How Does the Style of the Mediator Influence the Parties to Achieve Consensus - Literature review Example

Running Head: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MEDIATOR The Significance of the mediator Name Institution Date Introduction Mediation is a type of conflict resolution that entails a third party who is referred as a mediator. The mediator helps the disputants or the parties to solve the disagreement among them. Mediation can happen at various levels within the society. In either international or interpersonal variety, mediation is based on a mediator who struggles to be a significant component of social change that aims at attaining a greater agreement and equity among persons and groups within the society. Mediator style differs as it depends on many factors and variables of a given conflict, such as the reputation of the conflicting parties, nature of conflict that is, its duration, strength and issues, and the identity of the mediator. The way the mediator handles the interaction of the conflicting parties within the real procedure of mediation effort is an important factor in disagreement transformation (Blancato & Gibson, 2008). Mediation is both a function and a collection management skill. The leader of the group may have skills of mediation and also be able to negotiate an accord by placing the available skills in use. But when the look for creative solutions rests in one parties’ hands, it is always hard for others to accept that the mediator is not attempting to develop his or her personal interests at their expense. Mediator Mediators are individuals who get entailed in a disagreement in order to assist the parties to resolve it. Unlike judges, mediators cannot define or enforce an accord, but they can assist the parties to willingly arrive at an agreement by assisting them through the process of negotiation. In international conflicts the heads of state always act as official mediators. Likewise, Informal intermediaries or Track II diplomats act as official mediators at international level, and colleagues at work, friends, or members of the family can act as informal intermediaries in the place of work, family, or neighborhood conflicts (Latifi 2009). The role of a mediator The mediator is taught to facilitate the process of communication among the parties by competently going through hard and highly emotional matters, bringing an autonomous perspective to the table in supportive, protected, and confidential surroundings. The mediator operates impartially, helping the parties both together and separately to arrive at consensus. One of the strengths of mediator is the capability to make a more productive conversation than what the parties could have done for themselves. By applying diversity of communication tactics and facilitation methods, the mediator can assist the parties to establish facts. It also assists the mediator to be focused and make alternatives that can help the parties in finding a solution. The mediator always has many background understanding of the matters and type of conflict. According to Madison (2008), the role of a mediator includes facilitating structured discussion among the parties, helping the parties to resolve the conflict by isolating the matters entailed, and promoting co-operative crisis-solving and discouraging the disputants from taking established positions. A mediator also systematically explores matters and jointly beneficial solutions by concentrating on all parties’ interests and personal needs (Latifi, 2009). As a mediator, a person generates alternatives that meet the requirements and interests of every party in an attempt to resolve the conflict. A person also manages and generates decisions about the procedure to attain a win-win result for every party. Though mediators might sometimes give ideas, proposals, or even formal suggestions for resolution depending on matters agreed upon, the mediator mainly operates as a process individual, and assists the parties to put an agenda, recognize and reframe the matters, communicate more efficiently, discover areas of equal ground, negotiate reasonably and hopefully, arrive at an agreement. Mediation effort that is successful has a result that is accepted to and owned by the disputants themselves. The outcome of the conflict is not decided by the mediator or the mediator does not enforce any binding choices. Most accords are compromises and disputants do not often obtain everything they would preferably like. A successful result will be an accord that all disputants can reside with and abide by. The mediator can advise on the solution or force a party to agree a particular solution. They give legal advice on legal ways available to the disputants or on the forecast of success. According to Gabel (2003), before the disputants in a consensus creating procedure come together, facilitators or mediators can play a significant role in clarifying the required participants, assisting them in agenda setting and identifying the ground policies by which the parties will work. Once the procedure has started, mediators always attempt to help the parties in their efforts to make a creative decision of differences. At the process of discussions or negotiations, a mediator might accompany the envoy back to a meeting plus his or her constituents to enlighten what has been going on. If the process is being followed by the media, the mediator may work as a spokesperson. The mediator might be demanded to monitor execution of an accord and re-assemble the disputants to review the development or deal with apparent violations to live up to obligations (Hardy, 2008). The main role of the negotiator is to mediate from impartiality’s position, having no vested attention in the result of conflict among parties. Both the mediator and the parties can plan the ground policies before the procedure starts. The ground policies are particularly significant because they set up and identify the anticipated behaviors of every party. The ground policies set the tone for a creative conversation and chances to resolve the dispute. Another important role of the negotiator is to listen and assist the disputants identify the fundamental causes of the dispute and how the parties would prefer to resolve or handle it. The accords and result are determined by the parties. The mediator shares mutual accountability with the parties for defending and preserving the process confidentiality. The mediators who always serve the agenda are trained and qualified professionals (Da Silveria 2007). For a mediator to influence the parties to achieve a consensus he or she must understand the motivations of the parties to efficiently cope with the emotional resistance of the disputant. This implies establishing an approach that considers the understanding that strong emotions can damage the mediation attempt and potentially. When faced with emotion of the disputants. Mediators must try to avoid the emotions experienced. According to Alexander (2008), the vital aspect in mediation process is that, like any communication attempt, it has emotional elements that are incorporated with the cognitive content of the information exchanged. Mediators do not depend only on what is said, they also place important value on the touching communication’s content. Mediators always use emotional reactions of the parties as important signs that assist them to choose which strategies to use in order to apply control over the process of mediation and to make rapport among the parties. The parties Mediation normally happens at the headquarters of the mediator. If essential, the mediation can take place at other places that the mediator and the parties provide their approval for. Such a technique is based on parties’ cooperation and on the mediator utilizing techniques and particular conflict management methods based on communication and negotiation (Gabel, 2003) The parties entailed in the dispute are allowed to come with attorney or with other individuals, under the circumstances created bilaterally. The parties and sign an agreement of mediation. If, in the mediation process, there is a condition which can impact its purpose, the mediation neutral nature or impartiality of the mediator, this one is obligated to notify the parties. They will then choose either to maintain or refuse the mediation accord. When the parties have arrived at an agreement, a written accord can be drafted. The agreement will have all the clauses that the parties have provided their approval for. The accord is normally drafted by the mediator, except for circumstances in which the parties and the mediator take another alternative in this direction (Fells, 2010). Consensus Consensus implies overwhelming agreement. It is very important for consensus to be a product of a good-faith attempt to achieve the interests of every stakeholder. The main indicator of whether a consensus has been arrived at is when every individual accepts that they can reside with the final suggestion that is, after all attempts has been completed to achieve any outstanding interests. Da Silveria(2007) argues that consensus needs somebody to frame a suggestion after listening cautiously to the interests of everyone. Interests are not similar to positions or demands. Positions and Demands are what individuals claim they must have, but interests are the fundamental needs or causes that clarify why people take their positions. Hardy (2008) argues that most efforts of creating consensus are set out to attain unanimity. However, along the way there are always holdouts, that is, individuals who think that the interests they have will be well served by not involving in the emerging agreement. Many professionals in conflict resolution believe that assemblies or groups should search for unanimity, but resolve for overwhelming accord that extends very far toward meeting all stakeholder’s interests. It is absolutely important that this description of success be obvious at the outset (Madison 2008). Mediation strategies Brooker (2007) notes that in the international ground, mediators apply a great number of strategies and techniques to assist communication and reconciliation. These strategies are categorized as communicator strategies, facilitator strategies, and manipulator strategies. When mediators apply communicator strategies, they are mainly holders of concessions, working as a inactive conduit and storehouse. As communicators, mediators aspire to explain and supply messages while at the same time working as an intermediary. Therefore mediators can decide to apply communicator tactics to influence the parties to attain consensus (Alexander, 2008). Formulator tactics are strategies that identify matters and suggest concessions. As formulators, in mediation process, mediators are always able to think in a creative manner. They always redefine matters and discover formulas for accord. Similarly, mediators often apply the qualities of innovativeness and invention to assist in the process of mediation. As one of the effective tactic, mediators might opt for this strategies to influence the parties attain consensus (Gatan & Kleiner, 1999). On the other hand, manipulator tactics need leverage that is resources of strength, influence and control that can be passed to bear on the disputants to push them to an agreement. Utilizing a ripe moment to the advantage of the parties, mediator can apply carrots and sticks to attain an agreement. Therefore mediator can choose any of the three strategies to influence the parties achieve consensus (Moye & Langfred, 2004). Summary on mediator’s effective style Many mediators use a combination of mediation styles to influence the parties achieve consensus, depending on the issue, the parties involved in mediation, and the approach applied in mediation. Svensson (2007) notes that some parties are always well versed with different types of mediation and they usually ask mediators for a particular type in a particular case. It is good for mediators to articulate the parties the mediation styles they normally use, and the values and assumptions that are based on these styles. This will make the parties concerned to be more satisfied, and the mediation field to be clearer on its operation. This increases the credibility and importance of mediation (Verger, 2008-2009). Conclusion From our discussion it is evident that mediators always use different mediation styles and tactics to influence the parties achieve consensus. Mediators are required to put both parties interest under consideration in order for them to reach resolution that is fair to both parties. Most mediation crisis and issues always occur in the process of mediation because the mediators do not have structural support and apparent understanding of the type of negotiator they are. Therefore mediators should know the various models of mediation and their applicability. They should also understand their roles in mediation process. References Fells, R. (2010). Effective Negotiation: From research to results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alexander, N., (2008), ‘The Mediation Metamodel: Understanding Practice’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Vol.26 (1), pp. 97-123. Verger, J.M., (2008-2009), ‘Respect in Mediation: A counter to disrespect in the workplace’, Dispute Resolution Journal, Vol.63 (4), pp. 18-26. Blancato, W.A., & Gibson, Jr, C.A., (2008), ‘Controlling Your Own Destiny: You can with mediation’, Dispute Resolution Journal, Vol.63 (3), pp. 14-22. Brooker, P., (2007), ‘An Investigation of Evaluative and Facilitative Approaches To Construction Mediation’. Structural Survey, Vol.25 (2/4), pp. 220-238. Da Silveria, M.A., (2007), ‘Impartiality v. Substantive Neutrality: Is the mediator authorized to provide legal advice?’ Dispute Resolution Journal, Vol.62(2), pp. 26-33. Gabel, S., (2003), ‘Mediation and Psychotherapy: Two sides of the Same Coin?’, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 19(4), pp. 315-328. Gatan, R., & Kleiner, B.H., (1999), ‘How To Conduct Mediation Effectively’, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 18(5/6), pp. 69-73. Goldberg, S., & Shaw, M.L., (2009), ‘Is the mediator’s Primary goal to settle the dispute?’, Dispute Resolution Magazine, Vol. 15(2), pp. 16-19. Hardy, D., (2008), ‘Mediation and Genre’, Negotiation Journal, Vol.24 (3), pp.247-268. 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. Moye, N.A., & Langfred, C.W., (2004), ‘Information sharing and group conflict: Going beyond decision making to understanding the effects of information sharing on group performance’, The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol.15 (4), pp. 381- 410. Svensson, L., (2007), ‘Mediation with muscles or minds: Exploring power mediators and pure mediators in civil wars’, International Negotiation, Vol.2 (2), pp. 14-16. Read More