The Proper Mediation Model - Assignment Example

Introduction Choosing the proper mediation model when one is attempting to settle a dispute is critical. In order to choose the most appropriate model, a mediator must have a solid understanding of the different types that exist: facilitative, evaluative, shuttle, and transformative. The mediator also needs to be familiar with the four different types of negotiations: deal making, dispute resolution, conflict management, and relationship building (Fisher & Ury, 1991 and Charlton & Dewdney, 2004). Finally, the mediator must thoroughly learn both sides of the story in the conflict in order to aid both parties in coming to a mutually beneficial conclusion and settling their dispute. The purpose of this paper is to analyze what occurred in the mediation between Glen Ford and William Holden using a particular element of the models/frameworks presented during the workshop, including a description of a particular intervention dynamic that occurred during the mediation and how it affected the course of the mediation (Fisher & Ury, 1991 and Charlton & Dewdney, 2004). The Conflict The conflict started out because a formerly successful partnership between Ford and Holden had reached an unhappy point. Holden feels that Ford is too old to drive and is concerned that he has had an accident in the recent past. Furthermore, Holden feels upset that Ford has spent a great deal of time on television appearances rather than improving his driving abilities. On the other side, Ford believes that Holden does not understand the importance of working the fans and building sponsorships. He feels that racing is not all about driving as fast as one can in circles; rather that money is attracted by obtaining the best sponsors and the best fan base. Currently, their sponsors are upset with their dispute and are threatening to withdraw sponsorship. The Type of Mediation In order to avoid going to court, the parties agreed to have a mediation session in an attempt to settle their dispute. In this mediation session, the model used was facilitative mediation. With facilitative mediation, the process is the focus of the agenda. The parties in this case work out their own dispute with little interaction from the mediator other than general guidance. The mediator plays the role of a facilitator rather than as an individual that provides a great deal of advice or suggestions. Even though this model does not require that the mediator have any knowledge of the dispute before the mediation process begins, in this particular case the mediator did have knowledge of the situation at hand before the mediation process started (Fisher & Ury, 1991 and Charlton & Dewdney, 2004). The Type of Negotiation As far as the type of negotiation that was made in the course of this process, it was relationship building. In this type of negotiation, the parties are likely to move on to a long-term relationship based on the results of the mediation, even if the basis of this process has yet to be determined. Although this type of negotiation often results in a positive relationship being built after the mediation process has concluded, that relationship must be managed carefully in order to prevent further disputes from arising in the future. Both parties must have a great deal of knowledge and skills in order to make this type of negotiation work (Fisher & Ury, 1991 and Charlton & Dewdney, 2004). The Mediation Process The first step of the mediation process was to start the mediation by introducing myself and stating that I held a neutral position. Then, I explained the process of mediation according to the mediation flow: mediator's opening, parties' statements and issue identification, exploration, possible private sessions, joint discussion and ways forward, crafting terms and conditions, and closure. I listened to and outlined that statements and concerns from both sides, asking for a summary as well as why, how, and when. I then spoke to each party individually to determine any concerns that they may have and not want to say in front of the other party. After this step was completed, I came back to mediation and tried to get both parties to express their needs and the options that they could feel comfortable accepting, negotiating, or coming to an agreement upon. We then completed the agreement and signed the necessary paperwork. The Desires of Each Party In summary, the wishes of Glen were to accept retirement early with a good offering from the company, have his son Steven replace his position, continue to work as an administrator or manager on the team and receive at least $100,000 in compensation. William, on the other hand, cared about the relationship with Glen, has already picked up a new driver the sponsors are happy with, and is willing to pay William $50,000 in compensation. What I Did As a mediator I tried to make Glen express his needs and I found out that the basis of this mediation was on their relationship and partnership, which resulted in positive communication and was the basis of the mediation model that was used. They started with bargaining the compensation price and settled on $60,000, with William staying on as promoting manager and training his son to eventually become a driver. After their common consensus, I repeated their agreement again and signed it along with them. My Strengths, Weaknesses, and Conclusion I did certain things well in this process, but could improve on others. I clearly explained the agenda at the beginning, along with our expectations. I also built up a better negotiation situation by keeping things positive. After the individual meeting, I attempted to let Glen express his wishes and negotiable range of compensation. I continuously confirmed their agreements during every conversation. However, I did not actually set up the timeframe for their negotiation, which could have helped me to have better control in the mediation. Sometimes, I also forgot to ask more details when I did the negotiation part after the individual meetings. Finally, sometimes I provided my suggestions during the mediation which was not really good for a mediator to do. References Charlton, R. and N. Dewdney. (2004). The mediator's handbook. Law Book Company of Australasia, 2nd ed. Fisher, R. and W.L. Ury. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin. Read More