How Does the Style of the Mediator Effect the Parties to Achieve Consensus - Coursework Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : How does the style of the mediator influence the parties to achieve consensus? Introduction The word Mediation refers to the process whereby a neutral third party helps in resolving a disagreement arising between warring parties. It is an approach to resolution of conflict that is not adversarial. The mediator is responsible for facilitating communication between the parties on the two sides. He helps them focus on the cause of the dispute and helps to come up with options which can address the interests of all the parties Moye (2004). As opposed to arbitration where the third party makes a decision for those disputing, a mediator helps the disputing parties to arrive at a suitable solution by themselves. A mediator may give proposals, suggestions and ideas to get a settlement. However he is basically involved in the process to assist the people to communicate fairly, identify issues and reframe them, define the agenda and arrive at common ground in order to agree. A successful process of mediation gives an acceptable outcome which the parties own Hardy (2008). Mediation is applicable in all kinds of conflicts including civil law suits, divorces, public policy issues and international conflicts. “Even if the full range of grievances cannot be resolved, mediation is often useful for dealing with particular limited aspects of the wider conflict.” An effective mediation process should have voluntary participation where people are allowed to leave for no or any reason at as they wish. It is also collaborative in that none of the participants imposes anything on others. They are urged cooperate to arrive at a solution. It is controlled in that it gives each participant full power to make decisions. Mediation should be confidential according to the desires and agreements of the participants (Blacanto 2008). It can depend on rules of privilege or evidence, contract or statute. Discussions done in mediation processes or the materials used there should not be taken to any court or contested proceeding before an agreement is reached. “The mediator is obligated to describe the extent of mediation confidentiality and exceptions to that confidentiality.” He should also provide a definition of the confidentiality of all meetings he holds with individual parties. The process of mediation must provide an opportunity to acquire and use legal as well as any other expert information and counsel. Experts should not offer their advice as a determinant of the dispute. The kind of dimension taken in mediation should be safe, neutral, balanced and impartial. The mediator should ensure that fair ground is maintained and he should not favor any of the sides. He should resist any efforts of intimidation and coercion (Madison 2008). The style taken by the mediator can determine if an agreement will be reached or not. The mediator should endeavor to take neutral ground in all matters and allow the parties to an agreement acceptable to all. Mediation can be done through facilitative and evaluative approaches. The term consensus is used to refer to an agreement that is overwhelming. A consensus needs to result from good faith effort so that it can carter for the interests of all the parties concerned. When all efforts have been used to try to meet these interests then all the parties need to agree to stay with the end product of the discussions. If this happens then the process has been successful Moye et al (2004). For a consensus to be reached one person probably the mediator should give a proposal after getting to know the interests of all the others. The mediator should listen to the underlying reasons and needs that make the parties have the positions they take. ‘Groups need to seek unanimity but settle for overwhelming agreement that goes as far as possible toward meeting the interests of all stakeholders. Parties can be assisted to work together by talking and listening. This should be the secret of a successful mediation process. It may be difficult for a mediator to get people to talk and listen if their agreements are very sharp or if they are strangers to one another Moore (1987). Mediators work with people before, in the process of and after their face to face encounters. A mediator must be neutral and non partisan. He should not try to ignore open unfairness. He should not pretend not to see agreements that are unfair or cannot be implemented in the future. This should be the case even in places where the rules and regulations have not been broken. The mediator needs to help identify the right people to take part in the process, help them to get the agenda and set out the rules of operation. He should also convince hard liners to join the negotiations. Thee mediator should help the parties on both sides to get a resolution for their differences. In the negotiations the mediator can accompany a participant back to his people to give an account of the proceedings. If the media is covering the proceedings the mediator can act as the spokesperson. A mediator can come in also to monitor the process of implementation of agreements and meet the parties to look at the progress Moore (1987). In the initial steps the mediator should begin a discussion on whether a consensus building discussion should be held. He should provide an elaborate introduction and explain to the parties what mediation is all about. At this point it may be necessary to have preliminary calming efforts made to cool down tempers and promote cooperation. A written conflict assessment should also be made. The responsibility for the preparation of the conflict should be given to a capable person. A statement to determine the problems should be made by the parties. They should be led to give their expectations of the process and their requirements form the other parties and the mediator. The problem should be identified so that the process focuses on an acceptable end. Alternatives must be generated and then evaluated. From that evaluation the best alternatives should be selected. Sometimes a solution or a suitable alternative may not be arrived at. At other times a resolution may be reached. If this is the case reconciliation will be done and resolutions summarized as follow up meetings are established (Latifi 2009). The mediator should adopt a style which allows him to intervene in a persuasive way in order to determine the bottom lines of parties. He should convince them to compromise their positions by taking them through stages. He should uphold dialogue by conducting the process through negotiation with the parties. In order to diagnose and work on problems in the relationship he should apply therapeutic professional techniques before and in the process of mediation. He should also give additional information in a persuasive manner and advices the parties as well as bring professional expertise in the process of negotiations. The style adopted by the mediator should allow him to limit his intervention in the procedures and allow the parties to bargain on their positions. Parties should focus on mutual interests as they generate creative outcomes. The mediator should ensure that no decisions are made up to the point when every problem in relationships has been settled Moore (1987). The mediator must identify the right categories of stakeholders who are interested in the dispute together with organizations or even individuals that can stand to represent the views of the stakeholders. These representatives should be taken through interviews in assessing the conflict. The people being interviewed should be assured that whatever information they divulge will not be associated with their organization or them as individuals in spoken or written. Another circle of suggested participants should be identified. This is done with the help of the first group of interviewees. This second group should be composed of people with the potential to enhance or block the negotiation process. The interviewees should be allowed to view a copy of the information compiled from the interviewees. A draft of the assessment of the conflict followed by a final one should be prepared. In the draft conflict assessment a categorization of all stakeholders should be included together with a summary of each category’s concerns and interests. There should be an analysis of the budget and timetable of the agenda. The draft conflict assessment should be distributed to the people interviewed for them to have time to comment and give their suggestions Folger (1994). The person assessing the conflict should make the final conflict assessment in a way that it can make the people to get into organizational meetings. A meeting of the organization should be convened to look at the conflict assessment recommendations. Groups of stakeholders need to be present in order to identify their spokesmen. Actors that are absent and are likely influence the consensus process credibility should be identified. Interest of stubborn groups may be represented by proxy organizations or individuals. All the participants must be in agreement over proxy representation. In case the process of building consensus extents into months or years the people or groups participating can appoint others to sit in for them. Their roles must then be given in written (Riskin 1994). The roles and responsibilities of the mediator should be specified in writing. A recorder if necessary should be selected and his responsibilities specified. The recorder works hand in hand with the mediator. The obligations of the recorder should be written down. In cases where there are two different categories of categories in the process of consensus building then an executive committee should be formed which has the responsibility of making decisions between the meetings and approving necessary funds allocation. The committee should be there for the mediator in case logistical decisions have to be made between meetings. A chair should also be appointed even where there is a mediator. The chair represents the process to outsiders but this responsibility can be handled by the mediator as well Hayner (2009). Rules must be set to guide the involvement of observers. The mediator should strive to enforce these rules which should be posted before any meeting. An agenda should be set together with the ground rules and an agreement on which issues to be discussed arrived at. The agenda should not be too narrow because some people can refuse to join the discussions. If it becomes too broad other members may think it is too much work and shy off. The mediator should facilitate the creation of a timetable to specify the amount of time that the proceeds will take. Concerns must be expressed in a constructive manner and unconditionally. People should bee encouraged to do active listening and never to forsake their interests for the sake of relationships. Participants should be encouraged to disagree but not be disagreeable Riskin (1994). The mediator should strive to raise the highest level of transparency in the consensus building efforts. The team should be able to come up with new options for the benefit of all the parties. Multiple and sub issues should be packaged in order to create value. The available options must be tested by asking the question ‘what if’. A neutral party can be given the responsibility to ask the question but in a confidential manner (Hayner 2009). If allowed to work on their devices, parties in the negotiation can come up with their version of technical data to go with their understanding of the problem and their view of how the issues should be handled. All participants need to be in agreement of the information necessary to answer questions that are contested. Expert advisors should be called in to supplement the efforts of the participants (Moore 1987). The participants should also agree on who should be on such a list. The experts should be contacted earlier with a neutral party prior, in the process of and after their being involved to help them understand the goals of the consensus building team so that they can be most beneficial to the group. Joint fact finding needs to be done by a working group or subcommittee which the participants have appointed. Fact finding helps to one to understand more about the issues being discussed. The working groups should not be used for decision making but must bring back information to the group (Bercovitch 2004). The mediator should ensure the enforcement of a single text procedure. Proposals should be provided to focus the negotiations on. The mediator can make preliminary proposals whereby every proposal addresses a wide range of options. Brainstorming should then be adopted by the group in order to expand on the proposals in regard to every item. When new options come up members should be urged to avoid criticism. Consensus will be easily attained if participants desist from claiming authorship of packages or ideas. In the course of the dialogue the members need their attention to be focused on the improvement of a text drafted by a neutral party or subcommittee. Texts that advance the interests of a few or one party should be avoided Folger (1994). Conclusion In conclusion mediation efforts can be applied in many cases including domestic disagreements to international disputes. A mediator is the person whop comes in to promote consensus between the parties in disagreement. Mediation style that can achieve consensus should be one that promotes the interest of both parties in a fair and just way. Experts can be called in to give their input if necessary. Mediation has been used by many people to solve disputes for centuries and is still in use today. It is a very effective method of bringing together warring parties where other methods have failed Bercovitch (2004).   References Bercovitch, J., 2004.”International Mediation and Intractable Conflict.” Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder Blancanto W. A & Gibson Jnr. C. A,(2008), Controlling your own destiny, You can with mediation. Dispute resolution journal, Volume 63 (3) pp 14-23 Folger, J., & Bush, R., 1994. “The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict through Empowerment and Recognition,” Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.  Hardy D. (2008), ‘Mediation and Genre, Negotiation journal vol. 24(3) pp. 247-268. Hayner, P., 2009. “Negotiating Justice: Guidance for Mediators,” Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue  Latifi L. (2009), ‘Mediate a dispute’ The right way to deal with drama, Psychology Today, January, p. 26. Madison J. R (2008), Everything you need to know about authority to settle a mediation, Dispute resolution journal, Vol.63 (2) pp 20-24. Moore,C., 1987. “The Mediation Process,” Jossey Bass Moye N. A & Langfred C. W (2004), Information sharing and group conflict: Going beyond decision making to understand the effects of information sharing on group performance. The international journal of conflict management, Vol. 15(4) pp 381-410. Riskin, L., 1994. ‘Mediator Orientations, Strategies and Techniques.’ Alternatives to High Cost Litigation, Vol. 12 (9)                 Read More