| Mediation Practice |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Mediation is a means of resolving disputes outside the formal judicial process. It is a
voluntary and confidential process directed by a neutral third party. The use of mediation
has grown rapidly in the United States in recent years, but the manner in which it is
practiced varies considerably.
One common measure of mediation style is the extent to which it is evaluative or
facilitative. In evaluative mediation, some degree of evaluation or advice is offered by
the mediator to the clients. “It’s purpose is to get a fix on the merits, sometimes of some
technical issue, should the matter be tried.” (Phillips, 2001, p. 168). While the principles of
mediation require the mediator to remain neutral, evaluative mediators tend to exert a
greater degree of influence and/or may offer opinions based on their experience. By
contrast, facilitative mediation is generally free of advice where the mediator is more likely
to have expertise in dealing with interpersonal problems (Phillips, 2001 and Lovenheim
and Guerin, 2004).
Christopher Moore (2003) characterizes differences in mediator styles by both their
directiveness and focus. Less directive mediators offer procedural assistance and
intervene only when it is clear the parties are not making progress while highly directive
mediators are more involved in problem-solving and interventions. In addition, some
mediators will focus more on problem-solving substantive issues while others will focus
more on the improving the parties’ relationships. Using these definitions, a facilitative
mediator would be less directive and more focused on relationships while an evaluative
mediator would be more directive and more focused on substantive issues.
My approach to conflict resolution was crafted and informed by my career as an engineer
and manager in the utilities industry, and includes a balance of facilitative and
evaluative approaches. I am certified by a number of organizations including the
Washington Mediation Association in commercial and business, construction,
environmental, public policy, labor and organizational relations and domestic relations.
The professionals I work with are highly pragmatic and demand efficient use of time and
resources. They often require their mediator to be highly directive and focused on
substantive issues so as to reach resolution quickly. However, I do stop short of providing
specific advice or opinions so as not to risk the parties’ confidence in neutrality. I am often
used in cases where the parties find my technical background helpful because I more
readily understand the subject matter and language being used and/or because my
credentials gain trust with the parties involved. My analytical mindset leads me to clarify
and organize the complex elements of a dispute and to insure we are defining critical
terms in the same way. Businesses bring me in to change the pattern of a harmful internal
dispute using an informal but highly effective resolution process. Attorneys retain me to
change the tense and defensive atmosphere at the table knowing that I will focus on the
essence of the dispute and leave the legal concerns to them.
In addition, most of the commercial and workplace cases I handle either involve an
ongoing relationship or the potential of a future relationship. Facilitative techniques are
important to employ in these cases so that the substantive issues are not resolved at the
expense of the relationships between the parties. See my Conflict Resolution Toolkit for a
sense of my facilitative philosophy.
As a result, I spend the majority of the mediation in joint session where the parties are in
the same room (as contrasted with shuttle mediation). I establish a relaxed atmosphere in
which formalities are loosened, barriers can drop and the parties can clearly say what
they need in the safety of confidentiality behind closed doors. In general, I limit my
interventions when the conversation appears productive but jump in when any exchange
becomes unproductive. This does not constrain the expression of emotion which can
often be essential if relationships need to be repaired, but I insure these tense exchanges
are constructive. As a mediator I am transparent and quick to offer my candid reactions to
what is said and how things are proceeding. I follow a process in which the parties first
present background and objectives, then negotiate based on specific issues they have
identified and prioritized. I will periodically use private meetings (caucus) when the parties
and their mediator need to exchange confidential information. The end of this process
often results in a written agreement settling the specific issues of the dispute. In the case
where legal proceedings have been initiated, this agreement is handed off to the parties
attorneys to formalize.
References:
Lovenheim, P. & Guerin, L. (2004). Mediate, Don’t Litigate: Strategies for Successful
Mediation. Berkeley, CA: Nolo.
Moore, C. W. (2003). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Phillips, B. A. (2001). The Mediation Field Guide: Transcending Litigation and Resolving
Conflicts in Your Business or Organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
voluntary and confidential process directed by a neutral third party. The use of mediation
has grown rapidly in the United States in recent years, but the manner in which it is
practiced varies considerably.
One common measure of mediation style is the extent to which it is evaluative or
facilitative. In evaluative mediation, some degree of evaluation or advice is offered by
the mediator to the clients. “It’s purpose is to get a fix on the merits, sometimes of some
technical issue, should the matter be tried.” (Phillips, 2001, p. 168). While the principles of
mediation require the mediator to remain neutral, evaluative mediators tend to exert a
greater degree of influence and/or may offer opinions based on their experience. By
contrast, facilitative mediation is generally free of advice where the mediator is more likely
to have expertise in dealing with interpersonal problems (Phillips, 2001 and Lovenheim
and Guerin, 2004).
Christopher Moore (2003) characterizes differences in mediator styles by both their
directiveness and focus. Less directive mediators offer procedural assistance and
intervene only when it is clear the parties are not making progress while highly directive
mediators are more involved in problem-solving and interventions. In addition, some
mediators will focus more on problem-solving substantive issues while others will focus
more on the improving the parties’ relationships. Using these definitions, a facilitative
mediator would be less directive and more focused on relationships while an evaluative
mediator would be more directive and more focused on substantive issues.
My approach to conflict resolution was crafted and informed by my career as an engineer
and manager in the utilities industry, and includes a balance of facilitative and
evaluative approaches. I am certified by a number of organizations including the
Washington Mediation Association in commercial and business, construction,
environmental, public policy, labor and organizational relations and domestic relations.
The professionals I work with are highly pragmatic and demand efficient use of time and
resources. They often require their mediator to be highly directive and focused on
substantive issues so as to reach resolution quickly. However, I do stop short of providing
specific advice or opinions so as not to risk the parties’ confidence in neutrality. I am often
used in cases where the parties find my technical background helpful because I more
readily understand the subject matter and language being used and/or because my
credentials gain trust with the parties involved. My analytical mindset leads me to clarify
and organize the complex elements of a dispute and to insure we are defining critical
terms in the same way. Businesses bring me in to change the pattern of a harmful internal
dispute using an informal but highly effective resolution process. Attorneys retain me to
change the tense and defensive atmosphere at the table knowing that I will focus on the
essence of the dispute and leave the legal concerns to them.
In addition, most of the commercial and workplace cases I handle either involve an
ongoing relationship or the potential of a future relationship. Facilitative techniques are
important to employ in these cases so that the substantive issues are not resolved at the
expense of the relationships between the parties. See my Conflict Resolution Toolkit for a
sense of my facilitative philosophy.
As a result, I spend the majority of the mediation in joint session where the parties are in
the same room (as contrasted with shuttle mediation). I establish a relaxed atmosphere in
which formalities are loosened, barriers can drop and the parties can clearly say what
they need in the safety of confidentiality behind closed doors. In general, I limit my
interventions when the conversation appears productive but jump in when any exchange
becomes unproductive. This does not constrain the expression of emotion which can
often be essential if relationships need to be repaired, but I insure these tense exchanges
are constructive. As a mediator I am transparent and quick to offer my candid reactions to
what is said and how things are proceeding. I follow a process in which the parties first
present background and objectives, then negotiate based on specific issues they have
identified and prioritized. I will periodically use private meetings (caucus) when the parties
and their mediator need to exchange confidential information. The end of this process
often results in a written agreement settling the specific issues of the dispute. In the case
where legal proceedings have been initiated, this agreement is handed off to the parties
attorneys to formalize.
References:
Lovenheim, P. & Guerin, L. (2004). Mediate, Don’t Litigate: Strategies for Successful
Mediation. Berkeley, CA: Nolo.
Moore, C. W. (2003). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Phillips, B. A. (2001). The Mediation Field Guide: Transcending Litigation and Resolving
Conflicts in Your Business or Organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
| “Mediation is generally defined as the intervention in a negotiation or a conflict of an acceptable third party who has limited or no authoritative decision-making power, who assists the involved parties to voluntarily reach a mutually acceptable settlement of the issues in dispute. In addition to addressing substantive issues, mediation may also establish or strengthen relationships of trust and respect between the parties or terminate relationships in a manner that minimizes emotional costs and psychological harm.” (Moore, 2003, p. 15) |
| Workplace Collaboration |
| Helping business professionals communicate |
LLC
TM
| Richard Trimble, PE WMA Certified Mediator IAF Certified Facilitator Seattle, Washington 206-403-8202 |