The Influence of Mediator Style in Achieving Consensus between Conflicting Parties - Coursework Example

The influence of mediator style in achieving consensus between conflicting parties Court settlements are often expensive and require relatively long time to settle even a simple dispute thus alternative dispute resolution methods are more preferable. Mediation can help resolve disagreements between parties in less time and economically feasible for both parties (Butler 2004, p.2). However, there are number of factors that affect the outcome of mediation and one of the primary concerns is the influence of mediator’s style in achieving consensus between disagreeing parties. For instance, the choice of style depends on the type of conflict (Hope 2010, p.33) thus selecting the right style is critical. In the neighbourhood mediation scenario undertaken in the workshops, selecting the right style will determine the success of mediation between the church and nearby community particularly on critical issues involving noise pollution, operating hours, parking space, and security. The mediator on this particular case should recognize the church position over the issue and the reasons communities opposed half-way houses. More importantly, the mediator should be aware of his own capacity and the style suited for his personality and experience (Hope 2010, p.33). And since mediation is more of an art than science, the mediator must determine the right approach in building consensus and settling the conflict completely (Clare 2003, p.90). The church position over the issue is firm as it intends to rent space to Neighbourhood Care Inc regardless of opposition. Moreover, the church views some of the community members as selfish individuals of different faith preventing a very important service to the community. The community on the other hand, particularly those that are residing near the church generally complain about everything and establishing facilities for mentally disadvantaged may lead to greater complaint and protest. Although the church believed that there is no reason to sit down and talk with the inconsiderate neighbourhood, it had agreed to settle the conflict by sending its minister to the Neighbourhood Justice Centre. The minister, representative of the neighbours and the chosen mediator discusses the issues concerning the operation of the half-way house and other important points being presented by the community neighbourhood. Generally, the church wants to operate from 9:00 in the morning up to 9:00 in the evening seven days a week and offer services for mental problems including drug-related mental illness. Moreover, it intends to offer parking facilities for clients and visitors during the same period. However, the community demands the church to take measures regarding noise pollution and other disruptions from its operation such as street parking and operating hours in particular. Clearly, the neighbourhood wants to ensure peace and security while the church wanted to pursue its noble cause. The mediator handling the cases must achieve a consensus on several points presented by using an appropriate style suited for the parties’ mindset (Clare 2003, p.90). Moreover, it is important that he should be neutral and impartial during the entire mediation process (Cooley 2006, p.190). Two distinct models or styles may be employed in this case such as facilitative and evaluative. Normally, parties may opt for facilitative form of mediation since the nature of intervention in this approach is minimal and allows the parties themselves to negotiate with each other. In contrast, an evaluative style disallows parties to directly negotiate and instead rely on the evaluation of the mediator of the merits and demerits of their arguments (Strasser & Randolph 2004, p.66). The mediator can opt for facilitative mediation style but he may find it difficult to maintain such approach since there are times that he will have to do some evaluative activities as the mediation unfold. These activities may include re-structuring the bargaining agenda in order to enable close cooperation between parties, assessments of positions of each party on the issue being discussed in order for both parties better understand their situation, and making some useful suggestions for parties to be able to consider other possible options relevant to the case (Abramson 2004, p.141). The choice of mediation style is therefore critical to the success of mediation and considering the nature of the conflict between the church and its neighbourhood, the most advisable style is facilitative. The reason behind the choice is the fact that both parties are determined to pursue their cause regardless of opposition as indicated by the church’s view and firm stand on the issue of half-way houses and communities common dislikes on such institutions. According to Solovay & Reed (2003, p.8), choosing facilitative option can enhance the parties’ communication, defuse tensions, facilitate discussions and negotiations between parties in a more subtle manner. Since the success of mediation normally requires a neutral facilitator and settlement must be handled by the parties involve, confidence building during the negotiation process is essential. Compliance to these requirements is only possible with facilitative approach since its oriented towards building confidence to each parties involved, to the mediator, and the negotiation process in general (Reychler & Paffenholz 2001, p.184). The result of the negotiator suggests that most of the demands of the neighbourhood were met despite the reluctance and negative views of the church about the character of the neighbourhood. These include major changes in the church’s plan such as the use of a bus in place of the parking space, the considerable reduction of operating hours from 9:00 am to 5 pm 5 days a week rather than six. Moreover, the mediation result limits the church activity day to one per month. Security for the neighbourhood was also gained and the operating contract was limited to 5 years depending on the number of major complaints received which is also limited to 10. Although, the church according to the result of the negotiation can continue renting their space to the Neighbourhood Care in the next five years, the negotiation outcome undoubtedly is in favour of the neighbourhood and depressing for the church’s management. For instance, limiting Neighbourhood Care’s operation to 5 days a week means depriving patients a day of service. Similarly, disallowing parking spaces can result to reduction of visitors and inconvenience for the mentally ill and their relatives in terms of transport time and weather. Another noticeable inconsistency in the outcome of the negotiation is the apparent pressure being applied to the half-way house in terms of security and operating contract. For instance, it is so much for the church to provide 24 hours security contact and consult the neighbourhood for any church activity two weeks in advance considering that the operation and activities being provided is for the well-being of the mentally disadvantage people. More importantly, it is so exasperating to hear the neighbourhood defining the closure guidelines for the half-way house this early in the process. The outcome of the negotiation in general looks so much as a deterrent for a very serious communicable diseases rather than a solution to a problem which undoubtedly has a noble cause. It is therefore safe to assume that the mediator failed somewhere in the process providing the opportunity for the “self-fish” neighbourhood to gain control of the negotiation and its outcome. The most probable reason for the almost one sided outcome is the style of the mediator which in general may have affected the whole negotiation process. Mediators using a facilitative style would likely to produce such an outcome as they do not usually press their own opinion even if it is the most preferable settlement. In fact, if the negotiator applied an evaluative style, the outcome may be more acceptable since he would likely recommend a more preferable option (Folberg 2004, p.31). An option based on consensus which is mutually beneficial for both parties is more likely to be reached if the adopted style provides a way for the mediator to insert his own evaluation of the conflict and help parties find a common ground (Blanchfield et al., 2007, p.140). According to Herrman (2006, p.135), fair settlement is more likely when the mediator is active and the potential for reaching mutually beneficial solution is high when the mediator is able to open up their views regarding the weakness and strength of the case. Moreover, the most effective way to convince parties to settle their dispute in an equally beneficial manner is for the mediator to pass judgement on each party’s position on a particular issue so they can see the reality and impact of their respective opinion (Spangle & Isenhart 2003, p.65). Solving real world problems realistically and fair is the goal of mediators thus their work include creating a reasonable option and persuading each parties to settle in manner which is mutually beneficial (Ehrlich 2007, p.482). He must maintain control over the proceedings and must be aware of the unspoken motivations of each party particularly those that are only interested in their own advantage. Similarly, he must attempt to create a common ground between parties and disallow stronger party domination of the process (Weil et al. 2007, p.81). The neighbourhood mediation scenario is failure that can be attributed to the mediator style applied during the negotiation process. Considering the one sided outcome, the style used failed to identify the real issue and established a common ground as suggested by (Blanchfield et al. (2007) and Spangle & Isenhart (2003) above. Similarly, it had failed to arrive in a reasonable option and undoubtedly allowed one party to dominate the negotiation process as explained by (Weil et al (2007) and Erhlich (2007) in the earlier discussion. The mediator’s chosen style undoubtedly has a great impact in achieving not only on workable consensus but mutually beneficial solutions. For instance, it could have been more acceptable if the church was allowed to provide parking spaces since it can give the half-way house client’s and relative better access to the facility anytime of the day in all weather. Secondly, it could have been mutually beneficial if better security is provided rather than cutting the operating hours into almost half of the planned schedule. This particular resolution would clearly deprive some clients with services they need and reduced the church’s opportunity to serve more. The outcome of the negotiation seems to put the destiny of the church, the Neighbourhood Care, and the mentally disadvantage under the mercy of the nearby community whose character and motivations are relatively doubtful. The mediator could have adopted an appropriate style and a reasonable option mutually beneficially for the church and the community. In general, the mediator failed to apply the appropriate style as the outcome of the negotiation is not mutually beneficial. A facilitative approach coupled with evaluation of each party’s position and motivations could have yield better result as more preferable options can be established. Selecting the right mediation style is therefore critical in the success of any negotiation since its impact can severely affect the outcome of the negotiation and deprived others of their legitimate rights. References: Abramson H., 2004, Mediation representation: advocating in a problem-solving process, National Institute for Trial Advocacy, US Blanchfield K., Blanchfield T., & Ladd P., 2007, Conflict Resolution for Law Enforcement: Street-smart Negotiating, Looseleaf Law Publications, US Butler V., 2004, Mediation: Essentials and Expectations, Dorrance Publishing Co., Inc., US Clare J., 2003, Alternative dispute resolution in North Carolina: a new civil procedure, North Carolina Bar Foundation, US Cooley J., 2006, The mediator's handbook: advanced practice guide for civil litigation, National Institute for Trial Advocacy, US Ehrlich J., 2007, Family Law for Paralegals, Fourth Edition, Aspen Publishers Online, US Folberg J., 2004, Divorce and family mediation: models, techniques, and applications, Guilford Press, US Herrman M., 2006, The Blackwell handbook of mediation: bridging theory, research, and practice, Wiley-Blackwell, India Hope M., 2010, The Guided Method of Mediation: A Return to the Original Ideas of ADR, AEG Publishing Group, US Reychler L. & Paffenholz T., 2001, Peacebuilding: a field guide, Lynne Rienner Publishers, US Solovay N. & Reed C., 2003, The Internet and dispute resolution: untangling the Web, Law Journal Press, US Spangle M. & Isenhart M., 2003, Negotiation: communication for diverse settings, SAGE, US Strasser F. & Randolph P., 2004, Mediation: a psychological insight into conflict resolution, Continuum International Publishing Group, UK Weil R., Frank P., Hughes C., & Wagner M., 2007, Litigation Services Handbook: The Role of the Financial Expert, John Wiley and Sons, US Read More