Do Business Well

The role of a neutral third party in facilitating the search for mutually acceptable, self-determined agreements between two or more disputants.’

This examines how the simple 4-Step Method can be used by a neutral third party in helping others manage their differences.

The Active-Passive Debate

In mediation, as in other professional fields, practitioners disagree. One debate among mediators concerns how active or passive the mediator should be during meetings with disputants. That is, does success depend on the substantive contributions of the mediator (the `active mediator‘ argument)? Or, does success arise from factors other than the mediator’s expert knowledge about the substantive issues in dispute (the ‘passive mediator‘ argument)? If a combination, in what proportion do these two elements contribute to success in finding solutions?

An important consideration in the active-passive debate is the ‘structure‘ of the parties. Structure refers to

The size of the parties — whether they are individuals, groups, organisations or nations;

The number of separate contesting parties; and the degree of consensus of opinion within each party that permits it to speak with one voice through a leader or representative.

Method Fits Simplest Structure

Forms of mediation are used in negotiating weapons agreements between superpowers, and in developing a company’s strategic plan involving several department heads. Mediation is also used with two individuals, such as coworkers and marital partners. Clearly, the two- person relationship has the most simple structure possible.

The 4-Step Method as described up to this point may be thought of as ’self-mediation‘, although this is technically a contradiction in terms since we defined mediation as a third-party role. The Method calls for one participant to initiate the Dialogue and perform certain functions that are normally done by a neutral third party. The rules of the process act as the mediator.

The 4-Step Method can be simple because it is designed specifically for managing differences only in two-person relationships. Applying the Method to more complex situations calls for careful attention to the implications of other structural features.

Where Does Resolution Come From?

Now, back to the active-passive debate. The argument reduces to this basic question: ‘Are the forces that lead to resolution of interpersonal conflict introduced by the mediator, or do they exist within the pair relationship itself?’ If the mediator produces the resolution, then the forces are external to the pair — this requires active mediation. If the resolution evolves as a natural product of communication between the parties under the special environment that mediation provides, then the forces are internal to the pair — this permits passive mediation.

My experience, as well as substantial research and theory in behavioural science, suggests that passive mediation works best when structure is simple. That is, the forces that lead to resolution of two-person conflicts are latent in the relationship between the partners, ready to come forth when conditions are favourable. Mediation is an opportunity for structured communication that allows those forces to emerge and take effect.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
4-Step to achieve Mediation part 1

• 4-Step to achieve Mediation part 3
• 4-Step to achieve Mediation part 2
• When Business Negotiating needs outside Helper
• Job Career and no Job no Career, Coping with Dismissal
• Hints for madam chairman continue...
• Marketing planning stage: implementation through the marketing mix
• Cultivating allies
• A Lateral Move Can Lead Upward
• Use meetings to train and develop your downliners continue...
• Believe in yourself

2 Comments »