access to the Process.
Convening for Enhanced Self-Determination and Access to the Process. Retrieved May
13, 2014, from http://www.mediate.com/articles/cohen6.cfm
Folberg, J., Milne, A.L., & Salem, P. (2004). Divorce and family mediation: models, techniques, and applications. New York: Guilford Press.
2. Mediation allow parties to be involved, they want them to see how everything will go. Some cons about mediation is it can cost a lot of money it is very expensive. A lot of people think maybe one day it will be mandatory. The concerns are that using arbitration will keep companies confidential and in cases like this it will be bad for the company and its business.
Victim-offender mediation emanated from Canada, in Ontario precisely where in the early 1970s, two young offenders who committed vandalism were asked to meet the victims their crime had affected . Following the meetings, the judge decided that the two offenders should pay restitution to those victims. The justification for victim-offender mediation was therefore initially that it would benefit both the victim and the offender, it is based on the value of reconciliation that is lacking in the traditional system and it was brought by the way of probation. Mediation can be seen as a progress from the...
A good mediator steers the couple away from arguments and name-calling and makes the process as businesslike as possible. Mediation eliminates much of the rancor found in divorce court. The mediation process focuses on the real-life issues occurring at the end of a marriage instead of rehashing past ill will. A mediator doesn’t advise either partner, but helps them arrive at the best decisions possible through discussion and compromise.
Business owners and managers familiar with the court litigation system understand that high litigation costs and long delays make it difficult and expensive to resolve business disputes in court. They also understand that most civil cases that go to court are settled before trial. They are solved after spending considerable amount of time and money in the complex pre-trial phase, but just in time to avoid the risk of trial. Mediation and commercial arbitration provide superior solutions that help in resolving business disputes. Mediation puts the parties immediately in control of the situation and helps them get desirable outcomes without expending vast resources on litigation procedures (Berg, Permanent Court of Arbitration. International Bureau, International Council for Commercial Arbitration, 2005).
Mediation is typically ordered in types of cases that there is significant emotional ties; creating a potential for hostility, loss of relationships or personal feelings getting in the way of reaching an agreement. Arbitration is the best option for cases where the parties simply cannot come to an agreement and decide to have someone else decide the outcome of the case for them, without the expense and formality of a trial. Arbitration is also useful in highly complex cases where it is necessary to have a highly trained professional come to the
So in my opinion, the mediator’s role is to try to reach a balance between the two parties of the conflict to encourage the exchange, and to facilitate the negotiations between them to reach a mutual solution that will hold reciprocal satisfaction.
In this stage the parties begin the communication process, talking with one another as the mediator encourages expression (Mayer, Bernard, as cited in Folberg, Milne, & Salem, 2004, pg. 45). Here, the parties will give their opening statements, the mediator begins setting the agenda, and identify the interests and issues of the parties (Mayer, Bernard, as cited in Folberg, Milne, & Salem, 2004, pg. 45). A facilitative mediator will set a framework which allows each party to tell their individual stories and will act as a facilitator of communication. The task in this stage is to give the parties the opportunity to explain their issues and interests and for the mediator to carefully listen. This will continue throughout the mediation process. The action to complete this task is allowing the parties to meet with the mediator separately in the early stages and then moving towards group sessions once both feel prepared and comfortable enough. A facilitative mediator will also reframe and redefine the issues that are uncovered in order to get to the root or the underlying issues (Mayer, Bernard, as cited in Folberg, Milne, & Salem, 2004, pg. 45). The result of the communicating stage is all parties have the chance to share their stories, explain their interests and concerns, and feel encouraged to continue the
Ott, Marvin C. "Mediation as a Method of Conflict Resolution: Two Cases." International Organization 26.04 (1972): 595-618. JSTOR. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
Mediation is essential in the workplace because it affords an opportunity for employees in dispute to communicate their position as well as consider the perspective of the other party ("Mediation in the Workplace – A Proactive Approach to Preventing Litigation and Promoting a Healthier Work Environment," 2011). The mediation process helps improve employee engagement and reduce the number of issues referred to a higher authority. The Employment Practices website (http://www.epspros.com/news-resources/whitepapers/2013-prior/mediation-in-the-workplace.html) provides useful information about the importance of mediation in the
In conclusion, a peer mediation program has benefits that could help any organization. Important to an effective peer mediation program is and effective and thorough training plan. The development of this plan should be comprehensive and deliberate. In addition, to the training aspect of this program, developing and recognizing the strengths’ and weakness’ of the mediators is important. Other factors such as the environment and personalities have impactful bearings on the direction of the mediation. Lastly, choosing the correct style of mediation for the situation is necessary. Some styles will work better than other and they are all scenario driven.
Mediation is a suitable solution for competing rights disputes because both participants have a recognized Human Rights Code right that needs to be accommodated. Mediation should be used when the parties can not reach an agreement through negotiation because mediation is effective for resolving complex human rights disputes. Mediation encourages parties to participate in creative and cooperative efforts to reach a beneficial solution. Litigation is less likely then mediation to result in harmonious solutions. Additionally, mediation repairs relationships and aims to make both parties understand each other’s perspectives through open discussion. Furthermore, mediation is effective in competing rights scenarios because settlements are legally enforced. Legal enforcement creates empowerment and trust because both parties are required to comply with the settlement
Considering the fact that the average rate of a legal counsel is $350 per hour, very few clients can afford an extensive litigation despite their notions of righteousness and a desire for a justice to triumph. Mediating civil and family disputes offers a great alternative to the litigation and relieves the pressure off the Canadian justice system that is already over-burdened and backlogged. Whether parties enter mediation as a mandatory court ordered process as in civil cases, or whether parties enter mediation freely as in family law cases, the expectations of parties remain the same. Parties expect mediators to be neutral, impartial and objective when conducting mediation sessions, however, and to the dismay of many, even mediators are vulnerable and susceptible to implicit cognitive biases that guide their thinking processes and behaviour.
Poitras, J. (2007). The Paradox of Accepting One's Share of Responsibility in Mediation. Negotiation Journal, 23(3), 267-282. Retrieved January 23, 2012, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1313496891).
Although functions of mediators and arbitrators have several characteristics in common, there are significant instrumental differences that make them distinct from one another. Firstly, whereas the arbitration process is similar to litigation in its adversarial nature, in which parties have the objective to win the dispute, the fundamental goal of mediation is to bring the disputants to settlement through compromise and cooperation without finding a guilty party. In arbitration, parties compete against each other in “win-lose” situation. During mediation, parties work on mutually acceptable conditions with the assistance of a facilitator. In this process, mediators do not have power to make decisions, they work to reconcile the competing needs and interests of involved parties. The mediator’s tasks are to assist disputants to identify, understand, and articulate their needs and interests to each other (Christopher W. Moore,
Mediation is a way to solve a dispute without having to resort to court procedure which sometimes could turned out to be rigid, formal and time consuming especially when it needed a lot of paperwork and the possibility of adjournment which could consume years. Besides that, unlike in court, mediator as a third impartial party did not acted as a judge who decides on the resolution however, the mediator will help the parties to explore the needs and issue which before preventing them from achieving a mutual resolution and settlement. The mediation process gave the authority towards the parties to agree with each other and open up the chance for the parties to meet with a resolution at the end of the mediation session.