The land of mediation!
This past weekend, I got the opportunity to observe and assist with several professional mediation training sessions. I’ve always been interested in mediation, and having attended training sessions in high school, I found that this program builds on the skills that I learned. But it was also much more in-depth and intensive than any training that I’ve received, and I came out of the weekend feeling as though I have a much clearer picture of the role that mediators play in dispute resolution.
One of my favorite parts of the weekend had to be the module that David Seibel from Insight Partners led, discussing the different models of mediation. The model we were using was completely facilitative, meaning that the mediator’s role is to neutrally facilitate a discussion between the two parties, rather than act as a problem-solver who advises one or both of the parties in order to come to an agreement. We were introduced to the idea of the facilitative mediator on the first day of training, but David put it in perspective by placing this particular model on a spectrum with other, more directive approaches.
But the discussion of directive versus facilitative mediation raised in my mind the question of the centrality of an agreement. In a negotiation situation, agreement is clearly the desired outcome. Even in a principled negotiation focused on interests rather than positions, each party is negotiating in order to come to some sort of settlement that is mutually satisfactory and value-creating.
But is this true in a mediation? Obviously, parties entrust the mediator with their conflict for the ostensible purpose of finding a resolution. In this sense, agreement is the desired outcome, just as in a negotiation. But it seems as though the discussion that precedes the agreement – the uncovering of interests, priorities, emotions, and fears – can be just as valuable as the final resolution of the conflict. If parties in a mediation had a productive discussion that resulted in better understanding, but they didn’t reach agreement, my instinct is to view that increased understanding as an equally valid resolution. I guess it’s just important to remember that conflict resolution doesn’t mean that the “resolution” has to be an agreement. And while it’s great to come to an agreement, disagreement with understanding is still okay.
There’s a second set of sessions at the end of February. I’m excited; I learned a lot, but also the group of trainees and trainers involved was just fantastic. I think mediation kind of self-selects nice people.